Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Interests => Organized Religion and Religious Movements Discussions => Catholic Forum => Topic started by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 10:35:28

Title: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 10:35:28
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 10:43:46
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 10:55:17
Josiah must either be unemployed or get paid to post in the Catholic forum. He posts here 5-6 times a day, seconds after any Catholic posts, usually copying and pasting his standard crap. He has ruined the forum by inundating it, every day, with his anti-Catholic propaganda and has made any serious discussion impossible.

If the mods look, they would see that before Josiah came here (late May of 2010), flooding the forum with his crap,  the Catholic forum had some interesting dialogue.

I refuse to engage him, but I will keep counting his anti-Catholic mass-copied posts on the Catholic forum...as of now 233 and counting
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 10:57:10
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:00:09
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:01:32
Josiah,

you're 22 years old - get a real job
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:03:29



1.  The question is MOOT to any official position of ANY denomination.   Including the issue of the title of the thread.  


2.  The question is a typical Catholic diversion, an attempt to shift the discussion from sex to sibs, from Mary to Jesus.


3.  Questions substantiate NOTHING.  Questions asked or possible answers offered.   It's YOUR dogma.  You need to supply substantiation for it - not open ended questions about OTHER issues.







.



If the question is moot why did you post a non answer to a non question?

Clearly, the question is legitimate and compelling.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:05:11

 


If the question is moot why did you post a non answer to a non question?



Because he's obsessed with the Catholic Church and has nothing else to do with his time
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: k-pappy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:05:37
Angelos, knock it off.  If you do not have anything contructive to add to the thread, stay out of it.

Chesterton, what protestants deny the virginity of Mary?  The virgin birth of Christ is the mainstay of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Bond
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:07:52
Angelos, knock it off.  If you do not have anything contructive to add to the thread, stay out of it.

Chesterton, what protestants deny the virginity of Mary?  The virgin birth of Christ is the mainstay of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Bond

I think you know that I am referring to Mary's perpetual virginity.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:15:40



1.  The question is MOOT to any official position of ANY denomination.   Including the issue of the title of the thread.  


2.  The question is a typical Catholic diversion, an attempt to shift the discussion from sex to sibs, from Mary to Jesus.


3.  Questions substantiate NOTHING.  Questions asked or possible answers offered.   It's YOUR dogma.  You need to supply substantiation for it - not open ended questions about OTHER issues.







.



If the question is moot why did you post a non answer to a non question?


The topic of the thread is Mary's VIRGINITY, not Jesus' sibs.   




Quote
Clearly, the question is legitimate and compelling.


A question is a question - it's substantiation for nothing.

The question has nothing to do with Mary or how often She had sex after Jesus was born.

I attempted to get the discussion back to the topic as stated in the title of the thread.   Did you want to discuss that?







.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chosenone on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:18:48
She married, had sex with her husband, and had more children. Hard to see how she was a perpetual virgin.(However I think we have been through all this before)
I have never understood why it matters so much to Catholics. She was the mother of Jesus, but why does she need to be a perpetual virgin? Sex in marriage is godly and good, and doesnt somehow  make her unholy or something. It makes her an obedient and loving wife to Joseph.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:20:50
Angelos, knock it off.  If you do not have anything contructive to add to the thread, stay out of it.

Chesterton, what protestants deny the virginity of Mary?  The virgin birth of Christ is the mainstay of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Bond

I think you know that I am referring to Mary's perpetual virginity.



If it is, if the title of this thread is the subject of this thread, then the verse you quoted is moot to the topic.  


My experience in Catholicism is that this is one of the verses Catholics occasionally use to try to support that Jesus had no sibs.  It's entirely baseless of course, moot to that subject,  but that's typically what it is quoted for.  But, by your own admission, that's not the issue we are to discuss.  Ironically, you seem to be hijacking your own thread - right in the opening post!  




As YOU very well know, there is no Protestant dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" (or Jesus Didn't Have Sibs).   Yes, I know, SOME Protestants have an opinion about whether Jesus had sibs or not (you'll find many of them have opinions about the war in Iraq and global warming too) but there is no dogma on this in ANY Protestant denomination known to me.   This seems to merely be attempt to change the topic or deflect the substantiation for the issue of the thread.


The RCC's dogma is NOT that Jesus Had No Sibs.  There is no such dogma in the RCC.  Never has been.  For reasons unknown to me, it seems Catholics will do ANYTHING to evade the dogma - shifting it to a dogma no one has (Jesus Had No Sibs), trying to deflect the burden of proof to those who don't have any dogma on it.


The Dogma is NOT about sibs, it's about sex.   It's not about Jesus, it's about Mary.   I invite you to stay on your own topic.






.







.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 15, 2010 - 11:49:22
Angelos, knock it off.  If you do not have anything contructive to add to the thread, stay out of it.

Chesterton, what protestants deny the virginity of Mary?  The virgin birth of Christ is the mainstay of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Bond

I think you know that I am referring to Mary's perpetual virginity.



If it is, if the title of this thread is the subject of this thread, then the verse you quoted is moot to the topic.  


My experience in Catholicism is that this is one of the verses Catholics occasionally use to try to support that Jesus had no sibs.  It's entirely baseless of course, moot to that subject,  but that's typically what it is quoted for.  But, by your own admission, that's not the issue we are to discuss.  Ironically, you seem to be hijacking your own thread - right in the opening post!  




As YOU very well know, there is no Protestant dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" (or Jesus Didn't Have Sibs).   Yes, I know, SOME Protestants have an opinion about whether Jesus had sibs or not (you'll find many of them have opinions about the war in Iraq and global warming too) but there is no dogma on this in ANY Protestant denomination known to me.   This seems to merely be attempt to change the topic or deflect the substantiation for the issue of the thread.


The RCC's dogma is NOT that Jesus Had No Sibs.  There is no such dogma in the RCC.  Never has been.  For reasons unknown to me, it seems Catholics will do ANYTHING to evade the dogma - shifting it to a dogma no one has (Jesus Had No Sibs), trying to deflect the burden of proof to those who don't have any dogma on it.


The Dogma is NOT about sibs, it's about sex.   It's not about Jesus, it's about Mary.   I invite you to stay on your own topic.





Many more words without answering the question.

Could you at least attempt to answer the question in the OP?
.







.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 14:14:23

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 14:53:20
Ryan, you are very patient and perceptive.

Great post, I couldn't have done it!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 16:23:05

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 19:09:45
Quote
The original poster has specifically stated that the topic of this thread and the issue we are to discuss is this:  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  It's NOT "Did Jesus have sibs."  Thus, I fail to see how the verse quoted in the opening post is relevant to the topic he insists is the matter before us.


It's a simple correlation that if she didn't have kids and people were convinced that she had kids and then see that she probably didn't have kids then maybe the idea of perpetual virginity is not such a huge leap.

It's an internet forum and everything isn't going to be written out in legalese so sometimes we have to give a little elbow room when it comes to topics and the sloppy way in which we toss them about.  Longsuffering, patience, etc. 

We can note that just because she didn't have kids it doesn't necessarily mean she was ever Virgin.  Noted. 
 
Besides the natural progression of chat forums winds up talking about all kinds of things.  First you say, "oh look, the jews had a custom and according to law the eldest surviving son should receive care of the Mother should the eldest son pass" and "oh look, it's common amongst the Jews of Jesus time that when God would manifest Himself in some great display or perform a miracle everyone abstains from relations for extended periods of time" and oh look, "Jews wouldn't even go near the ark or the tabernacle or the Holy of Holies and here the Son of God was in the womb of a young girl and it's implausible that a righteous man such as Joseph would even dream of going near Mary as a sort of ark" etc...   

It's the unpredictable whateverness that arises out of these chat forums that makes it part of the experience.

Quote
However, protestant dogma varies from group to group


Quote
Yes, although not on this point.  I'm not aware of ANY Protestant denomination that has a dogma of "Mary Had Sex" or "Mary Had No Sex."   I agree, individual Protestants may have a personal opinion about such, but then they have personal opinions about thousands of things, such is not official, formal  dogma.


Oh there's plenty that think of this as a huge issue otherwise you wouldn't get such heated debates over it.  The Jesus didn't have siblings/Perpetual Virginity issue gets listed on the "unbiblical teachings" lists in Protestant churches and as you know one of the staple dogmas (though it's not actually help up as a mirror) is that you have to justify your beliefs based on Holy Scripture.   

And you said it best.  There is no official formal dogma according to the whole of protestantism otherwise Protestantism would cease to exist. 

Quote
And again, I fail to see what that has to do with the Scripture in question.


The only reason I had to bring up dogma is because you said that because Protestants have no dogma it's not a topic worth discussing and the burden of proof was on the RCC anyway. 

The thing is, dogma in Protestantism isn't expressed as a whole but on the individual level.  Otherwise you couldn't have Zwingli and Luther taking communion together.  When Luther takes communion, he chews Jesus but Zwingli is experiencing the cognitive recollection and symbolism and yet both are true to the whole of protestantism because the system is set up on the "personal" or "individual" level.   I'm sure there's plenty of individuals out there that thinks that Mary having kids and other things must! be so and to believe otherwise is dangerous to your soul because you're going against the "bible". 


Quote
Then what does the verse in question have to do with the dogma that is the topic of this thread?


It simply starts a dialog and opens possibilities.  If I believe Mary in no way could have not had other kids because the bible says so and then realize maybe the bible doesn't then maybe I can actually start looking at the teachings about her Virginity.   

Quote
My experience as a Catholic includes the awareness that this verse is often used to try to suggest that Jesus had no siblings, but the opening poster specifically said that it NOT the topic of this thread, the topic is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.


Noted.  Now you can humor the conversation and see if other protestants would like to discuss the "open" topic or perhaps just focus on her Virginity or not participate altogether.  We get it.  They are not directly link.  Life is rough.  We'll make do. 

Quote
What?   None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue here.


well, we had a succession of topics and I was going with the flow (that's how the internet rolls)

First topic was listed in the topic header and that was about Mary's Virginity.  Ok.  I figured it was probably about her Perpetual Virginity. 

Second topic was revealed when the verse posted was about siblings.  Ok.  I can see a loose correlation here and also worth something exploring and not a bad stepping stone. 

I read the replies and see that a third topic is posted.  The third topic is how the title header and the verses listed are two separate issues and doesn't want to acknowledge any kind of correlation.  I continue to read the reply and it says that it doesn't matter either way what the topic header is or the verses about siblings because Protestants don't have any dogma according to the "whole" of Protestantism and therefore is rendered "Moot". 

So I reply and say that Protestants don't have any dogma according to the whole.  True.  However, on a personal and individual level they certainly do have dogmas/doctrines/teachings regarding both the issue of Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Sibling issue.  And so I go on to explain this reality by providing the example of Luther and Zwingi going to the very same "protestant" Church and approaching communion and Luther is personally chewing Jesus with his teach (Martin's words) and Zwingli is enjoying a nice symbolic cognitive recollection experience and yet because they define "church" as the church of "self" they are in perfect "communion" with one another even though they are both divided on who Jesus is.  Martin is approaching the Jesus who is present in the Eucharist and Zwingli is approaching the Jesus who established a symbolic cognitive journey of recollection.   

When in Rome....   

Now we have a totally surreal fourth topic of what the topic is not and is and maybe if we are fortunate we might actually get around talking about one of the two original topics posted. 


Quote
Even if the poster is only asking for individual personal opinions (which, of course, means they are not Protestant view only views of Protestants - apples and oranges), then what in the world does the verse have to do with what he has stated is the singular topic of this thread:  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?


Well, if she didn't have kids (you've mentioned this three times I think and I've replied three times to this it seems) then it might be possible that she remained ever Virgin.  Of course there's no Protestant dogma or doctrine or teaching that binds all protestants on Mary but since those things are only ever personally expressed then for those individuals that do believe Jesus had siblings or that Mary was not ever Virgin (most assume she wasn't ever Virgin because of the Siblings) then the two topics listed aren't a bad way to approach it. 

I would say that the verse isn't too far out of the ball park with where it could potentially lead toward but if we keep up this Filibuster we'll never find out. 



Quote
Read the title of the thread.
Read what the opening poster specifically said is THE topic of this thread.

It's not "What does this verse mean?"  It's not, "Are there any Protesants who have an opinion that Jesus might have had siblings?"

Frankly, no one - including the opening poster himself! - has had any impute whatsoever in how this verse relates to the issue he says we are to discuss.  It MIGHT have some relevance to an issue about sibs but he insists and the title indicates that that is not the issue we are to discuss, that's NOT the topic.


A fourth time?  See above. 


Quote
And again, the author of this thread gave the title to it.  It's about Mary and sex, not Jesus and sibls.  He is the one who specifically stated that the issue we are to discuss is this:  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.   that's about Mary.  That's about sex. 


If that's something you want to talk about ok.  However we can also talk about how it is not in line with the topic but that would be off topic too.  Either way this thread seems to be rolling along... 



(http://corporate.cqrollcall.com/user-assets/Images/congress101/filibuster-1.jpg)
Filibuster.  Yikes!




Christ is risen.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 19:39:35
I don't see what the fuss is about. The OP is a simple question about why Jesus asked John to look after his mother rather than have one of his brothers do it. Bond gave the simple answer to the simple question: at this time Jesus' brothers were not believers so he asked someone close to him to take on the responsibility. In a somewhat similar way a friend asked my wife and I to look after her child is she and her husband both died in a fiery plane crash. Her mother or brother would be the closest blood relatives but her brother is a doofus and her mother is at a grandmotherly age. What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity? This is only a problem is you make it one. Scripture clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters so I accept it. How could whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin have anything to do with my salvation? Jesus paid the price for my sins, not Mary. Why do we even need to have this discussion?    ::frustrated::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 20:46:58
Only a person completely ignorant of middle-eastern phrases would think that Jesus' brethren means his biological siblings. Anyone who knows even a little knows that in the middle east the term is much wider and it includes clan-members.

According to some clueless people, Bible phrases, like: “the Lord’s brother
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 21:01:49
Count me as one the "clueless" ones for I believe that when the bible says "brother" it means "brother". James, the apostle that Paul spoke to, was the son of Joseph and Mary who qualified as being an apostle because he had known Jesus during his life on earth even though like the rest of Jesus' brothers and sisters he didn't accept his divinity until after he died.

Why is it important to catholics that Mary be a virgin? Do you think there is something wrong with married people having sexual relations? Would having brothers diminsh Jesus' importance? I don't understand why the doctrine ever started. Enlighten me.  ::shrug::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 21:06:39
Count me as one the "clueless" ones for I believe that when the bible says "brother" it means "brother". James, the apostle that Paul spoke to, was the son of Joseph and Mary who qualified as being an apostle because he had known Jesus during his life on earth even though like the rest of Jesus' brothers and sisters he didn't accept his divinity until after he died.

Why is it important to catholics that Mary be a virgin? Do you think there is something wrong with married people having sexual relations? Would having brothers diminsh Jesus' importance? I don't understand why the doctrine ever started. Enlighten me.  ::shrug::

Not only the Catholic, but the Orthodox Church as well believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. All of the unified Church of Christ for 1500 years believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. All the early Church Fathers (including the ones who wrote the Nicene Creed) believed in it...I trust the early Church Fathers more than some cluless Americans who have no idea of middle-eastern culture and phrases around Jesus' life.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 21:14:47
But WHY does it matter if she was a virgin all her life?

People used to believe the earth was flat but they got over that.

I used to think that Jesus had blue eyes and long blond hair (I saw his picture) but now I know better. Either way he died for my sins. So what does it matter if Mary denied Joseph sexual relations all through their marriage?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: larry2 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 21:23:07
Matthew 1:25. And he (Joseph) knew her not till she (Mary) brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 21:58:25
I don't see what the fuss is about. The OP is a simple question about why Jesus asked John to look after his mother rather than have one of his brothers do it. Bond gave the simple answer to the simple question: at this time Jesus' brothers were not believers so he asked someone close to him to take on the responsibility. In a somewhat similar way a friend asked my wife and I to look after her child is she and her husband both died in a fiery plane crash. Her mother or brother would be the closest blood relatives but her brother is a doofus and her mother is at a grandmotherly age. What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity? This is only a problem is you make it one. Scripture clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters so I accept it. How could whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin have anything to do with my salvation? Jesus paid the price for my sins, not Mary. Why do we even need to have this discussion?    ::frustrated::

Nothing.  Which is why the verse has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, according to the opening poster.





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 - 22:14:32
Quote
Matthew 1:25. And he (Joseph) knew her not till she (Mary) brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The Greek for "until" is "heos." It can vary in usage and we see it in passages like Matt 28:20. 

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until (heos) the end of the age


Does this mean that he is with us always until he is not? 


Also have to ask ourselves if the passage is truly trying to tell us about the private life of Joseph and Mary.  Most likely, no.  The point of the passage is only to make clear to us that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. 



Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 06:22:37
I don't see what the fuss is about. The OP is a simple question about why Jesus asked John to look after his mother rather than have one of his brothers do it. Bond gave the simple answer to the simple question: at this time Jesus' brothers were not believers so he asked someone close to him to take on the responsibility. In a somewhat similar way a friend asked my wife and I to look after her child is she and her husband both died in a fiery plane crash. Her mother or brother would be the closest blood relatives but her brother is a doofus and her mother is at a grandmotherly age. What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity? This is only a problem is you make it one. Scripture clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters so I accept it. How could whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin have anything to do with my salvation? Jesus paid the price for my sins, not Mary. Why do we even need to have this discussion?    ::frustrated::

Nothing.  Which is why the verse has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, according to the opening poster.





.

I want to inform that there's a relationship between having sex and having kids!! Usually, virgins do not have kids and married women who are not infertile (Mary wasn't) and have sex, have kids. So the post was relevant to the discussion since it supports the view that Mary did not have kids. If she did, Jesus would not have insulted his siblings buy giving Mary to a stranger
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 07:22:40
That Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is a doctrinal stance of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Of the early fathers of the Church, only Tertullian seems to have questioned the teaching.

 The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.

 Defenders of the teaching, including John Calvin, have pointed out that Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and his disciples, lacked a specific word for "cousin," so that the word "brother" was used instead. In addition, nothing in Greek or Aramaic disqualifies a half-brother (same father, different mother) from being called a "brother".
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 07:42:21
This is the Orthodox view on Mary's perpetual virginity from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

The earliest work I know of which uses the term "ever-virgin" is Against Beron and Helix by Hippolytus, written around 220 AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does not (if I recall correctly) use that specific term, but does treat her as ever-virgin.

Also according to the early Fathers:

Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians, Second oration, pgh. 70 (between 356-360 AD): "Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin;"

Hippolytus, Against Beron and Helix, from fragment 8 (around 220 AD?): "But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man. "

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, from book 7, chapter 16 (written between 192-202 AD): "Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. "

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 07:42:55
Just a thought, an angle that I'd never thought of before.

In Jewish thought, a woman was more blessed if she had more chlldren.  So if Mary was a "highly favored" daughter, as many Bibles translate Luke 1:28, then it would stand to reason that Mary, if she had been sexually active, would have been blessed with many children as well.  So it seems we can use the question of whether Jesus had siblings as an implicit indication of whether Mary was a virgin.

Why is it important to catholics that Mary be a virgin? Do you think there is something wrong with married people having sexual relations? Would having brothers diminsh Jesus' importance? I don't understand why the doctrine ever started. Enlighten me.  ::shrug::


Its important because it is true; it is part of Sacred Tradition.   The Catholic Church teaches that married people having marital relations is a very, very good thing.  It has nothing to do with "Jesus' importance."  :)

Here is an article that explains things well.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

God Bless,

Andre
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 07:45:22
That Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is a doctrinal stance of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Of the early fathers of the Church, only Tertullian seems to have questioned the teaching.

 The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.

 Defenders of the teaching, including John Calvin, have pointed out that Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and his disciples, lacked a specific word for "cousin," so that the word "brother" was used instead. In addition, nothing in Greek or Aramaic disqualifies a half-brother (same father, different mother) from being called a "brother".

You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 07:50:16
That Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is a doctrinal stance of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Of the early fathers of the Church, only Tertullian seems to have questioned the teaching.

 The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.

 Defenders of the teaching, including John Calvin, have pointed out that Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and his disciples, lacked a specific word for "cousin," so that the word "brother" was used instead. In addition, nothing in Greek or Aramaic disqualifies a half-brother (same father, different mother) from being called a "brother".

You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.

What matters to me is modern Protestants' arrogance that drives them to dismiss the beliefs of the early Church Fathers.

 Do you really think you know better than them??? At least the early Protestant leaders, like Calvin and Luther, had some respect for the early unified Church that Jesus built
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 08:13:01
You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.

Our Blessed Mother was not going against St. Paul's teaching.  Mary's mother, Anna, devoted her child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary served God at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22).  However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion.

In Christ,
Selene

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 08:45:20
What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity?   ::frustrated::

Nothing.  Which is why the verse has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, according to the opening poster.





.

I want to inform that there's a relationship between having sex and having kids!!


Sure.  So, IF it could be substantiated that Mary had other children - that would make this dogma problematic, at best.

