I guess you don't remember what Immaculate conception is. Read the links I posted above to "refresh" your memory.
Hint: Mary was without sin since her conception. We, on the other hand, have the original sin when we are conceived. The conception I am talking about is when our flesh is united with it's soul. Not sperm meeting the egg.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I guess you don't remember what Immaculate conception is. Read the links I posted above to "refresh" your memory. Hint: Mary was without sin since her conception. We, on the other hand, have the original sin when we are conceived. The conception I am talking about is when our flesh is united with it's soul. Not sperm meeting the egg.

The mythic soul and mythical sins stuff. Magic and fairytale stories. I thought you were talking about the real word.

.

[This message has been edited by kyunderdawg (edited 06-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Ok so you are just ignorant to the meaning and instead of admitting that you lash out. I said that to give context of my time in the church. But you are just a brainwashed christin who can't get past his programming.

Hmm... at best a weak pon move. Try a "King to Rook" move since you type with authority here . People like you claim to know everything while hitching a free ride on God's coat tail. Amazing, nobody ever thinks about the laws of gravity-- wondering if their bed will fly off into space or how the sun rises in the morning. Like a kid who's teething--- they cry and complain all day long, but they don't know why.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: I also attended CCD ( bible study) and extended biblical classes to receive confirmation and even youth groups every tuesday. Most christians erroneously think because you don't believe you must not know anything about christianity.

All that time wasted Saul (I mean Phranc). Were you raped? If so, you might need therapy. Did you loose someone to death and are now blaming God for it?

quote I thought you were talking about the real word.

If I were talking about the real word (were you trying to say "world"?) I wouldn't be quoting Biblical passages. I was referring to the Biblical meaning of conception, it is different than sexual conception, as it involves the union of the body and soul.
Next time you go to church, if you ever do, I would be interested in what your priest would say to you about your opinions on God, Jesus and the Bible. Would you have the courage to talk to him about these? I also would refrain from calling myself a confirmed Christian, If I were you, as that is a lie and a misrepresentation of what you really are.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Were you raped?

Whoa, now.

If he wasn't, that is too insulting to just toss out there.

If he was, then it is too sensitive to be bringing up on a public car forum.

Just asking you to consider that.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: All that time wasted Saul (I mean Phranc). Were you raped? If so, you might need therapy. Did you loose someone to death and are now blaming God for it?

Was I raped? Whats wrong you can't handle being exposed as not having a clue so yo come back with this? You really are a chump.

quote Originally posted by BobadooFunk: ha./.. also makes me wonder, if a gay couple has/obtains a child, and the child turns out straight, will they be happy?

The answer is "yes". Society is tough enough already, growing up gay is not an easy task.

Abe

quote Originally posted by Phranc: It's ok doc. He just exposed himself for the type of man he really is. And it isn't very "christian".

Dude, it's the internet. Don't take it too seriously for I like seeing what makes you tick by asking questions and so fare you've already revealed a lot about yourself. What? You thought nobody wasn't going to ask personal questions regarding your frustrations in life. All questions are fare in open court. You claim to put God on trial, his followers, and their teachings. You claim to be "all knowing" regarding Christianity.

Shall we do it again.

a. Have you been raped, touched, or sexually assaulted?
b. Is God responsible for your rude behavior and attitude toward Christians?
c Are you blaming God for lost of a love one?
d. Are you Gay (not that there's anything wrong with that )

What's the deal here. Somebody does not choose to believe what you do so they must have been raped? Must not really understand what religion is? What is so tough to come to grips with here.

I think the insecurity here does not lay with Phranc. Yup, he is blunt, but it gets to the point quickly. He has taken the evidence or lack of, and reached a different conclusion than you, whay does this bother you so much?.
I do not have a problem with people not sharing the same beliefs as I do, why is it so tough for others to do the same.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Dude, it's the internet. Don't take it too seriously for I like seeing what makes you tick by asking questions and so fare you've already revealed a lot about yourself. What? You thought nobody wasn't going to ask personal questions regarding your frustrations in life. All questions are fare in open court. You claim to put God on trial, his followers, and their teachings. You claim to be "all knowing" regarding Christianity. Shall we do it again. a. Have you been raped, touched, or sexually assaulted? b. Is God responsible for your rude behavior and attitude toward Christians? c Are you blaming God for lost of a love one? d. Are you Gay (not that there's anything wrong with that )

Quote my words where I claimed to be all knowing regarding christianity. You can't. Quote where I claimed to put god on trial. You can't. You have to make up that lie. Make sure you ask your imaginary friend to forgive you for breaking that rule again. What frustrations in life are you talking about? How can I blame a non-existent god for the lost of a loved one? How can a non-existent god be responsible for my behavior? It's clear you aren't that bright if you have to ask those questions. That was also made clear when you showed your ignorance and how you reacted when it was pointed out you don't have much of a clue. But if you want to keep going with this it's cool. You are in over your head and watching you flounder around is rather entertaining.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Make sure you ask your fake god to forgive you for breaking one o his rules.

