Reply #70 by winsome
I'll second that. I've given up posting in the Catholic Forum, even though I'm a Catholic because Josiah just trashes the threads.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 12:29:38 »
The only reason you keep posting here is: a) you just want to antagonise Catholics; and b) you have nothing better to do with your life;
You never quote scripture; you never post a coherent argument; you never seem to comprehend other people's posts. Just a 22-year old kid who keeps embarassing himself and the social club (LCMS) he claims to belong to
I'll second that. I've given up posting in the Catholic Forum, even though I'm a Catholic because Josiah just trashes the threads.
Logged
Reply #71 by John 10:10
Matt 13 declares this:
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things ?"
The clear teaching of Scripture says that Joseph fathered and Mary gave birth to four sons and several daughters after Jesus was born.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 12:45:18 »
Matt 13 declares this:
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things ?"
The clear teaching of Scripture says that Joseph fathered and Mary gave birth to four sons and several daughters after Jesus was born.
Logged
Reply #72 by winsome
It's not a clear teaching. That's just your erroneous interpretation. A clear teaching would be a genealogy or a declaration that they are Mary's children.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 13:09:42 »
Matt 13 declares this:
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things ?"
The clear teaching of Scripture says that Joseph fathered and Mary gave birth to four sons and several daughters after Jesus was born.
It's not a clear teaching. That's just your erroneous interpretation. A clear teaching would be a genealogy or a declaration that they are Mary's children.
Logged
Reply #73 by Josiah
Ironic question since you've repeated called it wrong.
If you don't even know what it is, why do you keep posting that my position is wrong?
You seem to continually get things upside down. 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?
Ah, interesting position for you to take: That Jesus did not found The Catholic Church and thus all it's claims of it itself alone for it itself alone based on that are thus wrong. But that doesn't indicate that ergo Mary Had No Sex Ever. It just means you reject the claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - another issue for another day and thread.
Let's review....
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 - 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." IRRELEVANT. 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.
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?[/size]
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 14:20:38 »
.
Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.
First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor." You need to substantiate.
I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever." Just one each will do.
Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.
.
The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.
1. Then you admit, your statement was false.
2. Actually, you are entirely WRONG. The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.
.
How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You get off by attacking the Theotokos.
Anything to evade the point......
1. Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.
2. Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.
3. The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.
4. Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos? You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong. Just more evasion and deflection.
5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's YOUR position. The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it). The issue is this: Is it true? The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting......
.
Josiah: "You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary"
What is your view?
.
Ironic question since you've repeated called it wrong.
If you don't even know what it is, why do you keep posting that my position is wrong?
You seem to continually get things upside down. 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?
Quote
If you had any clue of Church history you would know that Mary's perpetual virginity is not a RCC dogma. It predates the RCC and is a dogma of the early unified Church Jesus built
Ah, interesting position for you to take: That Jesus did not found The Catholic Church and thus all it's claims of it itself alone for it itself alone based on that are thus wrong. But that doesn't indicate that ergo Mary Had No Sex Ever. It just means you reject the claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - another issue for another day and thread.
Let's review....
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 - 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." IRRELEVANT. 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.
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?[/size]
.
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 14:27:25 by Josiah »
Logged
Reply #74 by Angelos
Since you ask, I'll tell you. I've got my honest opinion of you: You are an obsessed, pathetic individual who has no interest in honest dialogue with Catholics; just a compulsive urge to trash the Catholic Church.You need a real therapist - and a real job
You are a 22 year old kid, who always wants to have the last word even when you have nothing to add. Your reading comprehension skills and your ability to construct coherent sentences are 2nd grade level.
You have one asset though...obsessive persistence..you keep posting and posting and posting the same rants until people get tired and drop out of the thread. Thanks to you most Catholics have mostly dropped out of the forum (as winsome and Rob also noted). So you are accomplishing something I guess - I suspect unless the mods ban you, you'll be the last, and only, man standing on this forum soon enough.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 15:32:02 »
Josiah:What's ya got?Since you ask, I'll tell you. I've got my honest opinion of you: You are an obsessed, pathetic individual who has no interest in honest dialogue with Catholics; just a compulsive urge to trash the Catholic Church.You need a real therapist - and a real job
You are a 22 year old kid, who always wants to have the last word even when you have nothing to add. Your reading comprehension skills and your ability to construct coherent sentences are 2nd grade level.
You have one asset though...obsessive persistence..you keep posting and posting and posting the same rants until people get tired and drop out of the thread. Thanks to you most Catholics have mostly dropped out of the forum (as winsome and Rob also noted). So you are accomplishing something I guess - I suspect unless the mods ban you, you'll be the last, and only, man standing on this forum soon enough.
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 16:03:53 by Angelos »
Logged
Reply #75 by Josiah
Ironic question since you've repeatedly called it wrong.
If you don't even know what it is, why do you keep posting that my position is wrong?
You seem to continually get things upside down. 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 - 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.
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 insistence as true?
OBVIOUSLY, I have not "stopped" anyone from substantiating the insistence, I've been the one seeking it.
OBVIOUSLY, I have not "stopped" anyone from sharing an article of faith, but the insistence here has been the RCC one - that it's true (in fact, dogma).
IF I could post, It is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Martin Luther had no sin" I doubt you'd just give a "pass" on whether such is true. The RCC gives a "pass" to no other and yet.....
The "I won't give any substantiation for what I insist is a dogmatic fact cuz you're pic'n on me" is just not constructive conversation or apologetics of any kind.
Friend, all the personal stuff is coming from YOU, not me. I'm trying to discuss the Dogma and whether it's true. You seem to rather want to discuss me (why, I don't know - I'm not that interesting or important).
Friend, the good folks here gave the Catholics (exclusively) a forum where they are protected from questions, facts, etc.; where only Catholics can talk to Catholics. You have chosen to not post there but here. Friend, there are MANY "Catholic Only" websites were all are to just give quiet, docility submission to whatever the RCC itself says and the truthfulness of such is moot; if that's what you need or want, I recommend you post there.
But let's get back to the issue before us. It is one that divides Christians at the highest level, as dogma.
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 16:10:12 »
.Quote
Josiah: "You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary"
What is your view?
.
Ironic question since you've repeatedly called it wrong.
If you don't even know what it is, why do you keep posting that my position is wrong?
You seem to continually get things upside down. 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 - 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.
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 insistence as true?
OBVIOUSLY, I have not "stopped" anyone from substantiating the insistence, I've been the one seeking it.
OBVIOUSLY, I have not "stopped" anyone from sharing an article of faith, but the insistence here has been the RCC one - that it's true (in fact, dogma).
IF I could post, It is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Martin Luther had no sin" I doubt you'd just give a "pass" on whether such is true. The RCC gives a "pass" to no other and yet.....
The "I won't give any substantiation for what I insist is a dogmatic fact cuz you're pic'n on me" is just not constructive conversation or apologetics of any kind.
Friend, all the personal stuff is coming from YOU, not me. I'm trying to discuss the Dogma and whether it's true. You seem to rather want to discuss me (why, I don't know - I'm not that interesting or important).
Friend, the good folks here gave the Catholics (exclusively) a forum where they are protected from questions, facts, etc.; where only Catholics can talk to Catholics. You have chosen to not post there but here. Friend, there are MANY "Catholic Only" websites were all are to just give quiet, docility submission to whatever the RCC itself says and the truthfulness of such is moot; if that's what you need or want, I recommend you post there.
But let's get back to the issue before us. It is one that divides Christians at the highest level, as dogma.
.
