Author Topic: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity  (Read 224317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #350 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 17:42:10 »
PROTEST(ants)? Pr 6:6
CAT(ho)LICS? Joel 3:3

No wonder they are always feuding!!

What about those God has chosen for himself?
What is their message?
What is unity in the Spirit?
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:02:49 by Visionary »

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #351 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:21:35 »
P:  You left out those of us who liked to be called the foreknown!

AF:  I apologize.  


P: I declare that the bible declares that the commandments of God are thus and the Ancient faiths don't meet those requirements! Therefore you teach a false gospel.  Anathema!

AF: Ok.


P:  Show me early fathers prior to the 4th century that interpreted passages to mean that Mary remained Virgin!

AF:  Even if I did you wouldn't accept them because you reject the Fathers.  What's the point of handing what I consider to be a pearl over to someone who considers it something baser? You'll only call them baseless because they don't conform to the methods by which you personally confirm or reject truths.  No different than how a body decides their own doctrines based on the way in which they interpret which interpretations are sound.  

P:  You said the topic is about ever Virginity and Jesus not having siblings but I declare the topic to be about the fact that Mary had no sex ever is a dogma!  And even if Jesus didn't have sibs that doesn't necessarily mean she's Ever Virgin!

AF:  Ok, you talk about your topic with those that will entertain you.  If the topic I'm replying to has to do with her Ever-Virginity and whether or not Jesus had sibs then there's no conflict here.  Protestants think that because they believe that Jesus had sibs then necessarily Mary could not be Ever-Virgin.  So if I show that he might not have had sibs that is one less false presupposition in the way between sound Mariology which points to sound Christology.  
















Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #352 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:31:29 »
LOL. Who said anything about commandments Ryan? That was the Catholics and Protestants wasn't it? Yep.

Guess you dont listen so good afterall.  ::cool::

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #353 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:56:40 »
LOL. Who said anything about commandments Ryan? That was the Catholics and Protestants wasn't it? Yep.

Guess you dont listen so good afterall.  ::cool::


John 10:10 post #349

21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."



I apologize if you feel that you are left out.  I have only two hands and can't keep up with what every individual sees themselves as or what a "Christian" is or means to each individual.  My response about commandments was in response to John 10:10.  

That I may have not responded to your reply does not mean that I did not read it but only that I had nothing to say in regards to it.  

If you would like to clarify what you call yourself and how you manage to escape the categorical umbrella of denomination/sect feel free to share.  





Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #354 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:15:52 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #354 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:15:52 »



Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #355 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:22:03 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

You are a protestant because you are protesting against the oldest and largest Christian body.

You reject the Church, therefore, you are protestant.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #356 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:37:00 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

You are a protestant because you are protesting against the oldest and largest Christian body.

You reject the Church, therefore, you are protestant.


1.   How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


2.  Actually, you "protest" my denomination far more than I "protest" yours, which I guess makes YOU the "protestant."  But you entirely lost me as to how that confirms the tidbit about Mary's bedroom activities that you deem to be SO very, very important and a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty?


 ???





.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #357 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:39:10 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

You are a protestant because you are protesting against the oldest and largest Christian body.

You reject the Church, therefore, you are protestant.


1.   How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


2.  Actually, you "protest" my denomination far more than I "protest" yours, which I guess makes YOU the "protestant."  But you entirely lost me as to how that confirms the tidbit about Mary's bedroom activities that you deem to be SO very, very important and a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty?


 ???





.


When have I even mentioned your denomination?

Do you also deny being a protestant?

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #358 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:44:44 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

You are a protestant because you are protesting against the oldest and largest Christian body.

You reject the Church, therefore, you are protestant.

WOW! Reject the church? Jesus said, If anyone rejects me, he remains in death... John 3:36 That's some wild accusation.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #359 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:53:53 »
Denomination - demonation - division. Is Christ divided? 1Corinthians 1:11-13
What Spirit did you receive?

1John 4:6

Jesus is the corner stone. The Prophets and 12 Apostles are the foundation. We are the walls, few are chosen as pillars. Jesus is the capstone. Ephesians 2:18-22

Its pretty drafty in here...Ephesians 4:14

You are a protestant because you are protesting against the oldest and largest Christian body.

You reject the Church, therefore, you are protestant.

WOW! Reject the church? Jesus said, If anyone rejects me, he remains in death... John 3:36 That's some wild accusation.


Maybe I misunderstood you.

Do you listen to the Church?  If so, please explain what it means to you to listen to the Church?

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #360 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 18:04:30 »
1.   How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

The Early Church have alway taught that Mary was ever-virgin, and we did not deviate from this traditional teaching.  To you, her virginity doesn't matter.  Mary's virginity, however, shows the truth in Scripture that no man or spiritual being can sit or pass where God sits and passes through.  

God sits on a throne in Heaven.  No being can sit there except God Himself.  God chose to dwell in the Ark of the Covenant.  No one except God dwelled in it according to the Old Testament.  The passage in Ezekiel that Ryan pointed out says, that no man can pass where God pass.  God chose to dwell in Mary's womb and pass through her birth canal.  Mary did not have sex nor have any other children of her own because no man can dwell in her womb nor pass through her birth canal.  Why?  Because that was where God Himself dwelled and passed through.  What the Early Church taught and passed down to us is consistent with everything taught in the Bible.  No man or spiritual being can sit on God's throne. In the same way, no other human or being can sit in the Ark of the Covenant or in Mary's womb.

Since you say that Mary had sex and had children of her own, then you are saying that a man can actually sit on God's throne even in Heaven.  

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #361 on: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 18:06:15 »
1.   How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

The Early Church have alway taught that Mary was ever-virgin, and we did not deviate from this traditional teaching.  To you, her virginity doesn't matter.  Mary's virginity, however, shows the truth in Scripture that no man or spiritual being can sit or pass where God sits and passes through.  

