Reply #35 by Angelos
What matters to me is modern Protestants' arrogance that drives them to dismiss the beliefs of the early Church Fathers.
Do you really think you, a 22 year old kid, know better than the early Church Fathers??? Do you, know better than Luther?
At least the early Protestant leaders, like Calvin and Luther, had some respect for the early unified Church that Jesus built.
It's your sheer insult to the Church Fathers and your complete disregard for their beliefs that bothers me, not whether the Theotokos had sex
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 08:55:20 »
What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity?
Nothing. Which is why the verse has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, according to the opening poster.
.
I want to inform that there's a relationship between having sex and having kids!!
Sure. So, IF it could be substantiated that Mary had other children - that would make this dogma problematic, at best.
But the inverse is moot, thus the typical Catholic apologetic is absurd. I think everyone (12 and older anyway) knows that a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage does not mandate that ergo there will be a child resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all. Come on, we're NOT a biologically ignorant as some Catholics seem to think. No children does NOT confirm no sex. The whole apologetic is MOOT (and silly and kind of insulting of our intelligence).
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
.
What matters to me is modern Protestants' arrogance that drives them to dismiss the beliefs of the early Church Fathers.
Do you really think you, a 22 year old kid, know better than the early Church Fathers??? Do you, know better than Luther?
At least the early Protestant leaders, like Calvin and Luther, had some respect for the early unified Church that Jesus built.
It's your sheer insult to the Church Fathers and your complete disregard for their beliefs that bothers me, not whether the Theotokos had sex
Logged
Reply #36 by Josiah
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:00:44 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Logged
Reply #37 by chestertonrules
Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
She remains faithful.
Does it matter that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding? Probably not, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
The Truth is available for you to accept or reject.
How do we discern the Truth?
1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:02:29 »
You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.
Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
She remains faithful.
Does it matter that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding? Probably not, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
The Truth is available for you to accept or reject.
How do we discern the Truth?
1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Logged
Reply #38 by Angelos
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), all the early Church Fathers, and even the leaders of his own movement, like Luther and Calvin.
There's something to be said about blind arrogance
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:03:27 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), all the early Church Fathers, and even the leaders of his own movement, like Luther and Calvin.
There's something to be said about blind arrogance
Logged
Reply #39 by Selene
And this is coming from someone who claimed that the Bible is a false teacher on another thread because the Bible itself is saying that we are to obey and submit ourselves to our priests and bishops.
As I said, the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:06:20 »
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
And this is coming from someone who claimed that the Bible is a false teacher on another thread because the Bible itself is saying that we are to obey and submit ourselves to our priests and bishops.
As I said, the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
Logged
Reply #40 by Josiah
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.
The text is not wrong, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:09:59 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.
Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not wrong, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
« Last Edit: Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:17:00 by Josiah »
Logged
Reply #41 by Angelos
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and of most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. They are The Tradition (not Orthodox and Catholic Fathers), not you a 22 year-old kid.
Sadly you place yourself above them...that's the pathetic part...that's where your anti-Catholic obsession has led you
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:18:47 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.Quotethe proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not false, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and of most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. They are The Tradition (not Orthodox and Catholic Fathers), not you a 22 year-old kid.
Sadly you place yourself above them...that's the pathetic part...that's where your anti-Catholic obsession has led you
Logged
Reply #42 by Josiah
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years
[/quote]
Wrong.
The Annunication is on March 25 for one reason: It's 9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord. Do the math.... Since the 4th Century, the Church has understood that the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication by the angel happened ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb She used is in the PRESENT TENSE.
Your view requires two things:
1. CHANGING the verb Mary used from the present tense to the future perfect.
2. IGNORING 1600 years of Christian Tradition of celebrating the Annunication on March 25 based on the verb tense.
Your view is grammatically, textually IMPOSSIBLE.
And it denies 1600 years of Tradition.
"I AM" (present tense) does not mean "I will continue to be until my undeath" Two different verbs. You must delete what Mary said and replace it with an entirely different word for your view to work, you are NOT interpreting the text you are just CHANGING the text. And making the church WRONG for 1600 years in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25.
.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:34:34 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.Quotethe proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not false, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years
[/quote]
Wrong.
The Annunication is on March 25 for one reason: It's 9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord. Do the math.... Since the 4th Century, the Church has understood that the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication by the angel happened ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb She used is in the PRESENT TENSE.
Your view requires two things:
1. CHANGING the verb Mary used from the present tense to the future perfect.
2. IGNORING 1600 years of Christian Tradition of celebrating the Annunication on March 25 based on the verb tense.
Your view is grammatically, textually IMPOSSIBLE.
And it denies 1600 years of Tradition.
"I AM" (present tense) does not mean "I will continue to be until my undeath" Two different verbs. You must delete what Mary said and replace it with an entirely different word for your view to work, you are NOT interpreting the text you are just CHANGING the text. And making the church WRONG for 1600 years in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25.
.
Logged
Reply #43 by Angelos
Josiah,
Did you finish High School? Are you seriously arguing that the fact that Jesus was born 9 months after the Holy Spirit placed Him into Mary's womb somehow "proves" that Mary was not ever-Virgin?? You're embarassing yourself.