I see a type-o. You forgot the letter "f." Slow down son.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: How exactly am I hitching a free ride on the coat tails of your imaginary friend? I thing about the law of gravity from time to time. Not sure what that or bed flying and the sun rise has to do with anything. But it's ok. You are a desperate, brainwashed christian is who is to weak of mind to overcome the programming. So confronted with that you lash out to make up for your own inadequacies of understanding. If you reply to this at least try to be honest in it. I know that will be hard for you.

To be 100% honest here, with you I'd rather shake the dust of my feet for many on this forum make up many religions and some agnostic. One thing is known, most of them know how to conduct themselves whereas you don't. That said, God doesn't need someone to defend him, especially no one like me. He can use a mere rock to do that, but for those who are blinded like Saul once was.... well his word might open not your eyes but some else who can believe without hate.

During one of the Apollo missions, NASA and those on the mission counted on the laws of the Universe regarding Earth and the Moons distance to get them safely back to earth. What did they base their projection upon? Was it based on known facts such as orbit, gravity, and distances between the two? Or did they base their calculations upon random unknown constants? Bottom line, NASA may not admit there's a God, you they will admit there is a designer. Pardon the pun, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that.

However, I don't want to give too much credit to NASA for they knew the earth is round, but until the man on the moon looked back at the Earth it was indeed round. However, one of the older books of the Bible tells you that. Even though the Bible isn't a science text book, but when it does touch on the subject it's 100% on the mark.

What about health and hygiene? It wasn't until the last 1 1/2 century that doctors understood the nature of microorganisms and way in which they aid or destroy the body. What doctor today doesn't follow the rule of washing their hands prior to surgery and sterile procedures? Granted, the Bible isn't a medical text book, but when it does touch on "hygiene it's 100% on the mark. Once again, Doctors can't take the credit here, but many scriptures located in the Bible does.

Those are just two examples that cannot be explained. How is it that a common person know these facts thousands of years ago?

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 06-03-2009).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Those are just two examples that cannot be explained. How is it that a common person know these facts thousands of years ago?

God can use a rock to defend himself? Right. You really aren't that bright. But you keep ignoring the real world and fall back on your brainwashing if that's what you need to do. It's got to be easy for dim witted people like you to do that then to have to use the higher level thinking skills to critically look at the world.

Honey was used as an antibacterial well before the bible was written. In fact bandages were common place for healing wounds in Ancient Mesopotamia and the details can be found on cuneiform tablets. Places such as India and Asia have medicine that goes back further then the bible. And they didn't believe in your imaginary friend nor read the bible that had yet to exist. As with most scientific leaning it came from observation. Just because the bible tells you to wash your hands means what exactly? It was pretty common across the world at that time.

And before you comment on some and how the conduct them self you might want to stop your repeated lying and that whole rape remark. Like I said you are in over your head. I conduct my self just fine. You are just pissy because I don't play the nice game and dance around things so I avoid hurting the feelings of people. It's ok I know brutal honesty is too much for people like you to take.

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 06-03-2009).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I think your wife needs to do some re-reading of the Bible. Here is a quick link to Wikipedia on the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia with basically the same information. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm He is a link that shows where the Bible passages are about Mary and her being a lifelong virgin. http://www.globalserve.net/...ee/ecclesia/mary.htm

you do know your life long virgin had more sons and daughters too??
your bible even names the boys
a his brother james fought with saul/paul over dogma

life long virgin plus more kids????
thats a neat trick
sorry but it just is not true
like many other church dogmas
they just made up the virgin birth bit to match
other older son's of god storys

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Whats wrong did you get touchy because the same tactic you did only I pointed out you were black.

Wow! I'm Black? That's news to me? You related to Stevie Wonder now?

quote Originally posted by Phranc: And that has to do with what exactly? Your little rape wasn't enough so now you insinuate I'm on drugs? You are getting more and more desperate as you get deeper and deeper in over your head. But don't stop. You're value for entertainment is still there.

So your saying the drugs came after the rape? Okay, we're getting somewhere now. Please continue.