God sits on a throne in Heaven.  No being can sit there except God Himself.  God chose to dwell in the Ark of the Covenant.  No one except God dwelled in it according to the Old Testament.  The passage in Ezekiel that Ryan pointed out says, that no man can pass where God pass.  God chose to dwell in Mary's womb and pass through her birth canal.  Mary did not have sex nor have any other children of her own because no man can dwell in her womb nor pass through her birth canal.  Why?  Because that was where God Himself dwelled and passed through.  What the Early Church taught and passed down to us is consistent with everything taught in the Bible.  No man or spiritual being can sit on God's throne. In the same way, no other human or being can sit in the Ark of the Covenant or in Mary's womb.

Since you say that Mary had sex and had children of her own, then you are saying that a man can actually sit on God's throne even in Heaven.  

Also...!

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and she remained faithful.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #362 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 07:32:33 »
1.   How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

The Early Church have alway taught that Mary was ever-virgin

Assuming that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue before us, I'll ask you YET AGAIN.....

Then produce just 5 people that wrote in the First Century that Mary had no sex ever.
Just 5 people, that's all.  I don't even care if they are credible people.
It doesn't even have to be the church saying so, just 5 people saying so.
IF your statement is correct, you will be able to produce far, far, far more than 5, but I'm making it easy for you.
Quote 5 that are clearly saying that Mary had no sex ever and I'll gladly yield your point.


Quote
Since you say that Mary had sex and had children of her own, then you are saying that a man can actually sit on God's throne even in Heaven.  

1.  I never said She had sex - YOU are insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   The "burden of proof" is in your court.  After all these pages of all these posts from Catholics, we're still patiently waiting.....

2.  There's nothing that says that Mary is a throne; it seems more clear that Mary was a person - a female human being.  And I don't know that anyone sat on Her.  Let's try to stick to the issue before us.







.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #363 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 07:35:06 »
.


Catholica -




As Father Corapi often says, no one can have Jesus for a brother who does not also have Mary for a mother.


Okay....

So, your point is that because mothers are perpetual virgins, and Mary is our mother, thus Mary was a perpetual virgin?   Can you document for us that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty that mothers are perpetual virgins?






.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #364 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 07:38:32 »
.





Well I would say that most everyone has an abundance of pride.  Anyone who doesn't personally regard everyone else as above themselves is prideful.  In truth, we can only be humble when we submit ourselves to someone else.  As a Catholic, I try to submit myself to the Church so that I avoid becoming prideful, thinking that I know better than the authority given to me.  

What does the RCC submit itself to?

What keeps it from the arrogance and pride you so strongly think must be avoided?



Ah, but back to the issue at hand...





.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #365 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 08:04:35 »

.




YOU are the one insisting that it's a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   It's YOUR position. And the issue is this: Is it true?





Let's review the discussion of this topic so far....


1.  "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be since I will forever more be a virgin until my death and/or undeath."   Wrong.  As has been shown, the verb is PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  Besides, such an interpretation (while grammatically IMPOSSIBLE) actually violates Catholic Tradition that you supposedly uphold.


2.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught that Mary Had No Sex Ever."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this (or anyone else for that matter, orthodox or heretic) - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 8th Century.


3.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because the rejected, false, book of the Protoevangelium of James (c. 200 AD) teaches it."   Wrong.   It never mentions it.   At all.   And it would be moot if it did, it's a false book rejected as teaching wrongly.


4.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because it cannot be proven that Mary had any other children."  Moot.   Having no children does not mandate having no sex.   The dogma is NOT that Jesus had no sibs it's that Mary had no sex.


5.   "It's a dogmatic facty of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because she was entrusted to the care of another."   BASELESS  Nothing was presented to document that when a person is entrusted to another, that means that person will never once have sex.   If a child is adopted, does that act mandate that ergo the child will die a virgin?  Are all adopted children perpetual virgins?


6.  "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because she was a mother and all mothers are perpetual virgins."   No comment needed....


7.  "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because God dwelt in Her."   Moot.   Actually, Scripture says that God dwelt IN THE WORLD (John 1:14) thus if God dwelling somewhere means perpetual virginity, then all humans since 5 BC have been perpetual virgins; the argument is absurd and irrelevant. 


8.  "It is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because about 600 BC, Ezekiel stated that a certain gate in the Temple that existed then (but very soon to be destroyed) shouldn't be opened."   No comment needed.....


It's claimed that this DOGMA is true.  It needs to be verified to the level claimed:  as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  So far, nothing has been offered of any substantiation (I'm not counting all the personal attacks, flames, evasions, diversions, "you anti! accusations by persons who actually are anti whereas I'm not, etc. - only actual attempts to substantiate the dogma as true). 


What's ya got to support this dogmatic insistence as true?  As so highly important?




Again, if you are going to spread this "story" about Our Blessed Lady as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth, we're back to what is your firm confirmation?   You are dividing Christianity over the issue of how often She had sex after Jesus was born, you are insisting on telling the world's 6.7 billion people this tidbit of info about Her marriage bed, so where's the substanatiation as to it's truth to the level claimed?   My Catholic teachers taught me that to spread something about someone that is not confirmed as true is called "gossip" and is a sin, ESPECIALLY if it is potentially harmful and embarrassing and of a personal nature.  So, lest we gossip and sin, lest we hurt and offend Our Lady (and thus Her Son), AND because you insist on telling the world world this normally private marital matter as DOGMA dividing Christiandom with it, where's the confirmation to the level claimed?  






Thank you.



- Josiah




.


Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #366 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 08:13:53 »
Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote:

The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her……

No one who thinks logically about Christ can understand such as question as: “Why do you speak so often of His Mother?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #367 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 08:27:23 »
Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote:

The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her……

No one who thinks logically about Christ can understand such as question as: “Why do you speak so often of His Mother?