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 16:34:36 by Josiah »
Logged
Reply #76 by Angelos
a) The mods ban you (like they banned other trolls like you before you) and the Catholic forum becomes once again a place for intelligent dialogue between Catholics and Protestants
b) you find a real job or a woman and stop obsessively posting 5 times a day trashing every thread and ...the Catholic forum becomes once again a place for intelligent dialogue between Catholics and Protestants
c) you keep posting 5 times a day trashing every thread...the last few remaining Catholics drop out and you have the forum all to yourself.
I'll sit in the sidelines for a while and watch which one of the 3 happens
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 17:36:55 »
Josiah, on of 3 things will happen:a) The mods ban you (like they banned other trolls like you before you) and the Catholic forum becomes once again a place for intelligent dialogue between Catholics and Protestants
b) you find a real job or a woman and stop obsessively posting 5 times a day trashing every thread and ...the Catholic forum becomes once again a place for intelligent dialogue between Catholics and Protestants
c) you keep posting 5 times a day trashing every thread...the last few remaining Catholics drop out and you have the forum all to yourself.
I'll sit in the sidelines for a while and watch which one of the 3 happens
Logged
Reply #77 by k-pappy
This makes no sense. You state the Bible is not written in enlish and then use an english word to change the meaning of Matt 1:25. You use examples of "until" from the OT which was written in Hebrew and does not correlat with the Greek that the NT was written in.
Further more, you ignore the focus of the passage. The english word "Knew" (from KJV), is translated from the greek "Ginosko" which was the Jewish way of saying sexual intercourse. By focusing on "until" and using OT examples (from hebrew) in an attempt to change the meaning of the Bible, you are also distracting the main issue:
Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus was born. To claim otherwise is to contradict God's Holy and Inspired Word.
bond
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 17:38:46 »
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mt. 1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Ps. 89:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Ps. 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]
Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1 Cor. 15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Ps. 122:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mt. 28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!
St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]
This makes no sense. You state the Bible is not written in enlish and then use an english word to change the meaning of Matt 1:25. You use examples of "until" from the OT which was written in Hebrew and does not correlat with the Greek that the NT was written in.
Further more, you ignore the focus of the passage. The english word "Knew" (from KJV), is translated from the greek "Ginosko" which was the Jewish way of saying sexual intercourse. By focusing on "until" and using OT examples (from hebrew) in an attempt to change the meaning of the Bible, you are also distracting the main issue:
Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus was born. To claim otherwise is to contradict God's Holy and Inspired Word.
bond
Logged
Reply #78 by Ryan2010
The problem with the verse you posted that says, "until" is that historically that verse has never been understood as a verse about the private life of Joseph and Mary. Like, if we made a paraphrase of the way you may be interpreting that verse would read kind of like:
Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born.
However, this paraphrase or "narrative" was never believed or read into the scripture by any Christian group until quite recently. If you were to paraphrase what the more ancient faiths have understood the narrative of that verse to mean it might look like:
Joseph was not the father of Jesus because he did not "know" Mary.
The problem here is that in case one, the private life of Joseph and Mary is underlined but in the second the focus is on the reality that Mary was indeed Virgin and the birth of Jesus was miraculous.
The reality of the verses that we use to point either toward or away from ever-Virginity is that neither are conclusive enough within the realm of the scriptures themselves to actually "prove" either position. So modern Protestants removed from the traditions of the past have in their own mind agreed to adhere to their modern tradition whereas traditional protestants (CS Lewis, Wesley, etc.) and the more ancient sects like Catholic and Orthodox/Coptic etc. believe her to be ever Virgin.
Because of the different traditions we adhere to we read things into the text that aren't necessarily explicitly stated either way.
The same goes for other verses used either for or against Mary's ever-Virginity/siblings etc.
All either of us can do, based on whatever tradition we adhere to, is affirm the tradition and presuppose the position we believe and then juxtapose that onto the scripture in order to make it "read" a certain way. In order to be civil to one another we can simply explain how the verse leans to our side whatever side we take and then explain the tradition we adhere to that will have us lean in the direction.
The point of the verse isn't at all about Mary's ever Virginity and neither is it about Joseph and Mary's private married life (why would God want us to know such things anyway) but instead, I am of the opinion that the text is above all simply about the fact that Joseph couldn't be Jesus father in the biological sense. Beyond this we are either gleaning something that points indirectly to our positions but at the end of the day the scriptures just aren't conclusive either way.
It boils down to tradition either way. The various protestant traditions (the vacuum of experiences used to inform the text) or the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox tradition etc.
If curious you can always read what Martin Luther said regarding the verses in question by reading his commentaries and likewise the other reformers or well known protestants like Wesley and CS Lewis. Protestant theology is pretty wide and varied but it's interesting to see what the early protestants thought and how they approached Mary.
God bless
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 17:39:12 »
Quote
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.
I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no? Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?
Bond
The problem with the verse you posted that says, "until" is that historically that verse has never been understood as a verse about the private life of Joseph and Mary. Like, if we made a paraphrase of the way you may be interpreting that verse would read kind of like:
Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born.
However, this paraphrase or "narrative" was never believed or read into the scripture by any Christian group until quite recently. If you were to paraphrase what the more ancient faiths have understood the narrative of that verse to mean it might look like:
Joseph was not the father of Jesus because he did not "know" Mary.
The problem here is that in case one, the private life of Joseph and Mary is underlined but in the second the focus is on the reality that Mary was indeed Virgin and the birth of Jesus was miraculous.
The reality of the verses that we use to point either toward or away from ever-Virginity is that neither are conclusive enough within the realm of the scriptures themselves to actually "prove" either position. So modern Protestants removed from the traditions of the past have in their own mind agreed to adhere to their modern tradition whereas traditional protestants (CS Lewis, Wesley, etc.) and the more ancient sects like Catholic and Orthodox/Coptic etc. believe her to be ever Virgin.
Because of the different traditions we adhere to we read things into the text that aren't necessarily explicitly stated either way.
The same goes for other verses used either for or against Mary's ever-Virginity/siblings etc.
All either of us can do, based on whatever tradition we adhere to, is affirm the tradition and presuppose the position we believe and then juxtapose that onto the scripture in order to make it "read" a certain way. In order to be civil to one another we can simply explain how the verse leans to our side whatever side we take and then explain the tradition we adhere to that will have us lean in the direction.
The point of the verse isn't at all about Mary's ever Virginity and neither is it about Joseph and Mary's private married life (why would God want us to know such things anyway) but instead, I am of the opinion that the text is above all simply about the fact that Joseph couldn't be Jesus father in the biological sense. Beyond this we are either gleaning something that points indirectly to our positions but at the end of the day the scriptures just aren't conclusive either way.
It boils down to tradition either way. The various protestant traditions (the vacuum of experiences used to inform the text) or the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox tradition etc.
If curious you can always read what Martin Luther said regarding the verses in question by reading his commentaries and likewise the other reformers or well known protestants like Wesley and CS Lewis. Protestant theology is pretty wide and varied but it's interesting to see what the early protestants thought and how they approached Mary.
God bless
Logged
Reply #79 by Ryan2010
Rather than talking about the logic or lack of in the presentation perhaps you could tell us what your opinion on the sibling issue is and state why or why not as that is all that any really wants to discuss anyway. Everyone just wants to see why they lean in the direction they do. Most don't want to have semantic warfare or deconstruct the presentation of their beliefs so much as the simple beliefs themselves.
So what do you say? Do you believe Jesus had siblings or that Mary remained ever Virgin? If so or not, why? What makes you lean in the direction you do. Your journey toward the position you believe to be true could help someone out also taking that journey toward deciding "which" Mary or "which" Jesus they believe in.
