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

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #385 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 10:07:20 »
Ok aside from all the straying from the op and childish bickering back and forth, I think this topic has alot to offer to all of us. I have to be frank in saying I think this topic is alot deeper than my fellow protestants are willing to acknowledge. However I believe that to discuss a topic of such a level calls for a more open mind than my Catholic brothers and sisters are coming into this with.

Lets try this out fresh. I'll take the negative of this position as always.

Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #386 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 10:20:45 »
Ok aside from all the straying from the op and childish bickering back and forth, I think this topic has alot to offer to all of us. I have to be frank in saying I think this topic is alot deeper than my fellow protestants are willing to acknowledge. However I believe that to discuss a topic of such a level calls for a more open mind than my Catholic brothers and sisters are coming into this with.

Lets try this out fresh. I'll take the negative of this position as always.

Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.



Here's a good analysis:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

One section:

OBJECTOR: There’s a problem with your reasoning here. Although cousins may have been referred to as brothers, it’s clear that in this case, the word brothers means blood brothers of Jesus—sons of Mary. We read in Matthew’s Gospel that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son" (Matt. 1:25). This implies that Joseph did have relations with her after she had given birth.

CATHOLIC: The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

OBJECTOR: In this case, it’s obvious that Michal could not have had children after her death. The situation of Mary and Joseph is quite different. We see that in the same verse, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. If Jesus is designated as Mary’s firstborn son, that shows that she had other children. My mother wouldn’t call me her oldest child if I were her only child.

CATHOLIC: This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term firstborn had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #387 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:10:33 »
Ok aside from all the straying from the op and childish bickering back and forth, I think this topic has alot to offer to all of us. I have to be frank in saying I think this topic is alot deeper than my fellow protestants are willing to acknowledge. However I believe that to discuss a topic of such a level calls for a more open mind than my Catholic brothers and sisters are coming into this with.

Lets try this out fresh. I'll take the negative of this position as always.

Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.



Here's a good analysis:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

One section:

OBJECTOR: There’s a problem with your reasoning here. Although cousins may have been referred to as brothers, it’s clear that in this case, the word brothers means blood brothers of Jesus—sons of Mary. We read in Matthew’s Gospel that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son" (Matt. 1:25). This implies that Joseph did have relations with her after she had given birth.

CATHOLIC: The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

OBJECTOR: In this case, it’s obvious that Michal could not have had children after her death. The situation of Mary and Joseph is quite different. We see that in the same verse, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. If Jesus is designated as Mary’s firstborn son, that shows that she had other children. My mother wouldn’t call me her oldest child if I were her only child.

CATHOLIC: This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term firstborn had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.


I can always count on you Chester, to defend any opposition to Rome.lol You are a true soldier for your faith.

Although I appreciate the informative dialogue your link led me to, this dialogue did not tackle the scripture I quoted and interpreted and therefore you kind of just skated past my position. So maybe after I finish responding to this position maybe you can try and tackle my position over Matthew 12:23-25?

There's a little problem with your position.

First off I'm not really concerned with siblings of Jesus just yet rather with Matthew saying that Mary "knew not" Joseph "until" she gave birth to Jesus. You see Sacred Scripture is clear to emphazise the "until" in this selection. This leads me to believe that Mary was indeed a virgin until she concieved  then she and her husband had intercourse.

Secondly it is true that Christ and his disciples spoke Armaic but

55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

These words weren't spoken by either Jesus or his disciples but by a Pharisee.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #388 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:29:41 »
Ok aside from all the straying from the op and childish bickering back and forth, I think this topic has alot to offer to all of us. I have to be frank in saying I think this topic is alot deeper than my fellow protestants are willing to acknowledge. However I believe that to discuss a topic of such a level calls for a more open mind than my Catholic brothers and sisters are coming into this with.

Lets try this out fresh. I'll take the negative of this position as always.

Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.



Here's a good analysis:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

One section:

OBJECTOR: There’s a problem with your reasoning here. Although cousins may have been referred to as brothers, it’s clear that in this case, the word brothers means blood brothers of Jesus—sons of Mary. We read in Matthew’s Gospel that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son" (Matt. 1:25). This implies that Joseph did have relations with her after she had given birth.