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #368 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 09:51:15 »
The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been entrenched in the RCC for so long that it will never be removed before Jesus comes, then it will be a moot point!

When any teaching/doctrine is believed that is NOT clearly revealed in Scripture, we are in great danger of removing ourselves from the simplicity and the FULL salvation that's in Christ Jesus. 

Can a person who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity be saved and enter into God's salvation which is in Christ Jesus?  Yes, they can; not because of this belief, but in spite of this belief.

Blessings

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #369 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 10:49:05 »
Quote
"It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance...


How a body or individual determines dogmatic fact, the weight of that fact (greatest certainty), it's import and relevance varies based on the body or individual's belief in what "The Church" is.
 
This is the only issue that you want to address and are using this topic about Mary's Ever-Virginity and the idea of Jesus having siblings to shift the focus of the topic onto your topic.  

You started a thread about the topic you want to talk about on this forum and everyone that has wanted to address your topic with you has replied to you.  

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/acts-15-and-the-claims-of-the-rcc-for-itself/

I wont address the topic as to how a teaching becomes dogmatic but I will insofar as the original topic goes, address these issues that have already been addressed.

I have the feeling that your response will only be to call the reply baseless and reduce the reply only to a bare bone logic that points us only in the direction of your pet-topic but perhaps if I hit the wall from a different direction you will admit that a crack was made and a tiny ray of light might shine forth in this dark exchange...

Lord have mercy.

Quote
Mary was Ever-Virgin because Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be since I will forever more be a virgin until my death and/or undeath."   Wrong.  As has been shown, the verb is PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  Besides, such an interpretation (while grammatically IMPOSSIBLE) actually violates Catholic Tradition that you supposedly uphold.


Ok.  Let's presuppose that this interpretation has no bearing on our position.  Can we still maintain belief in her Ever-Virginity if this verse is not in play?  Yes.  

Moving on...


Quote
2.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught that Mary Had No Sex Ever."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this (or anyone else for that matter, orthodox or heretic) - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 8th Century.


This is where we get into technicalities that goes back to the pet-topic and why it is so difficult to make headway.  

1.  You say that the "teaching" is "declared" a "teaching" in the 8th Century.  You say, "not until" the 8th century.   The construct here is that it was not an "official" teaching until the 8th century.  Therefore because it does not become "official" until the 8th century you believe that this necessarily means that it was not a "consensus" until the 8th century.  You take the comment, "every bishop since 31 AD taught" and put "taught" up against the idea of official declaration of "teaching" and juxtapose 31 AD against 8th century.  

I have pointed out a few times already that we see this same tactic of reasoning when it comes to the Holy Trinity.  The underlying problem is that the narrative changes depending what we believe the "Church" is.  

Which is why it always goes back to Josiah's pet-topic.  

Here is what a conversation with the same underlying problem would look like if it were with someone denying the Holy Trinity and charging it to be an innovation that was "institutionalized" by a "cult-like" group of higher ups looking out for "self" and self alone....

 "The Holy Trinity is true because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught the Holy Trinity."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this (or anyone else for that matter, orthodox or heretic) - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 4th Century.

Now, if I were protestant and answering this person I would go to the bible and say that the Holy Trinity is all spelled out  in such and such a verses, but then that necessarily presupposes that I have the right interpretation even though there is no one arbitrating between my interpretation and the bible except for my "self".  

Because of my ecclessiology I don't have anyone outside of the bible with any kind of authority that can confirm or reject my interpretation and since I don't see myself as interpreting but merely calling it as it is, there is no accountability.  My hearers have to take my word for what the word is saying.  

So when I tell this person that the Holy Trinity is spelled out in such and such an interpretation of such and such a verses, this person is going to either not accept the verses as being properly interpreted and or point out that the title, Holy Trinity isn't IN the Holy Scriptures and then like the mechanized beating of a war drum, repeat his charge that my interpretation, of which I am the sole arbitrator of, is merely the tradition of men that can be linked back to the 4th century institutionalization of the Church where they turned the true faith (no Trinity) into a "religion" (Trinity).  

The summation of the accuser's argument will then be that the Holy Trinity is merely a product, not of the bible or the revelation of who God is but instead, a product of "religion", a group of men with social power who attempted to pervert "the faith".  And this accuser will then use any excuse to point out an individuals fingerprints that we might believe his narrative.  

Example:  

Accuser: There was no consensus on the Holy Trinity which is why Emperor Constantine called the council together.  You can't say that "everyone" believed and taught the Holy Trinity as it was contested and there was no "official teaching" until the 4th century and it wasn't even at the hand of Christians but instead an Emperor and his henchmen.    

A protestant will say that none of that matters as it boils down only to the Holy Scriptures and what they mean to say and will use only the Holy Scriptures to validate that claim and so can even agree with the accuser that these early Christians didn't believe in the Trinity, institutionalized the faith, turning it into a "religion" and on the very same hand turn around and say that the Church may not have been preserved but it had always been preserved in the bible even if men couldn't understand what the bible was meaning to say.  

This is an impossible debate to have with either the protestant or the accuser.  Unless the accuser or protestant wants to know how the body in question views herself and then attempt to see through her eyes then all they will be doing is looking at the body in question through their own eyes.

If I am convinced that the 4th century was the "institution" of "relgion" as a perversion of "the faith" and don't understand how that 4th century group sees herself then everything she says is just going to be a presupposed product of "perverted religion".  

It's lose/lose talking to such types.  

If you are honest though you can see how difficult it is to talk to someone convinced that the Holy Trinity is a teaching of "men" or some "cult".

The accuser might even say that they aren't "against" the Holy Trinity but instead their position is that they just don't know and to make the Holy Trinity "speculation" a "dogma" is divisive.  They may even be so bold, thinking that their logic is so sound in the mind of the listener, that they stretch themselves and hint that in fact such "speculation" is gossip and a sin and it is out of such a greater love for whoever God may be that to "dogmatize" this "baseless" speculation is a lesser love indeed.  