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 06-03-2009).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: So your saying the drugs came after the rape? Okay, we're getting somewhere now. Please continue.

We are getting some where. You have been so thoroughly schooled you have resorted to this. It's ok though I stopped expecting intellectuality and honesty from you some time ago. Make sure to ask your imaginary friend to forgive for your continued dishonesty. What else will you do to cover up for being so totally weak in mind and argument?

quote you do know your life long virgin had more sons and daughters too?? your bible even names the boys a his brother james fought with saul/paul over dogma

You got me on that one. I did some more research into it and found the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/co..._other_children.html

I also re-read my links above and found this.

quote "There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angle to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." [John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562]

quote The Bible's teaching on this subject is so clear, that all Christian denominations agree on what it means. Catholics believe that Mary stayed a virgin and did not have any other children. Some denominations claim that Mary did have other children. They say this because the Bible sometimes refers to "brethren of the Lord". But in Biblical times all close family members, including cousins, were considered "brethren". And so we see that in the Bible the term "brethren" is sometimes used when the people concerned are not bretheren in the way that we understand the word. Some biblical examples of this are: [Gen 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his BROTHER was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." The "brother" in question here is Lot. Now, was Lot the brother of Abram? No. He was the son of Aran, Abram's deceased brother (Gen 11:26-28). This makes Lot Abram's NEPHEW. [Gen 29:15] "And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my BROTHER, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?" Was Laban the brother of Jacob? No, he is his UNCLE. The explanation for this is simple: there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for "cousin". The writers either had to use "brother" or "sister" or write "the son of the sister of my father" every time. Needless to say, they used "brother". You see, in biblical terms, "brother", "sister", and "brethren" can mean close relatives, kinsmen, or even close friends such as: [I Kings 9:13] "And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day." and [II Sam 1:26] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." It can also just mean an ally!: [Amos 1:9] "Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant" Some also sight the words that "Mary had no relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus" to mean that she did have relations afterwards. In the Bible, however, the concept of until simply means "up to the time of"-- it doesn't have the connotation that we have in English of meaning "after it was different". The Bible mentions a man who produced no offspring "until the time of his death". I think it is safe to assume that he didn't produce any after it either. ;-) A careful look at the New Testament will show us what a stretch it really is to say that Mary had other children: When Jesus is found in the temple at age 12, (Luke 2:41-51) no mention is made of other children, although the entire family made the journey together. The people of Nazareth refer to Him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary". The Greek expression implies that He is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons, even when they are called Jesus' "brethren". There is another point which requires an understanding of ancient Eastern cultures. In such cultures, the term "brethren" was used to refer to elders-- older relatives whose role is to give advice to younger ones. In John 7:3-4, we find the "brethren" of Jesus telling Him to leave Galilee and go to Judea so His disciples could see His works. If "brethren" is understood in the way it was used in this culture, they would have to have been older than Jesus, which eliminates them as His actual brothers, since we know that Jesus ws Mary's "first-born". Finally, consider what happened at the foot of the Cross (John 19: 26-27). If James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were indeed His "brothers", why would Jesus have overlooked such a close family relation and entrusted His Mother to His disciple John? The Gospel tells us that "from that hour, the disciple took her into his own home". Why would she go to the home of a disciple if she had four or more other children?

So it seems she was indeed a lifelong virgin.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-03-2009).]

Just guessing here but I assume the original topic of this thread is no longer of interest?

Ron

I don't like Levis, I prefer Wranglers. I don't care who the company supports if I like a product. I don't buy the things I buy because of the companies agendas, I buy because I like the products.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: So it seems she was indeed a lifelong virgin.

If you look at the Hebrew text it says that a young woman (almah) will give birth, not a virgin (bethulah).

But don't let generations of translations from one language to another then picked by the counsel and translated again be overridden by that little fact. Dogma over reality!

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 06-03-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: As with most scientific leaning it came from observation. Just because the bible tells you to wash your hands means what exactly? It was pretty common across the world at that time.

Scientific Observations using what? Go back a few centuries people were burned at the stake thinking the world was flat and people would fall off. Burned by who? Religion. Now isn't that something, being burned for blasphemy and yet the Bible speaks of the world being round. I point out this bad example of just how religious sects can take things out of context to serve their own means. Had the Bible been translated and used among the peoples--- darkness, the Crusades and evil that Christianity displayed may have changed a few today. Instead, religious leaders in that day wanted to have a choke hold around everyone's neck.