I guess the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong
believing that Mary was indeed ever-virgin
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:37:50 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.Quotethe proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not false, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years
Josiah,
Did you finish High School? Are you seriously arguing that the fact that Jesus was born 9 months after the Holy Spirit placed Him into Mary's womb somehow "proves" that Mary was not ever-Virgin?? You're embarassing yourself.
I guess the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong
believing that Mary was indeed ever-virgin
« Last Edit: Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:44:10 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #44 by Josiah
Quote Luther, Zwingli or Calvin who state that the verb Mary used in this text indicates that Mary would be a Perpetual Virgin and that the Church has been wrong since the 4th century in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25 (9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord)?
You are simply ignoring the obvious. Your "apologetic" depends on CHANGING what Mary said. It's not an "interpretation" of the text, it's just CHANGING the text, deleting what Our Lady actually said and replacing it with an entirely different word. And indicating that Church Tradition based on that verb has been wrong for at least 1600 years. Your apologetic actually contradicts the very text you use for it. Sorry. She said the verb in the PRESENT TENSE, not the future perfect. Your entire apologetic crashes. It is untextual, untraditional and a gross violation of grammar.
.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:55:35 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.Quotethe proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not false, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years
Josiah,
Did you finish High School?
I guess the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong
Quote Luther, Zwingli or Calvin who state that the verb Mary used in this text indicates that Mary would be a Perpetual Virgin and that the Church has been wrong since the 4th century in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25 (9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord)?
You are simply ignoring the obvious. Your "apologetic" depends on CHANGING what Mary said. It's not an "interpretation" of the text, it's just CHANGING the text, deleting what Our Lady actually said and replacing it with an entirely different word. And indicating that Church Tradition based on that verb has been wrong for at least 1600 years. Your apologetic actually contradicts the very text you use for it. Sorry. She said the verb in the PRESENT TENSE, not the future perfect. Your entire apologetic crashes. It is untextual, untraditional and a gross violation of grammar.
.
Logged
Reply #45 by Angelos
In your inability to comprehend you forget or ignore the fact that I did not argue anything about Mary using present or past tense (someone else did).
My point is the point of the thread: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed that Mary was ever-Virgin. That's why I believe it. I trust the early Church Fathers with docility. I'm not babyish enough to do my own exegesis - like you are - especially on an issue that ALL Church Fathers agree
You are in a sad, sad state, placing yourself above the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin who all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.
You're 22, but you're acting like a stuborn teenager who won't admit that he's wrong, using increasinglyabsurd arguments to prove all his Teachers (assuming you're Christian) wrong
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 10:02:12 »
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's about Mary and sex.
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a Dogma.
The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex. I know that. You know that. We all know that.
Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense. She IS - at that present time - a virgin. Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin." It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?" She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today. This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math). It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation. Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE. She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
.
Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a
No. I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense. AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25. Do the math. March 25...... December 25...... Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25? Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future. Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.Quotethe proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?
The text is not false, your changing it is. And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect. The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25. We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY. Why? Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE. Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.
.
It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years
Josiah,
Did you finish High School?
I guess the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong
Quote Luther, Zwingli or Calvin who state that the verb Mary used in this text indicates that Mary would be a Perpetual Virgin and that the Church has been wrong since the 4th century in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25 (9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord)?
You are simply ignoring the obvious. Your "apologetic" depends on CHANGING what Mary said. It's not an "interpretation" of the text, it's just CHANGING the text, deleting what Our Lady actually said and replacing it with an entirely different word. And indicating that Church Tradition based on that verb has been wrong for at least 1600 years. Your apologetic actually contradicts the very text you use for it. Sorry. She said the verb in the PRESENT TENSE, not the future perfect. Your entire apologetic crashes. It is untextual, untraditional and a gross violation of grammar.
.
In your inability to comprehend you forget or ignore the fact that I did not argue anything about Mary using present or past tense (someone else did).
My point is the point of the thread: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed that Mary was ever-Virgin. That's why I believe it. I trust the early Church Fathers with docility. I'm not babyish enough to do my own exegesis - like you are - especially on an issue that ALL Church Fathers agree
You are in a sad, sad state, placing yourself above the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin who all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.
You're 22, but you're acting like a stuborn teenager who won't admit that he's wrong, using increasinglyabsurd arguments to prove all his Teachers (assuming you're Christian) wrong
Logged
Reply #46 by Josiah
1. Glad to know that now you are not supporting the changing of the verb in the text and the rejection of 1600+ years of tradition in an attempt to defend this dogma.
2. Ah, a different apologetic. Okay. A question: What 1500 years are you talking about? Could you specify those years?
Wrong in WHAT? The only point I've made so far is that the verb tense in the text in question is PRESENT TENSE, but no one here has disputed that. And that for at least 1600 years, the Annunciation has been celebrated on March 25 because for at least that long, it has been understood that the Annunication and the Conception of Our Lord happened ON THE SAME DAY because the verb tense Mary used is present tense. But no one has disputed that, either. So, where am I wrong?
