Really we don’t know when she died, but I figured for this post using the RC figure disarms any efforts to claim she might have been living when Paul wrote to Timothy. No excuse can be made that she was not yet gone and that could be a reason why Paul didn’t mention her. She was way gone, decades gone, nobody anywhere claims she was still around gone.

Roman Catholics and other Mary deist enjoy trying to hack Revelation 12:1 as if it’s all about Mary. When it is pointed out to them that clearly the mention of a “crown of twelve stars” means it HAS TO BE TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL AS A NATION, not Mary as an individual, there’s so much spin from them that you’d think a tornado was near you.

As I read through Revelation…hold on, it’s gotta be here somewhere…hmm, nope, maybe…well, that’s odd….nothing about Mary having a throne in Heaven. In fact, I can’t seem to find anything AT ALL about Mary anywhere in Revelation–or, for that matter, Romans, 1st or 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians…

Maybe it’s just me, but if Mary was such an important part of the “order of grace,” and knowing that the Holy Spirit breathed the words of Scripture into the writers, and knowing that the Holy Spirit IS God–don’tcha think He could have at least made a token mention of the “Queen of Heaven?”

Was she a blessed woman–yes. Is she a model of devotion to the Lord? Yes. But I dare say, she has shed many tears over the centuries that Rome has been worshipping her.

The inference they derive is that Mary’s womb was like this East gate: that no one else (Joseph) could enter it (sexual union) nor could another (brothers or sisters) be born through it.”

It is obvious that these verses in Ezekiel refers to the glorified Lord Who has returned to earth as King. For, in the days of His flesh, Jesus often entered the temple area through some gate(s). No one sanctified His entrances into Herod’s temple invoking this verse. Therefore, since He was entering in and leaving by the gates used by others then, why could not Joseph had normal marital relations with Mary? Further, a marriage was not considered true if it was not consummated. So, as you point out, what is being gained by such an odd doctrine?

I tried to explain those things to him and tried to glean from him what he believed God would have gained by telling Joseph to keep her (and himself, a married man)celibate forever. Why would God do that to a married couple?

After all, she was not God. She was simply chosen to carry Jesus.

He told me he would ask his wife (also Catholic) about Jesus having siblings since he did not read the bible and had never heard of such.

It’s sad. Many of them are lost and won’t even open the bible for themselves.

I find that being an “RC outsider” (I mean never a Roman Catholic) all I seem to see of Roman Catholic’s portrayal of Jesus is always one of two:
1. An infant always portrayed as in need of Mary.
2. Hanging from a cross, head down, looking humiliated and broken.

To me, Roman Catholics portray Jesus always as some sort of helpless individual. Never does it seem that they promote strong affirmation of His Lordship. They do portray their “popes” and Mary as authoritative figures though. Given Jesus is Lord TODAY, their focus on “baby Jesus” and “on the cross Jesus” seems way overplayed to me. I’m not saying that Christ’s sacrifice can ever be overstated, but I’m just saying that the way RC does it places focus on a dead (or infantile) more than living ruling Jesus.