CATHOLIC: The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

OBJECTOR: In this case, it’s obvious that Michal could not have had children after her death. The situation of Mary and Joseph is quite different. We see that in the same verse, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. If Jesus is designated as Mary’s firstborn son, that shows that she had other children. My mother wouldn’t call me her oldest child if I were her only child.

CATHOLIC: This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term firstborn had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.


I can always count on you Chester, to defend any opposition to Rome.lol You are a true soldier for your faith.

Although I appreciate the informative dialogue your link led me to, this dialogue did not tackle the scripture I quoted and interpreted and therefore you kind of just skated past my position. So maybe after I finish responding to this position maybe you can try and tackle my position over Matthew 12:23-25?

There's a little problem with your position.

First off I'm not really concerned with siblings of Jesus just yet rather with Matthew saying that Mary "knew not" Joseph "until" she gave birth to Jesus. You see Sacred Scripture is clear to emphazise the "until" in this selection. This leads me to believe that Mary was indeed a virgin until she concieved  then she and her husband had intercourse.


In the passage that Chesterton posted, he did deal with your question.  The first "CATHOLIC" response to the first "OBJECTOR" covers it.  The passage in Matthew states "until" simply to emphasize the fact that not only was Mary a virgin when she conceived, but also when she gave birth.  The word "until" doesn't necessarily speak to some event that happened after that point.  The example quoted shows the more ancient usage of "until": 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death."  It does not imply that they had children after the day of her death.  Similarily, the first passage does not imply that Joseph ever did know Mary after the day she gave birth.

Secondly it is true that Christ and his disciples spoke Armaic but

55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

These words weren't spoken by either Jesus or his disciples but by a Pharisee.


This doesn't say that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were Mary's children.  Likely they were cousins.  The idea that Mary had other children is countered in part by how this whole thread started, which states that Jesus gave his Mother away to John, who was not a direct blood relative.  To give her away in this way would have been the equivalent to a slap in the face to his blood brothers in the Judaic world if Jesus had had any.  But we know from Tradition that he did not.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #389 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:37:54 »
Quote
Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.[/color]

In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.

If you read the entire thread or other threads on the catholic forum that talk about how the ancient faiths view the Theotokos (Mary) you'll find that this is covered.  But here are a handful of the protestant reformers tackling this question.  

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

    Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

    Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

      A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

      Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

     When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.


{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

      Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

      Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

      [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

      Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

      He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

      'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

      Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

      I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

      Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

      'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism - born, 1703 – fell asleep, 2 March 1791)

      The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}


And a few more:

Thus saith JOHN CALVIN --

    "There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!

    "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....

    "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

    "We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)

    "Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)


Thus saith MARTIN LUTHER --

    "Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THAT." (LUTHER'S WORKS 22, 23)

[Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life]

    "...A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it." (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)


Thus saith ULRICH ZWINGLI --

    "I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God AND REMAINED A VIRGIN PURE AND INTACT IN CHILDBIRTH AND ALSO AFTER THE BIRTH, FOR ALL ETERNITY. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels." (from Augustin Bea "Mary and the Protestants" MARIAN STUDIES Apr 61)

    "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY." (January 1528 in Berne)


Thus saith French Reformed pastor CHARLES DRELINCOURT (1595 - 1669)

["well represents the Reformed tradition of the 17th century" according to Thurian]

    "This happy Mother REMAINED a virgin DURING the birth and AFTER it."

    "O Lord, whose will it was to be born of a virgin, but of a virgin betrothed, to honour thy one same act with BOTH virginity and marriage, and to obtain for thy mother both a support and a witness and innocence...." (Prayer and Meditation on the Incarnation)

    "We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of His hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God."

(quotes from Max Thurian, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 40-41, 89, 195)

Max Thurian, who was a Calvinist when he wrote MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963) but later converted to the Catholic faith, summarizes the views of the Protestant Reformers --

    "A very ancient tradition of the Church affirms a perpetual virginity of Mary; and the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves confessed '-Mariam semper virginem-' [Mary ever-Virgin].....

    "The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God's gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief."