 ::drama::

Quote
3.   Mary was Ever-Virgin because the rejected, false, book of the Protoevangelium of James (c. 200 AD) teaches it."   Wrong.   It never mentions it.   At all.   And it would be moot if it did, it's a false book rejected as teaching wrongly.


Again not everything someone says is bad just because we don't accept them according to the whole.  Sometimes looking at manuscripts and other books shows you the mind of the Church at a certain time.  It's kind of like reading a story or a commentary on scripture or some doctrine.  The Protoevangelium is pretty transparent in that it is not attempting to mask itself as inspired and pretty much calls itself a "story".

Such things, philosophies, books, art, etc. can be profitable and helpful.  

St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.

If we approach the Protoevangelium or even Harry Potter or even the newspaper from this perspective, it's profitable and shouldn't be automatically rejected.  

I don't believe that our belief in the Theotokos, who is Ever-Virgin, is based "on" the bible verses, let alone other stories and sayings of the fathers.  The position is at it's base that it is purely based on the revelation of God.  

This is why the pet-topic is always the same no matter the topic.  

Says who and how and why and by whose standards do we confirm such a revelation?  


We will meet no consensus provided we continue to cling to our contradictory ecclessiologies.  


Quote
4.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because it cannot be proven that Mary had any other children."  Moot.   Having no children does not mandate having no sex.   The dogma is NOT that Jesus had no sibs it's that Mary had no sex.


This was addressed a long time ago.  No one said that because Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters that it necessarily means Mary was Ever-Virgin.  The reality is that if Jesus did have brothers and sisters then obviously she is not Ever-Virgin which is why the ancient faiths wind up having to address this issue.  

Quote
5.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because she was entrusted to the care of another."   BASELESS  Nothing was presented to document that when a person is entrusted to another, that means that person will never once have sex.   If a child is adopted, does that act mandate that ergo the child will die a virgin?  Are all adopted children perpetual virgins?


This is the same as the reply above.  It's more about the reality that the ancient faiths deal with when dealing with people of a different tradition.  


Quote
6.  "...  because she was a mother and all mothers are perpetual virgins."   No comment needed....


You are attacking theological shorthand and rendering it in strict biological terms in order to coerce meaning.  

..  theological reality (Chiastic structure) as found in the Holy Scriptures read through the revelation of God:

Eve is the Mother of fallen humanity.  She takes the serpents word at becoming a man-god in and of her own self and offers the fruit of that prideful notion to adam through which man becomes mortal.   (hence birth pangs increased, the first born being a murderous child etc.)

Mary is the Mother of raised humanity.  She takes the Father's word and gives birth to the God man, offering the fruit of her womb to humanity through which true humanity becomes immortal and joins creation to Himself through Mary (hence Virginity, painless birth, firstborn being a victim etc.)  

**I don't mean "murderous" and "victim" in the way we might think of them but that's another topic.


Quote
7.  .... because God dwelt in Her."   Moot.   Actually, Scripture says that God dwelt IN THE WORLD (John 1:14) thus if God dwelling somewhere means perpetual virginity, then all humans since 5 BC have been perpetual virgins; the argument is absurd and irrelevant. 


Change "God dwelt in Her" to "took flesh from Mary's womb in order to unite Himself to all of creation for the first time ever so that He might then subsequently dwell in humanity".....


Quote
8.  "It is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because about 600 BC, Ezekiel stated that a certain gate in the Temple that existed then (but very soon to be destroyed) shouldn't be opened." 


We just happen to agree as a body that St. Justin Martyr's interpretation of that gate being Mary is in accordance with the revelation of God which was deposited into the body.   You can't agree with that interpretation of Ezekiel and on the other hand believe she wasn't Ever-Virgin.  

If you reject the interpretation you reject it.  You alone as an individual have your own requirements for what would be needed in order for you to believe it is true, let alone become dogmatic.  That's why you give what seems like an arbitrary number of early first century fathers.  

You ask for five.  Why not three?  Why not one?  You already reject the interpretation of one.  Why should we give you others that you already believe are regardless of their position, "baseless".  

It's like when you were a kid playing action figures with "that kid".  He hates star wars and you try to say that it is fun and he says, "ok.  prove it.  give me your favorite characters and let me play with them."  You give him one or two, he spits on them, says how lame they are, says they are boring, makes fun of them and then tosses them back at your feet.  He then asks you to try another one of your men and because you won't comply insists that it's because we know he's right.  They're lame.  




Yes.  That is exactly why I won't hand them over.  They are lame.  I think I hear my Mother calling.  Sorry.  Maybe we'll hang out again some time.





Christ is risen.









Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #370 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 11:24:20 »
Quote
"It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance...


You started a thread about the topic you want to talk about on this forum and everyone that has wanted to address your topic with you has replied to you.  

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/acts-15-and-the-claims-of-the-rcc-for-itself/




Yes, I did.

The point was made HERE that Acts 15 supports the idea that whatever the RCC says is simply to be embraced with docilic submission.  I disagreed.  I began a thread to discuss the Council of Jerusalem.   I didn't expect any Catholics to respond to it.   MY experience is that OFTEN in Catholic apologetics, the Council of Jerusalem is mentioned as "proof" but then there is ZERO interest in actually reading the report on the Council of Jerusalem, particularly vis-a-vis the things the RCC claims about it.  No surprise to me this time.




Quote
Quote

Mary was Ever-Virgin because Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be since I will forever more be a virgin until my death and/or undeath."   Wrong.  As has been shown, the verb is PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  Besides, such an interpretation (while grammatically IMPOSSIBLE) actually violates Catholic Tradition that you supposedly uphold


.