You keep trying to change the subject. The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact of highest importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever. I never said if I think such is or is not the case, what I think is moot and not the issue before us (there YET has been thread about me). The issue before us is singular: Is it true? The ball is in your court.....
.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 11:26:54 »
My point is the point of the thread: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed that Mary was ever-Virgin. That's why I believe it. I trust the early Church Fathers with docility. I'm not babyish enough to do my own exegesis - like you are - especially on an issue that ALL Church Fathers agree
1. Glad to know that now you are not supporting the changing of the verb in the text and the rejection of 1600+ years of tradition in an attempt to defend this dogma.
2. Ah, a different apologetic. Okay. A question: What 1500 years are you talking about? Could you specify those years?
Quote
You're 22, but you're acting like a stuborn teenager who won't admit that he's wrong
Wrong in WHAT? The only point I've made so far is that the verb tense in the text in question is PRESENT TENSE, but no one here has disputed that. And that for at least 1600 years, the Annunciation has been celebrated on March 25 because for at least that long, it has been understood that the Annunication and the Conception of Our Lord happened ON THE SAME DAY because the verb tense Mary used is present tense. But no one has disputed that, either. So, where am I wrong?
You keep trying to change the subject. The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact of highest importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever. I never said if I think such is or is not the case, what I think is moot and not the issue before us (there YET has been thread about me). The issue before us is singular: Is it true? The ball is in your court.....
.
Logged
Reply #47 by Angelos
So you have no clue, or opinion, about the Original Post and yet you keep posting on this thread to please yourself, like any self-absorbed 22 year old boy would do, is that it??...
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
Now if you have no clue about the subject (like about all the subjects you keep posting ad nauseum), I suggest you find a more real (not on-line) way to please yourself
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 14:01:31 »
Josiah: "I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"So you have no clue, or opinion, about the Original Post and yet you keep posting on this thread to please yourself, like any self-absorbed 22 year old boy would do, is that it??...
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
Now if you have no clue about the subject (like about all the subjects you keep posting ad nauseum), I suggest you find a more real (not on-line) way to please yourself
« Last Edit: Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 14:22:28 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #48 by Ryan2010
There are a lot of things that do point to her remaining Virgin but those are found outside the bounds of the text itself. Did pious Jews abstain from relations after God did something miraculous or revealed Himself through some sign or wonder or miracle? Yes. Is it unlikely that Jesus had he had siblings would give Mary to St. John, the beloved when he even said to obey the Pharisees and did all that could be done in fulfilling all righteousness? Yes. It's unlikely. The fact that there are many many Old Testament verses that point to Mary as being a type of "ark" and "new eve" point to her ever Virginity (brought forth the firstborn)? Yes. Would a pious Jew dream of even going near something so Holy as the womb of Mary that contained the uncontainable God? No. A pious gentile wouldn't even dream of it.
But all of the above is outside the text and unfortunately can't, from a "sola scriptura" frame of reference rely on any of these realities to form a doctrine or teaching or even an understanding according to the "whole" of Protestantism. So it just becomes like most things in their tradition. Novelty. A nice thing to believe or not. A bad thing to believe or not. This is why these topics are just going to wind up being talked over the other side on both sides.
A Catholic who sees Holy Tradition as being authoritative can with authority assert the teachings of the church and sleep at night. However, the protestant allows himself only to make doctrines, teachings and dogmas according to their own understanding so long as it is based on (even if it's loosely based on) their reading of scripture. It's a personal and private matter and the only authority is in their personal self, granting what they believe independantly, as being "sound doctrine".
Does it matter whatsoever to Protestants that all the reformers believed in Mary's perpetual Virginity? No. Is there a solid paper trail of doctrine or teaching on Mary's ever-Virginity prior to the time when people outside the Church began to teach against it? No. Do we have a nice paper trail of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we express it today prior to groups and individuals teaching against it? No.
Dogma on either side isn't even an issue. A protestant sees salvation as being a private matter and so the protestant expression of "church" is private. They are accountable only to their interpretation of scripture alone and whatever other standards they personally or as a group set up for themselves. Even if it conflicts, contradicts and has no continuity with their fellow protestant.
So if the fathers, the very founders of their churches and church structure believe she was ever virgin it just doesn't matter to them. They, their own pastors, founders, leaders etc, according to the protestant mind, have no authority because the only authority is in their private choice to declare what they personally believe the Holy Spirit or hermeneutic approach has convinced them is the true stance to take. Their lack of tradition is their tradition. This is why if Luther came back to the church that bares his name he would protest against it and want to reform it.
Protestantism doesn't look much like itself if you even go back fifty years. How is it that you have nearly all the reformers and all the Christians world wide believing in her ever Virginity and then a mere hundred years later, not? A protestant today might think to themselves that those people from back in the day must not have been able to read the bible. But Luther translated the bible (even the books that are sometimes referred to as Apocrypha) from the original languages. Maybe Luther just didn't notice the "brothers and sisters" parts.