    "For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy."

    "In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how UNANIMOUS they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity."

(Max Thurian, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 37-40, 197)





Glory to Jesus Christ


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #389 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:37:54 »



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #390 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:50:30 »
Quote
In the passage that Chesterton posted, he did deal with your question.  The first "CATHOLIC" response to the first "OBJECTOR" covers it.  The passage in Matthew states "until" simply to emphasize the fact that not only was Mary a virgin when she conceived, but also when she gave birth.  The word "until" doesn't necessarily speak to some event that happened after that point.  The example quoted shows the more ancient usage of "until": 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death."  It does not imply that they had children after the day of her death.  Similarily, the first passage does not imply that scripture is saying that Joseph ever did know Mary after the day she gave birth.

Now come on Catholica is 2 Samuel 6:23 really a fair comparison to Matthew 1:23-25? Of course there is no even after the death of Michal because she is dead. You can't compare the meaning of the word as if it would remain the same in the context when describing Mary and Joseph. That isn't a very strong rebutle.

Quote
This doesn't say that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were Mary's children.  Likely they were cousins.  The idea that Mary had other children is countered in part by how this whole thread started, which states that Jesus gave his Mother away to John, who was not a direct blood relative.  To give her away in this way would have been the equivalent to a slap in the face to his blood brothers in the Judaic world if Jesus had had any.  But we know from Tradition that he did not.


I understand your reasoning. I acn't really argue the negative of this reasoning becuase it is basically there is no definitive proof one way or the other. Your position creates reasonable doubt and the Catholic way of doing things is when there is a reasonable disagreement over doctrine it is to be decided by the Church. The Portestant way, my way, of doing things is to trust in my heart. Granted my way leads to disagreements and division but it also chanllenges each individual to seek a more disciplined way of living to reach a higher relationship with God.
 
  
 

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #391 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:55:19 »
Quote
Matthew 1: 23-25
 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.[/color]

In regards to the decree of Mary as Ever-Virgin, I represent this piece of Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation of this scripture is simple; Mary was with child before Joseph and her had intercourse. While he slept and in the midst of his confused heart an angel of God appeared to Joseph and told him of the coming of Christ through the womb of his virgin fiance. Then after being appeased by the angel Joseph then took Mary as his wife where she remianed a virgin until after the birth of Christ. What is the Catholic position regarding this piece?

I would like to apologize if the presentation of this piece annoys anyone. The last time it was presented the dialogues  that followed  were simply too unprofessional and presented little facts so I'm trying again. Forgive my redundancy.

If you read the entire thread or other threads on the catholic forum that talk about how the ancient faiths view the Theotokos (Mary) you'll find that this is covered.  But here are a handful of the protestant reformers tackling this question.  

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

    Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

    Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

      A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

      Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

     When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.


{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

      Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

      Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

      [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

      Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

      He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

      'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

      Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

      I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

      Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

      'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism - born, 1703 – fell asleep, 2 March 1791)

      The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}


And a few more:

Thus saith JOHN CALVIN --

    "There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!

    "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....

    "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

    "We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)

    "Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)


Thus saith MARTIN LUTHER --

    "Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THAT." (LUTHER'S WORKS 22, 23)

[Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life]

    "...A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it." (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)


Thus saith ULRICH ZWINGLI --

    "I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God AND REMAINED A VIRGIN PURE AND INTACT IN CHILDBIRTH AND ALSO AFTER THE BIRTH, FOR ALL ETERNITY. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels." (from Augustin Bea "Mary and the Protestants" MARIAN STUDIES Apr 61)

    "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY." (January 1528 in Berne)


Thus saith French Reformed pastor CHARLES DRELINCOURT (1595 - 1669)

["well represents the Reformed tradition of the 17th century" according to Thurian]

    "This happy Mother REMAINED a virgin DURING the birth and AFTER it."

    "O Lord, whose will it was to be born of a virgin, but of a virgin betrothed, to honour thy one same act with BOTH virginity and marriage, and to obtain for thy mother both a support and a witness and innocence...." (Prayer and Meditation on the Incarnation)

    "We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of His hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God."