Ok.  Let's presuppose that this interpretation has no bearing on our position.  

.


Suppose?   It's grammatically IMPOSSIBLE.   It's simply wrong.




Quote

Quote

.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught that Mary Had No Sex Ever."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this (or anyone else for that matter, orthodox or heretic) - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 8th Century


.




1.  You say that the "teaching" is "declared" a "teaching" in the 8th Century.  You say, "not until" the 8th century.   The construct here is that it was not an "official" teaching until the 8th century.  Therefore because it does not become "official" until the 8th century you believe that this necessarily means that it was not a "consensus" until the 8th century.  


As you know, I didn't say that.  There are Catholics today - RIGHT NOW - who believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic shroud of Jesus.  I don't deny such a belief exists AMONG Catholics, but it would be wrong to say this is an official teaching of The Catholic Church.  

We don't know WHEN this idea of Mary Had No Sex Ever first was proposed.  The first time we see anything appears to be in 362 AD when one person, on one occasion, wrote a TITLE for Our Lady, "Ever-virgin."  Does THAT mean it suddenly became the official dogma of The Catholic Church?  I hope you agree, it does not.  The first case I KNOW OF where any denomination indicates that this is the official position of said denomination is in the 8th century.  If you can quote from the RCC or EO or OO in some official statement before that, indicating that Mary Had No Sex Ever, please present that.  That would move the discussion forward.  Thanks.




Quote
"The Holy Trinity is true because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught the Holy Trinity."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this (or anyone else for that matter, orthodox or heretic) - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 4th Century.


I'm not sure why the constant changing of the topic brings confirmation that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  And you seem to be assuming that I accept the Trinity because every bishop - East and West - embraced such from the year 31 AD on.  Where did I post that?  Friend, THAT was the position in SUPPORT of the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever!!  I never used that apologetic for it (or anything else), if you think the apologetic moot or wrong or baseless, take that up with those in this thread using it, not with me.


Let's return to the issue of this thread....




Quote
Quote

3.   Mary was Ever-Virgin because the rejected, false, book of the Protoevangelium of James (c. 200 AD) teaches it."   Wrong.   It never mentions it.   At all.   And it would be moot if it did, it's a false book rejected as teaching wrongly


.


 Sometimes looking at manuscripts and other books shows you the mind of the Church at a certain time.  




Maybe...

But it's MOOT here because as you well know, this rejected, wrong, false book doesn't say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

Again, if you reject this apologetic - take that up with the ones here using it, not with me.




Quote

Quote

4.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because it cannot be proven that Mary had any other children."  Moot.   Having no children does not mandate having no sex.   The dogma is NOT that Jesus had no sibs it's that Mary had no sex


.



No one said that because Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters that it necessarily means Mary was Ever-Virgin.  



You actually earlier posted that this dogma IS that Jesus Had No Sibs.  Now you're trying to say this Dogma isn't about sibs?

Read many of the Catholic and Orthodox posts in this thread (including from YOU).  the most common apologetic offered is "It can't be proven that Jesus had sibs."  Either you are saying that the Catholics and Orthodox don't understand what the dogma is OR that this apologetic is (as I stated) moot.





Quote

Quote


5.   "Mary was Ever-Virgin because she was entrusted to the care of another."   BASELESS  Nothing was presented to document that when a person is entrusted to another, that means that person will never once have sex.   If a child is adopted, does that act mandate that ergo the child will die a virgin?  Are all adopted children perpetual virgins?


.


This is the same as the reply above.  


Same reply as above.   If it's a bad apologetic, then you AGREE with me and DISAGREE with several of the Catholic and Orthodox posts of this thread.





Quote

Quote

6.  "...  because she was a mother and all mothers are perpetual virgins."   No comment needed....


.




Eve is the Mother of fallen humanity.  Mary is the Mother of raised humanity.  



Okay....

The point is raised to confirm that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  
Thus, the ONLY POSSIBLE connection is that mothers are perpetual virgins.  Otherwise, what's the point of saying that Mary was/is a mother?





Quote

Quote

7.  .... because God dwelt in Her."   Moot.   Actually, Scripture says that God dwelt IN THE WORLD (John 1:14) thus if God dwelling somewhere means perpetual virginity, then all humans since 5 BC have been perpetual virgins; the argument is absurd and irrelevant


.  


Change "God dwelt in Her" to "took flesh from Mary's womb in order to unite Himself to all of creation for the first time ever so that He might then subsequently dwell in humanity".....


... and you might have a different apologetic.  One that seems equally baseless and moot.





Quote

Quote

8.  "It is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because about 600 BC, Ezekiel stated that a certain gate in the Temple that existed then (but very soon to be destroyed) shouldn't be opened."  

.


We just happen to agree as a body that St. Justin Martyr's interpretation of that gate being Mary is in accordance with the revelation of God which was deposited into the body.    If you reject the interpretation you reject it.  


I suppose.  However, ANY statement found ANYWHERE can be "interpreted" any way one wants; there needs to be something TEXTUAL to support it.  Exekiel never mentioned Mary or anyone's vagina.  He clearly is speaking of a physical gate in a physical wall that existed in roughly 600 BC when he writes.  The text says "THIS gate" not "Mary's biological/reproductive 'gate' that won't exist for 600 years..."    




Quote
That's why you give what seems like an arbitrary number of early first century fathers.  You ask for five.  Why not three?  Why not one?  


The point has been made - over and over and over - that the Church has "ALWAYS" believed or interpreted or taught ____________.   This seems to be one of the most common apologetics offered in this thread.   IF it's true, then it should be easy to document.  I've TRIED to make it as easy as I possibly could, far easier than any Catholic makes apologetics for any Protestant, Mormon or other non catholic.  IF the statement is true, if the apologetic has ANY credibility, then it needs to be affirmed as true.  I realize my very, very low numbers are to make it as easy as possible for the Catholic or Orthodox (I'm just trying to be nice here and to advance the discussion) but so far, no one as bothered to respond at all.  It just KEEPS GETTING REPEATED!   If a Mormon posted, "Every Jew and Christian until the 5th Century believed that God has a Father," I just have a HUNCH you'd say, "Could you quote me one or two?"  Maybe not.  You'd probably ask for much MORE than that.  