Blessings
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 17:45:12 »
Josiah, I don't believe that dogma is the issue here as the question was fairly open ended and given that the verse posted after the topic was about siblings, it doesn't do much good to point at the fact that siblings and perpetual virginity aren't necessarily the same topic if you turn around and make dogma an issue. Neither the topic header or the verse mentions dogma. Perhaps I'm mistaken?Rather than talking about the logic or lack of in the presentation perhaps you could tell us what your opinion on the sibling issue is and state why or why not as that is all that any really wants to discuss anyway. Everyone just wants to see why they lean in the direction they do. Most don't want to have semantic warfare or deconstruct the presentation of their beliefs so much as the simple beliefs themselves.
So what do you say? Do you believe Jesus had siblings or that Mary remained ever Virgin? If so or not, why? What makes you lean in the direction you do. Your journey toward the position you believe to be true could help someone out also taking that journey toward deciding "which" Mary or "which" Jesus they believe in.
Blessings
Logged
Reply #80 by k-pappy
It is not about the word "until." It is also not about tradition. It is about what God's Holy Inspired Word says. God's Holy Inspired Word says that Joseph "knew" (had sexual intercourse with) Mary. You can either accept it or not. You can either believe it or not.
I accept and believe God's Word.
Bond
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 17:53:15 »
Ryan, please read the post right above your reply.It is not about the word "until." It is also not about tradition. It is about what God's Holy Inspired Word says. God's Holy Inspired Word says that Joseph "knew" (had sexual intercourse with) Mary. You can either accept it or not. You can either believe it or not.
I accept and believe God's Word.
Bond
Logged
Reply #81 by Ryan2010
Hm, the word there is heos. I didn't look at the verses that Angelos posted but you study the usage of the Greek anyway. And it also does work that way in English too. I mean, Jesus says that he will be with always until the end of the world (paraphrase) but we both know that this doesn't mean that he will leave us. It's a simple point but still valid. I think looking at what the verse is actually saying is more helpful. If the verse is trying to underscore Joseph and Mary's private life perhaps you have a point. But. If the verse is merely saying that Joseph isn't the biological father and trying to underscore that then the verse doesn't really help either of our positions and we're just using our traditions to color the text.
Well, the problem we would have with this is that you are marrying (punny?) the word "knew" and "until" in order to create a meaning that might not be there. It depends on the narrative.
And your comment about distracting from the main issue is interesting because this is a primary example of protestant dogma at work. When the protestants as a whole don't have a dogma/doctrine as a whole either for or against Mary's perpetual Virginity, we do in fact run across protestant dogma/doctrine on the personal level. But in the end it's the same thing that is often used to accuse the other side.
What happens is, you believe your reading of the verse is synonymous with what the bible is saying and so to say that you are wrong is "unbiblical". And sense to go against the bible is wrong (in both of our traditions) it makes it look like to disagree with you is outside the Apostolic teaching as handed down to the Church. Now, this won't be true for all protestants but on the personal level this is where the "whole" of protestantism is expressed.
Where the irony appears is when you say that you alone have the right interpretation because you believe that what you believe the bible means to say and what it really says is synonymous. This is the same for the other side. You say we get our teachings from man but we see what looks like an innovation and so we conclude that you too must have told yourself what this verse means and since you are just a man catholics (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, etc) will also see your teachings as the "traditions of men".
So then we get into this deadlock, get upset, and start insulting each others mothers. It's sad. I appreciate that you put your interpretation out there for us to look at and am glad that you considered how other sects approach those scriptures. Where do we go from here? What do we make of Protestants like CS Lewis and Wesley who don't read into the text what you do? What do we make of Catholics who don't necessarily see that these verses aren't about her Ever-Virginity?
And that is where the divide is created. Both sides take a doctrinal stance based on tradition and yet both can't be right. Both side says that the other contradicts what is true and Christ is Truth and we all know that we all can't be right.
However. Why is it ok to teach different things on baptism, laying on of hands, ordination, etc. if you are protestant but if you are Catholic it seems "heretical". Why embrace pluralism within Protestantism and yet reject pluralism outside of it?
Interesting things to pray about and ask for mercy for when it comes to the Mysteries of God.
May God have mercy on us all..
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 18:04:51 »
Quote
This makes no sense. You state the Bible is not written in enlish and then use an english word to change the meaning of Matt 1:25. You use examples of "until" from the OT which was written in Hebrew and does not correlat with the Greek that the NT was written in.
Hm, the word there is heos. I didn't look at the verses that Angelos posted but you study the usage of the Greek anyway. And it also does work that way in English too. I mean, Jesus says that he will be with always until the end of the world (paraphrase) but we both know that this doesn't mean that he will leave us. It's a simple point but still valid. I think looking at what the verse is actually saying is more helpful. If the verse is trying to underscore Joseph and Mary's private life perhaps you have a point. But. If the verse is merely saying that Joseph isn't the biological father and trying to underscore that then the verse doesn't really help either of our positions and we're just using our traditions to color the text.
Quote
Further more, you ignore the focus of the passage. The english word "Knew" (from KJV), is translated from the greek "Ginosko" which was the Jewish way of saying sexual intercourse. By focusing on "until" and using OT examples (from hebrew) in an attempt to change the meaning of the Bible, you are also distracting the main issue:
Well, the problem we would have with this is that you are marrying (punny?) the word "knew" and "until" in order to create a meaning that might not be there. It depends on the narrative.
And your comment about distracting from the main issue is interesting because this is a primary example of protestant dogma at work. When the protestants as a whole don't have a dogma/doctrine as a whole either for or against Mary's perpetual Virginity, we do in fact run across protestant dogma/doctrine on the personal level. But in the end it's the same thing that is often used to accuse the other side.
What happens is, you believe your reading of the verse is synonymous with what the bible is saying and so to say that you are wrong is "unbiblical". And sense to go against the bible is wrong (in both of our traditions) it makes it look like to disagree with you is outside the Apostolic teaching as handed down to the Church. Now, this won't be true for all protestants but on the personal level this is where the "whole" of protestantism is expressed.
Where the irony appears is when you say that you alone have the right interpretation because you believe that what you believe the bible means to say and what it really says is synonymous. This is the same for the other side. You say we get our teachings from man but we see what looks like an innovation and so we conclude that you too must have told yourself what this verse means and since you are just a man catholics (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, etc) will also see your teachings as the "traditions of men".
So then we get into this deadlock, get upset, and start insulting each others mothers. It's sad. I appreciate that you put your interpretation out there for us to look at and am glad that you considered how other sects approach those scriptures. Where do we go from here? What do we make of Protestants like CS Lewis and Wesley who don't read into the text what you do? What do we make of Catholics who don't necessarily see that these verses aren't about her Ever-Virginity?
Quote
Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus was born. To claim otherwise is to contradict God's Holy and Inspired Word.
And that is where the divide is created. Both sides take a doctrinal stance based on tradition and yet both can't be right. Both side says that the other contradicts what is true and Christ is Truth and we all know that we all can't be right.
However. Why is it ok to teach different things on baptism, laying on of hands, ordination, etc. if you are protestant but if you are Catholic it seems "heretical". Why embrace pluralism within Protestantism and yet reject pluralism outside of it?
Interesting things to pray about and ask for mercy for when it comes to the Mysteries of God.
May God have mercy on us all..
Logged
Reply #82 by Josiah
The opening poster clarified things and stated that the topic here is about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Because of the "no hijacking" rule, I'd rather do that in a thread about whether Jesus had sibs. The title of this thread and the specific notation of the opening poster is that this is about the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I agree that IF Mary had other children (and that could be documented), then - baring more virgin births - that would seem to deny the dogma. However, the inverse is - obviously - moot. It is just plain silly to argue that no children = no sex. I think we all know that it IS possible to have a case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage without necessary having a child specifically stating as resulting from such in the Bible (or even a child at all - specifically mentioned in the Bible for not). So, while it WOULD be relevant if one can document other children, it's MOOT if such cannot be documented.