But the inverse is moot, thus the typical Catholic apologetic is absurd.   I think everyone (12 and older anyway) knows that a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage does not mandate that ergo there will be a child resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all.   Come on, we're NOT a biologically ignorant as some Catholics seem to think.  No children does NOT confirm no sex.   The whole apologetic is MOOT (and silly and kind of insulting of our intelligence).


The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex. 
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.





.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 08:52:38
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex. 
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 08:55:20
What does any of this have to do with Mary's virginity?   ::frustrated::

Nothing.  Which is why the verse has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, according to the opening poster.





.

I want to inform that there's a relationship between having sex and having kids!!


Sure.  So, IF it could be substantiated that Mary had other children - that would make this dogma problematic, at best.

But the inverse is moot, thus the typical Catholic apologetic is absurd.   I think everyone (12 and older anyway) knows that a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage does not mandate that ergo there will be a child resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all.   Come on, we're NOT a biologically ignorant as some Catholics seem to think.  No children does NOT confirm no sex.   The whole apologetic is MOOT (and silly and kind of insulting of our intelligence).


The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex. 
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.





.



What matters to me is modern Protestants' arrogance that drives them to dismiss the beliefs of the early Church Fathers.

 Do you really think you, a 22 year old kid, know better than the early Church Fathers??? Do you,  know better than Luther?

 At least the early Protestant leaders, like Calvin and Luther, had some respect for the early unified Church that Jesus built.

It's your sheer insult to the Church Fathers and your complete disregard for their beliefs that bothers me, not whether the Theotokos had sex
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:00:44
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex. 
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel. 


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.








.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:02:29


You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

She remains faithful.

Does it matter that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding?  Probably not, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.


The Truth is available for you to accept or reject.

How do we discern the Truth?

1 John 4
 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:03:27
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex. 
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel. 


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.








.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), all the early Church Fathers, and even the leaders of his own movement, like Luther and Calvin.

There's something to be said about blind arrogance
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:06:20
Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.

And this is coming from someone who claimed that the Bible is a false teacher on another thread because the Bible itself is saying that we are to obey and submit ourselves to our priests and bishops. 

As I said, the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher? 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:09:59
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not wrong, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:18:47
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not false, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.





.

It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of:  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and of most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. They are The Tradition (not Orthodox and Catholic Fathers), not you a 22 year-old kid.

Sadly you place yourself above them...that's the pathetic part...that's where your anti-Catholic obsession has led you
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:34:34
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not false, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.






.

It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of:  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years

[/quote]


Wrong.  


The Annunication is on March 25 for one reason:  It's 9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord.  Do the math....   Since the 4th Century, the Church has understood that the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication by the angel happened ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?  Because the verb She used is in the PRESENT TENSE.  

Your view requires two things:  
1.  CHANGING the verb Mary used from the present tense to the future perfect.
2.  IGNORING 1600 years of Christian Tradition of celebrating the Annunication on March 25 based on the verb tense.


Your view is grammatically, textually IMPOSSIBLE.
And it denies 1600 years of Tradition.

"I AM" (present tense) does not mean "I will continue to be until my undeath"  Two different verbs.  You must delete what Mary said and replace it with an entirely different word for your view to work, you are NOT interpreting the text you are just CHANGING the text.   And making the church WRONG for 1600 years in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25.



.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:37:50
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not false, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  
It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.






.

It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of:  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years







Josiah,

Did you finish High School? Are you seriously arguing that the fact that Jesus was born 9 months after the Holy Spirit placed Him into Mary's womb somehow "proves" that Mary was not ever-Virgin?? You're embarassing yourself.

I guess  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong rofl believing that Mary was indeed ever-virgin

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 09:55:35
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not false, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  

It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.






.

It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of:  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years







Josiah,

Did you finish High School?

I guess  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong rofl believing that Mary was indeed ever-virgin


Quote Luther, Zwingli or Calvin who state that the verb Mary used in this text indicates that Mary would be a Perpetual Virgin and that the Church has been wrong since the 4th century in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25 (9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord)?   


You are simply ignoring the obvious.  Your "apologetic" depends on CHANGING what Mary said.  It's not an "interpretation" of the text, it's just CHANGING the text, deleting what Our Lady actually said and replacing it with an entirely different word.  And indicating that Church Tradition based on that verb has been wrong for at least 1600 years.   Your apologetic actually contradicts the very text you use for it.   Sorry.   She said the verb in the PRESENT TENSE, not the future perfect.  Your entire apologetic crashes.  It is untextual, untraditional and a gross violation of grammar. 






.


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 10:02:12
The dogma is that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's about Mary and sex.  
YOU are the one that needs to confirm that she had no sex ever.
And why that tidbit of bedroom data is SO very, very, very important to Catholics so as to mandate a  Dogma.
 

The proof is in her answer to the Angel Gabriel.  


Which says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about how often She did or did not have sex.  I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

Her answer is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  She IS - at that present time - a virgin.  Nothing about ".... and I will forever more until I don't die be a virgin."  It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  The ONLY textually possible interpretation is that Mary is asking, "How can this be since I am - at this moment - a virgin?"  She seems unavoidable that she assumed (or perhaps was even told) that this conception would be in the present tense - today.  This has ALWAYS been the view of the church which is why the Annunciation of Our Lord is celebrated on March 25th (do the math).  It has ALWAYS been the view of the church that Our Lord was conceived ON THE SAME DAY as the annunciation.  Why has the church always held to that view, because Mary's question is in the PRESENT TENSE.   She understood the conception to not be 32 years in the future - after She and Joseph were married and perhaps with a plethora of children but NOW when she is yet a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.









.

Apparently this 22 year old kid thinks he's better able to interpret the Bible than all the Bishops of the first 1500 years of the Church (both Orthodox and Catholics), a


No.  I'm intepreting it the ONLY way the grammar permits, not changing the verb from present tense to future perfect tense.  AND I'm interpreting it EXACTLY the same way EVERY Christian tradition has since the 4th century when we began to celebrate the Annunication of March 25.   Do the math.  March 25...... December 25......   Why do we celebrate the Annunication on March 25?  Because Mary speaks to the angel IN THE PRESENT TENSE, meaning She understood the conception to be THEN, in the PRESENT, not continuous in the future.  Thus, her statement that I AM (present tense) a virgin is correctly interpreted as a statement that is was - at that time - a virgin.  Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE but is contrary to the Tradition of the Church since the 4th Century.




Quote
the proof you are seeking is in Mary's answer to the Angel Gabriel, but how can you see it when you claim that the Bible is a false teacher?

The text is not false, your changing it is.   And your interpretation contrary to every Christian Tradition since the 4th Century is.  

It's PRESENT tense, not future perfect.   The Church has interpreted it since at least the 4th Century as meaning She was - on that day - a virgin which is why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25.    We have, for at least 1600 years, understood the Conception of Our Lord and the Annunication ON THE SAME DAY.  Why?   Because the verb Mary used is PRESENT TENSE.   Your interpretation is not only grammatically IMPOSSIBLE (and thus unbiblical) but contrary to Tradition.






.

It is not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of:  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years







Josiah,

Did you finish High School?

I guess  the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not have the benefit of Josiah's Wisdom and reading comprehension skills, so they all got it wrong rofl believing that Mary was indeed ever-virgin


Quote Luther, Zwingli or Calvin who state that the verb Mary used in this text indicates that Mary would be a Perpetual Virgin and that the Church has been wrong since the 4th century in celebrating the Annunciation on March 25 (9 months before the Nativity of Our Lord)?  


You are simply ignoring the obvious.  Your "apologetic" depends on CHANGING what Mary said.  It's not an "interpretation" of the text, it's just CHANGING the text, deleting what Our Lady actually said and replacing it with an entirely different word.  And indicating that Church Tradition based on that verb has been wrong for at least 1600 years.   Your apologetic actually contradicts the very text you use for it.   Sorry.   She said the verb in the PRESENT TENSE, not the future perfect.  Your entire apologetic crashes.  It is untextual, untraditional and a gross violation of grammar.  






.




In your inability to comprehend you forget or ignore the fact that I did not argue anything about Mary using present or past tense (someone else did).

My point is the point of the thread: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed that Mary was ever-Virgin. That's why I believe it. I trust the early Church Fathers with docility. I'm not babyish enough to do my own exegesis - like you are - especially on an issue that ALL Church Fathers agree

You are in a sad, sad state, placing yourself above the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin who all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.

You're 22, but you're acting like a stuborn teenager who won't admit that he's wrong, using increasinglyabsurd arguments to prove all his Teachers (assuming you're Christian) wrong
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 11:26:54


My point is the point of the thread: the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed that Mary was ever-Virgin. That's why I believe it. I trust the early Church Fathers with docility. I'm not babyish enough to do my own exegesis - like you are - especially on an issue that ALL Church Fathers agree


1.  Glad to know that now you are not supporting the changing of the verb in the text and the rejection of 1600+ years of tradition in an attempt to defend this dogma.

2.  Ah, a different apologetic.  Okay.  A question:  What 1500 years are you talking about?  Could you specify those years?



Quote
You're 22, but you're acting like a stuborn teenager who won't admit that he's wrong

Wrong in WHAT?   The only point I've made so far is that the verb tense in the text in question is PRESENT TENSE, but no one here has disputed that.  And that for at least 1600 years, the Annunciation has been celebrated on March 25 because for at least that long, it has been understood that the Annunication and the Conception of Our Lord happened ON THE SAME DAY because the verb tense Mary used is present tense.  But no one has disputed that, either.  So, where am I wrong?

You keep trying to change the subject.  The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact of highest importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  I never said if I think such is or is not the case, what I think is moot and not the issue before us (there YET has been  thread about me).  The issue before us is singular:  Is it true?   The ball is in your court.....

 





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 14:01:31
Josiah: "I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"

So you have no clue, or opinion, about the Original Post and yet you keep posting on this thread to please yourself, like any self-absorbed 22 year old boy would do, is that it??...

Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

Now if you have no clue about the subject (like about all the subjects you keep posting ad nauseum), I suggest you find a more real (not on-line) way to please yourself
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 14:56:53
There are no verses or passages that conclude without doubt that Mary "remained" Virgin.  I don't think anyone would dispute this.  

There are a lot of things that do point to her remaining Virgin but those are found outside the bounds of the text itself.  Did pious Jews abstain from relations after God did something miraculous or revealed Himself through some sign or wonder or miracle?  Yes.  Is it unlikely that Jesus had he had siblings would give Mary to St. John, the beloved when he even said to obey the Pharisees and did all that could be done in fulfilling all righteousness?  Yes.  It's unlikely.  The fact that there are many many Old Testament verses that point to Mary as being a type of "ark" and "new eve" point to her ever Virginity (brought forth the firstborn)?  Yes.  Would a pious Jew dream of even going near something so Holy as the womb of Mary that contained the uncontainable God?  No.  A pious gentile wouldn't even dream of it.  

But all of the above is outside the text and unfortunately can't, from a "sola scriptura" frame of reference rely on any of these realities to form a doctrine or teaching or even an understanding according to the "whole" of Protestantism.  So it just becomes like most things in their tradition.  Novelty.  A nice thing to believe or not.  A bad thing to believe or not.  This is why these topics are just going to wind up being talked over the other side on both sides.

A Catholic who sees Holy Tradition as being authoritative can with authority assert the teachings of the church and sleep at night.  However, the protestant allows himself only to make doctrines, teachings and dogmas according to their own understanding so long as it is based on (even if it's loosely based on) their reading of scripture.   It's a personal and private matter and the only authority is in their personal self, granting what they believe independantly, as being "sound doctrine".  

Does it matter whatsoever to Protestants that all the reformers believed in Mary's perpetual Virginity?  No.  Is there a solid paper trail of doctrine or teaching on Mary's ever-Virginity prior to the time when people outside the Church began to teach against it?  No.  Do we have a nice paper trail of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we express it today prior to groups and individuals teaching against it?  No.  

Dogma on either side isn't even an issue.  A protestant sees salvation as being a private matter and so the protestant expression of "church" is private.  They are accountable only to their interpretation of scripture alone and whatever other standards they personally or as a group set up for themselves.   Even if it conflicts, contradicts and has no continuity with their fellow protestant.  

So if the fathers, the very founders of their churches and church structure believe she was ever virgin it just doesn't matter to them.  They, their own pastors, founders, leaders etc, according to the protestant mind, have no authority because the only authority is in their private choice to declare what they personally believe the Holy Spirit or hermeneutic approach has convinced them is the true stance to take.   Their lack of tradition is their tradition.  This is why if Luther came back to the church that bares his name he would protest against it and want to reform it.  

Protestantism doesn't look much like itself if you even go back fifty years.  How is it that you have nearly all the reformers and all the Christians world wide believing in her ever Virginity and then a mere hundred years later, not?  A protestant today might think to themselves that those people from back in the day must not have been able to read the bible.  But Luther translated the bible (even the books that are sometimes referred to as Apocrypha) from the original languages.  Maybe Luther just didn't notice the "brothers and sisters" parts.  

The fact is this.  It boils down to Holy Tradition informing us of the scriptures and often the other way around.  Some protestants today do recognize bits and pieces of Holy Tradition and have no trouble proclaiming them as truth.  Truths such as the martyrdom of most of the Apostles.  Why this matters?  We are told to remember our leaders, to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith.  It's what the Church does, "according to the whole" but in Protestantism, they recollect as far as the text allows them and so there is no past, only the one they construct by reading the Holy Scriptures.  Now does it matter to a Protestant that they all come to different conclusions on what happened in the past and what the Apostles taught and how the early Christians and the early Church is depicted in the scriptures?  No.

Does it matter that Jesus is fully human and that there is an actual human that gave her flesh to him that took on flesh and so united God's nature to His creation?  Does it matter that what Mary gave Christ is not unlike raising jacobs ladder to the heavens?  That Jesus probably looked like his mother as all kids look like their parents?  Does it matter that the very blood that we (I hope) consider precious was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin?  Does it matter that Mary is the first Christian?  The first to have Christ "in" her as we are all to have Christ "in" us?  Why does St. John see a typology between Mary, Israel, the Ark, the Church and interplays on them throughout Revelation and the gospel of St. John?  Does it matter?  

The way we treat these subjects are often poor.  We think we have to be convinced or argued into belief instead of looking at who Christ is and seeking Christ in Mary.  We reduce Mary to an easy bake oven that popped out a golden ticket so we can go to some Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (heaven) instead of looking at God work through the very life of a person who gave birth to life himself.  Who offered the fruit of her womb to humanity.  We're quick to complain about Eve and give her, her credit and remember her work in the garden by handing humanity the fruit of the advesary's "word", that resulted in lowering man to the depths of Sheol, but when Mary hands humanity the fruit of the "word" of the Father, that humanity and all of creation might be raised, she's a "tool" God used to just get us to heaven.  An oven.  He "used" her...  


Mary might not "save" you but she's a precious member of the Church and to remove her and not remember her and reduce her is to reduce Christ and take away from what he gave to her to give to us with thanksgiving (eucharist).  She typifies the Christian life.  

Her virginity goes beyond mere sexual whateverness.  It has to do with being Holy as He is Holy.  It's not a demonization of sex or marriage but a life of one lived as a perfect example of sex and marriage.  How many of us can say that we gave birth to God?  How many of us can say that we are so "highly favored"?  

She matters.  What we say about her matters.  

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Mary's life spoke volumes that were they written down, the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.  Her life was Christ in the most intimate unimaginable way ever known by any creature.  When on part suffers, the whole body suffers.  When one part rejoices, the whole rejoices with her.  

(http://dialogues.stjohndfw.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/theotokos-eleussa.jpg)














Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:07:16
Manna to you for that beautiful post, Ryan.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:18:12
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 15:27:44
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:06:57
I think Ryan sums it up well. RC and Orthodox believe the patristic writers should be put on the same level as inspired writers and I believe in sola scriptura. I have read some writings of the fathers but I put them in the same category as modern day commentators. The modern writers might be more correct in their interpretation of scripture than the church fathers because they have access to more scholarship. To me, everything I need to know is found from Genesis to Revelation. When John sat his pen down the writings from inspiration ceased. Catholics and believers in scripture alone will never agree because we use a different set of rules. For this reason I don't consider Catholics to be true Christians but to be in the same category as Mormons, people who use writing outside inspired scripture to back up their doctrine. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't mind saying that I have a better understanding of the doctrine than did the church fathers, Luther, Zwingli or the popes.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:34:00
I think Ryan sums it up well. RC and Orthodox believe the patristic writers should be put on the same level as inspired writers and I believe in sola scriptura. I have read some writings of the fathers but I put them in the same category as modern day commentators. The modern writers might be more correct in their interpretation of scripture than the church fathers because they have access to more scholarship. To me, everything I need to know is found from Genesis to Revelation. When John sat his pen down the writings from inspiration ceased. Catholics and believers in scripture alone will never agree because we use a different set of rules. For this reason I don't consider Catholics to be true Christians but to be in the same category as Mormons, people who use writing outside inspired scripture to back up their doctrine. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't mind saying that I have a better understanding of the doctrine than did the church fathers, Luther, Zwingli or the popes.

To sum it up, on the one hand we have 70% of ALL Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) that follow Church Tradition and have apostolic succession and dogmas and more values that are 99% identical and on the other we have 30% of ALL Christians (Protestants) who are splintered in 5000+ sects with completely contradictory dogmas and moral values.

So according to Snargles the "true Christians" are the small minority who has increasingly splintered in a Babel of contradictory beliefs, dogmas and moral values. Even within individual sects, let's say Josiah's Lutherans, individual churches are not in communion with each-other and have diametrically opposed moral values. That's the result of Sola Scriptura or when the blind leads the blind.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 17:53:55
YES

Of course, I don't believe that all of those 5000+ sects have it all right either. "Many are called but few are chosen". "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." "Heaven is a small town" (I heard that one on a country station on my way to Wednesday night Bible study).

I come from a tradition that says anyone can pick up a Bible and figure out what to do to be saved. Using Scottish Common Sense reasoning we take the Bible at its literal word (realizing that such things as "If your eye offends your pluck it out" are hyperbole). There is no need for priests, prophets, patristic writers, or popes to understand what God meant for us to understand.

This thread started with a simple question and I thought the writer honestly wanted some Protestant opinions to come to a better understanding of us, perhaps to learn the error of his way. I see now that wasn't the case. It is as though one of us is using the soccer rulebook and the other is using the football rule book. We will never come to an agreement so I am leaving the discussion.   ::The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's th
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Bon Voyage on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:33:37
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage?  Highly, highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:40:49
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage?  Highly, highly unlikely.

I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.

 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Bon Voyage on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 18:48:21
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage?  Highly, highly unlikely.

I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.

 

Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did consummate after the birth of Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 19:26:20
Man marries woman, yet does not ever consummate marriage?  Highly, highly unlikely.

I think you would agree that Jesus' incarnation and virgin birth was a highly unique event too. Which is why the angel had to talk to both Mary and Joseph to begin with.

 

Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did consummate after the birth of Jesus.

First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."

Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.

"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mt. 1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Ps. 89:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Ps. 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]

Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1 Cor. 15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Ps. 122:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mt. 28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!

St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 17, 2010 - 20:48:13
There are no verses or passages that conclude without doubt that Mary "remained" Virgin.  I don't think anyone would dispute this.  

There are a lot of things that do point to her remaining Virgin but those are found outside the bounds of the text itself.  Did pious Jews abstain from relations after God did something miraculous or revealed Himself through some sign or wonder or miracle?  Yes.  Is it unlikely that Jesus had he had siblings would give Mary to St. John, the beloved when he even said to obey the Pharisees and did all that could be done in fulfilling all righteousness?  Yes.  It's unlikely.  The fact that there are many many Old Testament verses that point to Mary as being a type of "ark" and "new eve" point to her ever Virginity (brought forth the firstborn)?  Yes.  Would a pious Jew dream of even going near something so Holy as the womb of Mary that contained the uncontainable God?  No.  A pious gentile wouldn't even dream of it.  

But all of the above is outside the text and unfortunately can't, from a "sola scriptura" frame of reference rely on any of these realities to form a doctrine or teaching or even an understanding according to the "whole" of Protestantism.  So it just becomes like most things in their tradition.  Novelty.  A nice thing to believe or not.  A bad thing to believe or not.  This is why these topics are just going to wind up being talked over the other side on both sides.

A Catholic who sees Holy Tradition as being authoritative can with authority assert the teachings of the church and sleep at night.  However, the protestant allows himself only to make doctrines, teachings and dogmas according to their own understanding so long as it is based on (even if it's loosely based on) their reading of scripture.   It's a personal and private matter and the only authority is in their personal self, granting what they believe independantly, as being "sound doctrine".  

Does it matter whatsoever to Protestants that all the reformers believed in Mary's perpetual Virginity?  No.  Is there a solid paper trail of doctrine or teaching on Mary's ever-Virginity prior to the time when people outside the Church began to teach against it?  No.  Do we have a nice paper trail of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we express it today prior to groups and individuals teaching against it?  No.  

Dogma on either side isn't even an issue.  A protestant sees salvation as being a private matter and so the protestant expression of "church" is private.  They are accountable only to their interpretation of scripture alone and whatever other standards they personally or as a group set up for themselves.   Even if it conflicts, contradicts and has no continuity with their fellow protestant.  