(quotes from Max Thurian, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 40-41, 89, 195)

Max Thurian, who was a Calvinist when he wrote MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963) but later converted to the Catholic faith, summarizes the views of the Protestant Reformers --

    "A very ancient tradition of the Church affirms a perpetual virginity of Mary; and the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves confessed '-Mariam semper virginem-' [Mary ever-Virgin].....

    "The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God's gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief."

    "For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy."

    "In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how UNANIMOUS they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity."

(Max Thurian, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 37-40, 197)





Glory to Jesus Christ



I understand what these men believed however I am merely trying to explore the validityof such a belief. And forgive me I am not at all interested in reading through tons of old topics that, although may have geuinely viable facts, I know were inevitably flooded with childish arguments between hateful protestants and arrogant catholics.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #392 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:17:15 »
maybe you can try and tackle my position over Matthew 12:23-25?

There's a little problem with your position.

First off I'm not really concerned with siblings of Jesus just yet rather with Matthew saying that Mary "knew not" Joseph "until" she gave birth to Jesus. You see Sacred Scripture is clear to emphazise the "until" in this selection. This leads me to believe that Mary was indeed a virgin until she concieved  then she and her husband had intercourse.

Secondly it is true that Christ and his disciples spoke Armaic but

55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

These words weren't spoken by either Jesus or his disciples but by a Pharisee.


The point of the reference in Matthew is that the word until doesn't tell us what happens after a certain time period.

Here's another example:

Matt 28:20
Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. "And remember that I am always with you until the end of time."

I don't think Jesus is saying that he won't be with them after the end of time.

Regarding both Aramaic and Hebrew, the same caveat applies.


Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #393 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:42:37 »
maybe you can try and tackle my position over Matthew 12:23-25?

There's a little problem with your position.

First off I'm not really concerned with siblings of Jesus just yet rather with Matthew saying that Mary "knew not" Joseph "until" she gave birth to Jesus. You see Sacred Scripture is clear to emphazise the "until" in this selection. This leads me to believe that Mary was indeed a virgin until she concieved  then she and her husband had intercourse.

Secondly it is true that Christ and his disciples spoke Armaic but

55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

These words weren't spoken by either Jesus or his disciples but by a Pharisee.


The point of the reference in Matthew is that the word until doesn't tell us what happens after a certain time period.

Here's another example:

Matt 28:20
Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. "And remember that I am always with you until the end of time."

I don't think Jesus is saying that he won't be with them after the end of time.

Regarding both Aramaic and Hebrew, the same caveat applies.


Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp


Well it seems that Scared Scripture leaves room for reasonal debate. I am beginnning to understand why the early church fathers took so long to make decisions when it came to Mary. No man wants to institue a doctrine that seems to exalt any man higher than he/she need be but at the same time others don't want to disrespect God's chosen people.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #394 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:23:04 »


Well it seems that Scared Scripture leaves room for reasonal debate. I am beginnning to understand why the early church fathers took so long to make decisions when it came to Mary. No man wants to institue a doctrine that seems to exalt any man higher than he/she need be but at the same time others don't want to disrespect God's chosen people.

Exactly.  The Truth is not always simple.

AS GK Chesterton said, "it's no use asking for a simpler key when what you really want is to open the door."

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #395 on: Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:27:20 »


Well it seems that Scared Scripture leaves room for reasonal debate. I am beginnning to understand why the early church fathers took so long to make decisions when it came to Mary. No man wants to institue a doctrine that seems to exalt any man higher than he/she need be but at the same time others don't want to disrespect God's chosen people.

Exactly.  The Truth is not always simple.

AS GK Chesterton said, "it's no use asking for a simpler key when what you really want is to open the door."

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. No problem with me. I don't mind understanding my opponents and respecting the difference between us.

See ya next time around.  ::tippinghat::
LightHammer

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #396 on: Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 14:00:15 »
Well it seems that Scared Scripture leaves room for reasonal debate. I am beginnning to understand why the early church fathers took so long to make decisions when it came to Mary. No man wants to institue a doctrine that seems to exalt any man higher than he/she need be but at the same time others don't want to disrespect God's chosen people.  