The fact is this. It boils down to Holy Tradition informing us of the scriptures and often the other way around. Some protestants today do recognize bits and pieces of Holy Tradition and have no trouble proclaiming them as truth. Truths such as the martyrdom of most of the Apostles. Why this matters? We are told to remember our leaders, to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith. It's what the Church does, "according to the whole" but in Protestantism, they recollect as far as the text allows them and so there is no past, only the one they construct by reading the Holy Scriptures. Now does it matter to a Protestant that they all come to different conclusions on what happened in the past and what the Apostles taught and how the early Christians and the early Church is depicted in the scriptures? No.
Does it matter that Jesus is fully human and that there is an actual human that gave her flesh to him that took on flesh and so united God's nature to His creation? Does it matter that what Mary gave Christ is not unlike raising jacobs ladder to the heavens? That Jesus probably looked like his mother as all kids look like their parents? Does it matter that the very blood that we (I hope) consider precious was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin? Does it matter that Mary is the first Christian? The first to have Christ "in" her as we are all to have Christ "in" us? Why does St. John see a typology between Mary, Israel, the Ark, the Church and interplays on them throughout Revelation and the gospel of St. John? Does it matter?
The way we treat these subjects are often poor. We think we have to be convinced or argued into belief instead of looking at who Christ is and seeking Christ in Mary. We reduce Mary to an easy bake oven that popped out a golden ticket so we can go to some Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (heaven) instead of looking at God work through the very life of a person who gave birth to life himself. Who offered the fruit of her womb to humanity. We're quick to complain about Eve and give her, her credit and remember her work in the garden by handing humanity the fruit of the advesary's "word", that resulted in lowering man to the depths of Sheol, but when Mary hands humanity the fruit of the "word" of the Father, that humanity and all of creation might be raised, she's a "tool" God used to just get us to heaven. An oven. He "used" her...
Mary might not "save" you but she's a precious member of the Church and to remove her and not remember her and reduce her is to reduce Christ and take away from what he gave to her to give to us with thanksgiving (eucharist). She typifies the Christian life.
Her virginity goes beyond mere sexual whateverness. It has to do with being Holy as He is Holy. It's not a demonization of sex or marriage but a life of one lived as a perfect example of sex and marriage. How many of us can say that we gave birth to God? How many of us can say that we are so "highly favored"?
She matters. What we say about her matters.
Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Mary's life spoke volumes that were they written down, the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. Her life was Christ in the most intimate unimaginable way ever known by any creature. When on part suffers, the whole body suffers. When one part rejoices, the whole rejoices with her.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 14:56:53 »
There are no verses or passages that conclude without doubt that Mary "remained" Virgin. I don't think anyone would dispute this. There are a lot of things that do point to her remaining Virgin but those are found outside the bounds of the text itself. Did pious Jews abstain from relations after God did something miraculous or revealed Himself through some sign or wonder or miracle? Yes. Is it unlikely that Jesus had he had siblings would give Mary to St. John, the beloved when he even said to obey the Pharisees and did all that could be done in fulfilling all righteousness? Yes. It's unlikely. The fact that there are many many Old Testament verses that point to Mary as being a type of "ark" and "new eve" point to her ever Virginity (brought forth the firstborn)? Yes. Would a pious Jew dream of even going near something so Holy as the womb of Mary that contained the uncontainable God? No. A pious gentile wouldn't even dream of it.
But all of the above is outside the text and unfortunately can't, from a "sola scriptura" frame of reference rely on any of these realities to form a doctrine or teaching or even an understanding according to the "whole" of Protestantism. So it just becomes like most things in their tradition. Novelty. A nice thing to believe or not. A bad thing to believe or not. This is why these topics are just going to wind up being talked over the other side on both sides.
A Catholic who sees Holy Tradition as being authoritative can with authority assert the teachings of the church and sleep at night. However, the protestant allows himself only to make doctrines, teachings and dogmas according to their own understanding so long as it is based on (even if it's loosely based on) their reading of scripture. It's a personal and private matter and the only authority is in their personal self, granting what they believe independantly, as being "sound doctrine".
Does it matter whatsoever to Protestants that all the reformers believed in Mary's perpetual Virginity? No. Is there a solid paper trail of doctrine or teaching on Mary's ever-Virginity prior to the time when people outside the Church began to teach against it? No. Do we have a nice paper trail of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we express it today prior to groups and individuals teaching against it? No.
Dogma on either side isn't even an issue. A protestant sees salvation as being a private matter and so the protestant expression of "church" is private. They are accountable only to their interpretation of scripture alone and whatever other standards they personally or as a group set up for themselves. Even if it conflicts, contradicts and has no continuity with their fellow protestant.
So if the fathers, the very founders of their churches and church structure believe she was ever virgin it just doesn't matter to them. They, their own pastors, founders, leaders etc, according to the protestant mind, have no authority because the only authority is in their private choice to declare what they personally believe the Holy Spirit or hermeneutic approach has convinced them is the true stance to take. Their lack of tradition is their tradition. This is why if Luther came back to the church that bares his name he would protest against it and want to reform it.
Protestantism doesn't look much like itself if you even go back fifty years. How is it that you have nearly all the reformers and all the Christians world wide believing in her ever Virginity and then a mere hundred years later, not? A protestant today might think to themselves that those people from back in the day must not have been able to read the bible. But Luther translated the bible (even the books that are sometimes referred to as Apocrypha) from the original languages. Maybe Luther just didn't notice the "brothers and sisters" parts.