So if the fathers, the very founders of their churches and church structure believe she was ever virgin it just doesn't matter to them.  They, their own pastors, founders, leaders etc, according to the protestant mind, have no authority because the only authority is in their private choice to declare what they personally believe the Holy Spirit or hermeneutic approach has convinced them is the true stance to take.   Their lack of tradition is their tradition.  This is why if Luther came back to the church that bares his name he would protest against it and want to reform it.  

Protestantism doesn't look much like itself if you even go back fifty years.  How is it that you have nearly all the reformers and all the Christians world wide believing in her ever Virginity and then a mere hundred years later, not?  A protestant today might think to themselves that those people from back in the day must not have been able to read the bible.  But Luther translated the bible (even the books that are sometimes referred to as Apocrypha) from the original languages.  Maybe Luther just didn't notice the "brothers and sisters" parts.  

The fact is this.  It boils down to Holy Tradition informing us of the scriptures and often the other way around.  Some protestants today do recognize bits and pieces of Holy Tradition and have no trouble proclaiming them as truth.  Truths such as the martyrdom of most of the Apostles.  Why this matters?  We are told to remember our leaders, to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith.  It's what the Church does, "according to the whole" but in Protestantism, they recollect as far as the text allows them and so there is no past, only the one they construct by reading the Holy Scriptures.  Now does it matter to a Protestant that they all come to different conclusions on what happened in the past and what the Apostles taught and how the early Christians and the early Church is depicted in the scriptures?  No.

Does it matter that Jesus is fully human and that there is an actual human that gave her flesh to him that took on flesh and so united God's nature to His creation?  Does it matter that what Mary gave Christ is not unlike raising jacobs ladder to the heavens?  That Jesus probably looked like his mother as all kids look like their parents?  Does it matter that the very blood that we (I hope) consider precious was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin?  Does it matter that Mary is the first Christian?  The first to have Christ "in" her as we are all to have Christ "in" us?  Why does St. John see a typology between Mary, Israel, the Ark, the Church and interplays on them throughout Revelation and the gospel of St. John?  Does it matter?  

The way we treat these subjects are often poor.  We think we have to be convinced or argued into belief instead of looking at who Christ is and seeking Christ in Mary.  We reduce Mary to an easy bake oven that popped out a golden ticket so we can go to some Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (heaven) instead of looking at God work through the very life of a person who gave birth to life himself.  Who offered the fruit of her womb to humanity.  We're quick to complain about Eve and give her, her credit and remember her work in the garden by handing humanity the fruit of the advesary's "word", that resulted in lowering man to the depths of Sheol, but when Mary hands humanity the fruit of the "word" of the Father, that humanity and all of creation might be raised, she's a "tool" God used to just get us to heaven.  An oven.  He "used" her...  


Mary might not "save" you but she's a precious member of the Church and to remove her and not remember her and reduce her is to reduce Christ and take away from what he gave to her to give to us with thanksgiving (eucharist).  She typifies the Christian life.  

Her virginity goes beyond mere sexual whateverness.  It has to do with being Holy as He is Holy.  It's not a demonization of sex or marriage but a life of one lived as a perfect example of sex and marriage.  How many of us can say that we gave birth to God?  How many of us can say that we are so "highly favored"?  

She matters.  What we say about her matters.  

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Mary's life spoke volumes that were they written down, the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.  Her life was Christ in the most intimate unimaginable way ever known by any creature.  When on part suffers, the whole body suffers.  When one part rejoices, the whole rejoices with her.  

([url]http://dialogues.stjohndfw.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/theotokos-eleussa.jpg[/url])

















Manna to you Ryan. Great post
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 07:36:19
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 08:58:16
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.





.

The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin.


You expect people to write about the virginity of the Mother of God while she was alive?? Are you  that dense??

You're easily the most clueless person on GCF. Are you that dense in real life or just on-line?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:12:18
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.






.

The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.



1.  Then you admit, your statement was false.

2.  Actually, you are entirely WRONG.   The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 09:46:46
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.






.

The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.



1.  Then you admit, your statement was false.

2.  Actually, you are entirely WRONG.   The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.






.

How pathetic. I'm sad for your state. You come across as completely unhinged. You keep posting about a subject that, by your admission, you have no opinion about, in a forum that is not about your religion - just to antagonise people. You get off by attacking the Theotokos. How can you live with yourself?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: k-pappy on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 10:39:10
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no?  Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?

Bond
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Bon Voyage on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 10:45:17
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no?  Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?

Bond

Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:01:05
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no?  Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?

Bond

Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.

Dear Bond and El Tigre,

I think the core difference between Orthodox and Catholics on one side and most Protestants on this forum on the other, was whether one believes in and respects the opinions and dogmas that the Early Church Fathers established (up to 800AD, before divisions started).

We believe that the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) did not abandon His Church after the last Evangelist (John) died. We believe that the Holy Spirit continued, and still continues, to be in the Church. For example, we believe that the Nicene Creed (that was written after 325AD) was a direct result of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in helping the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible.

Mary's perpetual virginity is a similar issue. There's nothing in the Bible, in our view, that contradicts it but also there's no 100% black and white quote that proves it. So in this case (as with the dogma of Trinity) we rely on the Bible interpretation of the Early Church Fathers, who on the issue of the ever-Virgin Mary (aeiparthenos as she's called in Greek), were unanimous.

Interestingly the major Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and  John Wesley) also agreed, through their reading of the Bible, that Mary was indeed ever-virgin



Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:18:37
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.






.

The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.



1.  Then you admit, your statement was false.

2.  Actually, you are entirely WRONG.   The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.






.

How pathetic. I'm sad for your state.  You get off by attacking the Theotokos.


Anything to evade the point......


1.   Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.

2.   Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.

3.  The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.

4.  Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos?  You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong.   Just more evasion and deflection.

5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's YOUR position.  The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it).  The issue is this:  Is it true?   The "ball" is in your court.  We're waiting......






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:24:19
I'm curious...I've been away a few days, but I posted a scripture that shows Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

I would think that Bible should settle the argument, no?  Why has nobody addressed the fact that the Bible clearly stipulates that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born?

Bond

Angelos made his attempt in reply #59.

Dear Bond and El Tigre,



We believe that the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) did not abandon His Church after the last Evangelist (John) died. We believe that the Holy Spirit continued, and still continues, to be in the Church. For example, we believe that the Nicene Creed (that was written after 325AD) was a direct result of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in helping the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible.

Mary's perpetual virginity is a similar issue. There's nothing in the Bible,


Moot.

This is NOT an issue of hermeneutics, even IF self (RCC) alone designates self (RCC) alone as the sole, private, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture (which it itself does - CCC 85, the most radical form of self appointing self as the sole interpreter found anywhere outside of the cults).  But you then destroyed the whole point you made by saying that there is NOTHING in the Bible about this, thus there is NOTHING in the Bible to interpret.  This, by your own admission, has NOTHING to do with the RCC's insistence that its own self is the sole, individual, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 - 11:45:27
.


Josiah: "The subject here is the proclaiming of a dogmatic fact....that Mary Had No Sex Ever. "
 
Yup, and this is what "the early fathers of the Church, ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years (until the Reformation) and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin have done: Proclaim as a dogmatic fact that Mary was ever-Virgin.

First, document that your statement is credible.
Just because you are able to type something doesn't make true (or credible or relevant) anymore true that my ability to type, "There are 6 billion cute furry critters living on the Moon of Endor."  You need to substantiate.

I will make this as EASY as it possible can be.
Quote just ONE bishop - one from the East and one from the West - who wrote in the First Century (before 100 AD) that Mary had no sex ever."   Just one each will do.


Otherwise, this claim - like all the others you've made before it in this thread - is absolutely baseless.






.

The earliest document in support of Mary's perpetual virginity is about 140-170AD. The Infancy Gospel of James, probably written between 140-170 AD, does treat her as ever-virgin
.



1.  Then you admit, your statement was false.

2.  Actually, you are entirely WRONG.   The Protoevagelium of James does NOT remotely state that Mary had no sex ever.






.

How pathetic. I'm sad for your state.  You get off by attacking the Theotokos.


Anything to evade the point......


1.   Your admission that your statement that all Bishops - east and west - for 1500 years taught that Mary had no sex ever was baseless - you could not produce EVEN ONE from the First Century - was (of course) just ignored by you.

2.   Your statement that the rejected, false book of the Protoevangelium of James teaches the Mary had no sex ever was noted as WRONG - you (of course) ignored by you.

3.  The statement that Mary's question to the angel at the Annunciation somehow teaches that Mary Had No Sex Ever was wrong - such a view is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE and actually contradicts your own Tradition was (of course) just ignored by you.

4.  Where did I say ANYTHING attacking the Theotokos?  You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary and yet have been able to state anything I said about Her that is wrong.   Just more evasion and deflection.

5. It is the RCC that states - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth - that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  It's YOUR position.  The need to substantiate it AS SUCH lies entirely, solely, exclusively with the RCC (and you as trying to defend it).  The issue is this:  Is it true?   The "ball" is in your court.  We're waiting......






.

Josiah: "You've repeatedly accused me of being WRONG in my view of Mary"

What is your view? in fact you clearly stated that you have no view ""I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"

If you had any clue of Church history you would know that Mary's perpetual virginity is not a RCC dogma. It predates the RCC and is a dogma of the early unified Church Jesus built, that today is shared by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It was also shared by the founders of all the mainline Protestant churches (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley). A 5 year old knows more about Church history than you

The only reason you keep posting here is: a) you just want to antagonise Catholics; and b) you have nothing better to do with your life;

You never quote scripture; you never post a coherent argument; you never seem to comprehend other people's posts. Just a 22-year old kid who keeps embarassing himself and the social club (LCMS) he claims to belong to
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on 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]






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on 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.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on 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.





.






Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: k-pappy on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on 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

 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: k-pappy on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on 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..  

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on 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






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on 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







.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on 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.  

 ::pondering::



ICXC NIKA!







Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chosenone on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on 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. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on 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.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 21:57:09
If I recall correctly John and Jesus were cousins.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on 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. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 19, 2010 - 23:16:44
Thanks Selene. Zebedee was married to Salome-Mary's sister making John th apostle Jesus' cousin.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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).

Blessings
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)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on 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).
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on 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?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on 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.

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).

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.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on 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.

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).

I quoted, or referenced, 15 pieces of scripture. What did you make of them?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:37:31
I want to make clear that when I said that the text in and of itself does not point to Mary being Virgin or not is ONLY insofar as the text in and of itself goes, does not side with either.  

The reason I say this is because ALL text needs narrative.  What we believe the bible "means to say" IS the narrative that we follow.  I am not saying that to "not believe in the right narrative" is ok.  In fact the very scriptures themselves say that it's not ok not to heed the correction of scripture.  However, so long as the narrative is in line with the actual narrative.  The narrative is often invisible.  This is why "sound doctrine" and "right interpretation" is so vital and always boils down to authority.  

A protestant reply here hinted at this reality and this is what becomes so baffling to adherents to the more ancient faith.  The protestant replies were two.  One said, "the Holy Spirit will teach you the right narrative and allow you to know the TRUE narrative" ie. the Holy Spirit will reveal to you the TRUE meaning of scripture and until then you will remain blind.  

And that is true.  However what baffles is that protestant tradition and doctrine varies and contradicts itself according to the "whole" of protestantism.  Name TWO teachings based (sola scriptura) on the bible within protestantism that is united among ALL protestants.  It's nearly impossible.  

Now, you personally as a protestant might say that people who reject the resurrection was bodily aren't truly protestant but the problem is, is that just is not the case.  Why?  Because if a pastor or bishop or layman is allowed to hold contradictory positions and remain in good standing then it is the system or "religion" of protestantism established that allows this pluralism and regardless of personal or private inclination that the teaching is wrong, the system itself which protestants believe in, does in fact, not see pluralism as a bad thing.  In all reality, protestantism as a whole embraces it.  

This is why a Pentecostal and an Anglican and a Baptist and a Methodist can all disagree on who Christ is through their teachings on baptism, etc. and yet STILL all consider each other to be protestants in good standing according to the whole of Protestantism.  

Where it baffles those of us who adhere to the more ancient faith is that we don't see this structural reality in the scriptures whatsoever.  

But then one person in the protestant faith can believe they alone have the right interpretation because they are guided by the Holy Spirit personally and so what they believe the bible means to say is the same as what they think the bible really does say.  So if you disagree with them as a non-protestant, you are wrong and operating outside the bounds of the Holy Spirit and a "false teacher".  

This brings us to the second reply by a protestant here where the accusation is that Catholics don't use scripture at all but instead just tradition (the implication being tradition of men) and "dogma" according to the leaders (ie. Church).  

It's the belief that Catholics just ignore what seems so obvious to the protestant reader and supplants the obvious with their "tradition" or "teaching".  This is where the accusation of Pharisee and all this other stuff comes from.  

However, the reality is that as a protestant you yourself have traditions and go along with your upbrining in regards to what you think "church" is.  In other words, you too go along with your church's teaching.  It's a little more complicated to explain because all protestants believe contradictory things from one another but that's how the protestant system works.  Dogma, doctrine is only expressed in the eye of the beholder.  Because "authority" is only in the scriptures and with God, then they often see their interpretation as being in line with both scripture and God.  That's why you have the, "you obviously don't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit otherwise you would know the true narrative of that passage" comments.  However, to disagree within protestantism is ok but outside of it, not ok.  

So the accusation is tradition of men.  Yet, the Lutheran are a tradition and believe things as the body of like minds interpret.  The Methodists built on the rock of the Wesley brothers approach to the scriptures and then mutating from there (Wesleyans and all protestant groups look nothing like their originators at the end of the day).  

Even non-denominational churches have their own short but standing tradition as it depends on who makes up the church - the teachers, pastors, etc.  But no two non-denominations are the same.  They are still forced to come up with narratives and come up with how they think they should practice.  At the end of the day, they still are forced, like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Farmer Ted - to come up with their own narratives.  

The difference is that the more ancient faiths will say that Tradition is authoritative provided that it's Holy Tradition and yet a Protestant is often blind to their own tradition.  Why?  Because they take themselves out of the equation.  A person who reads the scriptures and comes up with an interpretation or is compelled for any number of reasons to say that the scriptures are saying something winds up being what the bible really means to say to their own mind and yet they don't admit that it's in their mind that they are formulating that narrative.  

The reader, dear reader, is a person, a man, who comes with traditions, experiences, limited experiences etc.  The reader juxtaposes or "puts" those limited experiences ONTO the text in order to make sense to them.  This is why some believe that modern scholars are "better" interpreters than older ones.  Why?  Because they have more resources to cognitively come up with reasonable answers to hard questions.  However, the problem with this approach is that the scriptures themselves don't say that this is how the revelation of Christ is given.  It's not by our cognitive abilities that we arrive at the truth.  It's not a "the man with the best reading comprehension skills" competition.  

When St. Paul was blinded by the divine light of Christ on the road to Damascus, he was given the revelation of Christ.  He could learn nothing new under the sun.  However, we know that he then went of to study the scriptures and look at all that he had known prior to having "seen the light".  But St. Paul was not learning anything new at all but instead discovering what had always been.  

When St. Paul would go to the temple or synagogue, as all the Apostles had, they looked at the altar and on it saw the manna in the jar.  But having seen the manna in the jar on the altar as they always had, they now had the light of Christ as their eyes and therefore they looked at the manna in the jar as it really was.  It was merely pointing to the bread of life, the word of God, the Holy Eucharist.  When they gazed on the aaron's staff, Moses staff given to Aaron, on the altar, instead of the staff, the "wood" they saw what?  The cross!  

It had been there all along and so it was that they learned nothing knew but instead only saw what things truly were as they experienced them along their way.  They saw the light of Christ and so peered into this world but dimly and searched for the "ikon" of Christ in all of creation.  

And so too when they looked at the Holy of Holies and so saw the Ark, they saw the Theotokos - the Mother of God.  

Of course Mary did not "create" Him who is uncreated.  But!  The uncontainable God WAS contained in the womb of the Virgin.  They saw Christ in Mary just as they saw Christ in the cosmos and in their varied experiences.  

Read Luke 10:21-23 and see that this revelation was given to mere infants and not the wised or learned.  If modern day man is "better" able to know the right narrative because of "progress" then this is man made at best.  A pride in the tradition of modernity and progress, not the divine light of Christ.  

What you say the bible means to say is always always based on Tradition.  However, the key is that this tradition, whatever it may be, must be, the Holy Tradition.  The Tradition of God.  The story of the experience of God interacting in history to inform us of the light of Christ that calls us forward.  

To say that protestants read the bible and believe what it says as if their interpretation is right even though few protestants agree with one another on much across the board (according to the whole) and that the Catholics reject scripture and rely only on man made tradition is short sighted.  

The text in and of itself are but ink on the page arranged in shapes that are icons for words, words which are ikons for ideas or objects or statements, ideas, objects, statements, being nothing more but ikons that point to the TRUE divine logos, the WORD of God.  Jesus, who is the Christ IS the divine Logos, the image or icon of the invisible Father.  

So do not say that the more ancient faith don't follow scripture and only adhere to their tradition because chances are you too have followed the traditions of men, since no two contradictory teachings can be right for the Holy Spirit teaches but One Faith.  

example:  If a baptist, pentecostal, Anglican, Methodist and so-called non-denominational "christian" all believes contradictory things when it comes even to the elementary teachings of Christ --  Hebrews 5-6 -- (teachings OF or ABOUT Christ), then we know that either nearly all but one is right or all are wrong.  If that is the case, then there are plenty of groups out there teaching the commandments or traditions of men.  If that is the case and you say that Catholics don't follow the bible and so therefore are without the guidance of the Word by His Holy Spirit then apply that disposition toward them toward yourself because as Jesus says:

Mark 4:24
"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more..."


In the end, we create the standard by which we will be judged.  To say that the Catholics are wrong because they rely on tradition and then to turn around and ignore that you too are standing on a tradition, is to call yourself wrong.  

The question that should rise to the surface of this reality is, what is God's tradition and how is it that the early Church, prior even to the epistles and gospels themselves, direct their way of life.  How is it, they knew "the Way" prior even to the Holy epistles and gospels.....  

What was true for them, before the Holy Scriptures, remains true for us who have come after.  How can we be one with them who were one with Him who IS One?

John 5:39

Witness of the Scripture
 39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me..."


What the bibles says and what we think the bible means to say can not be married, as a man and a woman become one, unless the Holy Scriptures and the Interpretation rests firmly on the pillar and ground (or foundation) of "Truth".  That foundation or ground is not in our own reasoning and interpretation but in "the Church" according to the whole in accordance with the teaching of the Apostles and prophets and led by the Holy Spirit.  

Read John 17.  We must attain to the unity of the faith, become One as He is One. His body is One. And a Kingdom divided against itself can not stand.  


2 Timothy 1:13
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.


What was said in the book of Timothy was in place prior even to the arrival of the epistle (letter) to begin with.  For they had "heard" from him and "knew" the pattern by their own ears and only had to but rely on that specific experience of being face to face with those the Lord sent (Apostles) in order to affirm the text and live in accordance with it.  


Whether or not you admit it, you adhere to tradition.  If denying that you have tradition is part of your tradition be careful.  

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.



(pluralism?)



Christ is risen















Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:48:09
The following is an abridged Apologetic and though I don't present it for debate but merely for consideration, feel free to comment on whatever follows.  May God bless you on your journey toward Him. 

Mother of God

Mary’s most important role is her role as Theotokos, roughly translated “Mother of God
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:51:25
Great  Information!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:52:16
 ::amen::  Good post Ryan
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 10:58:59
Dear Ryan,

As I'm sure you know, but are too nice to say, the mainline Protestant churches (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist) are nothing more than social/political clubs. There's not even the pretense of "absolute revealed truth". Which is why even within each sect there are factions with completely contradictory moral values.

Take theLutherans for example, ELCA (the biggest Lutheran Church) is pro gay marriage, pro openly gay bishop ordination, pro-abortion and pro-fornication), LCMS (the smaller Lutheran Church) professes the exact opposite on all of these issues. Political factions at both of these "churches" openly lobby for their "causes". No-one there even pretends that they have any authority by the Holy Spirit when they decide - votes cast, in their general councils who can change core dogma every 2-4 years, by lay people have as much weight as votes cast by their Bishops!! It's not about "truth", it's about whose cause gets simple majority (50%+1 vote).

Plus they have ministers who don't even take the doctrine of Trinity seriously and call Jesus a "nice Rabbi" (I met some of those).

These are not "Churches" in a sense the Apostles meant them to be. So when these guys (mainline Protestants) hear about "dogma" or "revealed Truth" or "Apostolic succession" they get all roughed up, because if they admit that anything like that exists, they also admit that their "churches" are actually not real churches
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:26:55

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?

Jesus declared this,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."  (John 14:21)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:35:12

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?

Jesus declared this,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."  (John 14:21)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)


That says nothing about scripture alone being authority.  In fact, scripture isn't even mentioned.


FYI:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:42:38

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).