As for my own view: There's no clear evidence either way. Doesn't matter from my standpoint because MY concern is for dogmas that signficantly divide Christians and prevent the unity that Jesus prayed for. Since there is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" OR "Jesus Had No Sibs" (never has been, in ANY denomination), it's not really a signficant concern for me. I agree with the RCC that it's POSSIBLE She had no other children (I disagree with some who argue Scripture says otherwise) but then it's also POSSIBLE that She did. Frankly, no one in the earliest church cared one way or the other, and nor do I. It's not a dogma by anyone, thus no dogma to dispute.
But again, the title and the opening poster make it clear: the issue here is Mary and sex, not Jesus and sibs. And the Catholics here have taken strong positions that it is (as the RCC says) a matter of dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It IS dogma for them. It DOES divide Christians. The "burden of proof" lies exclusively with those that insist that it is true.
I don't know. The RC insists that She did. I"m waiting for some indication of the substantiation for such. If such is given, I'll gladly embrace it. I've already in my life changed my view on MANY things because evidence was presented. I've fundamentally changed denominations twice, evidence that I am willing to examine things, to say I was wrong, to change. So far, all we've gotten are entirely baseless, wrong or moot points - and a WHOLE lot of personal flaming, whining, diversions and shouts that they are being picked on. I HOPE - I sincerely do - someone will address the issue.
I have been rebuked for caring enough to post here. For why I don't "have a life." (Just one of MANY flames). I won't and needed participate in any personal, flaming hijacking of the thread, but consider the OBVIOUS: I'm here because I care about the truth! I love, adore, revere, esteem and honor Mary above all - as the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Chief of Saints. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be posting here. What is said about Her MATTERS to me. It is being said that She had no sex ever; it's being said as a matter of greatest importance, relevence and certainty of truth - thus it MATTERS to me. When I was Catholic, my Catholic teachers taught us that to say something about someone (especially something personal and potentially harmful or embarrassing), that we are to ask 3 questions: Is it true, does it matter, is it harmful? To spread something we can't confirm as true was called "gossip" and decried as a sin. I love Mary. I care what is said about Her. IF this is true, show it. Is that unreasonable? This is NO DIFFERENT than when anyone else here says something (especially dogmatically). Are they given a "pass" on the truth of it simply because they said it? No.
Blessings
- Josiah
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 18:27:24 »
Josiah, I don't believe that dogma is the issue here as the question was fairly open ended and given that the verse posted after the topic was about siblings, it doesn't do much good to point at the fact that siblings and perpetual virginity aren't necessarily the same topic if you turn around and make dogma an issue. Neither the topic header or the verse mentions dogma. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
The opening poster clarified things and stated that the topic here is about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Quote
Rather than talking about the logic or lack of in the presentation perhaps you could tell us what your opinion on the sibling issue
Because of the "no hijacking" rule, I'd rather do that in a thread about whether Jesus had sibs. The title of this thread and the specific notation of the opening poster is that this is about the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I agree that IF Mary had other children (and that could be documented), then - baring more virgin births - that would seem to deny the dogma. However, the inverse is - obviously - moot. It is just plain silly to argue that no children = no sex. I think we all know that it IS possible to have a case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage without necessary having a child specifically stating as resulting from such in the Bible (or even a child at all - specifically mentioned in the Bible for not). So, while it WOULD be relevant if one can document other children, it's MOOT if such cannot be documented.
As for my own view: There's no clear evidence either way. Doesn't matter from my standpoint because MY concern is for dogmas that signficantly divide Christians and prevent the unity that Jesus prayed for. Since there is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" OR "Jesus Had No Sibs" (never has been, in ANY denomination), it's not really a signficant concern for me. I agree with the RCC that it's POSSIBLE She had no other children (I disagree with some who argue Scripture says otherwise) but then it's also POSSIBLE that She did. Frankly, no one in the earliest church cared one way or the other, and nor do I. It's not a dogma by anyone, thus no dogma to dispute.
But again, the title and the opening poster make it clear: the issue here is Mary and sex, not Jesus and sibs. And the Catholics here have taken strong positions that it is (as the RCC says) a matter of dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It IS dogma for them. It DOES divide Christians. The "burden of proof" lies exclusively with those that insist that it is true.
Quote
Do you believe Mary remained ever Virgin?
I don't know. The RC insists that She did. I"m waiting for some indication of the substantiation for such. If such is given, I'll gladly embrace it. I've already in my life changed my view on MANY things because evidence was presented. I've fundamentally changed denominations twice, evidence that I am willing to examine things, to say I was wrong, to change. So far, all we've gotten are entirely baseless, wrong or moot points - and a WHOLE lot of personal flaming, whining, diversions and shouts that they are being picked on. I HOPE - I sincerely do - someone will address the issue.
I have been rebuked for caring enough to post here. For why I don't "have a life." (Just one of MANY flames). I won't and needed participate in any personal, flaming hijacking of the thread, but consider the OBVIOUS: I'm here because I care about the truth! I love, adore, revere, esteem and honor Mary above all - as the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Chief of Saints. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be posting here. What is said about Her MATTERS to me. It is being said that She had no sex ever; it's being said as a matter of greatest importance, relevence and certainty of truth - thus it MATTERS to me. When I was Catholic, my Catholic teachers taught us that to say something about someone (especially something personal and potentially harmful or embarrassing), that we are to ask 3 questions: Is it true, does it matter, is it harmful? To spread something we can't confirm as true was called "gossip" and decried as a sin. I love Mary. I care what is said about Her. IF this is true, show it. Is that unreasonable? This is NO DIFFERENT than when anyone else here says something (especially dogmatically). Are they given a "pass" on the truth of it simply because they said it? No.
Blessings
- Josiah
.
Logged
Reply #83 by Ryan2010
The reason I think this is because to talk about the "dogma" of Perpetual Virginity vs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would be two different things. If we were going to talk about the dogma of Perpetual Virginity then it wouldn't be necessarily about biblical interpretation and patristics but more so about (at its core) the way in which the "binding and loosing" is expressed in the RCC. But I don't think that's really what the topic is.
I honestly think that the topic is simply about her remaining ever Virgin and for Catholics to talk about this with Protestants they/we usually have to wind up discussing the sibling issue because of the apologetic against her ever-Virginity often being the whole sib issue.
I can totally relate to the whole search for truth thing but it's interesting that you use the word "baseless". I only say this because what each tradition/sect etc "bases" their stance on varies. I mean, "the councils, patristics, Holy Scripture, the life of the Church, the bible alone, the vacuum of experiences in our temporal lives etc" are all the "bases" that the various traditions use.
So what's baseless to us might in another tradition have a base. And the very real possibility that "base" is Christ - Truth.
Thanks for the honest reply.
God bless
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 18:54:20 »
I understand your point Josiah. However, I am not sure that this is really what was intended as a topic. The reason I think this is because to talk about the "dogma" of Perpetual Virginity vs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would be two different things. If we were going to talk about the dogma of Perpetual Virginity then it wouldn't be necessarily about biblical interpretation and patristics but more so about (at its core) the way in which the "binding and loosing" is expressed in the RCC. But I don't think that's really what the topic is.
I honestly think that the topic is simply about her remaining ever Virgin and for Catholics to talk about this with Protestants they/we usually have to wind up discussing the sibling issue because of the apologetic against her ever-Virginity often being the whole sib issue.
I can totally relate to the whole search for truth thing but it's interesting that you use the word "baseless". I only say this because what each tradition/sect etc "bases" their stance on varies. I mean, "the councils, patristics, Holy Scripture, the life of the Church, the bible alone, the vacuum of experiences in our temporal lives etc" are all the "bases" that the various traditions use.