Yes, there room for reasonable debate on matters of Scripture that are NOT essential to salvation and fellowship with our Lord Jesus Christ.  But after we have repented of our sins, have been born again receiving the gift of the Spirit, and have been filled with Spirit, most Protestants do not see the Scriptural basis or need to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.  

Protestants honor Mary's faith where she declared to Gabriel, "Be it unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38), allowing her to carry the gift of our Lord within her womb to birth.  But after the birth of Jesus, Protestants believe Mary & Joseph did what most other married couples do, they "knew" each other and had other children as revealed in Matt 13:55-56.  

This is certainly a debate issue that will not go away until our Lord Jesus comes, and then it will be a moot point.  The same thing applies to the Papacy.

Offline islanddogs

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Oops. Did I do that? No, it was him>
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #397 on: Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 14:14:40 »
There are several verses, at the moment I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that the verses will be read. Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:26-27, and Isaiah 7:14 a direct prophesy.

Th egreek word used is Parthenos , meaning an unmarried daughter, my Greek / English is Strongs and based on the KJV, I do not think the NIV offers any change. For Anglicans the creed is emphatic, as is the statement of faith of most protestant churches.

I for one do not mind agreeing with Catholics on this point. I also see it as important for good apologetics to be honest. There are a number of doctrines we disagree on, this is not one of them. ::doh::

By the way Chesterton if your looking in, I read some of the sayings of your namesake, GK , in the Spectator today, just one which might make you smile.

" Marriage is a dual to the death, which no man of honour should decline"

It made me smile anyway.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #398 on: Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 10:57:50 »



Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

    Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

    Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

      A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }


Ryan,

Do you regard Luther as an infallible, unaccountable spokeman for God whose words are the norm for the correctness of positions?  IF you do, then I "get" your point.  If not, when why are are quoting Luther?  Lutherans don't regard him as a Prophet from God (in the OT sense of a spokesman for revelation).   If the words of Luther are normative here, why don't you quote him as he spoke of the papacy, wouldn't he be authoritative there, too?




Quote
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

I agree.  Of course, that's ABSOLUTELY MOOT to whether She did or did not.   Silence is confirmation of only one thing:  silence (which, BTW, is the official position of every Protestant denomination known to me on the issue of Mary's sex life after Jesus was born).



 
Quote
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.


Yes, it's always been established that this view that Mary Had No Sex Ever was late and disputed.   I must say, I continue to be "lost" as to how that confirms that it IS a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #399 on: Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 14:06:11 »
[
Ryan,

Do you regard Luther as an infallible, unaccountable spokeman for God whose words are the norm for the correctness of positions?  IF you do, then I "get" your point.  If not, when why are are quoting Luther? 



.

He is quoting Luther to demonstrate how far Christianity outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth.

When pride and rationalism are your guides, you will fall into a ditch.

Follow those sent by Jesus and you will be led into the fullness of Truth.

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #400 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:41:22 »
Ryan,

Do you regard Luther as an infallible, unaccountable spokeman for God whose words are the norm for the correctness of positions?  IF you do, then I "get" your point.  If not, when why are are quoting Luther? 

He is quoting Luther to demonstrate how far Christianity outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth.

When pride and rationalism are your guides, you will fall into a ditch.

Follow those sent by Jesus and you will be led into the fullness of Truth.

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.


Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #401 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 22:32:29 »
There are several verses, at the moment I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that the verses will be read. Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:26-27, and Isaiah 7:14 a direct prophesy.

Th egreek word used is Parthenos , meaning an unmarried daughter, my Greek / English is Strongs and based on the KJV, I do not think the NIV offers any change. For Anglicans the creed is emphatic, as is the statement of faith of most protestant churches.

I for one do not mind agreeing with Catholics on this point. I also see it as important for good apologetics to be honest. There are a number of doctrines we disagree on, this is not one of them. ::doh::

By the way Chesterton if your looking in, I read some of the sayings of your namesake, GK , in the Spectator today, just one which might make you smile.

" Marriage is a dual to the death, which no man of honour should decline"

It made me smile anyway.