I quoted, or referenced, 15 pieces of scripture. What did you make of them? 

We Protestants certainly have the right to be Scripturally right on this matter, and the right to be Scripturally wrong on this matter.  But I don't believe Catholics have the right to say the same.  But that's another subject.

Let's assume for a moment that Catholics are right on this matter of Mary's perpetual virginity.  Now that I have been "born of water and the Spirit" according to Jesus teaching in John 3:3-7, and have been "filled with the Holy Spirit" according to Acts 2:4, having walked in this relationship with my Lord for 39 years since being filled with the gift of His Spirit, what more will God do for me subsequent to believing in Mary's perpetual virginity that I don't already have now?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:54:36

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?

Jesus declared this,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."  (John 14:21)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)

That says nothing about scripture alone being authority.  In fact, scripture isn't even mentioned.

FYI:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 

Psa 138:2 I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

2 Tim 3:16-7 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


God gives His authority to those who honor His Word.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:10:59

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?

Jesus declared this,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."  (John 14:21)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)

That says nothing about scripture alone being authority.  In fact, scripture isn't even mentioned.

FYI:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.  

Psa 138:2 I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

2 Tim 3:16-7 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


God gives His authority to those who honor His Word.



Dear John10:10.

I'm sure you know that if you pick 10 random Protestants, you'll get 10 totally conflicting opinions on anything related to Christianity. Yet all 10 Protestants will claim, like you do, that somehow the Holy Spirit shows them, through a personal, individual  appointment, the "truth". This can mean one thing, most Protestants, if not all, are delusional
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:17:43

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?

Jesus declared this,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."  (John 14:21)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)

That says nothing about scripture alone being authority.  In fact, scripture isn't even mentioned.

FYI:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 

Psa 138:2 I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

2 Tim 3:16-7 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


God gives His authority to those who honor His Word.




True, but that says nothing about scripture being the ultimate authority.  Jesus gave authority to his Church.  He never even mentioned the New Testament.


Jesus started a Church, and his Church wroted down many of his teachings.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 14:40:36
Quote
Psa 138:2 I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

I believe that we often just look to see where in the Holy Scripture we see the word, "word" and believe that the word must mean "scripture" but in reality even the words of the Holy Scripture testify* about Christ who IS "the" Word. 

Fundamental. 

Jesus also said that those who would follow his teaching will follow the teaching of the Apostles.  Now, the reason the Apostles epistles are considered authoritative to begin with is because the Apostles were considered authoritative.  They were not authoritative only insofar as they wrote letters otherwise we would read in the Holy Scriptures them praising those who "kept" what they had heard from them and learned from them face to face (even before the epistle arrived to the Church addressed)

So I will caution you to understand that when it comes to "authority" and the word "word" the scriptures themselves, though they are authoritative, this authority also rests in "sound teaching" or "doctrine".  And the way that the early Christians helped to discern between the two was not by scripture alone* but rather by keeping to the pattern of sound teaching which those early communities had received from the Apostles themselves. 

That's why the Holy Scriptures point toward the teaching of the Apostles that were given to those communities prior to the epistles (letters) even being written. 

This is why we read, "keep to the tradition which you have heard* from us". 

The IS Holy Tradition and the Holy Scriptures themselves point toward it. 

Quote

2 Tim 3:16-7 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Consider the following please and see if the early Church didn't see things outside the epistles they received as also being authoritative. 

Luke 10:
 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


Is the above speaking of the Holy Scriptures?

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.


Do you see how the early Christians used their time with the Apostles face to face in order to discern not only false teachings from true teachings but also in regards to how to approach scripture.   Does the above say that how we recognize the Spirit of Truth is merely to read and come to your own understanding of the Holy Scriptures or that it is directly related to the faith as it was handed, in the manner it was handed, to those communities by the Apostles. 

2 Corinthians 10:8
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.


Were the Apostles given Authority because they read the right meaning into Holy Scripture but because they themselves were given Authority by Christ?  It is not their own Authority but the Authority given to them by God.  What they taught, though they are men, are not commandments of men, but God, because they were "sent".  Did the early Christians consider the Apostles to be authoritative?  Sure they searched the Scriptures to test if what they said was true but again! when it says "scripture" in the New Testament, know! that it was speaking of the Old Testament. 

In other words, it was not unlike St. Paul was saying, test the authority of the New Testament by reading the Old Testament and also, see if what we say as to what those epistles "mean to say" matches with what the Old Testament means to say haven been given the revelation of Christ through (in most cases) the Apostles.  Test to see if what we orally transmitted to you is true in the Old Testament as well. 

1 Thessalonians 4:2
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.


If you had met the Apostles face to face and they wrote you such a letter as Thessalonians, not only! would you see the letter itself as authoritative but the preaching and teaching they had done in your very presence.  And as the letter to the Thessalonians itself says, "by the authority of the Lord".  Both the oral deposit of faith into the communities given by the Apostles AND their letters and gospels were authoritative. 

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

If the scriptures alone!  (sola scriptura) have authority then the leaders can not have authority.  But here Hebrews says itself that the leaders appointed by the Apostles and those the Apostles appointed did in fact HAVE authority. 

Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

See too that the letter are authoritative but recognize that authority resides not with the scriptures alone.  It can not and have the bible mean what it means to say. 

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Now again, the letters are authoritative and the ancient faiths agree on this too.  However, we have to admit that the reason this second letter to the Thessalonians was authoritative EVEN BEFORE they even read the letter is because it was given to them by the Apostles of whom God sent.  So if the Apostles taught you for instance the right teaching on baptism etc. then you would use that experience as a community having met the Apostles face to face to help inform your reading of the text. 


Also notice above that this is hardly a verse that encourages us to embrace pluralism.  If you have a system that embraces lots of contradictory teachings (think of Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals on the laying on of hands) and yet you "associate" with them as being in "communion" with them then how on earth are we to reconcile this reality with the commands given to us by the Holy Epistles? 

Romans 15:18
I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done—


Notice that is say "by what I have said and done".  Not only or even "what I wrote".  If those imitated and kept what they heard and saw St. Paul say verbally and do physically then they preserved something that can not merely be had by scripture but through imitation.  We see in the bible that we are to preserve such teachings not only in word and written word but also in doing.  Doing helps put much in context because if we can't do as it says or differ on how to "do" a thing said, then the early Christian communities only had to rely on their personal experience with the Apostles and remember what they had "done" in their very presence. 

Acts 16:4
As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

How is it that elders have authority to give decisions for the people to obey?  The Apostles AND the elders.  Did the elders lose this authority when the Apostles died?  Where in Holy Scripture does it say that the elders will lose authority after the Apostles die?  Did all early Christian communities die out only to be resurrected in the late 15th century? 

Not even the 15th century protestants believe as the modern day protestants.  Are we to believe that this "authority" or "church of whose foundation is truth" had not yet emerged until today?  Perhaps today is not even the day and there is no church right now.  perhaps we will have no church until tomorrow?  Where in Holy Scripture do we affirm such beliefs?

John 15:20
Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

This was said to the Apostles.  Jesus, Our Lord, did not say that if they obeyed my teaching then they will obey yours insofar as the letters you write go but nothing outside of that....   

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

Read John 14 and 15 in conjunction and you see that there is a marriage of sorts that aligns itself to the "whole" of Holy Scripture. 

Hebrews 13:9
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.

If a mere two teachings are contradictory then at very least one is wrong.  Yet we embrace all these teachings which are untrue?  How strange.  How do we reconcile this practice in Holy Scripture? 

Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation

Read Hebrews 5-6 and see if you can find any two denominations that agree on all the elementary teachings listed within Protestantism.  The fact that so many contradict each other on just the elementary teachings alone is a sobering commentary on the state of the pluralistic nature of modern protestantism. 

Titus 1:11
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach

Two contradictory teachings can not be right yet both base their interpretations on the authority of scripture.  Yet, one is or both are wrong.  How do we reconcile this if it doesn't even match the requirements set forth by the Holy Scriptures?

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

How can we tell what is sound doctrine?  Well a protestant will say to just read the bible but then you get as many interpretations of what the scripture says as there are readers.  How did the early Christians do it? 

The answer follows:

2 Timothy 1:13
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

What you heard from me.  Keep as the pattern of sound teaching.  Use that which you heard to help you discern. 

This is what the more ancient faiths talk about when it comes to Holy Tradition.

2 Timothy 2:17
Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus

We are called to preserve the teaching of the Apostles not merely the outward authority of the scriptures used to justify a multitude of ever growing ever mutating contradictory teachings. 

2 Timothy 3:10
[ Paul's Charge to Timothy ] You, however, know all about my teaching

How did he know all about his teaching?  Had he yet read 2 Timothy and yet already knew all about his teaching?  He heard it.  He saw it.  He experienced it.  He imitated it. 

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.


He passed what he has experienced on to others who would then be entrusted to preserve those teachings as well.  Not merely to preserve the letter (we know St. Paul wrote a letter that was lost and yet nothing less is known).   This is the tradition that the more ancient faiths speak of as being Authoritative. 

1 Timothy 4:11
Command and teach these things.

Notice that it doesn't say, "what does this verse mean to you, teach that" or "in my opinion I think that the bible is trying to say x,y,z."   

1 Timothy 1:3
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer


When you have a huge group of contradictory teachings and everyone embraces each others right to do so how does this differ from the early Church.  It is said to 'comman" that certain men not teach false doctrine.  Yet, you embrace the contradiction within the whole of a certain system but not outside of it?  Reconcile this in scripture if you can or at least consider the role of Holy Tradition. 

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the tradition you received from us.

Did you receive this tradition from the Apostles?  Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the guy down the block who just started his own flavor?  Do you fulfill the scriptures and see them as authoritative when we are told not be in communion with them or do you embrace this pluralism?  How is this in line even within sola scriptura?  Are these the teachings of men? 

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.


did Timothy remind them of the Holy Scriptures alone or was it St. Paul's way of life in Christ which AGREES with what is taught everywhere and in accordance with ALL the Apostles. 

Holy.  Tradition. 

Research those early Christian communities that ran into the Apostles and see what they had in common. 

Acts 18:11
So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

That's a lot of instruction.  That's a lot of fodder to help that community know how to behave in the house of God.   That's a lot of experience that can be used to help them know what the bible "means to say".  Takes a lot of guess work out of it. 

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The Apostles teaching.  Does it say merely "Holy Scripture" alone?  How is it that we have a different standard apart from our early brothers and sisters?  Shouldn't we have the same devotion? 

2 Corinthians 11:4
4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Do we put up with it easily enough in a system where there are more opinions on what the scriptures mean to say than there are people?  Do we embrace this pluralism? 

And notice again that it is not saying or pointing merely to the Holy Scriptures but to the very very thing they heard with their very ears, saw with their very eyes, experienced face to face. 

2 Timothy 2:2
2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

How do you fulfill this scripture in the protestant expression if sola scriptura is your only authority? 

The verse is not saying to entrust to men only what you read in the bible and believe what it means to say even though no two will read it the same and so entrust THAT to reliable men...

No.  "the things you have heard me say" "entrust"

Philippians 4:9
9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

How do you do this outside of scripture if scripture is your only authority?  Was what was learned, recieved, heard, seen and put into practice, lost????

Philemon 1:8
Paul's Plea for Onesimus

 8Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do

Philippians 2:2
2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

How can you be like-minded or have the same love even if you can not be one in spirit or purpose? 

Two contradictory teachings can't be right....     

Romans 15:14
Paul the Minister to the Gentiles
 14I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.

Complete in knowledge prior even to the arrival of the letter to the Romans.  Hm.  How can they have been complete in knowledge even prior to the epistle of Romans???? 

3 John 1:9
 9I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.

If only Diotrephes had believe the Apostle to be authoritative and not saw himself as being authoritative (by what other authority would he have the audacity to reject such an authority but by himself?), perhaps we would have another epistle.

But nothing is lost.  Because the fullness of the faith was deposited into the body even prior to the epistles having been written. 



1 Corinthians 1:10

 10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.


There are many many many more verses that point to this reality of which I could not reconcile in protestantism.  I only urge the reader to seek first the Kingdom that all this might not remain such a burden to him.  Seek the Truth.  Love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself and I am confident that the Lord will deliver you.  I too hope to attain to the unity of the faith. 

All things work out for good for those that love God. 

John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey what I command..."

Quote
God gives His authority to those who honor His Word.




Glory to Jesus Christ

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 23:06:07
Dear John10:10.

I'm sure you know that if you pick 10 random Protestants, you'll get 10 totally conflicting opinions on anything related to Christianity. Yet all 10 Protestants will claim, like you do, that somehow the Holy Spirit shows them, through a personal, individual  appointment, the "truth". This can mean one thing, most Protestants, if not all, are delusional
[/b]

Yes, we are delusional enough to believe the words of Jesus when He said this in John 15,

13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.


We are even more delusional to believe Paul when he wrote this in 1 Cor 2,

9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: winsome on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 02:44:07
Dear John10:10.

I'm sure you know that if you pick 10 random Protestants, you'll get 10 totally conflicting opinions on anything related to Christianity. Yet all 10 Protestants will claim, like you do, that somehow the Holy Spirit shows them, through a personal, individual  appointment, the "truth". This can mean one thing, most Protestants, if not all, are delusional
[/b]

Yes, we are delusional enough to believe the words of Jesus when He said this in John 15,

13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.


Yes, you are delusional in believing it applies to all Christians individually.

Jesus said those words to the assembled apostles, the leaders of the his church. He made the promise to the Church not to every individual Christian.

The results of this delusion are obvious, 30,000 and more Protestant denominations, believing contrary doctrines and each convinced the Holy Spirit has guided them personally into their beliefs.



Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 06:34:20
Dear John10:10.

I'm sure you know that if you pick 10 random Protestants, you'll get 10 totally conflicting opinions on anything related to Christianity. Yet all 10 Protestants will claim, like you do, that somehow the Holy Spirit shows them, through a personal, individual  appointment, the "truth". This can mean one thing, most Protestants, if not all, are delusional
[/b]

Yes, we are delusional enough to believe the words of Jesus when He said this in John 15,

13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.


We are even more delusional to believe Paul when he wrote this in 1 Cor 2,

9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.


John10:10,

As winsome said these quotes are directed to the Apostles, not to random people. Now explain this to me, how can it be possible for Jesus' quote to apply to individuals and yet have thousands of contradictory Protestant denominations???

Two things you need to learn: A) No-one is  capable of fully understanding the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit; B) The Holy Spirit protects from error the Apostles and their successors, but not random guys like you (as evidenced by the completely wrong reading of John 15 you just gave us and the thousands of contradicting Protestant denominations)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 09:12:32
I want to make clear that when I said that the text in and of itself does not point to Mary being Virgin or not is ONLY insofar as the text in and of itself goes, does not side with either.  


Right.  The dogma is entirely abiblical.   

One could equally post, "Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair, 100 children and lived almost entirely on fish tacos" and therein creating 4 dogmas.  I totally agree with you, Scripture would not say ANYTHING at all - one way or the other - about that.  In no sense whatsoever affirming or denying such.   Where I disagree with you is that ergo, it must be matters of greatest importance, relevance and certainty to Truth that 1)  Mary was 15 feet tall, Mary had pink hair, Mary had 100 children and Mary loved fish tacos (all of which would seem to have equal importance to the dogma here under review and a LOT, LOT less potential to be offensive to Her or an invasion of Her marital privacy). 

I also agree with you that this dogma has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics (the interpretation of Scripture) since there is no Scripture to interpret on  this subject of how often Mary had sex (if at all) after Jesus was born.

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



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.














[/quote]
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 09:15:24


There is plenty of evidence in the Bible that Mary remained a virgin.


There is NOTHING in the Bible about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  IF you had ANYTHING, you'd quote it.  You don't.  The RCC doesn't.   In your post (stressing the Bible teaches it) you never once quoted it.   





.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 09:19:48
.


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 dogmatic insistence as true?  As so highly important?




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






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 09:21:56
Dear John10:10.

I'm sure you know that if you pick 10 random Protestants, you'll get 10 totally conflicting opinions on anything related to Christianity. Yet all 10 Protestants will claim, like you do, that somehow the Holy Spirit shows them, through a personal, individual  appointment, the "truth". This can mean one thing, most Protestants, if not all, are delusional
[/b]

Yes, we are delusional enough to believe the words of Jesus when He said this in John 15,

13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.


Yes, you are delusional in believing it applies to all Christians individually.

Jesus said those words to the assembled apostles, the leaders of the his church. He made the promise to the Church not to every individual Christian.

The results of this delusion are obvious, 30,000 and more Protestant denominations, believing contrary doctrines and each convinced the Holy Spirit has guided them personally into their beliefs.
 

I noticed you didn't include Paul when he wrote this in 1 Cor 2,

9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.


After 1400 years in the hands of mostly the clergy, for the last 500 years this Bible that we Protestants love and cherish so much today was paid for by the blood of many martyrs who were called by God to preach and place it in the hands of the common man so we could hear and read it for ourselves.  Do all the Protestant churches get it 100% right?  No we don't, but neither has the Catholic Church gotten it right for the last 1500 years.  Try honestly reading Catholic Church history sometime before casting stones at Protestant Church history. 

God is in the business of saving sinners who repent and come to the foot of the cross, and find that the blood of our Lord will cover their sins.  Where they park their Christian car after that as they walk with and serve the Lord is between them and the Lord.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what more will God do for me if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity that I don't already have now?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:08:48
Quote
Right.  The dogma is entirely abiblical.   

We could say the same thing of the Holy Trinity yet....  ok.  Your standards don't seem to be applicable across the board. 

I think perhaps you are putting too much stress on what I said about the text in and of itself.  I said that the narrative and proper interpretation of such texts however is what distinguishes meaning so obviously quite important.  As what the bible means to say and what we think it says and what the text reads need to all be "one". 

Quote
One could equally post, "Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair, 100 children and lived almost entirely on fish tacos" and therein creating 4 dogmas. 

You act as if the dogma itself were arbitrary, which is an over characterization of the actual position.  Are you also against calling Mary, Theotokos since nowhere in the scripture independant of interpretation does it support the position?  Sure, it says the "Mother of our/my Lord" but we have to interpret and make clear the narrative there and to do that we would need authority.  Since we don't have authority and the bible alone has this authority I guess it does not matter.

Nestorius would be relieved. 


Quote
I totally agree with you, Scripture would not say ANYTHING at all - one way or the other - about that. 

You're being hyper-literal in order to create a logical construct that just doesn't exist.  Does the bible say anywhere within itself that the Father and the Son are of the same "essence" and the Son is uncreated?  No.  However, when the narrative is included, the answer is undoubtedly yes. 

So there is a narrative that does in fact point to Mary's Ever-Virginity and this goes beyond the shallow understanding of marital "business". 

There are OT references that point to Mary and her "state", if you will, and those verses and Mary's life because of the parallels to the Church, Israel etc., create a theological narrative that when you boil it down is Christological.  It reveals something about who God is, who we are in God, who God is in humanity and the entire cosmos... 

It's not as sophomoric as a dirty joke or as a melodrama depicts "chastity".  It's Christological.

Again, the more ancient faiths see a narrative in the Holy Scriptures that speak of Mary's perpetual State that point toward a higher theological truth that ultimately helps to safeguard the revelation of God from "wrong choice" or "another opinion" or as it is commonly called, "heresy"

But yes.  The text without narrative or interpretation says very little about much really, not just Mary but also the Trinity, the Bible itself, Hell, Heaven, etc... 

Still waiting for the archeologists to recover the Holy Index telling us which books in fact are "THE BIBLE"

The narrative is important.  To say that there is not direct affirmation of the text itself and therefore unnecessary is to create a rule for yourself (by what authority do you make such a rule?) that would force you to abandon other traditions that are, if abandoned, un-Christian (if that's a word).  But then again, I don't know if protestants would call that un-christian as it seems that collectly there's no stance either for or against otherwise, they'd actually believe the same thing. 

Quote
In no sense whatsoever affirming or denying such.
   

True but not when it comes to the narrative being married to the text. Divorce them and the bible is silent on much that even protestants believe to be present in the Holy Scriptures.  Hard to get a protestant to admit they follow and stand on tradition but hey.  We're all near sighted in our own ways.

Quote
Where I disagree with you is that ergo, it must be matters of greatest importance, relevance and certainty to Truth that 1)  Mary was 15 feet tall, Mary had pink hair, Mary had 100 children and Mary loved fish tacos (all of which would seem to have equal importance to the dogma here under review and a LOT, LOT less potential to be offensive to Her or an invasion of Her marital privacy). 

Really not sure why you keep reducing virginity to mere bed-room talk.  Does the bible say anything for or against Our Lord having remained Virgin?  Show me a textual support free of narrative bias that leads to you staunch position.  I could characterize your present position by then accusing you of gossip against the Lord and of humiliating him etc. but I honestly think that to speak of the Lord's marriage to the Church (those who deny Jesus Virginity like to overspiritualize the marriage of the Church and just call it 'metaphor') is important. 

Quote
I also agree with you that this dogma has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics (the interpretation of Scripture) since there is no Scripture to interpret on  this subject of how often Mary had sex (if at all) after Jesus was born.