The fact is this. It boils down to Holy Tradition informing us of the scriptures and often the other way around. Some protestants today do recognize bits and pieces of Holy Tradition and have no trouble proclaiming them as truth. Truths such as the martyrdom of most of the Apostles. Why this matters? We are told to remember our leaders, to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith. It's what the Church does, "according to the whole" but in Protestantism, they recollect as far as the text allows them and so there is no past, only the one they construct by reading the Holy Scriptures. Now does it matter to a Protestant that they all come to different conclusions on what happened in the past and what the Apostles taught and how the early Christians and the early Church is depicted in the scriptures? No.
Does it matter that Jesus is fully human and that there is an actual human that gave her flesh to him that took on flesh and so united God's nature to His creation? Does it matter that what Mary gave Christ is not unlike raising jacobs ladder to the heavens? That Jesus probably looked like his mother as all kids look like their parents? Does it matter that the very blood that we (I hope) consider precious was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin? Does it matter that Mary is the first Christian? The first to have Christ "in" her as we are all to have Christ "in" us? Why does St. John see a typology between Mary, Israel, the Ark, the Church and interplays on them throughout Revelation and the gospel of St. John? Does it matter?
The way we treat these subjects are often poor. We think we have to be convinced or argued into belief instead of looking at who Christ is and seeking Christ in Mary. We reduce Mary to an easy bake oven that popped out a golden ticket so we can go to some Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (heaven) instead of looking at God work through the very life of a person who gave birth to life himself. Who offered the fruit of her womb to humanity. We're quick to complain about Eve and give her, her credit and remember her work in the garden by handing humanity the fruit of the advesary's "word", that resulted in lowering man to the depths of Sheol, but when Mary hands humanity the fruit of the "word" of the Father, that humanity and all of creation might be raised, she's a "tool" God used to just get us to heaven. An oven. He "used" her...
Mary might not "save" you but she's a precious member of the Church and to remove her and not remember her and reduce her is to reduce Christ and take away from what he gave to her to give to us with thanksgiving (eucharist). She typifies the Christian life.
Her virginity goes beyond mere sexual whateverness. It has to do with being Holy as He is Holy. It's not a demonization of sex or marriage but a life of one lived as a perfect example of sex and marriage. How many of us can say that we gave birth to God? How many of us can say that we are so "highly favored"?
She matters. What we say about her matters.
Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Mary's life spoke volumes that were they written down, the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. Her life was Christ in the most intimate unimaginable way ever known by any creature. When on part suffers, the whole body suffers. When one part rejoices, the whole rejoices with her.
Logged
Reply #49 by Catholica
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:07:16 »
Manna to you for that beautiful post, Ryan.
Logged
Reply #50 by John 10:10
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:18:12 »
Why did Jesus say this?
John 19
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Logged
Reply #51 by chestertonrules
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:27:44 »
Why did Jesus say this?
John 19
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Logged
Reply #52 by Snargles
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:06:57 »
I think Ryan sums it up well. RC and Orthodox believe the patristic writers should be put on the same level as inspired writers and I believe in sola scriptura. I have read some writings of the fathers but I put them in the same category as modern day commentators. The modern writers might be more correct in their interpretation of scripture than the church fathers because they have access to more scholarship. To me, everything I need to know is found from Genesis to Revelation. When John sat his pen down the writings from inspiration ceased. Catholics and believers in scripture alone will never agree because we use a different set of rules. For this reason I don't consider Catholics to be true Christians but to be in the same category as Mormons, people who use writing outside inspired scripture to back up their doctrine. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't mind saying that I have a better understanding of the doctrine than did the church fathers, Luther, Zwingli or the popes.
Logged
Reply #53 by Angelos
To sum it up, on the one hand we have 70% of ALL Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) that follow Church Tradition and have apostolic succession and dogmas and more values that are 99% identical and on the other we have 30% of ALL Christians (Protestants) who are splintered in 5000+ sects with completely contradictory dogmas and moral values.
So according to Snargles the "true Christians" are the small minority who has increasingly splintered in a Babel of contradictory beliefs, dogmas and moral values. Even within individual sects, let's say Josiah's Lutherans, individual churches are not in communion with each-other and have diametrically opposed moral values. That's the result of Sola Scriptura or when the blind leads the blind.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:34:00 »
I think Ryan sums it up well. RC and Orthodox believe the patristic writers should be put on the same level as inspired writers and I believe in sola scriptura. I have read some writings of the fathers but I put them in the same category as modern day commentators. The modern writers might be more correct in their interpretation of scripture than the church fathers because they have access to more scholarship. To me, everything I need to know is found from Genesis to Revelation. When John sat his pen down the writings from inspiration ceased. Catholics and believers in scripture alone will never agree because we use a different set of rules. For this reason I don't consider Catholics to be true Christians but to be in the same category as Mormons, people who use writing outside inspired scripture to back up their doctrine. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't mind saying that I have a better understanding of the doctrine than did the church fathers, Luther, Zwingli or the popes.