.








« Last Edit: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 12:41:07 by Josiah »

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #371 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 11:44:29 »
I am not Holy enough to continue speaking with you.  Forgive me.  I hope the moderators of this board out of respect for gentle readers will go through some of the content of your reply and either remove or blot out entirely your carnal handling of the Lord's Mother.  


God speed











Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #372 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 13:45:53 »
The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been entrenched in the RCC for so long that it will never be removed before Jesus comes, then it will be a moot point!

When any teaching/doctrine is believed that is NOT clearly revealed in Scripture, we are in great danger of removing ourselves from the simplicity and the FULL salvation that's in Christ Jesus. 

Can a person who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity be saved and enter into God's salvation which is in Christ Jesus?  Yes, they can; not because of this belief, but in spite of this belief.

Blessings

Scripture tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Do you believe this?

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #373 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:01:31 »
The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been entrenched in the RCC for so long that it will never be removed before Jesus comes, then it will be a moot point!

When any teaching/doctrine is believed that is NOT clearly revealed in Scripture, we are in great danger of removing ourselves from the simplicity and the FULL salvation that's in Christ Jesus. 

Can a person who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity be saved and enter into God's salvation which is in Christ Jesus?  Yes, they can; not because of this belief, but in spite of this belief.

Blessings
 

Scripture tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Do you believe this?
 

David said this in Psalms 119:160,

"The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting."

David said this in Psalm 138:2,

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Jesus said this in John 17:17,

"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."

Do you believe this?

I do!

As for "the church is the pillar and foundation of Truth," Paul wrote this in 1 Tim 3:15,

"But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

The church does take the Word of God and teaches God's children how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, but the church is not and should not set itself above the Truth of God's Word as revealed in the Bible.

It's as simple and as difficult as that!

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #374 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:18:17 »

Scripture tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of Truth

1.  It says NOTHING about The Roman Catholic Church

2.  A pillar holds up the truth, it doesn't invent it, nor is it exempt from it.


Now, the RCC says it is a matter of greatest importance, relevance to salvtion and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  Where's the confirmation for this?  When a Protestant teaches something, you desire confirmation.  When a Mormon teaches something, you want confirmation.  Why is the RCC exempt from what it demands from all other teachers?  

Since we LOVE Mary, since She is among the most esteemed and revered personalities in all history (and certainly Christianity), it should MATTER if what is spread about Her is true or not - particularly because this is typically a HIGHLY personal matter and obviously is completely moot to anything; if I were to shout to all the world - as a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty - how often your mother has had sex, do you think it would matter if such were true?  Do you think you mother would care if its true?  If we both love your mother very, very much, would it matter?  I was taught by my Catholic teachers that to spread a story about another that we have not confirmed is true (especially if its personal, potentially embarrassing or offensive), that's gossip and it's sin.  So, it seems to ME, LOVE for Our blessed Lady SHOULD cause us to care if its true - not exempt the issue from whether it is true and just join in the spreading of it.






The rules on this forum, if I understand them correctly, suggest that people should bring some kind of substantiation for their position



After 26 PAGES of posts, we're still waiting....





.

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #375 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 16:56:16 »
Assuming that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue before us, I'll ask you YET AGAIN.....

Then produce just 5 people that wrote in the First Century that Mary had no sex ever.
Just 5 people, that's all.  I don't even care if they are credible people.
It doesn't even have to be the church saying so, just 5 people saying so.
IF your statement is correct, you will be able to produce far, far, far more than 5, but I'm making it easy for you.
Quote 5 that are clearly saying that Mary had no sex ever and I'll gladly yield your point.


1.  Origen

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

2.  Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

3. Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

4.  Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

5.  Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Quote
1.  I never said She had sex - YOU are insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   The "burden of proof" is in your court.  After all these pages of all these posts from Catholics, we're still patiently waiting.....

If you believe that she never had sex, then why are you arguing with Catholics who say she never had sex?  Do you think she had sex or not?  Answer the question. 


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #376 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 21:04:58 »

Assuming that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue before us, I'll ask you YET AGAIN, since you insists that it has ALWAYS been taught that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and THIS is the confirmation for the correctness of such......

Then produce just 5 people that wrote in the First Century that Mary had no sex ever.
Just 5 people, that's all.  I don't even care if they are credible people.
It doesn't even have to be the church saying so, just 5 people saying so.
IF your statement is correct, you will be able to produce far, far, far more than 5, but I'm making it easy for you.
Quote 5 that are clearly saying that Mary had no sex ever and I'll gladly yield your point



.


1.  Origen

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

Third century.   You added the word "perpetual"




Quote
2.  Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Fourth Century.   NOT A WORD about Mary and no sex ever.



Quote
3. Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).


Fourth Century.  Yes, here we find one man who on one occasion used a TITLE for Mary.   



Quote
4.  Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).


Fourth Century.  One person using that title again....




Quote
5.  Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).


Fourth century.  Yup, I've posted several times that by the late FOURTH Century, there are a few isolated mentions of the view.  You said it's "true" because it has ALWAYS been believed.




Quote
If you believe that she never had sex, then why are you arguing with Catholics who say she never had sex?  Do you think she had sex or not?  Answer the question. 

I don't know.   I don't have a position.  No Protestant denomination does.   
YOU are the one with the view.
YOU are the one insisting on it.
YOU are the one saying that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certaintly of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
Does it MATTER to you if it's true?
Does it MATTER if what is said about Our Lady is true for a false, hurtful case of gossip? 
The "ball" is in your court......