No, I am saying that it has everything to do with interpretation.  I'm only saying that the text itself, independent of interpretation (narrative) is mute.  Again, refer to proving Jesus own "state" and provide one solid proof without supplying an interpretation to affirm this "truth".  We are arguing from silence in a lot of cases or atleast agreeing on sound "interpretation" (i hope). 

You might see the case of Our Lord as different but what many I believe fail to realize is not only the typology present in the Holy Scriptures but the Chiastic forms that are prevalent in the Holy Scriptures and Mary is vital to proper balance of what it means to be Christian - annointed

Her chastity is foretold and the reality of the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom, Humanity, the Cosmos/all of creation, Israel, The Church etc is bound up in it. 

But ok.  You are your own authority on the matter.  Don't know what else to say really...

Quote
So, if you are going to spread this "story" about Our Blessed Lady as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth, we're back to what is your firm confirmation? 

The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by the Church and the Holy Tradition of The Church.

Quote
You are dividing Christianity over the issue of how often She had sex after Jesus was born, you are insisting on telling the world's 6.7 billion people this tidbit of info about Her marriage bed, so where's the substanatiation as to it's truth to the level claimed? 
 

A protestant can not complain about division if they embrace division unless they wish to be judged in the way in which they judge. 

The "dogma" as you are saying is not about how often she did or didn't fillintheblank (why you characterize in such a crass manner seems a strange tactic) but rather it has to do with the prophecy of Christ and the redemption of mankind.  I have not read the RCCs full teachings on the Theotokos but I imagine they can't be much different.   Read RCC and Orthodox books on the Theotokos and see if you don't approach the OT prophecies differently.  See if you don't see Israel, Jerusalem, the Garden, the Church, the Bride, Eve, the story of God's deliverance of His people in a new or brighter more divine light. 

I will only say that at it's root it is Christological. 

Quote
My Catholic teachers taught me that to spread something about someone that is not confirmed as true is called "gossip" and is a sin, ESPECIALLY if it is potentially harmful and embarrassing and of a personal nature. 

Well, you used to belong to a Church that viewed the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth but you've given that title to your own ability to interpret and discern.  I would say that if the Church taught it, then it would be true but since when you see the word "church" you see only a group of individuals in contradiction to one another I really don't know what to say. 

Of course it seems like gossip when you are the only mediator between you, the bible and sound interpretation.  You are independent of your fellow protestant,  the sole authority of what the bible means to say or doesn't say and so the only one for yourself who can decide what is right doctrine, dogma.

That's a lot of responsibility. 

Just because you can not find "proof" doesn't mean a thing is untrue or unsubstantiated.  It only means that you don't know.  To hold the standards you have set up for yourself up against the Catholics seems ironic since you seem to disagree with their right to create dogma and doctrine based on the standards they believe have been given to them to uphold. 

If those pesky ancient faiths are right, then it's not gossip but yet another proclamation of who Christ is against the millions of contradictory voices saying who they personally believe Jesus might could be but can't really say with full confidence out of fear of alienating the like minds gathered around them, singing a different tune and hoping to trade their ideas in the (free) market-place - to what end I don't know.   


Quote
So, lest we gossip and sin, lest we hurt and offend Our Lady (and thus Her Son), AND because you insist on telling the world world this normally private marital matter as DOGMA dividing Christiandom with it, where's the confirmation? 
 

You are saying that catholics gossip because your standards for what is true is in the text and in your personal interpretation of it and therefore catholics must be held to the same standard which you hold up for yourself and this means they can't have "the Church" for a "base" and therefore are "baseless"....   ???

If it's true it's not lacking confirmation and if the Church is the ground of Truth then I will say that the Church is grounds enough to believe it.  Blasphemous?  No.  All boils down to tradition. 

I know I know, submitting to the Church other than to self's ability to glean what they think the bible personally says to them alone is uncool and heretical and "unbiblical".  I've read the protestant anathemas. 

You've chosen your tradition and like anyone that dubs themselves their own personal pope, have decided to hold your standards up for others to follow.  You are no different at the end of the day and yet criticize them (RCC) for the very things you do yourself (the difference being that they might actually be legit). 

The cult of self, who is able to set up his own proclamations of truth against others, naturally sees a corporate body of people in one accord, who see themselves as larger than the sum of her parts and adhering to the pillar and ground of Truth, as a threat.  I get it. 

Unless we throw away our Holy Tradition and the Church's interpretation of Holy Scriptures and adopt your standards to measure ourselves against yours, we aren't sinning or gossiping.  We are just bad at being you insofar as you judge yourself. 

The Church is an image of the Holy Trinity and through her we are conformed to the image of her Son. 


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:46:12
WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS…

 

I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:

 

"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).

 

And in a prayer he calls her:

 

"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).

 

Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:

 

"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

 

And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:

 

"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

 

This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:

 

"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).

 

THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.

 

For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).

 

Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.

 

The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means “brother
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:46:51
Something that fails to come straight from translations here is the usage of "έως ου" (= eos ooh). The words "έως ου" mean "never". It doesn't mean, in other words, that after Christ's birth Joseph met her as his wife, but it means that he never did. The "έως ου" in the Holy Bible, is found many a time to mean "never".

 

For example:

 

1) The Bible says regarding Noe's raven that it didn't return to the Ark "έως ου εξηράνθη τα ύδατα" (= eos ooh the waters had been dried up). But since it didn't return to the Ark before the waters had dried up, when it had nowhere to stand upon, what happened then; it returned when the waters had dried up?!

 

2.) The Bible says: "Said the Lord to my Lord; sit on my right έως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου υποπόδιον των ποδών σου" i.e. “eos an
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:47:27
BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE

 

We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other).

 

So why do we stress this point? What difference does it make? It makes the world of difference because if the word γυνή -- which gives rise to the word γυναίκα that is mentioned by the Angel to Joseph -- does not necessarily mean "wife" but can also mean "betrothed", we need to examine the difference between the two rites: betrothal and marriage.

 

Betrothed, married ... same thing, right?

 

No! At those times, the betrothal was performed before a couple got married. Even if they never got to be married in the end, the betrothal required that no matrimonial relations took place during that period (although the couple had all the responsibilities of marriage in every other respect). This is what ensured Virgin Mary's purity. The betrothal with Joseph was the trick.

 

Many Protestants will not disagree with this. However, they might think that eventually Virgin Mary actually married Joseph (after their betrothal), even if they never had children together (what the Protestants sometimes call consummation of wedding). Other Protestants will need to support the very idea of marriage taking place in order to ensure that their theory of children can be true.

 

Let us put the issue of children aside, for a moment, and concentrate on this question: Did Virgin Mary actually marry Joseph after their betrothal? The Bible does not mention anything on this. The other Tradition of the Church however, tells us that they never did. This also makes sense hagiographically. Let us now examine this point.

 

Had she got married to Joseph -- even if they actually agreed to have no matrimonial relations -- she would still have had two husbands, God and Joseph! That would cause a lot of theological problems (including questions relating to Joseph being a real step-father of Jesus, and what if he had had children with another woman, a true possibility, and so forth) but we will keep things simple here and concentrate on what we can see immediately.

 

It certainly contradicts four points (some of which are mentioned later on in these notes in more detail):

 

a) What Jesus uses, He wants it only for His own use.

 

b.) She would need to tend to the things of a human husband and not keep her thoughts only of God. The Divine Economy wanted to secure not only her future celibacy (because that could also be secured by being married after their betrothal and agreeing not to come into matrimonial relations) but also to secure her future life of celibacy (something that the betrothal could guarantee but which marriage couldn't, with its many daily distractions).

 

c.) What about some common sense?

 

If we accept the fact that she was planning to have no children with Joseph (recall "man I know not?" and the ample proof provided elsewhere in this text), what would be the point of them continuing with marriage? Wasn't the betrothal good enough? As far as the society was concerned, the fact that she was under the wing of a pious old man was good enough to make sure she is not stoned, especially at a time when she was about to give birth to a Child. The betrothal kept her safe from the society and would suffice to assure her safety afterwards as well. The only real reason they would need to continue to matrimony would be because they were in love with each other and in order to have children. But Joseph had been commanded in his dream to take her as his γυνή (= betrothed or wife, unclear) and clearly not with matrimonial aims in the mind of the Angel but so that she does not get stoned to death were she left on her own or sent away thus endangering herself and her Baby. Before the Angel came to him in his dream, Joseph was indeed planning to send her away, and Mary clearly shows no intentions of wanting to get married to Joseph ("man I know not?"). What then? The Holy Spirit forced them then to marry?!

 

For she did not want to marry Joseph. And Joseph, who was an old man, had no such intentions present anywhere in the Bible (he did not even feel jealous or reprimand her when she came back from Elisabeth fully pregnant). And we are to believe that the Pure All-Holy Virgin, entitled as "The Virgin" in the Old Testament prophecy, uniquely praised among men and women, succumbed to the pleasures of married life and the frivolity of wives, and decided after giving birth to God (not to His divine nature but to Christ fully God and fully human) that she would, after all, follow the "perks" of the Angel's supposed suggestions (as they would have been) and have a few more children with Joseph, realising indeed that having children will make her life complete - and who cares about having given birth to God and to the purity that heaven and earth had praised her for till that moment?!

 

Oh, the impiety!

 

And if she had no intention to marry Joseph why not stop at the betrothal and decide to marry and thus risk the temptation of matrimonial relations which would end her virginity, the virginal life being a life higher than the married life, as the Bible informs us, and which is the road followed by many people today, e.g. monks and nuns?

 

Does this issue perhaps have something to do instead with the fact that Protestants abolished monasticism and virginal life and could not stand to even hear the word Ever-Virginity i.e. Celibacy?

 

d.) This matter is very important for our salvation (as soteriology coincides with Christology, and the issues on the Virgin are directly related to Christology). Nevertheless, we point out that, once the ignorance of Protestants' koine Greek and ecclesiastical history is corrected, sola scriptura in itself is unable to provide a full answer to this matter because the Bible never actually mentions anything as regards Virgin Mary and the Righteous Joseph having proceeded with the marriage or not, even if the rest of this text clearly shows the absurdity and blasphemy of such an argument.

 

Joseph in fact had probably been married to another woman, who had probably died; and now stayed only with Mariam, which itself is not strange of course for even in those times the Jewish community placed the woman higher than other areas did, and even though polygamy was allowed, people tended to stay with one woman. Men however were allowed to have more than one woman at the time. The fact that Joseph might have had another woman stems also from the fact that he was much older than her; she was only 16 when the annunciation happened, as sources from ecclesiastical history and Tradition certify.

 

And one final point as regards married life in betrothal or marriage that is of interest to us.

 

Some Protestants may claim that the fact that Virgin Mary stayed betrothed only and never got married was sin. However that is not how the law worked in those times. In those days it was very common to bring a young girl home to an elderly man and it was permitted for a man to have more than one woman (of either the "betrothed" or the "married" stage or both). The people would stone adulteresses to death but they did not interfere with a couple's personal life. (And if the reader finds this society harsh, they should realise that pagan societies were a lot harsher than the Jewish society in those days! This is why God first brought the Law into the society, which was harsh, and slowly prepared the Jews and the rest of mankind for the arrival of His Son). Since marital bond held legal value in those times, the "trick" of the Divine Economy is in fact totally legal. This way the Law was not violated (although of course afterwards it was complemented with the arrival of our Christ and Saviour Jesus Christ).

 

All these things make sense both hagiographically and based on the situation of the times; even the situation with Elisabeth. Let us turn our attention to that now, for it will help us understand the situation with the angel and Joseph better when we return to examine the aforementioned event with the angel.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:49:06
ANNUNCIATION AND OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES

 

After the Virgin found out the incredible event enclosed in the Evangelism (Annunciation) that the Angel told her about, she stayed alone and thoughtful. She wanted to tell to somebody her big secret; but to who? In Nazareth it was impossible to announce something like this. Who would believe her? In a world, much like today's, loose in faith and ethical values, it was impossible to find even one person to make them understand. But even if she could find someone, it is doubtful she would confess such a great secret to him or her. She does not even say it to her "spouse", Joseph, the man who had protected her so far. He wouldn't believe her either and would probably try to send her away. With the help of the Spirit however, the solution is found. She leaves Nazareth and goes running to the highland to meet her relative, Elisabeth. After all, the Angel had told her that something similar had happened to Elisabeth.

 

The journey is long; it takes her approximately three days to reach there. Old Elisabeth is her relative. She is the wife of the priest Zechariah, the one who later on will betroth her to Joseph. She too became pregnant miraculously. She is about to bear John the Forerunner.

 

Elisabeth welcomes her with piety. She bows before her and with a loud voice calls her "blessed among women". And she even calls "the fruit of her belly" as "blessed"! The All-Holy Virgin is taken aback! She understands that Elisabeth knows something about the Great Secret, before she had any time to say anything to her, because Elisabeth asks her: "και πόθεν μοι τούτο, ίνα έλθη η Μήτηρ του Κυρίου μου προς με;" She hears her calling her "Mother of her Lord". How did she find out? Did the Holy Spirit tell her?

 

For three months they stay together and discuss things. When Panagia returns to Joseph, and he notices her belly that is getting bigger by the day, he loses faith and is disappointed. He thinks it is sin and does not want to keep her in his house; he fears God's wrath! He is a good man, though, and the law in such circumstances wants the woman to die by stoning her to death. He thinks she doesn't deserve this, a young girl and all, practically a child, and is preparing to send her away, which befits his role as her protector. While he is thinking of his plan, an Angel of the Lord appears in his sleep and tells him: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mariam, your woman". He calls her his "woman" (meaning of course fiancee because the word the angel used was γυναίκα which is accusative for γυνή - in other words woman and not wife; and it can also mean, as it does here, fiancee), even though she was not (or ever wanted to be; remember the "man I know not"?), in order to show to him that there was no one else in between! "Do not be afraid", the Angel continues, because "the One born from within her is from Spirit the Holy". The pious Joseph obeys of course and does as the Angel commanded, without any more doubts. He takes the Virgin under his protection and since then becomes her "guardian angel".

 

Is it illogical or strange based on the above to deduce that the "cover-up trick" of the Economy used to make certain people think that Joseph was truly meant to be her fiance (for he actually was her fiance but not with the intention of marriage), was continued afterwards as well? And to think instead that the woman that had been chosen for her piety and virginity (which virginity biblically is a great virtue as we said and virginal life is higher than married life) gave in to her "spouse" Joseph, something that would mean she had to tend to the things of her husband in the law, a human, despite the place that had been chosen for her from God? In a way then, it is like she had two husbands, God and Joseph!

 

Inside her womb where Christ was rising, how could others follow as well, mere humans, since what Christ uses wants it only for His own use (c.f. Mark 11:2. John 19:4)?

 

But her Annunciation had been prepared from ages old through God's infinite wisdom. Indeed, there are many prophecies from the OT that are of interest to us. Let us turn to these now.

 

Thousands of years had passed from the time when God had kicked out the protoplasts from Heaven, due to their deadly sin. Then His Voice had been heard foretelling that the offspring of the woman would crush the head of the accursed snake, i.e. of Satan, which Eve had stepped upon (Gen. 3:15):

 

"And I will put enmity between thee [i.e. the snake] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". So important she is that God foretells here that the Saviour of the World would be born of a woman and He means the Virgin Mary, Who bore from Holy Spirit and not in a natural way. Thus the Virgin "έτεκεν ασπόρως" (gave birth without a seed) and stayed always Pure, without a husband, ever Virgin.

Prophet Isaiah calls her "the virgin" (Isaiah 7:14. Matt. 1:23) and Ezekiel calls her "gate", that was and stayed shut : "it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut" (Ezek. 44:1-3).

 

Some more obscure prophecy is "For I also was my father's son, tender and as an only-begotten son in the sight of my mother" (Proverbs 4:3). No, I didn't get it wrong: it does say "only-begotten" in the Masoretic text. But of course we all know that Solomon here does not refer to himself, for he himself was not only begotten (2 Sam. /2 Kings 11:27. 12:24)! And yes the word “only-begotten
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 11:50:10
1.  APOSTOLIC FATHERS
 
During Ieronymus' times (380 AD) someone called Helvidius doubted the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos by interpreting Jesus' brethren as children of hers. When this became known to Ieronymus he did not want to give a reply to him for he thought that Helvidius' fallacy was self-evident, a belief he later on Ieronymus himself characterised as "weird, ill-natured, audacious and contumelious towards the common faith of the christian world".
 
Ieronymus' friends insisted that he write a reply to Helvidius' words, and for this reason Ieronymus wrote his book on the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, called "De perpetua virginitate Mariae" (Migne 23. 183-206). In this book,  Ieronymus reminds the reader of the affirmations on the subject of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos from all Apostolic Fathers who had talked at some point on this issue all the way up to his times, i.e. up to 380 AD. As he himself writes, of the apostolic Fathers "Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, and all the teachers of the era of the apostles". Helvidius never replied!
 
A remnant of that old Apostolic epoch was saved in one of Justin's writings (100 - 165 AD) in a Syriac translation which goes like this: "Some writer [note: one of many, as it says "εις των συγγραφέων" i.e. one among the many writers] that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man" (Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177).
 
Helvidius' silence, Ieronymus' categorical attestation, namely that the apostolic fathers taught the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos (either by word or in written) and this remnant of the works of father Justin, who lived in the period 100 - 165 AD, confess the apostolic succession of the christian belief on this issue, even if today we may have not (yet, hopefully) found all of the written testimonies that Ieronymus mentions in his writing. However Ieronymus clearly had these and that suffices.
 
2. HEGISIPPUS (110 - 180 AD)
 
According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2, 23 and 4, 8. 22), Hegissipus lived "during the first post-apostolic era" and wrote his books around 180 AD. In these books he talks about the Lord's brethren. We know according to Mark's gospel (Mark 6:3) that these brothers of Jesus were called Jacob, Judas, Simon and Joses. For the first three of these, Hegissipus certifies that they are called "brothers" of Jesus, but they were not however real (flesh) brothers of His, but cousins. Simon is called "Jesus' cousin" (I.E. IV, XXII, 4). Hegisippus writes here that Jacob and Simon, so-called Jesus' brothers, were Clopas' sons, whereas Clopas was "Joseph's brother, as Hegissipus tells us" (I.E. III, 11, 1). Therefore we see that these two brothers, Jacob and Simon, were cousins of Jesus (from the side of His father). Note that the word "anepsios" (which in modern Greek can be used to mean nephew) that Hegisippus uses in this verse has the meaning of cousin. To see this, note that Clopas here is called as "Jesus' uncle" and also as "Joseph's brother". The same is mentioned by Hegisippus regarding Judas (I.E. XXX, 11, 5).
 
So here is yet another ancient testimony (180 AD) certifying that the Lord's brothers were His cousins. Therefore the "brothers of Christ" mentioned in the gospels were not Theotokos' children.
 
3. CLEMES OF ALEXANDRIA (150 - 211 AD)
 
Clemes of Alexandria (150 - 211 AD) writes in his "hypotyposeis", which were saved in latin, regarding the first verse of Judas' epistle where it is mentioned "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob, ...", as follows: "judas ... frater filiorum joseph exstans ... cum sciret propinquitatem domini non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem domini esse sed quid dixit. judas servus jesu Christi utpote domii frater autem jacobi, hoc enim verum est frater erat ex joseph"; namely: "Judas ... being brother of the sons of Joseph, even though he knew his relation to the Lord, does not name himself brother of the Lord, but what did he say? 'Judas, servant of Jesus Christ'; namely of the Lord, 'and brother of Jacob's' [Jacob = James]. For this is true that he was a brother [of Jesus] from Joseph's side".
 
Here is yet another ancient testimony that Judas and Jacob, the so-called brothers of Jesus, were brothers of his from the father's side and not from the mother's. Therefore the Theotokos was not their mother.
 
In fact, may I mention here that in Orthodoxy they commonly call James [Jacob] as "James, the Brother of our Lord". This is the name by which he is known but it is always understood that the word "Brother" is in the more general sense.
4. ORIGEN (185 - 250 AD)
 
Let us now turn our attention to Origen. Regarding the interpretation of John 2:11, he says: "It is talked over by many, how it happened that Jesus had these brothers, since Mariah stayed a virgin till her death [note of myself: there was no dispute over the ever-virginity issue; simply people were wondering how this was the case]. He did not have flesh brothers, nor were any born by the Virgin, nor Himself was He born from Joseph. They were called brothers of His in the law, being sons of Joseph before his wife died". Regarding the interpretation of Matth. 12:55, he also writes: "They [the verses] talk of the brothers of Jesus ... they are sons of Joseph with a previous woman whom he had been "συνωκηκυιας" to [cohabitated with i.e. married to], before Mariah". Here is yet another ancient testimony regarding the ever-virginity of the Theotokos and that His brothers were not from the Theotokos, but from Joseph with another woman.
 
5. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT (295 - 366 AD)
 
Athanasius the Great (295 - 366 AD) says in his speech on the Incarnation (Migne Eccl. Trad. 25: 109): "from Mariah the ever-virgin", and regarding the interpretation of Luke 11:27 he writes: "... and she, the one that gave birth to the Lord and ever-virgin ..." (Migne E.T. 27, 1393).
 