Common Hygiene Observations? It wasn't until this century that washing of hands became important in the medical field. Notice Phranc never has anything to back his claims against God, his word, or any point that I've presented... just rambling about who's brainwashed. Phranc's ramblings carry no weight especially during the Civil wars were many doctors didn't practice hygiene nor did they fully understand the way in which diseases are spread. Even today, people commonly don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Phranc's ramblings are easily defeated if you use the Bible and common sense.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Scientific Observations using what? Go back a few centuries people were burned at the stake thinking the world was flat and people would fall off. Burned by who? Religion. Now isn't that something, being burned for blasphemy and yet the Bible speaks of the world being round. I point out this bad example of just how religious sects can take things out of context to serve their own means. Had the Bible been translated and used among the peoples--- darkness, the Crusades and evil that Christianity displayed may have changed a few today. Instead, religious leaders in that day wanted to have a choke hold around everyone's neck. Common Hygiene Observations? It wasn't until this century that washing of hands became important in the medical field. Notice Phranc never has anything to back his claims against God, his word, or any point that I've presented... just rambling about who's brainwashed. Phranc's ramblings carry no weight especially during the Civil wars were many doctors didn't practice hygiene nor did they fully understand the way in which diseases are spread. Even today, people commonly don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Phranc's ramblings are easily defeated if you use the Bible and common sense.

Scientific observation using their eyes. But I'm sure the cuneiform tablets that predate the bible by a few generations that call for washing and bandages don't back me up, oh wait they do. Maybe if you were a little more educated or even took the time to look up what I stated you wouldn't be talking out your ass.

If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies? You are still in over your head chump. But you use people not washing their hands after taking a piss as an argument against people knowing hygiene was important thousands of years ago. Still showing you aren't that bright. But don't stop. And keep up that dishonesty. There is nothing like watching a chump with out integrity lie like you do.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies?

Well, who was he and what is his name? Did you report this to the authorities?

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Scientific observation using their eyes. But I'm sure the cuneiform tablets that predate the bible by a few generations that call for washing and bandages don't back me up, oh wait they do. Maybe if you were a little more educated or even took the time to look up what I stated you wouldn't be talking out your ass. If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies? You are still in over your head chump. But you use people not washing their hands after taking a piss as an argument against people knowing hygiene was important thousands of years ago. Still showing you aren't that bright. But don't stop. And keep up that dishonesty. There is nothing like watching a chump with out integrity lie like you do.

Hang on Phranc. In all fairness I think you were defeated on page 5. I mean telling people to ride certain parts of your anatomy or do you have a friend named... Well you know what I mean. Your articulation droped severely also ( sign of anger,last resort ) It just seemed like you were grabing things out of thin air. To be honest its starting to sound like a broken record now. I think everyone who has read this thread understands where you stand. We have the bible to back up what we say, its what we believe, its our right. You have ? to back your claims. Your own conclusion / theory ? Christians do not understand that., but thats what you believe, and thats your right. So, does this get resolved? I think not. Christians will pray about it, you will continue to believe what you want about it and the world keeps turning. No harm no foul, just good debate.

[This message has been edited by Slayre (edited 06-03-2009).]

Damn, I don't care much for Phranc's "style", but "Where you raped?"?! Come on. I got to ask, what about your upbringing would make you ask that? Is rape so common among Negroes that it is the first choice for the reason why someone disagrees with you? One might wonder, were you raped? Personally, I don't care and have no desire to know, but it says something about you culture I think.

quote Originally posted by Slayre: Hang on Phranc. In all fairness I think you were defeated on page 5. I mean telling people to ride certain parts of your anatomy or do you have a friend named... Well you know what I mean. Your articulation droped severely also ( sign of anger,last resort ) It just seemed like you were grabing things out of thin air. To be honest its starting to sound like a broken record now. I think everyone who has read this thread understands where you stand. We have the bible to back up what we say, its what we believe, its our right. You have ? to back your claims. Your own conclusion / theory ? Christians do not understand that., but thats what you believe, and thats your right. So, does this get resolved? I think not. Christians will pray about it, you will continue to believe what you want about it and the world keeps turning. No harm no foul, just good debate.

Yes, you have a book of mostly fiction and I have historical facts and science to back me up. I see christians don't understand that and have pointed out why several times. And that why is generational brainwashing. And the programming is deeply ingrained.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: You remind me of the Cris Rock video that was posted recently. You lie and make things up and use dishonest tactics because you were outsmarted. I wonder what category your actions would put you? Some thing tells me it isn't in the black man territory.

Ah... that Chris Rock. Type-o there.