He makes me smile frequently!  FYI:  C.S. Lewis credits GK Chesterton as much as any other writer for his conversion and he said that "The Everlasting Man" is possibly the finest work of Christian apologetics ever written.

Chesterton is an aquired taste, but once you get it you can't get enough.  Thankfully he was a prolific writer and it would take years to get through everything available.

Orthodoxy is probably the best book to start with if you are interested in reading Chesterton.  He defends his beliefs in a personal way and takes on materialism and determinism.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #402 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 22:33:35 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #403 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 08:12:25 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.



I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #404 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 08:35:16 »
There are several verses, at the moment I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that the verses will be read. Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:26-27, and Isaiah 7:14 a direct prophesy.

Th egreek word used is Parthenos , meaning an unmarried daughter, my Greek / English is Strongs and based on the KJV, I do not think the NIV offers any change. For Anglicans the creed is emphatic, as is the statement of faith of most protestant churches.

I for one do not mind agreeing with Catholics on this point. I also see it as important for good apologetics to be honest. There are a number of doctrines we disagree on, this is not one of them. ::doh::

By the way Chesterton if your looking in, I read some of the sayings of your namesake, GK , in the Spectator today, just one which might make you smile.

" Marriage is a dual to the death, which no man of honour should decline"

It made me smile anyway.


He makes me smile frequently!  FYI:  C.S. Lewis credits GK Chesterton as much as any other writer for his conversion and he said that "The Everlasting Man" is possibly the finest work of Christian apologetics ever written.

Chesterton is an aquired taste, but once you get it you can't get enough.  Thankfully he was a prolific writer and it would take years to get through everything available.

Orthodoxy is probably the best book to start with if you are interested in reading Chesterton.  He defends his beliefs in a personal way and takes on materialism and determinism.

I just had to look up this word  ''determinism"

de·ter·min·ism   

de·ter·min·ism [di túrmi nìzzəm]
n
 belief that everything is caused: the doctrine or belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something and that there is no real free will 

-de·ter·min·ist, , n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


 Its the belief we do not have a free will.  Do you agree with this ???

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #405 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 09:18:58 »


I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


Here are some quotes from the early Church.  Do they sound like the Orthodox and Catholics or like protestants?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #406 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 11:17:06 »


I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


Here are some quotes from the early Church.  Do they sound like the Orthodox and Catholics or like protestants?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

Agreed, the early Church was profoundly Eucharistic.  That in itself is proof enough for me to know that only a Church that teaches likewise could possibly be the true Church. 

And of course there is sin within the Church, that should not be a shock to anyone.  Jesus built a Church with living stones.  Its always funny when people say "look at the Catholic Church, it can't be the true Church, because X and Y persons in authority at Y and Z time were corrupt."  Well, yeah, of course, sin does that, and people sin!  That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit allowed them to teach error, nor does it prove that they did teach error.  In fact, never has a doctrine of the Catholic Church ever been revoked or diametrically reversed.

If a Church doesn't teach that the Eucharistic elements actually become the body and blood of Jesus,  it is clear to me that that Church cannot be the true Church, because that is what the early Church taught, lived, and died for.  And that excludes nearly all of Protestantism, including Lutheranism.

In my opinion, no sane person would have founded a religion where to convert, you needed to believe that bread and wine changed into God, and then you eat Him.  And also no sane person would believe that just any believer is authorized by God to perform such a miracle.  Hence the necessity (and reality) of the two interlocking, critical elements of the true faith, the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession.

It is only by the Holy Spirit that such a movement could have ever gained traction, much less become the predominant religion in the entire world.  Everything else in our faith flows from that.  And it is by faith that we believe. 

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #407 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 11:56:05 »
Quote

If a Church doesn't teach that the Eucharistic elements actually become the body and blood of Jesus,  it is clear to me that that Church cannot be the true Church, because that is what the early Church taught, lived, and died for.

What about Acts 15:29: "abstain from blood and things strangled"?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #408 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 12:19:21 »


Well it seems that Scared Scripture leaves room for reasonal debate.

Exactly.  The Truth is not always simple.