6. EPIPHANIUS (313 - 402 AD)
 
St. Epiphanius writes in his writing against the heretics (Adv. Haer 78, 6 p. 642, 705): "She did not have relations [meaning sexual] neither after the birth [of Christ] nor before the birth", but she stayed "holy and immaculate" (Haer. 78, 14. 24. 15. 16). He also wrote that "the one that mentioned that name of the Holy Mariah would always add the word 'virgin'. The name Virgin was given to her because she had always stayed pure".
 
7. GREGORY OF NYSSA (335 - 394 AD)
 
Gregory of Nyssa said: "We consider the Virgin like a new tome. In the same way the new paper is clean, unwritten, this way too the Virgin is holy, clean of man".
 
8. IERONYMUS (345 - 420 AD)
 
Ieronymus as we said above, wrote a whole work and proved, using as testimonies the words of the apostolic fathers, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. He characterises the opposite view of Helvidius as "weird, ill-natured , audacious, contumelious to the common faith of the christians". Interpreting Ezekiel, he writes expressly regarding the Theotokos: "Quae et ante partum et post partum virgo permansit"; that is: "She stayed a virgin both before and after the birth [of Christ]" (in Ezech. XLIV; c.f. also in Cal. IV, 4).
 
9. AUGUSTINE (354 - 430 AD)
 
Augustine , who is accepted as a saint by a lot of Protestants (e.g. some Anglicans), says expressly: "virgo concepit, virgo peperit et post partum virgo permansit" (De symbol 3,5).
"Virgin was she when she conceived, virgin she stayed when she gave birth, and virgin she stayed after the birth" (Migne 40, 181 - 196).
10. BASIL THE GREAT (330 - 379 AD)
Basil the Great says on his speech on Christ's Birth (Migne 31, 146, 8): "The hearing of the philochrists [i.e. those who love Christ truly i.e. the christian brothers; a common expression of the time and today too in Hellas], does not even want to hear that the Virgin stopped being Virgin at some point ".
Christians do not even want to hear the ridiculous notion that the Theotokos ever stopped being a Virgin!
11. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (345 - 404 AD)
As we said above, the Bible calls Mariah wife of Joseph's before Christ's birth and not afterwards. "Take the child and his mother" says the angel to Joseph.
Father Chrysostom says, discussing the interpretation of the word "έως" as discussed above, mentioned in "ουκ έγνω αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν" (Matth. 4:25): "This was said, not in order for you to suspect that afterwards he [Joseph] came to know her [i.e. consummated the marriage] ... The word "έως" many times and continually, in the holy Bible, do we find it written [with this meaning]" (Migne E. T. 78, 102).
12. JOHN THE DAMASCAN (645 - 750 AD)
John the Damascan in Migne 94, 1161, says (in a slightly more '"free" translation here so it makes sense in English) : "the ever-virgin stayed a virgin even after the birth [of Christ], without having had any relation with any man until her death".
As regards more information on Mary, Ecclesiastical History provides us with many sources. An interesting one is based upon the works of Papias (c. 70 - 165 AD). The principal information as regards Papias is given in the extracts made among the fragments from the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. He was bishop of the Church in Hierapolis (a city of Phrygia) in the first half of the second century. Later writers affirm that he suffered martyrdom about 163 AD; some saying that Rome, others that Pergamus, was the scene of his death. He was a hearer of the Apostle John, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with many who had known the Lord and His apostles. From these he gatherered oral traditions in regard to the sayings of our Lord, and wove them into a production divided into five books. This work does not seem to have been confined to an exposition of the sayings of Christ, but to have contained much historical information.
 
The following four Mary's are found in the gospels: (1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleopas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; and (4.) Mary Magdalene.
 
According to Papias (see e.g. here), James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. Also, James and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus, was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleopas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleopas, because she had two husbands.
 
And what about the "brothers" of Jesus? What was their actual relation to Christ?
 
There are two main opinions in the Church: a.) They were children of Joseph from another woman, as we saw Epiphanius, Origen, Clemes et. al. mention this; or b.) They were cousins of Jesus, as Hegissipus said.
 
The Tradition therefore decides triumphantly in favour of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God, but leaves open the issue of the relation of Jesus' "brothers". It is more likely that the first opinion is the right one, but it does not really matter for us because it is not related to Mariology and/or Christology in any way.
 
SUMMARY AND SYNOPSIS
 
Christ is the new "root"; He does not come from the old "root" of Adam. Virgin Mary stayed a virgin during the birth of Christ. But she was a virgin before the birth (Is. 7:14. Mt. 1:23). She also stayed a virgin after the birth: Christ is mentioned as "only-begotten in front of His mother" in Proverbs 4:3 according to the Masoretic text. This is because this verse here is not referring to Solomon, who, as is well-known, was not "only-begotten of his mother" (cf. 2 Kings 11:27 and 12:24).
 
Also, whatever Christ uses, He wants it only for His own use (Mark 15:2. Jn. 19:41). This holds for the case of virgin Mary. This was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 44:1-3). Virgin Mary is the gate through which the Word passed. Apart from Him, no one else passed. It stayed forever shut. We also read this in ancient hymns of our Church; e.g. in the Akathist Hymn: "Χαίρε πύλη μόνη, ην ο Λόγος διώδευσε μόνος, η μοχλούς και πύλας Άδου Δέσποινα, τω τόκω σου συντρίψασα, Χαίρε η θεία είσοδος των σωζομένων, Πανύμνητε".
 
Joseph, of course, is mentioned as the "husband" of the virgin but he is also called "father" of Jesus (Mt. 1:19. Lk. 2:41 and 48-49), and Mary herself is called "wife" of Joseph (Mt. 1:20). Indeed, the above make sense as expressions of relations according to the law. This is because, truly, according to the law, Joseph was Mary's "husband" and "father" of Jesus; but only according to the law, in order to protect the mother and the child. He was "her man" - the original reads ανήρ - in the sense that she was engaged to him, a sort of "fiancee" to him (cf. Mt. 1:18-20. Lk 1:27. 2:5), and was considered legally engaged to Joseph; and if she would bear a child from someone else, she was to be stoned to death (Exodus 22:16-17. Deuter. 22:28-29. Jeremiah 16:40).
 
Joseph, after Jesus' birth, is not any more called as Mary's "ανήρ" and there is mention now of the "παιδίον μετά της μητρός αυτού" (Mt. 2:11-14. 19-21). However, the Jews were considering Joseph as Christ's "father"; according to the law, he was indeed his father, not however father of his in the flesh (Jn. 6:42).
 
The writers of the New Testament that mentioned this topic were aiming to clarify the birth of Christ "without seed". For this reason they underlined that Joseph "did not know her, έως ου she gave birth to her son the firstborn" (Mt. 1:25). The "έως ου" does not refer to what would take place in future, but to that thing that took place in the past, until that moment that Christ was born, independently of the future events (cf. Gen. 28:15. 2 Kings 6:23. Ps. 71:7. 19:1, in relation to Hebr. 10:12. Mt. 28:20. 1 Tim. 4:13).
 
The word "πρωτότοκος" refers to the event that the virgin's womb was opened with the birth of Christ, and not to supposed events that relate to other children, that were supposedly born after Him (cf. Exodus 13:2. 1 Kings 6:7-14).
 
In the Holy Bible there is mention about the "brothers" of Jesus, but never ever were these "brothers" called as Mary's children. They were children only according to the law, not in flesh (Mt. 2:46. 13:55-56. Mark 6:3. Lk 8:19-20. Jn 2:12. 7:3,5,10. Acts 1:14. 1 Corinth. 9:5. Gal. 1:19). The same so-called "brothers" of Jesus, call themselves "servant" of Jesus Christ, after His ascension, and not "brother" (James 1:1. Jud. 1). After all, the word "brother" has a more general meaning in the OT (Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralipomena 23:21-22).
 
Mary therefore was a virgin before Christ's birth, stayed a virgin during the birth, and afterwards, and for this reason is represented in icons in the company of three stars which represent her triple virginity.
 
CONCLUSION
Therefore the succession, the "I am with you all the days" of the Lord's words in Matth. 28:20 is in favour of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. When the angel told the Theotokos during her Evangelism that she will bear a son, she replied: "How come this for I know no man?". We said before that this implies that she had the intention of staying a virgin forever. And indeed. All the fathers of the Church believe that Joseph, "did not take [the Virgin] for [his] use, but rather it was oeconomised for him to watch over her", as St. Epiphanius writes against the heretics (Against heresies 78, 7; Migne E.T. 42, 721 A). In simple words, the Divine Economy brought Joseph in her life not in order for her to meet a husband truly, since the Bible underlines that the best for a woman is to stay a virgin all her life, but to protect her from the malice of the people.
 
Of course one could write many more testifications of the fathers on this issue. For more details, if one wishes to read a more thorough theological analysis on this issue, they can examine the work of Mark Siotis' "The Problem of the brothers of the Lord" esp. p. 57 , subsection 6 (in Greek).
 
I shall agree that the Bible does not speak explicitly on the issue of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. However, even biblically the argument is in favour of the Orthodox and not the Protestants, whose views go against all (or some) of the above.
 
From a historical perspective (Fathers of at least the first 4 centuries AD) the argument is 100% in favour of the Orthodox, even taking into account the above exception. Therefore whatever is vague from a hagiographical point of view becomes clear when seen through the prism of the Tradition (in which the Bible belongs to as well).
 
I will leave the reader with two questions to ponder upon.
 
One is based upon the image of the Church as the Panagia that we meet in the Book of Revelation.
 
As we saw in our basic analysis, Revel. 12:1-6.13-17 presents the image of a woman dressed the sun and glorified with the almighty glory. This represents the Church (the word Ecclesia is feminine), but at the same time it symbolises Virgin Mary.
 
Do you therefore see dear reader that doubting the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is tantamount to doubting the "ever-virginity" of the Body of Christ, the inabolishability of His Church? Despite His promise that the "gates of Hades" shall not prevail against her?
 
The second question stems from our holy father and hierarch John Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) who would ask of the unbelievers:
 
"How could the one who gave birth to God accept to go with another man afterwards?"

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 12:01:24


There is plenty of evidence in the Bible that Mary remained a virgin.


There is NOTHING in the Bible about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  IF you had ANYTHING, you'd quote it.  You don't.  The RCC doesn't.   In your post (stressing the Bible teaches it) you never once quoted it.  





.




I posted a few apologetics that cover different aspects of the life of the Theotokos and there are verses that are provided that do point to her being Ever-Virgin if you want to look them over.   Will you agree with the interpretation is another matter.  

But this doesn't even seem to be the issue with you it seems.  You seem magnetized by the way in which the more ancient faiths express "dogma" vs the tradition you adhere to now.  

That's a whole other beans of wax (phrase of the day)


God bless
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 12:05:38
Quote from: Josiah

I totally agree with you, Scripture would not say ANYTHING at all - one way or the other - about that



You're being hyper-literal in order to create a logical construct that just doesn't exist.  Does the bible say anywhere within itself that the Father and the Son are of the same "essence" and the Son is uncreated?  No.  However, when the narrative is included, the answer is undoubtedly yes. 


A doctrine CAN be a construct.  For example, IF Scripture said "Mary and Joseph in fact never married," I would have no problem with a dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever - even though I agree such would not be specifically stated - it would be a reasonable deduction from what we are told.   And I realize that IS an EO believe (just one of many where the RC and EO disagree).  However, there's no verse on that, either.


There simply is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  And yet - THIS is embraced as a point on which to eternally divide Christianity, THE place to draw the line as it were, THE key issue.  A dogma - a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty - unquestionable.   As I said, my Catholic teachers rather strongly taught us that to share something about a person that is not confirmed as true is "gossip" and is a sin - ESPECIALLY if it's personal or potentially embarrassing or offensive or harmful.   We were told to ask 3 critical questions before repeating what we are told:  Is it true?  It is helpful?  Is it necessary?    We adore, revere, venerate Mary above all women - there is none we'd rather NOT sin against or offend or hurt or gossip about.  Don't you agree?  So, 3 questions are absolutely essential:  Is it True?  Is it helpful?  Is it necessary?    Friend, if you were to insist that all the world's population (including little children) KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty, a "dividing line in all the Christian faith - that my sister has had sex exactly 521 times, simply as her brother (who frankly doesn't know and doesn't care how often she has had sex within the bonds of Marriage), my love for her would care about 3 things:  How do you KNOW this is true (and why do you care)?  Is this something helpful for all to know about my sister as a dogmatic fact?  And is it necessary that all people KNOW this?   Does this seem entirely unreasonable or unloving or uncaring to you?




Quote
So there is a narrative that does in fact point to Mary's Ever-Virginity

Where?


 

Quote
The "dogma" as you are saying is not about how often she did or didn't fillintheblank (why you characterize in such a crass manner seems a strange tactic) but rather it has to do with the prophecy of Christ and the redemption of mankind. 

Lost me, my brother.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is simple, direct and sharply focused.  
1.  It's about Mary.
2.  It's about virginity (here meaning without sex)
3.  It's about perpetuality (forever).

It is that Mary had no sex ever.

It has one application (given in the Catechism itself):  Mary had no other children.  


While I agree that God via Isaiah gave a prophecy that the Messiah's would be a virgin birth, a "virgin will bear...." it says nothing aobut Her being an PERPETUAL virgin.  

Yes, you're correct, Catholics will - at times - point to Christ in the apologetics on this.  But my Catholic teachers all rejected their apologetic as quite false and uncatholic.  



Quote
My Catholic teachers taught me that to spread something about someone that is not confirmed as true is called "gossip" and is a sin, ESPECIALLY if it is potentially harmful and embarrassing and of a personal nature. 

Well, you used to belong to a Church that viewed the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth but you've given that title to your own ability to interpret and discern. [/quote]

No, I haven't.  But let's stick with the issue....


Uh, the RCC ALSO says that it is ALSO dogma (of equal footing) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath - the RCC is as yet withholding the situation there, yet to declare which).  It EQUALLY teaches the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Papacy, the Dogma of Purgatory, the Dogma of Original Sin, the Dogma of Transubstantiation (very specifically defined).  Are you saying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is confirmed as true because the RCC says it - and that's all the confirmation suggested?





Quote
Just because you can not find "proof" doesn't mean a thing is untrue or unsubstantiated.  It only means that you don't know.

... which is exactly my current position.  

You also don't know how often my mother or my sisters has had sex.  







Quote
Quote
So, lest we gossip and sin, lest we hurt and offend Our Lady (and thus Her Son), AND because you insist on telling the world world this normally private marital matter as DOGMA dividing Christiandom with it, where's the confirmation? 
 

You are saying that catholics gossip because your standards for what is true is in the text and in your personal interpretation of it

Obviously not, but nor is it MY responsibility to prove the RCC wrong in itself declaring that itself is right (there's no way to even engage such a circle).  

What I AM saying is that here we have a Dogma created.   Permanently dividing Christians.  And issue declared to be a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  A matter that MUST be affirmed with quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to the denomination.  Okay.  I'm trying to understand 2 issues, the SAME ONES the RCC raises when examinating the doctrines of all others:  Is it true?  Is it dogma?    I can understand how you might theorize that I - as a 22 year old VERY heterosexual single male - might have had sex 67 times.  It would not be an unresonable conclusion.  Not that such would offend me all that much (heck, I'm guessing nearly everyone assumes similarly anyway), but to ME anyway, if you are going to divide Christianity on THAT point, if you are going to insist on such as a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty, I just think it quite reasonable (and probably sound) for you to have SOMETHING that confirms such to the level claimed and SOMETHING that suggests it should be an issue on which to eternally divide Christianity.  




Quote
All boils down to tradition. 

Perhaps.....

So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct?  

Now (knowing precious little about the EO perspective - which is why I don't mention such), I suspect you'll point to a Council that affirmed the PVM and note that no ECUMENCIAL Council ever declared those other things.   And I'd agree.  And I DO think that's a relevant point - one that (BTW) keeps me from joining so many of my Protestant friends on this issue.  I AGREE - that point (which some Lutherans bring up, and it SEEMS so do the EO) has relevance to me but OBVIOUSLY not to the RCC which insists that it's true because the RCC says so, not because of any true Ecumenical Council (the Authority being IT, not US).  But, ah - good discussions for another day and thread.  

IMHO, I'm just trying to get at 2 much more immediate issues:   Why does THIS matter so very, very, very, very much.  And how do we even know it's true?    Why do I care?  Because I love Mary and thus care about what is said about Her (not wishing to hurt her), and because Christianity is divided over this.  Not as such as some other dogmas (probably the Infallibiility of the Roman Pontiff would be on the top of my list there of Catholic dogmas - this one pales in comparison).  




Quote
You've chosen your tradition and like anyone that dubs themselves their own personal pope, have decided to hold your standards up for others to follow. 


Neither the EO or I have a pope.   Take that argument elsewhere....

It's not MY standard that what is taught among us should be true.    The EO and RC were insisting on that LONG before I was born!




Quote
The cult of self, who is able to set up his own proclamations of truth against others, naturally sees a corporate body of people in one accord, who see themselves as larger than the sum of her parts and adhering to the pillar and ground of Truth, as a threat.  I get it. 

.... I don't.   The only one I know of that has set up self as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter and declared self alone as incapable of error and thus exempt from accountability is the RCC.   I certainly haven't.  And I've never asked (or insisted) that anyone or everyone lay aside the issue of truth in the singular case of me alone and rather "rest" in "quiet submission" to myself exclusively.   But I think we're wondering off topic....




Quote
Unless we throw away our Holy Tradition and the Church's interpretation of Holy Scriptures

I've never suggested anyone throw away anything!   The only one insisting on that that I'm aware of is the RCC, which insists that it be exempt for the truthfulness/correctness of what it itself teaches.  And I'm MORE THAN WILLING to engage in a discussion of any Scriptures about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born but I don't know of any Scriptures to discuss.  There ARE verses we could discuss for Purgatory, Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff (traditions you don't accept as dogmas) but not for the PVM.  Again, I'm NOT the one suggesting we must throw anything away.  I'm simply saying that if this particular tidbit of bedroom data is SO important, SO certain, SO relevant to salvation (to the highest possible level) and is (it seems) potentially gossip and  thus sin, and is (potentially) so hurtful to one we adore and revere, shouldn't it matter if it's true?  Shouldn't there be some confirmation?  Something more than, "well, there was one person in 362 who used the title "ever virgin" when referring to Her!"   (which is the best I've seen to date).   The RCC has rejected FAR better supported ideas.  And the EO rejects the RC for other dogmas better affirmed (it seems to me).  





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 14:35:48
Quote
A doctrine CAN be a construct.  For example, IF Scripture said "Mary and Joseph in fact never married," I would have no problem with a dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever - even though I agree such would not be specifically stated - it would be a reasonable deduction from what we are told.  

Ok.  This is why I keep talking about tradition.  You see that you say "IF Scripture said" AND "it would be a reasonable deduction".   This exposes a base that you accept that is not necessarily present in the same form as you have it within protestantism. 

1.  IF Scripture said... 

The problem here is the interpretation.  As a Roman Catholic, yes, the Pope will affirm or reject interpretations and the Roman Catholics submit.  Yet, it's not necessarily black and white as we often characterize it because there are Popes that have taught things that the Roman Catholics don't accept. 

This is the reality. 

Now, in Protestant land we have a whole other set of "standards" if you will and those standards change the approach one takes when approaching scripture. 

For a protestant, it must be in the Scripture.  But the problem we run into is that the Protestants don't have any teachings or dogmas or doctrines that are binding on the whole of Protestantism but are only expressed on the personal level.  You can follow the teachings of a given teacher such as Luther but there too it gets confusing.  Luther himself taught things that Lutherans today don't believe.  Well how can they be Lutheran?  Well, because the Protestant "system" or "standard" is above the power of the individual and so even though a person individually might believe a thing to be true, the Protestant collective can not absorb or adhere to it.  Why?  Because then Protestants would all believe the same thing and they would no longer be a "body" of conflicting individuals. 

2.  ...  a reasonable deduction from what we are told

Reason.  This is again a protestant trademark.  Now, Luther said some things about "reason" that are quite opposite but the system of Protestantism as a "whole" can not absorb Luther's stance on "reason". 

If we can understand the Scriptures based on what *seems reasonable then we should all arrive at the same conclusion.  But the reality within protestantism as a whole is that everyone reasons differently and in contradiction to the other. 

This reality is not valued in the more ancient faiths.  It's not about "reason" so to speak but the revelation of God. 


Quote
And I realize that IS an EO believe (just one of many where the RC and EO disagree).  However, there's no verse on that, either.

Well, there are certain realities and verses that do in fact point toward our stance but they boil down to the interpretive body and how it "works" in those ancient faiths. 

In protestantism as a whole, the interpretive body is the reader as an individual.  That's why Zwingli and Luther could not be in one accord.   That's why the Lutherans and the Baptists don't believe the same thing.  Or the Pentecostals and the Methodists or the Methodists and the Anglicans etc. 

Why?