To sum it up, on the one hand we have 70% of ALL Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) that follow Church Tradition and have apostolic succession and dogmas and more values that are 99% identical and on the other we have 30% of ALL Christians (Protestants) who are splintered in 5000+ sects with completely contradictory dogmas and moral values.
So according to Snargles the "true Christians" are the small minority who has increasingly splintered in a Babel of contradictory beliefs, dogmas and moral values. Even within individual sects, let's say Josiah's Lutherans, individual churches are not in communion with each-other and have diametrically opposed moral values. That's the result of Sola Scriptura or when the blind leads the blind.
Logged
Reply #54 by Snargles
Of course, I don't believe that all of those 5000+ sects have it all right either. "Many are called but few are chosen". "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." "Heaven is a small town" (I heard that one on a country station on my way to Wednesday night Bible study).
I come from a tradition that says anyone can pick up a Bible and figure out what to do to be saved. Using Scottish Common Sense reasoning we take the Bible at its literal word (realizing that such things as "If your eye offends your pluck it out" are hyperbole). There is no need for priests, prophets, patristic writers, or popes to understand what God meant for us to understand.
This thread started with a simple question and I thought the writer honestly wanted some Protestant opinions to come to a better understanding of us, perhaps to learn the error of his way. I see now that wasn't the case. It is as though one of us is using the soccer rulebook and the other is using the football rule book. We will never come to an agreement so I am leaving the discussion. ::The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's th
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:53:55 »
YESOf course, I don't believe that all of those 5000+ sects have it all right either. "Many are called but few are chosen". "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." "Heaven is a small town" (I heard that one on a country station on my way to Wednesday night Bible study).
I come from a tradition that says anyone can pick up a Bible and figure out what to do to be saved. Using Scottish Common Sense reasoning we take the Bible at its literal word (realizing that such things as "If your eye offends your pluck it out" are hyperbole). There is no need for priests, prophets, patristic writers, or popes to understand what God meant for us to understand.
This thread started with a simple question and I thought the writer honestly wanted some Protestant opinions to come to a better understanding of us, perhaps to learn the error of his way. I see now that wasn't the case. It is as though one of us is using the soccer rulebook and the other is using the football rule book. We will never come to an agreement so I am leaving the discussion. ::The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's th
Logged
Reply #55 by Bon Voyage
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:33:37 »
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage? Highly, highly unlikely.
Logged
Reply #56 by Angelos
I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:40:49 »
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage? Highly, highly unlikely.
I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.
Logged
Reply #57 by Bon Voyage
Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did consummate after the birth of Jesus.
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:48:21 »
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage? Highly, highly unlikely.
I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.
Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did consummate after the birth of Jesus.
Logged
Reply #58 by Angelos
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mt. 1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Ps. 89:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Ps. 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]
Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1 Cor. 15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Ps. 122:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mt. 28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!
St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 19:26:20 »
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage? Highly, highly unlikely.
I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.
Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did consummate after the birth of Jesus.
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mt. 1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Ps. 89:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Ps. 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]
Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1 Cor. 15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Ps. 122:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mt. 28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!
St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]
Logged
Reply #59 by Angelos
Manna to you Ryan. Great post
« Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 20:48:13 »
There are no verses or passages that conclude without doubt that Mary "remained" Virgin. I don't think anyone would dispute this.
There are a lot of things that do point to her remaining Virgin but those are found outside the bounds of the text itself. Did pious Jews abstain from relations after God did something miraculous or revealed Himself through some sign or wonder or miracle? Yes. Is it unlikely that Jesus had he had siblings would give Mary to St. John, the beloved when he even said to obey the Pharisees and did all that could be done in fulfilling all righteousness? Yes. It's unlikely. The fact that there are many many Old Testament verses that point to Mary as being a type of "ark" and "new eve" point to her ever Virginity (brought forth the firstborn)? Yes. Would a pious Jew dream of even going near something so Holy as the womb of Mary that contained the uncontainable God? No. A pious gentile wouldn't even dream of it.
But all of the above is outside the text and unfortunately can't, from a "sola scriptura" frame of reference rely on any of these realities to form a doctrine or teaching or even an understanding according to the "whole" of Protestantism. So it just becomes like most things in their tradition. Novelty. A nice thing to believe or not. A bad thing to believe or not. This is why these topics are just going to wind up being talked over the other side on both sides.
A Catholic who sees Holy Tradition as being authoritative can with authority assert the teachings of the church and sleep at night. However, the protestant allows himself only to make doctrines, teachings and dogmas according to their own understanding so long as it is based on (even if it's loosely based on) their reading of scripture. It's a personal and private matter and the only authority is in their personal self, granting what they believe independantly, as being "sound doctrine".
Does it matter whatsoever to Protestants that all the reformers believed in Mary's perpetual Virginity? No. Is there a solid paper trail of doctrine or teaching on Mary's ever-Virginity prior to the time when people outside the Church began to teach against it? No. Do we have a nice paper trail of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we express it today prior to groups and individuals teaching against it? No.