So what's baseless to us might in another tradition have a base. And the very real possibility that "base" is Christ - Truth.
Thanks for the honest reply.
God bless
Logged
Reply #84 by Josiah
I shared your confusion: the verse in the opening post is moot to the title of the thread. But the opening poster came to clarify: the topic is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Well, there are two issues involved in the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary...
1. Is it true?
2. Is it necessary?
The RCC insists on both. You may not be aware that the second is critical to what divides us as Christians. For example, Lutherans do NOT disagree with this view (in fact, Luther and almost all the Lutheran Church Fathers embraced it). But it's not dogma among us. I can hold my view of undecided and be a Lutheran in good standing. A Lutheran pastor could regard the view as likely not true and be a pastor in good standing. MUCH of what divides Protestants from the RCC falls into this category. Do I think that the Assumption of Mary is wrong? No. But do I embrace it as a dogma? No. Thus, the divide. I left the RCC in LARGE PART because I did not hold some things as dogmatic facts - and thus was not doing as I am required to: embrace the Catholic dogmas with docility, as Jesus speaking. NO Catholic here has presented this as matter of faith or of pious opinion (nor can they) but as a matter of dogma for that's what it is. If we were talking about Limbo, it would be a very different discussion, one I would ignore because it's not divisive among us for it is not dogma anywhere.
But as I mentioned, my focus here has been primarily on the first. For to spread something so EXTREMELY personal (and moot) that we can't confirm is, by definition, gossip and a sin. With no confirmation (and no reason) to spread and insist upon this about Our Blessed Lady, I think I'd rather meet Her in heaven with no words to address than to find her (and Her Son) weeping over gossip, lies and deep hurt. I'd rather say, "I didn't know" than "I didn't know - and didn't care, I spread it anyway." If one here were to insist (to the highest level possible especially) that my mother had had sex with my dad exactly 35411 times, I (as her son who loves and honors here) would have two questions: What is your substantiation for this information you are spreading about her, and why is it so important to you that all the world's 6.7 billion people know THIS - particularly as a matter of greatest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth? Well, I love and honor our Lady much more. Make sense? Would I be putting up with all the flaming, abuse, ridicule, name calling, etc. in this thread if I didn't care what is said about Her?
Thank YOU for the respectful and helpful conversation.
Pax
- Josiah
.
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 19:39:14 »
I understand your point Josiah. However, I am not sure that this is really what was intended as a topic.
I shared your confusion: the verse in the opening post is moot to the title of the thread. But the opening poster came to clarify: the topic is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Quote
To talk about the "dogma" of Perpetual Virginity vs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would be two different things.
Well, there are two issues involved in the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary...
1. Is it true?
2. Is it necessary?
The RCC insists on both. You may not be aware that the second is critical to what divides us as Christians. For example, Lutherans do NOT disagree with this view (in fact, Luther and almost all the Lutheran Church Fathers embraced it). But it's not dogma among us. I can hold my view of undecided and be a Lutheran in good standing. A Lutheran pastor could regard the view as likely not true and be a pastor in good standing. MUCH of what divides Protestants from the RCC falls into this category. Do I think that the Assumption of Mary is wrong? No. But do I embrace it as a dogma? No. Thus, the divide. I left the RCC in LARGE PART because I did not hold some things as dogmatic facts - and thus was not doing as I am required to: embrace the Catholic dogmas with docility, as Jesus speaking. NO Catholic here has presented this as matter of faith or of pious opinion (nor can they) but as a matter of dogma for that's what it is. If we were talking about Limbo, it would be a very different discussion, one I would ignore because it's not divisive among us for it is not dogma anywhere.
But as I mentioned, my focus here has been primarily on the first. For to spread something so EXTREMELY personal (and moot) that we can't confirm is, by definition, gossip and a sin. With no confirmation (and no reason) to spread and insist upon this about Our Blessed Lady, I think I'd rather meet Her in heaven with no words to address than to find her (and Her Son) weeping over gossip, lies and deep hurt. I'd rather say, "I didn't know" than "I didn't know - and didn't care, I spread it anyway." If one here were to insist (to the highest level possible especially) that my mother had had sex with my dad exactly 35411 times, I (as her son who loves and honors here) would have two questions: What is your substantiation for this information you are spreading about her, and why is it so important to you that all the world's 6.7 billion people know THIS - particularly as a matter of greatest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth? Well, I love and honor our Lady much more. Make sense? Would I be putting up with all the flaming, abuse, ridicule, name calling, etc. in this thread if I didn't care what is said about Her?
Quote
Thanks for the honest reply.
Thank YOU for the respectful and helpful conversation.
Pax
- Josiah
.
Logged
Reply #85 by Ryan2010
But that's exactly why I don't necessarily see the two topics as the same. There are protestants that believe that Mary is ever Virgin and yet don't make it dogma. The dogma issue from the RCC perspective boils down to how they affirm or reject/bind and loose. The topic obviously isn't asking, "do you accept the binding and loosing" as it's expressed in the RCC but instead, do you believe that Mary might not necessarily "not" have remained virgin.
And the reason I am talking about binding and loosing here is because in the way the Rome sees why something is true or necessary is fed up the chain or down the chain so to speak from the "top" if you will. They have councils but those councils must in order for them to be valid be affirmed or rejected by their bishop. So obviously that's not at all what the question is about. Just because you believe that Mary is ever-Virgin doesn't mean you have to accept it as dogma.
I think if that was the topic then it might read, "for those of you that reject dogma" or "those who think it's not necessary".
But none of the replies from the Catholic side are making a case for it being "necessary" or "dogmatic" but only pointing at verses that are often used to speak against Mary's Virginity and then using patristic history and different approaches to scripture and realities as understood in catholic faiths in order to point to the possibility that Mary very well may have not had children.
True and I'm familiar with it. But again I think if you focus on, not the dogma, but instead the ever-Virginity/sibs then that divide is not as great.
If you focus on dogma then every protestant is naturally not going to agree with them on that as protestantism as a "whole" has no dogmas except on the individual and personal level. To make anything binding to the whole in protestantism is rejected wholesale. Why some protestants don't extend that right to decide dogma/doctrine to the Catholics but will take communion with their protestant brother who believes contradictory things on the personal level baffles me. But. That's the reality we're dealing with.
It seems like the protestant structure says that "our" (protestant) dogma is no dogma but we (protestants) can on the personal individual level hold dogma, but you (catholics) can't as a "group" have dogma or you're a cult.
It's the same thing in the end. It's just expressed on in the private life of a believer instead of according to the whole.
It's hard for a Catholic to approach this structure and have a good conversation because the protestant is immediately offended and vice versa.
But if we merely agree to talk about the possibility of Mary having remained Virgin then perhaps we don't have to walk away with tomato on our faces.
True. The Anglicans have a bishop that believe the resurrection is just a metaphor (wholly unacceptable to many protestants AND Catholics) yet still remains in good standing.
That's a hard position to be in as it boils down to how you believe the truths of the church to be expressed. We all know that the Church is the pillar or ground of Truth but what most can't agree on is how that is expressed or functions or should function.
But again, all the more reason to leave that "debate" on the back burner and see, for Mary's sake, what possible correlations the more ancient faiths might have seen in the OT in regards to Mary and why they believe as they do. There is and I was surprised to find out, a lot of really really neat parallels to Mary in the OT and the RCC/Orthodox/Coptic expressions of the faith have retained these. Even if you're protestant the OT references are edifying. Opens up stuff not often thought about by protestants.
In short. Could be a good thing.
Well, they are only able to speak for themselves and not for you or other protestants. They aren't going to say, "this is only my opinion" because, well, they aren't protestant. Protestants have opinions. lol. (I mean no offense)
But I'm not sure what dogma has to do with it so much as what the dogma points to it from a "internet chat" perspective. I mean, the Jews taught a limbo and purgatoryish type thing and if the jews were talking about it, regardless of whether or not they thought it was dogma or opinion, it's still worth the conversation.