Because each body gathers around it like minds that agree with either one body's "reasoning" of the scriptures.  Yet because Protestantism as a whole embraces pluralism but does not extend it outside of itself, they can only say that the Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics are wrong.  They must necessarily say this because otherwise their whole self-sustaining pluralism machine would cease to be. 

For a catholic (the more ancient faiths) we don't necessarily "base" our views ON scriptureor even ON Tradition but instead ON the Church who with the co-operation with the Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and Tradition.  This is why they are Holy. 


Quote
There simply is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  And yet - THIS is embraced as a point on which to eternally divide Christianity, THE place to draw the line as it were, THE key issue.  

I don't know why you keep calling it a sex life.  You can just as easily call it her Chastity or Purity etc. 

And prior to modern Protestantism this was never a dividing issue.  Read the apologetic I posted on the other thread about the various aspects of the Theotokos life.  Much like the Holy Trinity, it wasn't an issue until it was contested.  Unlike the Trinity however, it was barely contested until very recent.  Not even the Protestants of old contested this.  It was shared by nearly all.  To blame those who have believed as they do for such a long time as being the "divisive" ones seems biased. 

It also is hard to take seriously a Protestant who calls the more ancient faiths "divisive".  Have you surveyed the condition of the modern Protestant whole? 

Also, it is not THE key issue.  But theology, a healthy one, is organic.  What you say here and there does in fact effect the "whole".  It's all connected.  You can't compartmentalize doctrines for picking and choosing (atleast not in the more ancient expressions of the faith).  That alone goes against the nature of Truth.  How can the foot go left, the hands go right, the head upside down without falling over?   

Quote
A dogma - a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty - unquestionable.  


By what authority do you express what is and isn't dogma.  This is the root of the issue, Josiah.  You adhere to the Lutheran position.  Lutherans don't agree with Baptists but yet it's the RCC that is divisive?  This is not a sincere approach to the Truth. 

Quote
As I said, my Catholic teachers rather strongly taught us that to share something about a person that is not confirmed as true is "gossip" and is a sin - ESPECIALLY if it's personal or potentially embarrassing or offensive or harmful.  

Again this boils down to how you or a group CONFIRMS something as TRUE.   Does it not?  You don't accept the witness of the more ancient faiths but instead pour your eyes over the scriptures and because you do not agree with the interpretation of the ancient faiths on the Theotokos Ever-Virginity, you view their stance as baseless. 

What follows from there becomes baffling.  You state that you do not know either way because you can't discern an either for or against in the bible when it comes to Mary.  However, you then take that standard by which you personally confirm something to be true or not true and put that standard on the catholics who don't even use your standard.  You say that you don't know but then you turn around and call it gossip. 

If you don't know then you do know that either some do know or don't, but you don't which is true.  You don't know!  You must feel that either because you don't know that no one knows and so because no one knows they are all just gossiping and so then justify yourself in calling them gossips.

You do claim to know!  You claim to know that no one knows.  That IS your position otherwise you can't in good conscience call it gossip/sin. 

Quote
We were told to ask 3 critical questions before repeating what we are told:  Is it true?  It is helpful?  Is it necessary?


Who defines what is true, helpful, necessary.  Yes.  God.  We all agree. However, is it by the interpretation of scripture?  Whose interpretation?  Luther? Zwingli?  Pastor Suzie?  That is where we all have to make a choice. 

Quote
We adore, revere, venerate Mary above all women - there is none we'd rather NOT sin against or offend or hurt or gossip about.  Don't you agree?
 

We adore God.  We honor the Theotokos.  We don't gossip about the Ever-Virgin. 

Quote
So, 3 questions are absolutely essential:  Is it True?  Is it helpful?  Is it necessary?    Friend, if you were to insist that all the world's population (including little children) KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty, a "dividing line in all the Christian faith - that my sister has had sex exactly 521 times

1.  The teaching points to  a reality beyond mere sex. 

2.  There is no need to become grotesque when you can merely say "Mary's Chastity".  You can't be crude and then try to call the issue on being a crude one.  It's self defeating. 

3.  Who and how is "true, helpful, necessary" confirmed?  The Lutherans go one way, the other folks the other way...
 
Quote
Does this seem entirely unreasonable or unloving or uncaring to you?

You are juxtaposing your view onto those who don't share your approach and then using that to create a character trait that does exist.  We're chasing vapor trails here. 




Quote
Quote
So there is a narrative that does in fact point to Mary's Ever-Virginity

Where?


It's not comprehensive but I did post some of the "apologetics" on the thread about the Theotokos and beloved bible stories. 

Most likely though, it won't matter however because though it is just the tip of the iceberg sotospeak at the end of the day, you have your tradition and the standard by which you create and use to confirm. 

Perhaps I will be wrong.  I pray so.

Quote
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is simple, direct and sharply focused.  
1.  It's about Mary.
2.  It's about virginity (here meaning without sex)
3.  It's about perpetuality (forever).

It is that Mary had no sex ever.

It has one application (given in the Catechism itself):  Mary had no other children.  

I disagree.  You are in your tradition allowed to believe as you want as to what others believe.  It goes beyond your one dimensional portrayal of it. 


Quote
While I agree that God via Isaiah gave a prophecy that the Messiah's would be a virgin birth, a "virgin will bear...." it says nothing aobut Her being an PERPETUAL virgin.  

Read the apologetic.

Quote
Yes, you're correct, Catholics will - at times - point to Christ in the apologetics on this.  But my Catholic teachers all rejected their apologetic as quite false and uncatholic.  

well most of these are things that often "point" and aren't in and of themselves strictly "about" x,y,z.  Dunno.  Scholasticism can be a hindrance I think if not used in moderation. 

Quote
Uh, the RCC ALSO says that it is ALSO dogma (of equal footing) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath - the RCC is as yet withholding the situation there, yet to declare which).  It EQUALLY teaches the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Papacy, the Dogma of Purgatory, the Dogma of Original Sin, the Dogma of Transubstantiation (very specifically defined).  Are you saying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is confirmed as true because the RCC says it - and that's all the confirmation suggested?

No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.  If denying tradition is part of your tradition then you just wind up all over the map.  You create the standards by which you judge a thing to be true.  You might call it the Holy Spirit etc. and I very well hope that in some cases this is True but when it comes to the whole Protestantism of which you reside in one of its cogs, you do as your dictated to do according to self and self alone. 

Quote
Quote
Just because you can not find "proof" doesn't mean a thing is untrue or unsubstantiated.  It only means that you don't know.

... which is exactly my current position.  

No.  Your position is that you don't know and therefore no one else does.  Which should be two different issues.  If you truly don't know, then you won't know if the more ancient faiths are right to express it as a dogma and won't risk slandering them by calling them gossips. 

Big difference there. 

If you don't know.  You don't assume the other guys don't either unless you think no one knows.  Let alone.  Hold your standard for "confirmation" of "truth" up to others when they don't even have the same standard. 

I might ask, by what authority or how is "confirmation" of a thing that is true or untrue expressed in your denomination?  How is it that, as a whole, Protestantism is divided amongst itself but in communion with itself and yet not in communion with those outside of it despite being divided from within? 

How is this a reflection of the "Truth" as you know it according to your own standards? 



Quote
Obviously not, but nor is it MY responsibility to prove the RCC wrong in itself declaring that itself is right (there's no way to even engage such a circle).
 

No one asked you to.  It was only asked if you believed that she was Ever-Virgin.  You started playing on the dogma playing field and a few of us decided to wander over and say hello. 

Quote
What I AM saying is that here we have a Dogma created.   Permanently dividing Christians.  And issue declared to be a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  A matter that MUST be affirmed with quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to the denomination.  Okay.  I'm trying to understand 2 issues, the SAME ONES the RCC raises when examinating the doctrines of all others:  Is it true?  Is it dogma?    I can understand how you might theorize that I - as a 22 year old VERY heterosexual single male - might have had sex 67 times.  It would not be an unresonable conclusion.  Not that such would offend me all that much (heck, I'm guessing nearly everyone assumes similarly anyway), but to ME anyway, if you are going to divide Christianity on THAT point, if you are going to insist on such as a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty, I just think it quite reasonable (and probably sound) for you to have SOMETHING that confirms such to the level claimed and SOMETHING that suggests it should be an issue on which to eternally divide Christianity.  

Well by this reasoning we can also make sure that we don't not teach against the rapture because soon enough this too will become an issue that will make people think we are being divisive about. 

Modalists probably feel that we are dividing Christianity too as they hope to be able to put their product on the table as well. 

Doesn't add up. 

Quote
So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct?  

No, but if you adhere to that tradition then you will believe it or cease being a part of that tradition.  That's why no one seems to believe in anything other than personal interpretation anymore.  You seek first the Kingdom, not the most convincing argument or coolest speech. 

Quote
IMHO, I'm just trying to get at 2 much more immediate issues:   Why does THIS matter so very, very, very, very much.  And how do we even know it's true?    Why do I care?  Because I love Mary and thus care about what is said about Her (not wishing to hurt her), and because Christianity is divided over this.  Not as such as some other dogmas (probably the Infallibiility of the Roman Pontiff would be on the top of my list there of Catholic dogmas - this one pales in comparison).  

Well, you can embrace a system that would welcome a pluralistic stance.  You have free will.  If you believe in the Protestant expression, you are free to go and align yourself to it.  Likewise with any expression of faith or not. 

You can attempt to create a church in your image or according to what seems right to you.  I mean, you think it's a petty issue and brings scandal on Mary and should just be a do-with-it-as-you-want free for all.  You're in the tradition that fits that approach. 

To blame Rome for the division there is kind of strange though.  I mean, they believed as they have about her.  Wasn't until recently that people began to challenge the Ever-Virgin. 

Quote

Neither the EO or I have a pope.   Take that argument elsewhere....

Well, in Protestant land who has the authority to decide what is dogma or sound doctrine?  It's not scripture.  It's not a unified Church.  It's the individual.  The individual acts as a bishop when it comes to Protestantism as a whole.  No?
 
Quote
It's not MY standard that what is taught among us should be true.    The EO and RC were insisting on that LONG before I was born!

But here you are challenging them.  Which Apostle sent you?  Why should we follow your system and embrace either your cog of Protestantism or the whole of Protestantism?

What exactly are the standards in Protestantism as a whole? 


Quote
.... I don't.   The only one I know of that has set up self as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter and declared self alone as incapable of error and thus exempt from accountability is the RCC.  

But a few protestants already have declared that they believe the word of God (ie their interpretation) over the more ancient faiths when it comes to Jesus brothers and sisters.  To disagree with them is to disagree with the Word of God of which they are in agreement with.  The protestants on this very thread believe the word of God and their interpretation is synonymous.  They have spoken!  It is so. 

They might not say they have set themselves up, but they do.  Otherwise they would not exist independant of the other faiths. 

Quote
I certainly haven't.  And I've never asked (or insisted) that anyone or everyone lay aside the issue of truth in the singular case of me alone and rather "rest" in "quiet submission" to myself exclusively.   But I think we're wondering off topic....

I do believe that this is at the root of the issue.  Because all our want for proof or Truth, all of it, must be expressed somehow and for each of the sects those ways of "confirming" vary. 


God bless. 


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 09:24:56
Well, in Protestant land who has the authority to decide what is dogma or sound doctrine?  It's not scripture.  It's not a unified Church.  It's the individual.  The individual acts as a bishop when it comes to Protestantism as a whole.  No? 

You miss and misunderstand the whole point of what the Protestant reformation was all about!  Yes, it's about the individual being able to hear, read and obey the Bible for himself.  But then the individual who allows Jesus to be Lord of his life joins himself with other like Believers and forms a local church governed by elders elected by the local church.  This is what our Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers did when they came to America 400 years ago because the old religious system, both Catholic & Anglican, in Europe and England would not allow this.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 10:04:40
Well, in Protestant land who has the authority to decide what is dogma or sound doctrine?  It's not scripture.  It's not a unified Church.  It's the individual.  The individual acts as a bishop when it comes to Protestantism as a whole.  No? 

You miss and misunderstand the whole point of what the Protestant reformation was all about!  Yes, it's about the individual being able to hear, read and obey the Bible for himself.  But then the individual who allows Jesus to be Lord of his life joins himself with other like Believers and forms a local church governed by elders elected by the local church.  This is what our Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers did when they came to America 400 years ago because the old religious system, both Catholic & Anglican, in Europe and England would not allow this.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

The issue is that by rejecting Mary's perpetual virginity (a dogma at both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches), you in effect call Jesus a liar when he said to the Apostles that "I will send you the spirit of Truth". The Church is Jesus' Truth, by rejecting the Church, you are rejecting the successors of the Apostles and as Jesus said "whoever rejects you, rejects me"
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 10:45:27
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?  For a Catholic, its about how we can glorify God.  Proclaiming the whole truth, especially how Mary's virginity was preserved before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, gives more glory to God.  Proclaiming the blessedness of virginity itself glorifies God.

What can believing in the perpetual virginity in Mary do for us?  Well, for one thing, when we see that Mary is a type of the Church, we can see how to look at our own spiritual lives.  The fact that Mary was a consecrated virgin shows that she was wholly devoted to God. 

1 Corinthians 7:34
An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit.

We, in the spiritual sense, are to be wholly devoted to the Lord, placing the Lord first in everything, just like Mary.  We are to carry Jesus to the world as evangelists, just like Mary.  We are to follow Jesus our whole lives, just like Mary, and we are to look to Jesus even when sorrows pierce our heart, just like Mary.

2 Corinthians 11:2-3
For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.  But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Secondly, when we see in more detail how Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant, we can make a whole lot more sense of certain portions of the Bible and why they are relevant.  For example, why God smote someone for even touching the Ark of the Covenant when it started tipping over.  And also, why the Bible has so much detail about the Ark and its beauty.  Just as no one could touch the Ark once it was consecrated to God, so too could no one touch Mary once she was consecrated to God.

Revelation 11:19-12:1
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.  A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

2 Samuel 6:9; Luke 1:43
David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?"
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Thirdly, Mary's perfection and virginity demonstrates for us the sanctity of the female body, its holiness.  Joseph could not take her womb, he knew that he was wholly unworthy to enter into that place that had housed God himself.  Likewise we should respect womens' bodies as consecrated to their husband, even if it might be a future husband.  Mary at the annunciation agreed to become the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and so Mary had a higher calling.

2 Samuel 6:6-7
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the LORD was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.

So understanding the perpetual virginity of Mary (and really, all the dogmas of Mary) helps keep us from thinking of Mary, and through her all women, as some "thing" that can be used and abused.  In truth, all Marian dogmas point us to Christ, and first and foremost, in the spiritual sense, the perpetual virginity of Mary is an example for us for wholehearted, whole bodied devotion to our Most High God.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:14:29


The problem here is the interpretation.


I respectfully disagree.

There is NO Scripture we are even discussing, much less differing on our hermeneutics of the words/grammar of that text.   This has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture and thus with hermeneutics.   A person used the title of "ever virgin" in 362, THAT'S the issue:  is it thus TRUE to the level claimed?  And it is necessary as an unquestionable dividing point among Christians.
 




Quote
In protestantism as a whole, the interpretive body is the reader as an individual.

I disagree; self appointing self as the sole infallible/unaccountable and authoritative interpreter is practiced only by the RCC and LDS to my knowledge.  I don't deny there are a tiny number of others who are so bold and egocentric and evasive, and I don't deny that in SOME way, at SOME level, this may be true in part for all.  But we are entirely sidetracked.  The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics since we're not discussing any verse.

 


Quote
For a catholic (the more ancient faiths) we don't necessarily "base" our views ON scriptureor even ON Tradition but instead ON the Church who with the co-operation with the Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and Tradition.

Oh, I know this VERY, VERY well.   It's one of my most frequent posts.  It's RARE that any Catholic actually admits this (I'm typically flamed, labeled "Anti-Catholic," told I'm only spreading LIES and not infrequently reported to staff when I post that) but yes - that IS the RCC point.  I know it ALL TOO WELL.  

Here's how I see that.   Self simply waves the issue of truth/correctness in the singular case of the teachings of self alone, changing the issue from truth to power, itself alone insisting that whatever itself alone teaches is to be embraced "with quiet docilic SUBMISSION" (of course, a power word).   I think the Handbook of The Catholic Faith puts it very clearly:  "The Catholic is thus freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth and instead rests in quiet submission to the Authority Christ established."   Ah, very clear.  Truth is not the issue (in the singular case of the RCC alone) but rather quiet, docilic submission to it itself alone.  This, you are correct - my question of "is it true?" is off their radar, so to speak, a question the RCC has declared moot and replaced with the issue of quiet, unquestioning, docilic SUBMISSION.  

Two things (since you raised this point):  

1.   In my Catholic days, I became very interested in American "Christian" cults and the LDS.  I spent a couple of years studying several (as well as "rescuers" - people and ministries that attempt to bring cultists into mainsteam traditional Christianity).  Of coruse, as espected, these cults are each quite unique and generalities often don't apply.  But probably the most stunning and obvious common denominator is the declaration of each alone for each alone that each alone is God's appointed mouthpiece - and thus the issue of whether what is claimed (including that) and taught is exempt from the question of whether it is true ("freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth") and the whole issue replaced with the insistence of self alone for self alone that all are to be quietly, docilicly SUBMISSIVE to self alone.   Truth is replaced with politics, power.  I think it'
s a dangerous rubric and it seems to be quite unrelated to truth.  In fact, as a group that works with the LDS kept saying, "The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability, change the topic from truth to power; it is the false teacher who must build tall walls around self of the claims of self for self."  I think there's probably some truth in that.   Same group:  "In the cults, we see people who have confused submission with assurance, docility with certainty."  I think so....

2.  In the case of the RCC and LDS (but rarely with the cults), there is a STUNNING double standard.  The RCC practically invented the concept of holding teachers accountable.  It STRESSED doctrine and the need for such to be "correct" in a congnative sense.  LONG, LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, it was INSISTING - boldly, passionately - that all teachers of doctrine are fully and immediately accountabile for what is taught.  It never hesitated to question, to test/norm, to arbitrate - and if such was found to be wrong, to condemn, rebuke, excommunicate, defroke, and even occasionally dispatch the teacher to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   WHY?  Because we MUST hold ALL teachers fully accountable for what is taught, investigating if such is CORRECT.   But then, when it comes to itself, it makes a STUNNING, absolute, total, complete, 180 degree reversal.  

Yes, I KNOW - I very, very much do - that the question I'm raising is not one Catholics are permitted to raise and for the conservative, "faithful" Catholic, is just "off the radar" and he/she can't even engage.   I tend to think they just stay out of these discussions (After all, whether it's TRUE is moot).  It's typically the Catholic apologetic who enters.  This one, however, is tough (although the Assumption is even tougher).  How do I know?  In my Catholics days, I was a Catholic apologists at interdenominational websites.  






Quote
Quote
There simply is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.  And yet - THIS is embraced as a point on which to eternally divide Christianity, THE place to draw the line as it were, THE key issue.  


And prior to modern Protestantism this was never a dividing issue.


I agree.   It's ONE of the reasons I'm not standing with most Protestants in rejecting this view.  

However, I'd also point out that many of these Marian DOGMAS are amazingly late and do NOT flow from major theological disputes (unlike most dogmas).   Even Catholics tend to have no clue WHY these dogmas even exist.  

And I'd point out they are DOGMAS.  Including some the EO does not embrace.

And while I agree that SOME of them once had a quite solid consensus, we seem to have develped a divide:  the RCC elevating them to the highest level as "dividing points" making them dogmas, whereas Protestants have slowly difted from them.   LUtheran historians often make the point that 500 years ago, Lutherans and Catholics were essentially the same in our Marian views, but from what I've read, the Lutheran perspective is that this is not at all to be confused with the 21st Century RCC view.  I have to bow out of that since I'm simply not aware of how these views have evolved in either community.





Quote

Quote
As I said, my Catholic teachers rather strongly taught us that to share something about a person that is not confirmed as true is "gossip" and is a sin - ESPECIALLY if it's personal or potentially embarrassing or offensive or harmful

.  

Again this boils down to how you or a group CONFIRMS something as TRUE.   Does it not?


It does, but as you just so keenly noted, that issue is moot for Catholicism.  It has been replaced by the insistence of the RCC aloen that all just be submissive to the RCC alone.

As I said, it seems to ME it SHOULD matter to the Catholic whether what he/she is insisting upon as a point of greatest importance, relevance and truth about Our Blessed Lady IS true or not.  It SHOULD matter, because we LOVE Her and SHOULD not want to hurt Her, and it SHOULD matter because to spread unconfirmed things about another person is regarded in Catholicism as gossip and condemned as a sin.   So YES, I agree with you - it SHOULD matter!   The reality that it doesn't is a result of the point you keenly noted.    





Quote
you do not agree with the interpretation of the ancient faiths on the Theotokos Ever-Virginity, you view their stance as baseless.

There is no ancient interpretation of any Scripture on this to disagree about.





Quote

Quote
We were told to ask 3 critical questions before repeating what we are told:  Is it true?  It is helpful?  Is it necessary?

.