Dogma on either side isn't even an issue. A protestant sees salvation as being a private matter and so the protestant expression of "church" is private. They are accountable only to their interpretation of scripture alone and whatever other standards they personally or as a group set up for themselves. Even if it conflicts, contradicts and has no continuity with their fellow protestant.
So if the fathers, the very founders of their churches and church structure believe she was ever virgin it just doesn't matter to them. They, their own pastors, founders, leaders etc, according to the protestant mind, have no authority because the only authority is in their private choice to declare what they personally believe the Holy Spirit or hermeneutic approach has convinced them is the true stance to take. Their lack of tradition is their tradition. This is why if Luther came back to the church that bares his name he would protest against it and want to reform it.
Protestantism doesn't look much like itself if you even go back fifty years. How is it that you have nearly all the reformers and all the Christians world wide believing in her ever Virginity and then a mere hundred years later, not? A protestant today might think to themselves that those people from back in the day must not have been able to read the bible. But Luther translated the bible (even the books that are sometimes referred to as Apocrypha) from the original languages. Maybe Luther just didn't notice the "brothers and sisters" parts.
The fact is this. It boils down to Holy Tradition informing us of the scriptures and often the other way around. Some protestants today do recognize bits and pieces of Holy Tradition and have no trouble proclaiming them as truth. Truths such as the martyrdom of most of the Apostles. Why this matters? We are told to remember our leaders, to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith. It's what the Church does, "according to the whole" but in Protestantism, they recollect as far as the text allows them and so there is no past, only the one they construct by reading the Holy Scriptures. Now does it matter to a Protestant that they all come to different conclusions on what happened in the past and what the Apostles taught and how the early Christians and the early Church is depicted in the scriptures? No.
Does it matter that Jesus is fully human and that there is an actual human that gave her flesh to him that took on flesh and so united God's nature to His creation? Does it matter that what Mary gave Christ is not unlike raising jacobs ladder to the heavens? That Jesus probably looked like his mother as all kids look like their parents? Does it matter that the very blood that we (I hope) consider precious was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin? Does it matter that Mary is the first Christian? The first to have Christ "in" her as we are all to have Christ "in" us? Why does St. John see a typology between Mary, Israel, the Ark, the Church and interplays on them throughout Revelation and the gospel of St. John? Does it matter?
The way we treat these subjects are often poor. We think we have to be convinced or argued into belief instead of looking at who Christ is and seeking Christ in Mary. We reduce Mary to an easy bake oven that popped out a golden ticket so we can go to some Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (heaven) instead of looking at God work through the very life of a person who gave birth to life himself. Who offered the fruit of her womb to humanity. We're quick to complain about Eve and give her, her credit and remember her work in the garden by handing humanity the fruit of the advesary's "word", that resulted in lowering man to the depths of Sheol, but when Mary hands humanity the fruit of the "word" of the Father, that humanity and all of creation might be raised, she's a "tool" God used to just get us to heaven. An oven. He "used" her...
Mary might not "save" you but she's a precious member of the Church and to remove her and not remember her and reduce her is to reduce Christ and take away from what he gave to her to give to us with thanksgiving (eucharist). She typifies the Christian life.
Her virginity goes beyond mere sexual whateverness. It has to do with being Holy as He is Holy. It's not a demonization of sex or marriage but a life of one lived as a perfect example of sex and marriage. How many of us can say that we gave birth to God? How many of us can say that we are so "highly favored"?
She matters. What we say about her matters.
Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Mary's life spoke volumes that were they written down, the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. Her life was Christ in the most intimate unimaginable way ever known by any creature. When on part suffers, the whole body suffers. When one part rejoices, the whole rejoices with her.
Manna to you Ryan. Great post
Logged
Reply #60 by Josiah
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 07:36:19 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
Logged
Reply #61 by Angelos
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin.
You expect people to write about the virginity of the Mother of God while she was alive?? Are you that dense??
You're easily the most clueless person on GCF. Are you that dense in real life or just on-line?
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 08:58:16 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin.
You expect people to write about the virginity of the Mother of God while she was alive?? Are you that dense??
You're easily the most clueless person on GCF. Are you that dense in real life or just on-line?
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:05:27 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #62 by Josiah
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:12:18 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:20:24 by Josiah »
Logged
Reply #63 by Angelos
How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You come across as completely unhinged. You keep posting about a subject that, by your admission, you have no opinion about, in a forum that is not about your religion - just to antagonise people. You get off by attacking the Theotokos. How can you live with yourself?
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:46:46 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You come across as completely unhinged. You keep posting about a subject that, by your admission, you have no opinion about, in a forum that is not about your religion - just to antagonise people. You get off by attacking the Theotokos. How can you live with yourself?
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:53:10 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #64 by k-pappy
I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 10:39:10 »
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
Logged
Reply #65 by Bon Voyage
Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 10:45:17 »
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.
I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.
Logged
Reply #66 by Angelos
Dear Bond and El Tigre,
I think the core difference between Orthodox and Catholics on one side and most Protestants on this forum on the other, was whether one believes in and respects the opinions and dogmas that the Early Church Fathers established (up to 800AD, before divisions started).