.

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #377 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 23:32:30 »
I don't know.   I don't have a position.  No Protestant denomination does.  
YOU are the one with the view.
YOU are the one insisting on it.
YOU are the one saying that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certaintly of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
Does it MATTER to you if it's true?
Does it MATTER if what is said about Our Lady is true for a false, hurtful case of gossip?  
The "ball" is in your court......

I see.....You have no opinion whatsoever.  You don't have any position on it at all, but apparently you feel competent enough to criticize us for our views despite that you have absolutely no view at all.  

Yes, we are saying that she had no sex and she had no children of her own.  Why?  Because we have the Holy Spirit in our Church to tell us this view.  Yes, it does it matter because it comes from the Holy Spirit.  And that is why we can confidently say our views UNLIKE you who have absolutely no opinion.  
« Last Edit: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 23:56:14 by Selene »

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #378 on: Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 08:14:18 »


I don't know.   I don't have a position.  No Protestant denomination does.  
YOU are the one with the view.
YOU are the one insisting on it.
YOU are the one saying that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certaintly of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
Does it MATTER to you if it's true?
Does it MATTER if what is said about Our Lady is true for a false, hurtful case of gossip?  
The "ball" is in your court.....


.

You don't have any position on it at all, but apparently you feel competent enough to criticize us for our views


You entirely evaded my last post to you.


I've never criticized anyone for anything in this thread.  All I've been doing is seeking your confirmation for YOUR view.

I'm patiently waiting.....




Quote
Yes, we are saying that she had no sex.  Why?  Because we have the Holy Spirit in our Church to tell us this view.  Yes, it does it matter because it comes from the Holy Spirit.  And that is why we can confidently say our views UNLIKE you who have absolutely no opinion.  


1.  Perhaps you will document for me when and how the Holy Spirit said this?  If you could please date and document that.

2.  Ah.  So, if one can say "The Holy Spirit just told ME" that's confirmation of something to a highest importance, relevance and certaintly of truth?  Then when the LDS says, "The Holy Spirit told me that God has a Father" that makes it a dogma?   Or when the mother of one of my friends said that "God told ME that Saddam Hussain is Satan incarnate" that makes it a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth?  Do YOU accept YOUR OWN rubric, your OWN apologetic?  IF you don't, why should anyone else?

3.  Or are you saying, "My denomination says it and I merely wave the issue of truth and instead quietly, docilicly SUBMIT to it itself alone as it itself alone so counsels me to do?"  In which case, you SUBMIT to it but you have nothing to suggest that it's TRUE - you've waved that point.  If the Mormon says, "God didn't create the world, He reorganized what was already here - this is a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth because the LDS says so and when the LDS speaks, I  do what I'm told by the LDS to do, I wave the issue of whether such is true and quietly, docilicly SUBMIT to such," do you conclude that ergo it is a dogmatic fact that God is not the Creator OR do you conclude that the response has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the teaching is true or false?   Does YOUR reply have anything to do with whether the RCC teaching is true or does it simply mean you've waved the issue of truth vis-a-vis Our Lady and instead simply done as the RCC itself requires: you just submit to it itself?  


Thank you in advance for addressing each of these 3 points.


Pax


- Josiah






.


Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #379 on: Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 17:55:40 »


I don't know.   I don't have a position.  No Protestant denomination does.  
YOU are the one with the view.
YOU are the one insisting on it.
YOU are the one saying that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certaintly of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
Does it MATTER to you if it's true?
Does it MATTER if what is said about Our Lady is true for a false, hurtful case of gossip?  
The "ball" is in your court.....


.

You don't have any position on it at all, but apparently you feel competent enough to criticize us for our views


You entirely evaded my last post to you.


I've never criticized anyone for anything in this thread.  All I've been doing is seeking your confirmation for YOUR view.

I'm patiently waiting.....

Yes, you've been putting down and critizing the Catholic Church.  And NOW SUDDENLY, you are seeking confirmation of OUR views??  My, my, my....I'm flattered!  You are SEEKING our confirmation?  You must really have much confidence in us to seek our views rather than develop your own views!    ::crackup::


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #380 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 09:21:57 »


I don't know.   I don't have a position.  No Protestant denomination does.  
YOU are the one with the view.
YOU are the one insisting on it.
YOU are the one saying that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certaintly of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
Does it MATTER to you if it's true?
Does it MATTER if what is said about Our Lady is true for a false, hurtful case of gossip?  
The "ball" is in your court.....


.

You don't have any position on it at all, but apparently you feel competent enough to criticize us for our views


You entirely evaded my last post to you.


I've never criticized anyone for anything in this thread.  All I've been doing is seeking your confirmation for YOUR view.

I'm patiently waiting.....

Yes, you've been putting down and critizing the Catholic Church. 


Never. 

MY opinion of the RCC is far, far, far more positive than any Catholic's opinion of my denomination - the "anti" label can only apply to the Catholics and not to me.   "You anti!" is not confirmation of your dogma, it's just evading it.



 
Quote
And NOW SUDDENLY, you are seeking confirmation of OUR views?? 


In case you didn't know, it is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (as well as the EO) that insists that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's YOUR view.   NO Protestant denomination has ANY dogma on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all), NONE of them as an official, formal position on this AT ALL - much less dogma.  So, since it's YOU with the position, then it's YOU with the "burden of proof" for it.  We're waiting....

IMHO, truth matters.   This includes what is shouted to the whole world as as matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty about a very esteemed religious figure (in this case, Our Blessed Lady).   My Catholic teachers taught me that to spread something about a person that is not confirmed as true (especially something personal and potentially very embarrasing or offensive) is GOSSIP and is a SIN.  If you agree with my Catholic teachers, then to spread "news" about this tidbit of bedroom activitiy about Mary without clear confirmation is...... well, you know.   Does this matter to you? 