And yet, since it is insisted  by two denominations that this is a DOGMATIC FACT of greatest importance and highest certainty of truth, if it is going to divide Christians over THIS critical point, then obviously the "burden of proof" is on those two to show it true/correct to the level claimed.   Simply saying, "But it's TAUGHT by the two denominations that teach it!!!" or "But it's POSSIBLE!!!"  are apologetics the RCC flately rejects - and so cannot use.






.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #409 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 12:34:53 »
Quote

If a Church doesn't teach that the Eucharistic elements actually become the body and blood of Jesus,  it is clear to me that that Church cannot be the true Church, because that is what the early Church taught, lived, and died for.

What about Acts 15:29: "abstain from blood and things strangled"?

Acts 15:29 was a discipline that was created temporarily to avoid scandal in relations between gentiles and Jews (Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13) and not a command for all time.  It was written in relation to animals, to fight against pagan animal sacrifice that was going on in those places among the gentiles.  Jesus made all foods clean (Mark 7:19).  He also told us to drink his blood (John 6:53).

So I'll take my steak rare, and when the priest says "body and blood of Christ" I will say "Amen!"

I'm always surprised that Protestants so rarely attack the doctrine of the Eucharist.  They concentrate on externals like clothing, or calling priests "father" or whether Mary was a perpetual virgin.  Meanwhile there is the enormous pink elephant in the room, the Eucharist.  Maybe you could start another thread about that?  I"m sure it would be a rousing discussion!

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #410 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 13:44:46 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.



I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


The same is true of every denomination of the Christian faith.

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #411 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 14:10:40 »
Quote
Acts 15:29 was a discipline that was created temporarily to avoid scandal in relations between gentiles and Jews (Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13) and not a command for all time.  It was written in relation to animals, to fight against pagan animal sacrifice that was going on in those places among the gentiles.  Jesus made all foods clean (Mark 7:19).  He also told us to drink his blood (John 6:53).

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just understand Catholic thought. I come from a tradition that holds all NT teaching to be of equal importance and valid for all time (which leads to the false conclusion that women are to remain silent and not have any authority over a man even today). How can you say that Acts 15:20 doesn't apply today especially when "sexual immorality", which we are still to avoid, is in the middle of the passage?

In a History of the Early Church class at a major state university I was taught that belief in  transubstantiation came about from the scholastic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard and that such reasoning isn't considered valid today.

As to your comment as to why Protestants aren't more concerned with Catholics Eucharistic beliefs, most people at my church have no idea you think you consume literal flesh and blood and would be repulsed at the idea considering it a form of cannibalism. Can't you see that Jesus sometimes spoke figuratively? Do you think when he said "You are a rock" he turned Peter into an actual boulder? (BTW, from a Prot POV, the "rock" in question was not the man Peter but Peter's confession that Jesus was the son of God.)

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #412 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 14:42:05 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.



I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


The same is true of every denomination of the Christian faith.


It is not true of the Catholic faith.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #413 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 14:44:27 »

In a History of the Early Church class at a major state university I was taught that belief in  transubstantiation came about from the scholastic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard and that such reasoning isn't considered valid today.

 

This is a false teaching spread by protestants who don't want to accept the biblical and traditional meaning of the Eucharist.

Ignatius describes this heresy here.  It was originally proclaimed by the gnostics who denied the incarnation:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).


Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #414 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 15:13:50 »
Quote
Acts 15:29 was a discipline that was created temporarily to avoid scandal in relations between gentiles and Jews (Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13) and not a command for all time.  It was written in relation to animals, to fight against pagan animal sacrifice that was going on in those places among the gentiles.  Jesus made all foods clean (Mark 7:19).  He also told us to drink his blood (John 6:53).

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just understand Catholic thought. I come from a tradition that holds all NT teaching to be of equal importance and valid for all time (which leads to the false conclusion that women are to remain silent and not have any authority over a man even today). How can you say that Acts 15:20 doesn't apply today especially when "sexual immorality", which we are still to avoid, is in the middle of the passage?

No I understand.  While the abstaining from blood was temporary, sexual immorality violated the 6th commandment (7th in your reckoning) and therefore was not temporary.   Jesus made all foods clean (Mark 7:19), which calls to question as to why there was an edict against "drinking blood", and the answer is that some considered it part of a pagan practice at that time.