But that's just my opinion. I don't have a problem listening to someone tell me about something they personally believe is dogma or if an entire group believes it's dogma. I mean, you run across that every day in protestantism and as a protestant you have the right to personally accept or not and still remain in good standing. I don't necessarily see that structure in the epistles or in the gospels but I'm not protestant so at the end of the day, that's not really something that feels threatening to me.
Well, the paralles between Mary and the Mountain or Jacob's ladder or a sort of type of Eve, an ante-Eve is neat. The parallels between the Ark and all that... I mean, chastity is underscored and even though we might not totally be able to prove it, it's still edifying I think.
Well, I'm not judging you here or anything and at the end of the day you have to stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ just like the rest of us. But the reality then is that you have to becareful not to slander or gossip about the Catholics in that regard because what happens if they were right and it's not gossip. Your defense might be that you didn't know and so you called it gossip when it very well could have been, I didn't know so I didn't call it anything. I just don't know.
Glory to Jesus Christ
I really need to look up what this "Pax" means. lol. Always see it never bothered to google it.
ICXC NIKA!
« Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 20:36:22 »
Quote
Well, there are two issues involved in the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary...
1. Is it true?
2. Is it necessary?
But that's exactly why I don't necessarily see the two topics as the same. There are protestants that believe that Mary is ever Virgin and yet don't make it dogma. The dogma issue from the RCC perspective boils down to how they affirm or reject/bind and loose. The topic obviously isn't asking, "do you accept the binding and loosing" as it's expressed in the RCC but instead, do you believe that Mary might not necessarily "not" have remained virgin.
And the reason I am talking about binding and loosing here is because in the way the Rome sees why something is true or necessary is fed up the chain or down the chain so to speak from the "top" if you will. They have councils but those councils must in order for them to be valid be affirmed or rejected by their bishop. So obviously that's not at all what the question is about. Just because you believe that Mary is ever-Virgin doesn't mean you have to accept it as dogma.
I think if that was the topic then it might read, "for those of you that reject dogma" or "those who think it's not necessary".
But none of the replies from the Catholic side are making a case for it being "necessary" or "dogmatic" but only pointing at verses that are often used to speak against Mary's Virginity and then using patristic history and different approaches to scripture and realities as understood in catholic faiths in order to point to the possibility that Mary very well may have not had children.
Quote
The RCC insists on both. You may not be aware that the second is critical to what divides us as Christians. For example, Lutherans do NOT disagree with this view (in fact, Luther and almost all the Lutheran Church Fathers embraced it). But it's not dogma among us.
True and I'm familiar with it. But again I think if you focus on, not the dogma, but instead the ever-Virginity/sibs then that divide is not as great.
If you focus on dogma then every protestant is naturally not going to agree with them on that as protestantism as a "whole" has no dogmas except on the individual and personal level. To make anything binding to the whole in protestantism is rejected wholesale. Why some protestants don't extend that right to decide dogma/doctrine to the Catholics but will take communion with their protestant brother who believes contradictory things on the personal level baffles me. But. That's the reality we're dealing with.
It seems like the protestant structure says that "our" (protestant) dogma is no dogma but we (protestants) can on the personal individual level hold dogma, but you (catholics) can't as a "group" have dogma or you're a cult.
It's the same thing in the end. It's just expressed on in the private life of a believer instead of according to the whole.
It's hard for a Catholic to approach this structure and have a good conversation because the protestant is immediately offended and vice versa.
But if we merely agree to talk about the possibility of Mary having remained Virgin then perhaps we don't have to walk away with tomato on our faces.
Quote
I can hold my view of undecided and be a Lutheran in good standing. A Lutheran pastor could regard the view as likely not true and be a pastor in good standing.
True. The Anglicans have a bishop that believe the resurrection is just a metaphor (wholly unacceptable to many protestants AND Catholics) yet still remains in good standing.
Quote
MUCH of what divides Protestants from the RCC falls into this category. Do I think that the Assumption of Mary is wrong? No. But do I embrace it as a dogma? No. Thus, the divide. I left the RCC in LARGE PART because I did not hold some things as dogmatic facts - and thus was not doing as I am required to: embrace the Catholic dogmas with docility, as Jesus speaking.
That's a hard position to be in as it boils down to how you believe the truths of the church to be expressed. We all know that the Church is the pillar or ground of Truth but what most can't agree on is how that is expressed or functions or should function.
But again, all the more reason to leave that "debate" on the back burner and see, for Mary's sake, what possible correlations the more ancient faiths might have seen in the OT in regards to Mary and why they believe as they do. There is and I was surprised to find out, a lot of really really neat parallels to Mary in the OT and the RCC/Orthodox/Coptic expressions of the faith have retained these. Even if you're protestant the OT references are edifying. Opens up stuff not often thought about by protestants.
In short. Could be a good thing.
Quote
NO Catholic here has presented this as matter of faith or of pious opinion (nor can they) but as a matter of dogma for that's what it is.
Well, they are only able to speak for themselves and not for you or other protestants. They aren't going to say, "this is only my opinion" because, well, they aren't protestant. Protestants have opinions. lol. (I mean no offense)
Quote
If we were talking about Limbo, it would be a very different discussion, one I would ignore because it's not divisive among us for it is not dogma anywhere.
But I'm not sure what dogma has to do with it so much as what the dogma points to it from a "internet chat" perspective. I mean, the Jews taught a limbo and purgatoryish type thing and if the jews were talking about it, regardless of whether or not they thought it was dogma or opinion, it's still worth the conversation.
But that's just my opinion. I don't have a problem listening to someone tell me about something they personally believe is dogma or if an entire group believes it's dogma. I mean, you run across that every day in protestantism and as a protestant you have the right to personally accept or not and still remain in good standing. I don't necessarily see that structure in the epistles or in the gospels but I'm not protestant so at the end of the day, that's not really something that feels threatening to me.
Quote
But as I mentioned, my focus here has been primarily on the first. For to spread something so EXTREMELY personal (and moot) that we can't confirm is, by definition, gossip and a sin.
Well, the paralles between Mary and the Mountain or Jacob's ladder or a sort of type of Eve, an ante-Eve is neat. The parallels between the Ark and all that... I mean, chastity is underscored and even though we might not totally be able to prove it, it's still edifying I think.
Quote
With no confirmation (and no reason) to spread and insist upon this about Our Blessed Lady, I think I'd rather meet Her in heaven with no words to address than to find her (and Her Son) weeping over gossip, lies and deep hurt. I'd rather say, "I didn't know" than "I didn't know - and didn't care, I spread it anyway." If one here were to insist (to the highest level possible especially) that my mother had had sex with my dad exactly 35411 times, I (as her son who loves and honors here) would have two questions: What is your substantiation for this information you are spreading about her, and why is it so important to you that all the world's 6.7 billion people know THIS - particularly as a matter of greatest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth? Well, I love and honor our Lady much more. Make sense? Would I be putting up with all the flaming, abuse, ridicule, name calling, etc. in this thread if I didn't care what is said about Her?
Well, I'm not judging you here or anything and at the end of the day you have to stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ just like the rest of us. But the reality then is that you have to becareful not to slander or gossip about the Catholics in that regard because what happens if they were right and it's not gossip. Your defense might be that you didn't know and so you called it gossip when it very well could have been, I didn't know so I didn't call it anything. I just don't know.
Quote
Thank YOU for the respectful and helpful conversation.
Glory to Jesus Christ
Quote
Pax
I really need to look up what this "Pax" means. lol. Always see it never bothered to google it.
ICXC NIKA!