In acny case, the "ball" is in your court.  YOU say it's important to the highest level possible how often couples have sex (at least THIS couple), YOU say it's true to the very highest level of certainty, so the burden of proof is YOURS - to the level claimed.  We're waiting...

Do you have the confirmation to the level claimed, do you know why it is SO critically, foundationally important how often couples have sex or no?   Is this truth or is this gossip?   We're waiting.....

IF you're right and this is a matter of greatest certainty of truth, it should be the easiest issue to document as true.   We're waiting...

The RCC, LONG, LONG, LONG before Luther was born, was demanding that teachers document and confirm their teachings as true, and if they could not, declared them heretics and at times dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.  Friend, NO ONE HERE is asking anything of you that the RCC has not demanded of others for at least 1500 years.  We're waiting....

The ONLY reason we're waiting is that we think truth matters, we think division and unity matters, and we agree with the RCC that teachings must be confirmed as true, and above all - because we love and revere Mary.   If you said my girlfriend has had sex 97 times, and declare such a matter of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of truth that ALL (including 9 year old kids) must KNOW about her, I'd care if it's true BECAUSE I love her.  I'd CARE why you think this issue is SO, SO, SO important for all the world to KNOW.  I'd care.  Well, this is about someone we love far, far more than that.  What's you got?  We're waiting....







.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #381 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:22:22 »
Josiah,

We accept these things by faith.  None of us has to prove anything to you.  It is the job of the Holy Spirit, who moves where He will, to move in you should He desire to bring you into the fullness of the truth.

You said that:

The RCC, LONG, LONG, LONG before Luther was born, was demanding that teachers document and confirm their teachings as true


And that is true.  And so we can see from the lack of outrage surrounding the teaching that the Church has always held that Mary remained ever-virgin, the fact that these teachers were called orthodox even when they taught this, that the Church has always taught this, regardless of whether any surviving document states it explicitly.  These teachers were not excommunicated for this teaching, nor even burned at the stake.  Why not?  Because they were not teaching heresy, or even something new.

Protestants are so funny, its as if something has to be written down for it to be true.  Sometimes they state that it has to be written "early enough". If someone were then to produce a writing that meets their criteria for "early enough", then they change their story and say that it has to be written before that.  Later if someone discovered a document before that date, then they would state that it would need to be before that.  Seemingly the only acceptable extra-biblical evidence must be submitted in writing, preferably in triplicate, ideally endorsed by an independent notary public, and earlier than any known writings substantiating the position that they refuse to accept.

Why, Josiah, are you demanding documents from the first century?  I'll tell you why - you set up a standard for yourself with foreknowledge of the age of the written witness.  The Protoevangelium of James was early 2nd century.  But you demand first century.  Yep, you've got us, there is no known written witness to Mary's ever-virginity prior to the year 100.   You've won the game that you set the rules to, so that you couldn't lose. 

If you have the inability to accept such a teaching, according to your own standard and need for proof, then that is simply between you and God.  God gives us faith to believe things that cannot be proven.  "Prove it to me" is the attitude of the atheistic worldview in a post-enlightenment age.   Those people craft their own worlds which end up being very, very small.

Here's a game - demonstrate to me written witness to someone objecting to Athanasius calling Mary ever-virgin.  Someone or some people who were his contemporarie(s) who were not then excommunicated and declared a heretic for their position(s).  Or maybe someone from the "real Church Christ founded", since you have stated that when Jesus refers to his Church never mentions the RCC any time anywhere, and Athanasius was clearly a Catholic. 

Mary Ever-Virgin is dogma in the Catholic Church, and it is neither dogma nor anathema in the Lutheran Church.  If there is to be unity, then either the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church will have to die out, or the Lutheran Church will have to accept the dogma.  God didn't found the Lutheran Church, Josiah, so I've got my money on "the Lutheran Church dying out".   

This is the same Lutheran Church that has officially endorsed practicing gay pastors and gay marriage before they accepted that Mary was ever-virgin.  Ironically, this Sola Scriptura as "norma normans" "church" did not go so far as to allowing gay pastors to be married, which means that any actively gay pastor would have to also be committing fornication.  So effectively, they also endorse fornication.

But you, Josiah, are on the board here demanding that Catholics prove our dogma to you.  Time to take care of your own house first, that being the house of "Sola Scriptura" or even "Lutheran Sola Scriptura", and stop getting your undies in a bundle over our dogmas.

You say that you believe that I am a fully equal brethren in every way.  Maybe you could start working on your own Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, which teaches that I would not be allowed to receive communion in your church.  This seems to conflict with your personal beliefs.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #382 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:48 »
I heard a female catholic priest quoted on the radio last night that "Mary is part of the Trinity"
If she was female, then she was not a Catholic priest, and if she said that, then she is also a heretic.


Fair enough.  She was female, Catholic, and the title was one of authority and the interviewer did not suggest otherwise. But she did speak for the Church, illegimately or not.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #383 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:02:20 »



Fair enough.  She was female, Catholic, and the title was one of authority and the interviewer did not suggest otherwise. But she did speak for the Church, illegimately or not.

She didn't speak for the Church any more than I speak for you.

There are no female Catholic priests.  Someone has given you some bad information.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #384 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 13:16:31 »
I heard a female catholic priest quoted on the radio last night that "Mary is part of the Trinity"
If she was female, then she was not a Catholic priest, and if she said that, then she is also a heretic.


Fair enough.  She was female, Catholic, and the title was one of authority and the interviewer did not suggest otherwise. But she did speak for the Church, illegimately or not.

I could see how one would be confused about this.  The womenpriest movement is horrible and they teach all sorts of heresies, and they call themselves Catholic to boot.

Rest assured, we don't believe that Mary is divine or part of the Trinity.

 

     
anything