We believe that the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) did not abandon His Church after the last Evangelist (John) died. We believe that the Holy Spirit continued, and still continues, to be in the Church. For example, we believe that the Nicene Creed (that was written after 325AD) was a direct result of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in helping the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible.
Mary's perpetual virginity is a similar issue. There's nothing in the Bible, in our view, that contradicts it but also there's no 100% black and white quote that proves it. So in this case (as with the dogma of Trinity) we rely on the Bible interpretation of the Early Church Fathers, who on the issue of the ever-Virgin Mary (aeiparthenos as she's called in Greek), were unanimous.
Interestingly the major Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley) also agreed, through their reading of the Bible, that Mary was indeed ever-virgin
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:01:05 »
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.
I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.
Dear Bond and El Tigre,
I think the core difference between Orthodox and Catholics on one side and most Protestants on this forum on the other, was whether one believes in and respects the opinions and dogmas that the Early Church Fathers established (up to 800AD, before divisions started).
We believe that the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) did not abandon His Church after the last Evangelist (John) died. We believe that the Holy Spirit continued, and still continues, to be in the Church. For example, we believe that the Nicene Creed (that was written after 325AD) was a direct result of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in helping the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible.
Mary's perpetual virginity is a similar issue. There's nothing in the Bible, in our view, that contradicts it but also there's no 100% black and white quote that proves it. So in this case (as with the dogma of Trinity) we rely on the Bible interpretation of the Early Church Fathers, who on the issue of the ever-Virgin Mary (aeiparthenos as she's called in Greek), were unanimous.
Interestingly the major Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley) also agreed, through their reading of the Bible, that Mary was indeed ever-virgin
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:07:54 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #67 by Josiah
Anything to evade the point......
1. Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.
2. Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.
3. The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.
4. Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos? You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong. Just more evasion and deflection.
5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's YOUR position. The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it). The issue is this: Is it true? The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting......
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:18:37 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You get off by attacking the Theotokos.
Anything to evade the point......
1. Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.
2. Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.
3. The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.
4. Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos? You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong. Just more evasion and deflection.
5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's YOUR position. The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it). The issue is this: Is it true? The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting......
.
Logged
Reply #68 by Josiah
Moot.
This is NOT an issue of hermeneutics, even IF self (RCC) alone designates self (RCC) alone as the sole, private, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture (which it itself does - CCC 85, the most radical form of self appointing self as the sole interpreter found anywhere outside of the cults). But you then destroyed the whole point you made by saying that there is NOTHING in the Bible about this, thus there is NOTHING in the Bible to interpret. This, by your own admission, has NOTHING to do with the RCC's insistence that its own self is the sole, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:24:19 »
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.
I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.
Dear Bond and El Tigre,
We believe that the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) did not abandon His Church after the last Evangelist (John) died. We believe that the Holy Spirit continued, and still continues, to be in the Church. For example, we believe that the Nicene Creed (that was written after 325AD) was a direct result of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in helping the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible.
Mary's perpetual virginity is a similar issue. There's nothing in the Bible,
Moot.
This is NOT an issue of hermeneutics, even IF self (RCC) alone designates self (RCC) alone as the sole, private, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture (which it itself does - CCC 85, the most radical form of self appointing self as the sole interpreter found anywhere outside of the cults). But you then destroyed the whole point you made by saying that there is NOTHING in the Bible about this, thus there is NOTHING in the Bible to interpret. This, by your own admission, has NOTHING to do with the RCC's insistence that its own self is the sole, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.
.
Logged
Reply #69 by Angelos
Josiah: "You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary"
What is your view? in fact you clearly stated that you have no view ""I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"
If you had any clue of Church history you would know that Mary's perpetual virginity is not a RCC dogma. It predates the RCC and is a dogma of the early unified Church Jesus built, that today is shared by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It was also shared by the founders of all the mainline Protestant churches (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley). A 5 year old knows more about Church history than you
The only reason you keep posting here is: a) you just want to antagonise Catholics; and b) you have nothing better to do with your life;
You never quote scripture; you never post a coherent argument; you never seem to comprehend other people's posts. Just a 22-year old kid who keeps embarassing himself and the social club (LCMS) he claims to belong to
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:45:27 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You get off by attacking the Theotokos.
Anything to evade the point......
1. Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.
2. Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.
3. The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.
4. Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos? You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong. Just more evasion and deflection.
5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's YOUR position. The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it). The issue is this: Is it true? The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting......
.
Josiah: "You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary"
What is your view? in fact you clearly stated that you have no view ""I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"
If you had any clue of Church history you would know that Mary's perpetual virginity is not a RCC dogma. It predates the RCC and is a dogma of the early unified Church Jesus built, that today is shared by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It was also shared by the founders of all the mainline Protestant churches (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley). A 5 year old knows more about Church history than you
The only reason you keep posting here is: a) you just want to antagonise Catholics; and b) you have nothing better to do with your life;
You never quote scripture; you never post a coherent argument; you never seem to comprehend other people's posts. Just a 22-year old kid who keeps embarassing himself and the social club (LCMS) he claims to belong to
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 12:01:01 by Angelos »
Logged