Logged
Reply #86 by John 10:10
Paul confirms that Jesus had other siblings,
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Gal 1:19)
So did Jude,
Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, (Jude 1:1)
So we have these Scriptures that reveal Mary had other children,
Matt 12:47
Matt 13:55-56
Mark 6:3
Gal 1:19
Jude 1:1
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 07:11:03 »
Matt 13 declares this:
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things ?"
The clear teaching of Scripture says that Joseph fathered and Mary gave birth to four sons and several daughters after Jesus was born.
It's not a clear teaching. That's just your erroneous interpretation. A clear teaching would be a genealogy or a declaration that they are Mary's children.
Paul confirms that Jesus had other siblings,
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Gal 1:19)
So did Jude,
Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, (Jude 1:1)
So we have these Scriptures that reveal Mary had other children,
Matt 12:47
Matt 13:55-56
Mark 6:3
Gal 1:19
Jude 1:1
Logged
Reply #87 by winsome
The Greek word adelphos had a very wide range of meanings. It just meant close relative or kinsman. They could be cousins or other close relatives. In the Greek LXX Old Testament, Lot is Abraham's adelphos, yet we know from earlier that he is actually his nephew.
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 08:20:15 »
Matt 13 declares this:
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things ?"
The clear teaching of Scripture says that Joseph fathered and Mary gave birth to four sons and several daughters after Jesus was born.
It's not a clear teaching. That's just your erroneous interpretation. A clear teaching would be a genealogy or a declaration that they are Mary's children.
Paul confirms that Jesus had other siblings,
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Gal 1:19)
So did Jude,
Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, (Jude 1:1)
So we have these Scriptures that reveal Mary had other children,
Matt 12:47
Matt 13:55-56
Mark 6:3
Gal 1:19
Jude 1:1
The Greek word adelphos had a very wide range of meanings. It just meant close relative or kinsman. They could be cousins or other close relatives. In the Greek LXX Old Testament, Lot is Abraham's adelphos, yet we know from earlier that he is actually his nephew.
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)
Logged
Reply #88 by chosenone
I also believe that the Bible says that Jesus did have siblings and why woudnt he? His mother was married and would almost certainly have had other children. All the Bible says is that she didnt have sex with Joseph until Jesus was born and that is all.
Just another non Biblical belief. Just another attempt to lift Mary up to be some sort of non human being who was above humanity.
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 08:34:22 »
I cannot ever understand why it is so important for Catholics to have to believe that Mary was a virgin all of her life, when there is absolutely no indication in the Bible that this was the case. Sex is good and godly within marriage. So what if she had sex with her own husband, she was only human after all, and it isnt a sin the last time I read the Bible to have sex with your own spouse, in fact that is what the Bible TELLS us to do. In fact it would have been a sin NOT to have had sex with her own God given husband.I also believe that the Bible says that Jesus did have siblings and why woudnt he? His mother was married and would almost certainly have had other children. All the Bible says is that she didnt have sex with Joseph until Jesus was born and that is all.
Just another non Biblical belief. Just another attempt to lift Mary up to be some sort of non human being who was above humanity.
Logged
Reply #89 by winsome
There is plenty of evidence in the Bible that Mary remained a virgin.
Catholic care about the truth, the truth about Mary and the truth about Christ.
Christ was unique and the Father gave him a unique mother.
Mary was chosen and ordained to serve in the mystery of the Incarnation in a unique way. She was set apart and given a unique privilege and position. She was given a unique relationship with God even before the Incarnation and a unique role in the salvation of mankind.
She was sovereignly chosen by the Father to bear His only begotten Son. In that role, Mary is the first person in all history to receive and accept Christ as her Saviour. You and I are called to enthrone the Lord in our hearts and lives - to follow her example in doing so. Early in Christian history she is called "the first of the redeemed".
Mary is unique as a creature of God. She was carefully prepared and her role did not stop at just giving birth to and bringing up Jesus. Her being “ever-virgin
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 08:57:19 »
I cannot ever understand why it is so important for Catholics to have to believe that Mary was a virgin all of her life, when there is absolutely no indication in the Bible that this was the case. Sex is good and godly within marriage. So what if she had sex with her own husband, she was only human after all, and it isnt a sin the last time I read the Bible to have sex with your own spouse, in fact that is what the Bible TELLS us to do. In fact it would have been a sin NOT to have had sex with her own God given husband.
I also believe that the Bible says that Jesus did have siblings and why woudnt he? His mother was married and would almost certainly have had other children. All the Bible says is that she didnt have sex with Joseph until Jesus was born and that is all.
Just another non Biblical belief. Just another attempt to lift Mary up to be some sort of non human being who was above humanity.
There is plenty of evidence in the Bible that Mary remained a virgin.
Catholic care about the truth, the truth about Mary and the truth about Christ.
Christ was unique and the Father gave him a unique mother.
Mary was chosen and ordained to serve in the mystery of the Incarnation in a unique way. She was set apart and given a unique privilege and position. She was given a unique relationship with God even before the Incarnation and a unique role in the salvation of mankind.
She was sovereignly chosen by the Father to bear His only begotten Son. In that role, Mary is the first person in all history to receive and accept Christ as her Saviour. You and I are called to enthrone the Lord in our hearts and lives - to follow her example in doing so. Early in Christian history she is called "the first of the redeemed".
Mary is unique as a creature of God. She was carefully prepared and her role did not stop at just giving birth to and bringing up Jesus. Her being “ever-virgin
Logged
Reply #90 by Selene
Mary was not planning on having sex with Joseph even after they were married. Just look at what she says to the Angel Gabriel.
Luke 1:30-34 But the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus........And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
Here is a young girl who is engaged to be married to a man, and she is asking the angel how shall this be done? How can she get pregnant? And this is coming from a female who is already engaged to get married with a man and afterwards after sex with that man after marriage? Well, any female in her position (engaged to be married) would logically think, "Oh, WOW! My husband and I will have a child who will be great! Wow!" But no! She is asking "how shall this be done?" This kind of answer only makes sense when she had already planned to remain a virgin even after she married.
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 10:00:19 »
I cannot ever understand why it is so important for Catholics to have to believe that Mary was a virgin all of her life, when there is absolutely no indication in the Bible that this was the case. Sex is good and godly within marriage. So what if she had sex with her own husband, she was only human after all, and it isnt a sin the last time I read the Bible to have sex with your own spouse, in fact that is what the Bible TELLS us to do. In fact it would have been a sin NOT to have had sex with her own God given husband.
I also believe that the Bible says that Jesus did have siblings and why woudnt he? His mother was married and would almost certainly have had other children. All the Bible says is that she didnt have sex with Joseph until Jesus was born and that is all.
Just another non Biblical belief. Just another attempt to lift Mary up to be some sort of non human being who was above humanity.
Mary was not planning on having sex with Joseph even after they were married. Just look at what she says to the Angel Gabriel.
Luke 1:30-34 But the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus........And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
Here is a young girl who is engaged to be married to a man, and she is asking the angel how shall this be done? How can she get pregnant? And this is coming from a female who is already engaged to get married with a man and afterwards after sex with that man after marriage? Well, any female in her position (engaged to be married) would logically think, "Oh, WOW! My husband and I will have a child who will be great! Wow!" But no! She is asking "how shall this be done?" This kind of answer only makes sense when she had already planned to remain a virgin even after she married.
Logged
Reply #91 by John 10:10
Matt 13:55 declares Mary was Jesus' mother, and James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were Jesus' brothers. Matt 13:56 declares Jesus had sisters as well.
If God's purpose was for Mary to remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, why was Joseph even needed at all?
Since Catholics brought up this question for Protestamts to answer, the reason we believe Mary and Joseph procreated other sons and daughters after Jesus was born is because we base our beliefs on Scripture, not on teachings that cannot be clearly supported by Scripture.