In a History of the Early Church class at a major state university I was taught that belief in  transubstantiation came about from the scholastic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard and that such reasoning isn't considered valid today.

The word "transubstantiation" was formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas to describe a reality that was already believed.  It wasn't the belief that was made up, it was simply a word created to describe a belief that had always been held, kind of like when we came up with the word "Trinity".  The Church fathers attest to that belief, as indicated in brief by the quotes previously posted.  There is a ton more evidence to support that this was a universal belief held from the very earliest moments of the Church.

As to your comment as to why Protestants aren't more concerned with Catholics Eucharistic beliefs, most people at my church have no idea you think you consume literal flesh and blood and would be repulsed at the idea considering it a form of cannibalism.

That is to say, they are just ignorant of what we believe, which is what the early Church also believed.  Yet most Protestants that are on this board criticizing Catholic beliefs I would not expect to be so ignorant, yet if the Eucharist is not true, then we must be the worst of the idolaters, but it seems that the early Church also believed this very same thing.  My opinion is that they discuss it so infrequently because there is way too much biblical evidence supporting our belief, way too much historical evidence supporting our belief, and they don't want to look at it because if they did, they would simply have to believe it.

Can't you see that Jesus sometimes spoke figuratively? Do you think when he said "You are a rock" he turned Peter into an actual boulder? (BTW, from a Prot POV, the "rock" in question was not the man Peter but Peter's confession that Jesus was the son of God.)

Yes but not in this case.  When people question him, he reiterates what he is saying, changing the word "eat" into another form, even more animal-like.  In the Greek the second form of eat means to "chew or gnaw like an animal".  He was speaking very literally.  And when people walked away, he let them go.  Did he let them go because of a misunderstanding?  Would Jesus do that?  He even turned to his apostles and asked them if they would walk away too?  No change in teaching, no clarifying by "I speak figuratively".  And in fact, Paul's witness is even more indicative, in 1 Corinthians 10-11, we are taking part in the blood of Christ, and by eating/drinking unworthily we are calling down condemnation.   Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians was written before any gospel, which means that either the Church was teaching this or he received this revelation directly from our Lord, because Paul wasn't there at the last supper or at any point during Jesus' ministry.

Quote
CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

~First apology of St. Justin Martyr, ca. 150 AD.  

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #415 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 03:34:36 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.



I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


The same is true of every denomination of the Christian faith.


It is not true of the Catholic faith.


Now you can play fair and admit that the Church's past is far from white or I can mention things that will only succeed in hindering our friendship and bring AvrilNYC out of retirement.


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #416 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 03:39:00 »
Oh please not another Eucharist thread.lol  ::frown::

Just dig up the old one thats like three thousand pages long. Good times I tell ya. I actually fell asleep one night to the incoherent flow of scriptural support I was planning on using the next day in that topic. It was a good debate.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #417 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 07:36:42 »

On the other hand, to ignore how far Christianity inside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has strayed from the Truth is to live in denial.



You need to read more about the early Church.  It is not the Catholics and Orthodox who have strayed.



I beg to differ with you on that. Who has strayed and from what? I don't know enough about the orthodox to make any comment other than their bishops dress like kings, But much can be said about the RCC. Those who live in a glass houses should never through stones. You do know even yourself that there has been much evil and corruption in the Catholic church.  Condescending Pride and Bias can be terribly blinding.
God bless


The same is true of every denomination of the Christian faith.


It is not true of the Catholic faith.

Yep !       there you have. guilty  ::whistle::

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #418 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 09:07:20 »
Oh please not another Eucharist thread.lol  ::frown::

Just dig up the old one thats like three thousand pages long. Good times I tell ya. I actually fell asleep one night to the incoherent flow of scriptural support I was planning on using the next day in that topic. It was a good debate.


I wasn't addressing the eucharist per se, I was just using it as an example to demonstrate that the Catholic faith holds to the teachings of the early Church.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13880
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #419 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:03:13 »
I wonder how Jesus feels about all these people expending time talking about His mother's sex.