Let's recap some of your dishonest tactics,... shall we.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: The God of the bible said nothing. There is no god to quote. There is only what some men claim a non-existent god said.

This was on the first page were Phranc rambling began. Notice there's nothing to support his statement.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: There is no god of man to love me. Gods aren't real.

Here we see Phranc cries for help. Notice, "no god of love to love me."

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Satan? You mean the imaginary enemy of your imaginary friend. Why would I accept Jesus? He is just a dead man. Why would I want eternal life? I don't need false promises to make me feel special and give me a false hope that there is something after you die.

Phranc is reaching out for questions, but like a child whose fighting sleep Phranc refuses.

Yes, this is key board analysis of Phranc, but like they say, "if the Levi sport pants fit.... then one should wear them." j/k

quote Originally posted by madcurl: This was on the first page were Phranc rambling began. Notice there's nothing to support his statement.

Nothing except the total lack of a god saying anything. Hardly dishonest. But we already determined you aren't that bright and don't have the upper level thinking skills it would take.

quote Here we see Phranc cries for help. Notice, "no god of love to love me."

Misquoting me. Thanks for being dishonest yet again. And pointing out there is no god isn't a cry for help.

quote Phranc is reaching out for questions, but like a child whose fighting sleep Phranc refuses. Yes, this is key board analysis of Phranc, but like they say, "if the Levi sport pants fit.... then one should wear them." j/k

It's amusing that I hold honesty to a higher regard then the christian does. It isn't very christian to lie much less lie time and again. And Thank you for living down to stereotypes. Dishonest and uneducated.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Nothing except the total lack of a god Phranc saying anything.

There, I fixed it for you.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Yes, you have a book of mostly fiction and I have historical facts and science to back me up. I see christians don't understand that and have pointed out why several times. And that why is generational brainwashing. And the programming is deeply ingrained.

You've prooved nothing phranc. Really,let it go, nothing more to say here, its o.k.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: So it seems she was indeed a lifelong virgin.

This is really a flawed premise from the inception.

Think about it. Is there a compelling reason for Mary to need to be a virgin before and until she had Jesus? Yes.
Is there a compelling reason for Mary to need to be a virgin AFTER that? No. Mission accomplished.
In fact, I'm pretty sure if you asked her husband, there was a pretty compelling reason NOT to remain a virgin. Goodness. They were MARRIED. 1st Corinthians 7:3 and 7:5:

3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again

They did not have sex for a time because God wanted them not to. Then if she didn't have sex with him after, she would have been a cheat (defraud ye not).


There is nothing SPECIAL about being a virgin forever. Lots of women have done that throughout history. Born. Never had sex with a man. Died. So to be "ever virgin"? So what? To be a virgin before having a child...THAT was what was special AND NECESSARY.


Matthew 13: 55

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The context is CLEARLY one of a specific PHYSICAL FAMILY here, and not brethren in the sense of spiritual christian brothers.


Lots of times PHYSICAL families go together to weddings like in John 2.

12After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Brethren would be synonymous with disciples if it was spiritually related, and would be redundant. This is physical.


Regarding turning over care of his mother to John instead of his brothers as would usually happen, that isn't a proof that they weren't his brothers. I have 3 kids. If my wife and I die, my kids are NOT going to live with my brother or 3 sisters. I have hand selected a non-related couple who I trust will care for them in a way like I would want, and not like my own brother and sisters would.

So the BIG deal is whether Mary was a virgin BEFORE Jesus was born. What happened after is interesting, but not a critical doctrine of belief. But there is no reason Mary needed to stay a virgin AFTER she did the job God chose for her as there is nothing special about being a life long virgin. She wasn't. And her husband was very glad about that.

I copied this again for you to read. Look above for more examples.

quote in biblical terms, "brother", "sister", and "brethren" can mean close relatives, kinsmen, or even close friends

Aren't we all brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord? One doesn't need to be a blood relative.

If you want a real answer to this question, ask your priest, and let us know what his answer is on the question of Mary's virginity.

Here is a quote from www.catholic.com

quote Mary: Ever Virgin Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin. An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many. According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

As for Joseph not getting any.

quote according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels,

This explains why Jesus had brothers and sisters too, they were from Joseph's previous marriage. They aren't "blood" relatives.

quote "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

http://www.catholic.com/lib...Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Like I said above, ask your priest if you have any doubts. They enjoy these type of conversations.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-04-2009).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: There, I fixed it for you.

No you didn't fix it. Why don't quote where god said something and instead of "fixing" it prove me wrong. It's because you can't. But don't let the truth get in your way.