Blessings
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 17:43:03 »
The only evidence that Mary remained a virgin lies not in Scripture, but in Catholic tradition and dogma.Matt 13:55 declares Mary was Jesus' mother, and James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were Jesus' brothers. Matt 13:56 declares Jesus had sisters as well.
If God's purpose was for Mary to remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, why was Joseph even needed at all?
Since Catholics brought up this question for Protestamts to answer, the reason we believe Mary and Joseph procreated other sons and daughters after Jesus was born is because we base our beliefs on Scripture, not on teachings that cannot be clearly supported by Scripture.
Blessings
Logged
Reply #92 by Selene
The Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) also includes other close relations, including cousins. So, what makes you so sure that they were Jesus' brother and not His cousins? This is why we rely on the writings of the Early Christians who say that Mary did not have any children other than Jesus. If she did had children, it would be an insult when Jesus handed His mother over to John rather than to His blood-related brother. The fact that Jesus handed His mother to John proves that He was Mary's only child.
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 20:11:22 »
The only evidence that Mary remained a virgin lies not in Scripture, but in Catholic tradition and dogma.
Matt 13:55 declares Mary was Jesus' mother, and James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were Jesus' brothers. Matt 13:56 declares Jesus had sisters as well.
If God's purpose was for Mary to remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, why was Joseph even needed at all?
Since Catholics brought up this question for Protestamts to answer, the reason we believe Mary and Joseph procreated other sons and daughters after Jesus was born is because we base our beliefs on Scripture, not on teachings that cannot be clearly supported by Scripture.
Blessings
The Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) also includes other close relations, including cousins. So, what makes you so sure that they were Jesus' brother and not His cousins? This is why we rely on the writings of the Early Christians who say that Mary did not have any children other than Jesus. If she did had children, it would be an insult when Jesus handed His mother over to John rather than to His blood-related brother. The fact that Jesus handed His mother to John proves that He was Mary's only child.
Logged
Reply #93 by Visionary
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 21:57:09 »
If I recall correctly John and Jesus were cousins.
Logged
Reply #94 by Selene
Jesus and St. John the Baptist were cousins because their mothers were cousins (Luke 1:36). The Apostle John who took Mary in was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James.
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 22:27:09 »
If I recall correctly John and Jesus were cousins.
Jesus and St. John the Baptist were cousins because their mothers were cousins (Luke 1:36). The Apostle John who took Mary in was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James.
Logged
Reply #95 by Visionary
« Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 23:16:44 »
Thanks Selene. Zebedee was married to Salome-Mary's sister making John th apostle Jesus' cousin.
Logged
Reply #96 by John 10:10
John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins.
John the Apostle and Jesus were not!
Protestants will never be able to convince Catholics that Mary did have other children after giving birth to Jesus. Catholic tradition and dogma have already determined that for you. But that is not the purpose of this discussion. I and other Protestants have give Scriptural reasons why we believe Mary did give birth to other children after giving birth to Jesus. The rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).
Blessings
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 08:16:07 »
If I recall correctly John and Jesus were cousins.
John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins.
John the Apostle and Jesus were not!
Protestants will never be able to convince Catholics that Mary did have other children after giving birth to Jesus. Catholic tradition and dogma have already determined that for you. But that is not the purpose of this discussion. I and other Protestants have give Scriptural reasons why we believe Mary did give birth to other children after giving birth to Jesus. The rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).
Blessings
Logged
Reply #97 by chestertonrules
IT absolutely does not say that.
You are inserting your personal dogma into scripture.
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 08:40:24 »
Ryan, please read the post right above your reply.
It is not about the word "until." It is also not about tradition. It is about what God's Holy Inspired Word says. God's Holy Inspired Word says that Joseph "knew" (had sexual intercourse with) Mary. You can either accept it or not. You can either believe it or not.
I accept and believe God's Word.
Bond
IT absolutely does not say that.
You are inserting your personal dogma into scripture.
Logged
Reply #98 by winsome
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 08:49:21 »
Protestants will never be able to convince Catholics that Mary did have other children after giving birth to Jesus. Catholic tradition and dogma have already determined that for you. But that is not the purpose of this discussion. I and other Protestants have give Scriptural reasons why we believe Mary did give birth to other children after giving birth to Jesus. The rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).The Greek word adelphos had a very wide range of meanings. It just meant close relative or kinsman. They could be cousins or other close relatives. In the Greek LXX Old Testament, Lot is Abraham's adelphos, yet we know from earlier that he is actually his nephew.
Blessings
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)
Logged
Reply #99 by winsome
Virginity defines her in every aspect of her being – her thoughts, words and deeds. She is pure, holy, set aside for God from all eternity, sinless from the moment of her conception. Her being Virgin was a spiritual or inner attitude not just something physical. She gave herself totally to God
“She ever preserved virginity in mind, and soul, and body
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 08:58:44 »
The arguments between Catholics (and Orthodox) and Protestants on this issue tend to focus on the sexual aspects of this. But to understand the Catholic perspective on Mary you need to appreciate that Mary is the Virgin or Virgin Mary – with a capital V. Her being Virgin is not just an adjective but a title.Virginity defines her in every aspect of her being – her thoughts, words and deeds. She is pure, holy, set aside for God from all eternity, sinless from the moment of her conception. Her being Virgin was a spiritual or inner attitude not just something physical. She gave herself totally to God
“She ever preserved virginity in mind, and soul, and body
Logged
Reply #100 by winsome
For example:
Martin Luther
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 09:02:14 »
The early reformers, such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli held Mary in high honour and affirmed the doctrines of her being the Mother of God and Ever Virgin. For example:
Martin Luther
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
Logged
Reply #101 by John 10:10
Protestants believe what we believe on this issue based on the authority of Scripture alone.
Luther and other reformers fought and won this war over 500 years ago, but some still resist.
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 09:24:45 »
Protestants believe what we believe on this issue based on the authority of Scripture alone.
Luther and other reformers fought and won this war over 500 years ago, but some still resist.
Quote
The rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).
Logged
Reply #102 by chestertonrules
Scripture doesn't have authority. In fact, reliance on scripture alone leads to confusion, distortions, and contradictory dogmas.
Can you show me any proof that we should rely on scripture alone in the bible?
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 09:54:55 »
Protestants believe what we believe on this issue based on the authority of Scripture alone.
Luther and other reformers fought and won this war over 500 years ago, but some still resist.
Scripture doesn't have authority. In fact, reliance on scripture alone leads to confusion, distortions, and contradictory dogmas.
Can you show me any proof that we should rely on scripture alone in the bible?
Logged
Reply #103 by Angelos
Since only about 25% of All Christians officially believe in the authority of Scripture alone, I think it's more fair to say that "Luther and other reformers fought and lost this war over 500 years ago, but some, like you, still resist.
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:18:06 »
Protestants believe what we believe on this issue based on the authority of Scripture alone.
Luther and other reformers fought and won this war over 500 years ago, but some still resist.QuoteThe rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).
Since only about 25% of All Christians officially believe in the authority of Scripture alone, I think it's more fair to say that "Luther and other reformers fought and lost this war over 500 years ago, but some, like you, still resist.
Logged
Reply #104 by winsome
I quoted, or referenced, 15 pieces of scripture. What did you make of them?
« Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:29:19 »
Protestants believe what we believe on this issue based on the authority of Scripture alone.
Luther and other reformers fought and won this war over 500 years ago, but some still resist.QuoteThe rest is up to the authority of Scripture and the Holy Spirit who takes the things of Jesus and diiscloses them to us (John 16:15).
I quoted, or referenced, 15 pieces of scripture. What did you make of them?
Logged