Who defines what is true, helpful, necessary.  Yes.  God.  We all agree. However, is it by the interpretation of scripture?  Whose interpretation?  Luther? Zwingli?  Pastor Suzie?  That is where we all have to make a choice.  


Lost me.   There IS no Scripture to disagree concerning the interpretation.  
Luther accepted it in large part because of his deep Marian spirituality and because he placed a LOT of "credit" the true Ecumenical Councils which had a strong, ecumenical and historic consensus among Giod's people (whom he regarded as the church).    This is ALSO why I'm very open on this - not yet decided.  BUT, a point that MUST be kept clearly in mind when speaking of Luther on this:  It was not dogma for him or any of the Lutheran Church "fathers."  Dogma requires Scripture, and in Luther's teachings on this, he noted teh strong tradition and the lack of Scripture.  There were (rare) LUtheran pastors who did NOT teach the PVM - they were disagreed with but not excommunicated or defrocked - thus illustrating that while the "pious opinion" was very strongly and nearly universally held among 16th Century Lutherans, it was not regarded as dogma.  Today, some Lutheran pastors embrace this view, some do not, the great majority (according to my pastor anyway) simply have no view.  In MY Lutheran congregation (where about half are former Catholics),  some hold to these Marian views quite passionately (especially Hispanics), many of us still bring Her up in discussions and refer to Her as "Our Lady" (or similar), and I noted (!!!!!) in the pastor's Sunday Bible Class a couple of years ago one person refer to Her as "the Ever Virgin" (sic) and, with my eyes wide and my ears open, I waited to see what the response would be.  There was NONE.



 

Quote
Quote

Three questions are absolutely essential:  Is it True?  Is it helpful?  Is it necessary?    Friend, if you were to insist that all the world's population (including little children) KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty, a "dividing line in all the Christian faith - that my sister has had sex exactly 521 times

Does this seem entirely unreasonable or unloving or uncaring to you?


.

The teaching points to  a reality beyond mere sex.  


PERHAPS.... but it includes that.  

I think you "get" my point, but curiously are evading it?


 


Quote
Quote


The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is simple, direct and sharply focused.  
1.  It's about Mary.
2.  It's about virginity (here meaning without sex)
3.  It's about perpetuality (forever).

It is that Mary had no sex ever.

It has one application (given in the Catechism itself):  Mary had no other children.  



Yes, you're correct, Catholics will - at times - point to Christ in the apologetics on this.  But my Catholic teachers all rejected their apologetic as quite false and uncatholic.  

well most of these are things that often "point" and aren't in and of themselves strictly "about" x,y,z.  Dunno.  Scholasticism can be a hindrance I think if not used in moderation.  


okay....





Quote

Quote


.Uh, the RCC ALSO says that it is ALSO dogma (of equal footing) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath - the RCC is as yet withholding the situation there, yet to declare which).  It EQUALLY teaches the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Papacy, the Dogma of Purgatory, the Dogma of Original Sin, the Dogma of Transubstantiation (very specifically defined).  Are you saying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is confirmed as true because the RCC says it - and that's all the confirmation suggested?

.

No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.[/b][/u][/color]


I have posted that as the Catholic position and been BANED by the website for doing so - at the insistence of several Catholic staffers.  I appealed it and got it overturned with the promise that I would NEVER - in any fashion whatsoever, even from direct quotes from Catholics - post that ever again.  I agreed.  The ban was lifted.  But no matter what I posted, 2 Catholic staffers would reply with "You are an anti-Catholic LIAR."  The anger for noting what you just did faded with time, I'm pleased to say.  This website seems more open.

But you are absolutely correct.  I just do NOT have the guts to post it as directly as you did.  




Quote
Quote
Quote
Just because you can not find "proof" doesn't mean a thing is untrue or unsubstantiated.  It only means that you don't know.

... which is exactly my current position.  

No.  Your position is that you don't know and therefore no one else does.


No.   My position is I don't know if it's true.

Your position is that it doesn't matter.  





Quote
Quote
What I AM saying is that here we have a Dogma created.   Permanently dividing Christians.  And issue declared to be a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  A matter that MUST be affirmed with quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to the denomination.  Okay.  I'm trying to understand 2 issues, the SAME ONES the RCC raises when examinating the doctrines of all others:  Is it true?  Is it dogma?    I can understand how you might theorize that I - as a 22 year old VERY heterosexual single male - might have had sex 67 times.  It would not be an unresonable conclusion.  Not that such would offend me all that much (heck, I'm guessing nearly everyone assumes similarly anyway), but to ME anyway, if you are going to divide Christianity on THAT point, if you are going to insist on such as a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty, I just think it quite reasonable (and probably sound) for you to have SOMETHING that confirms such to the level claimed and SOMETHING that suggests it should be an issue on which to eternally divide Christianity.



So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct?  


IMHO, I'm just trying to get at 2 much more immediate issues:   Why does THIS matter so very, very, very, very much.  And how do we even know it's true?    Why do I care?  Because I love Mary and thus care about what is said about Her (not wishing to hurt her), and because Christianity is divided over this.  Not as such as some other dogmas (probably the Infallibiility of the Roman Pontiff would be on the top of my list there of Catholic dogmas - this one pales in comparison).  

Well, you can embrace a system that would welcome a pluralistic stance.  


No more than an Orthodox saying that the Immaculate Conception (born free of ORIGINAL SIN) isn't necessary WRONG but it's not affirmed as CORRECT either.  

Actually, I found the RCC "open" on a LOT - a LOT - of topics.  With no DOGMA on it, either way.  Sure, it's a lot less than once was the case (that 800 page Catholic Catechism of mine didn't spring up just like that in 31 AD!!!   And give the RCC a couple more centuries and it might top 1000 pages, lol.   As a Greek Orthodox friend of mine once said, 'The Roman Catholic Church has simply never learned how to shut up."  Well, it STILL does at SOME points.   No, this is not "pluralism" it's humility.  "I don't KNOW" is not the same as "All views are correct."





Quote
Quote


.... I don't.   The only one I know of that has set up self as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter and declared self alone as incapable of error and thus exempt from accountability is the RCC


.  

But a few protestants already have declared that they believe the word of God (ie their interpretation) over the more ancient faiths when it comes to Jesus brothers and sisters.  

1.  Read what I posted.

2.  If you disagree with self declaring self to be the sole authoritative unaccountable interpreter, take that up with the RCC (and each of the cults).  Read what the RCC itself insists on this in the Catechism of itself # 85.  

3.  There is no doctrine on this point anywhere in Protestantism known to me (at least, I've never been able to find any reference to such in any Protestant Catechism or official statements of faith).  That's NOT to say that SOME Protestants have a view on this (some Protestants have a view on the war in Iraq, the "Tea Party" Movement, and the price of Starbucks' Coffee, too).  But you're talking to me.  MY position is that we simply don't know if Jesus had any siblings via Mary or not - and it's probably moot anyway.  But it's not an issue I spend much time on, partly because it's entirely moot and partly because no one had any dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" or "Jesus Had No Sibs."  No reason to spend a lot of time debating an issue where none has any official stand.   But of course, THIS thread IS about such a divisive official dogma - Mary Had No Sex Ever.  






God bless.  



- Josiah





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: stevehut on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:39:33
I don't understand the premise of this thread.

I know (or have met) thousands of Prot's, and as far as I know, none of them disputes the Bible's claims of Mary's virginity.

But why are we talking about Mary?  My religion is about Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 15:39:08
Well, in Protestant land who has the authority to decide what is dogma or sound doctrine?  It's not scripture.  It's not a unified Church.  It's the individual.  The individual acts as a bishop when it comes to Protestantism as a whole.  No? 

You miss and misunderstand the whole point of what the Protestant reformation was all about!  Yes, it's about the individual being able to hear, read and obey the Bible for himself.  But then the individual who allows Jesus to be Lord of his life joins himself with other like Believers and forms a local church governed by elders elected by the local church.  This is what our Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers did when they came to America 400 years ago because the old religious system, both Catholic & Anglican, in Europe and England would not allow this.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

The issue is that by rejecting Mary's perpetual virginity (a dogma at both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches), you in effect call Jesus a liar when he said to the Apostles that "I will send you the spirit of Truth". The Church is Jesus' Truth, by rejecting the Church, you are rejecting the successors of the Apostles and as Jesus said "whoever rejects you, rejects me"

Then who is this Jesus that filled me with the gift of His Spirit 39 years ago, just like the Acts 2 Christians, and with Whom I have been walking with ever since?

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6), not "the Church is the way, the truth, and the life; no one come to the Father but through the Church." 

Jesus said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS" (Matt 11:28-29).

The Jesus that I know and love has told me that He will never leave me nor forsake me (Heb 13:5), and I am continually finding rest in His salvation.

Blessings
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 16:17:47
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?     

Protestants have given Catholics Scriptural reasons/verses why we believe Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus.  I have seen no Scriptural proof from Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. 

The reason I asked the question was not to be self righteous, but to explain that I've received/entered into God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus the Scriptural way as fully as I know how, and am walking in the works He has prepared for me that glorify His name. 

Is there more to learn and more glory I can give him?  You bet!  None of us are "filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) yet.

Can we learn from Mary's example?  You bet!  But Protestants honestly do not understand how Mary's virginity after giving birth to Jesus is either Scriptural or adds to the salvation the Lord Jesus gives directly to His children.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 20:20:38
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?    

Protestants have given Catholics Scriptural reasons/verses why we believe Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus.  I have seen no Scriptural proof from Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.  

The reason I asked the question was not to be self righteous, but to explain that I've received/entered into God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus the Scriptural way as fully as I know how, and am walking in the works He has prepared for me that glorify His name.  

Is there more to learn and more glory I can give him?  You bet!  None of us are "filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) yet.

Can we learn from Mary's example?  You bet!  But Protestants honestly do not understand how Mary's virginity after giving birth to Jesus is either Scriptural or adds to the salvation the Lord Jesus gives directly to His children.

The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 08:30:37
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?    

Protestants have given Catholics Scriptural reasons/verses why we believe Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus.  I have seen no Scriptural proof from Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. 

The reason I asked the question was not to be self righteous, but to explain that I've received/entered into God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus the Scriptural way as fully as I know how, and am walking in the works He has prepared for me that glorify His name. 

Is there more to learn and more glory I can give him?  You bet!  None of us are "filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) yet.

Can we learn from Mary's example?  You bet!  But Protestants honestly do not understand how Mary's virginity after giving birth to Jesus is either Scriptural or adds to the salvation the Lord Jesus gives directly to His children.


The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  

There more Scriptural facts that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus than this incident at the cross where Jesus tells John, the disciple that Jesus loved (John 13:23, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20), the only disciple who came to the cross and would live the longest on earth, to care for his mother after the cross.

The greatest truth I receive from Mary's example were her words to Gabriel in Luke 1:38, "Be it unto me according to your word."

This is how our Lord gives and ministers His salvation to His children, and how we give Him glory by acting upon His Word.

Blessings
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 11:15:23


The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  

Okay.   I now have to add that apologetic for the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever...
"It is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER because Jesus entrusted Mary to John." 

My response:  I see no connection whatsoever.  When a mother gives up a child to a couple in an open adoption, this is dogmatic proof that that mother will not ONCE ever have sex?  Do you have any substantiation  for that?



 ::lookaround::



But I'll add it to the list.



.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 11:19:11
.




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.


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


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


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




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






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 11:22:08
Quote
The problem here is the interpretation.

I respectfully disagree.

There is NO Scripture we are even discussing, much less differing on our hermeneutics of the words/grammar of that text.   This has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture and thus with hermeneutics.   A person used the title of "ever virgin" in 362, THAT'S the issue:  is it thus TRUE to the level claimed?  And it is necessary as an unquestionable dividing point among Christians.

Few issues here.  

1. Interpretation

Interpretation is not limited to scripture alone.  The interpretive body and how it functions varies amongst the various traditions.  

There are verses in the bible that point to perpetual virginity as well as verses that point to Jesus being an only child (biologically).  

However, when a tradition interprets it usually has little to do with scripture.  For instance, the position that Jesus had siblings is an "extra-biblical" belief.  Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus has brothers and sisters.  However, according to the tradition of protestantism they can not help but adhere to their tradition and so put things onto the text that are not there.   Where does this information come from then if not the bible?  The interpretive body.  

The interpretive body in Protestantism is not expressed as a "whole" in Protestantism.  Their is no authority in the interpretive body as a whole.   Protestants would say that the bible is the sole authority or rule etc. yet the problem here is that the bible isn't dispensing the interpretation, individuals are.  The authority doesn't rest ON the bible but in the individuals personal belief in what they solely believe the bible means to say.  

2. Necessary to the level claimed and unquestionable dividing point among Christians?

I would ask you how "what is necessary to be a Christian" is expressed in the protestant body as a whole.  This is where there is a huge difference between the more ancient faiths and the protestants.  

The protestants as a whole will say that there is very very little necessary.  You must say that "Jesus is Lord" according to the Protestant whole.  Beyond this, protestantism as a whole doesn't affirm or reject anything.  There doesn't have to be a Holy Trinity.  Who Jesus is can vary.   What Lordship means can vary.  What the meaning of "is" is, can vary.  The only thing that protestantism as a whole can fully unite themselves upon without division is that each individual has the right to declare and validate themselves as "Christian".  

In short, there is no dividing point in protestantism as a whole.  

Now on the personal or individual level there certainly is dividing points.  Because it's the individual who grants themselves the authority to be the interpretive body.  So for the self in protestantism, they come up with their own standard for confirming and rejecting.  

I'll expound upon this in my reply to your reply that follows.  


Quote
ME: In protestantism as a whole, the interpretive body is the reader as an individual.

YOU: I disagree; self appointing self as the sole infallible/unaccountable and authoritative interpreter is practiced only by the RCC and LDS to my knowledge.  I don't deny there are a tiny number of others who are so bold and egocentric and evasive, and I don't deny that in SOME way, at SOME level, this may be true in part for all.  But we are entirely sidetracked.  The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics since we're not discussing any verse.

Well, please allow me to disagree with your disagreement.  I hope that I can show you that the protestants do the same thing and that it is pretty much impossible to escape regardless of our omissions.  

But before I start, I do believe that you calling the RCC a cult to be either a gross overstep or at the least near sighted.  Allow me to hold a mirror up to the protestant ecclessiology and see if we can't find the same thing.  

1. Self appointing self

Who appointed Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, Farmer Ted, Pastor Anna-Bell, Benny Hinn, the Amish, the Puritans, the Baptist individual, the Pentecostal Individual as sole authoritative interpreters?  

Well, the answer is simple.  Luther appointed Luther.  Zwingli appointed Zwingli.  Calvin, Calvin.  

Luther didn't appoint Zwingli and neither did Zwingli appoint Benny Hinn.  

Where does the "sole" fit in?

Well, obviously the little cross-section of Protestantism that I've sampled from above are all individuals.  And each individual being Protestant is allowed to either affirm or reject what they believe to be true.  Now, none of the people above agree with one another.  That much is obvious.  But when they do agree notice who it is that decided whether or not they are right to agree.  It's not the bible.  They all differ on that.  The answer is, "the self" the "sole" individual.  

Luther granted himself sole authority to interpret.  Based on the bible?  No.  Based on Luther.  Sure sure, Luther believed what he believed because of what he personally thought the bible meant to say but at the end of the day, he listened not to the bible, but to himself.  

Benny Hinn is a good example because in Protestantism as a whole, you don't have to recognize any other authority than yourself.  You don't even have to do that!  If I'm a protestant I can waive that right and pledge blind allegiance to Benny Hinn's camp!  I can become a Hinnian! and yet remain in good standing as a Protestant.  

Does it matter that the above cross-section all disagrees with one another?   Nope.  That would be divisive.  Less important than who we say Jesus IS, is our want to protect the authority we give ourselves....

In the Protestant expression, the individual is the sole authoritative interpreter.  Some will say it is the Holy Spirit teaching them personally but anyone, a mere child, who sits between any two of these "spirit" lead groups/individuals will quickly realize that they disagree and therefore that either the Holy Spirit teaches two contradictory things about who He is (blasphemous) OR one or both of these self appointed individuals is wrong and misleading those that agree with them.  

Let's touch upon the Infallible/Unaccountable charge that you say is only peculiar to cults and then the RCC.

2. Infallible and Unaccountable

Protestantism as a whole doesn't have a Pope.  Each individual is their own Pope.  Each Pope agrees to allow the other to believe what they want but only so that they may do the same.  This is how they protect their authority.  Each individual is self-governing and can proclaim dogmas, right teaching etc. and also hurl anathemas, write creeds, etc. without hindrance.  

Now, as you know, there are special conditions that the RCC has when it comes to the Pope speaking infallibly.  The same as in Protestantism.  The only difference is that for Rome, they are in agreement as a whole and then also as individuals.  Ideally they all believe the same.  Nominalism discarded.  

What conditions must be in place for a protestant individual to speak infallibly?    Right interpretation of the bible.  Who are they accountable to?  The Pentecostals when they teach what they do about the laying on of hands...  who can hinder them?  Can the Lutherans call them up and tell them to "stop teaching false doctrine!"?

No.  

Can the Baptists call the Lutherans and tell them that they need to start eating cognitive recollection symbol wafers or else?

No.  

The Protestants have this system that ingeniously allows every individual to interpret with full authority and without hinder.  

Now they will all say that they are accountable to the scriptures but that's just not so.  There is nothing in Protestantism as a whole to safeguard that ideal.  In reality what the system provides the protestant individual with is the opportunity to let the scriptures be accountable to the individual.  

I'll say that again....

The Protestant system makes the scriptures accountable to the individual.  

Not the other way around.

Disagree?  

Baptist vs Pentecostal on laying on of hands.  Where is the accountability?  Are the scriptures holding them both accountable?  No.  Obviously not.  They are both in disagreement.  They are making the scriptures say what they think they say and holding the scriptures up to their interpretation.  

The protestant will say that what you need to do is approach the bible like this and like that or make sure you get the latest scholar's input on this and that and that you need to really read the so and so explanation or use a compass and a protractor and make sure this formula is employed when you get to such and such a verse and don't forget to use verse X as a base to make verse A read like so and don't forget......

It's the art of making the scriptures say what seems right to your own mind.  You gather yourself with a great many teachers and tickle each others ears.  

Come this way!  Go that way!  Follow the Word of God as I have proclaimed it!  I have spoken! It is so.  

You are trying to say that there are a few egocentrics who make such things dogmas but that's not the case.  If you add up all the dogmas and rules and regulations found in the body of Protestantism, you will find more than if you put all the ancient sects together.  

You can't be a Lutheran and believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol snack.  You can't be a Baptist and baptize a baby.  You can't be a United Methodist and not ordain women.  You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't can't can't.  

Yet.  You can can can because you can be a Protestant in good standing as long as you do it independently and affirm self as the sole authoritative expression and interpreter of self.  

That's why to even hint at a "One True Church" makes most Protestants squeal.  

Rob me of my authority?  They say, "I read the bible and the Holy Spirit tells me and gives me the discernment to speak the Word of God."  He told me this is the teaching of the laying on of hands.  He told me that THIS! is what communion is about.  He told me that!  You dare disagree and say that my authoritative interpretation is wrong and must cease to teach the Word of God?  Arrogance.  

Yet all those individuals contradict one another side by side in docility to the self for the sake, not of the scriptures, but of self for self alone.  



Quote
Quote
For a catholic (the more ancient faiths) we don't necessarily "base" our views ON scriptureor even ON Tradition but instead ON the Church who with the co-operation with the Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and Tradition.

Oh, I know this VERY, VERY well.   It's one of my most frequent posts.  It's RARE that any Catholic actually admits this (I'm typically flamed, labeled "Anti-Catholic," told I'm only spreading LIES and not infrequently reported to staff when I post that) but yes - that IS the RCC point.  I know it ALL TOO WELL.  

Well, catholics just admit it.  Some might not but it's true.  We should admit it.  The Church is not subject to the scriptures or tradition but products OF the Church.   Scripture and Tradition need to be in accordance but we must admit and submit the authority of the Church.  


Quote
Here's how I see that.   Self simply waves the issue of truth/correctness in the singular case of the teachings of self alone, changing the issue from truth to power, itself alone insisting that whatever itself alone teaches is to be embraced "with quiet docilic SUBMISSION" (of course, a power word).  

Well, choose wisely.  Be quietly submissive to the body of conflicting individuals and use the vacuum of private experience to interpret what the bible means to say and submit to that or to a body larger than yourself such as the Church under the Pope or the body according to the whole under Christ etc etc.  

I don't know.  There are a lot of different ecclessiologies (the belief as to what Church is).  

Quote
I think the Handbook of The Catholic Faith puts it very clearly:  "The Catholic is thus freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth and instead rests in quiet submission to the Authority Christ established."   Ah, very clear.  Truth is not the issue (in the singular case of the RCC alone) but rather quiet, docilic submission to it itself alone.  This, you are correct - my question of "is it true?" is off their radar, so to speak, a question the RCC has declared moot and replaced with the issue of quiet, unquestioning, docilic SUBMISSION.  

It's the same in protestantism.  Example:

The Protestant is thus freed from the typical catholic (according to the whole) investigation of truth and instead rests in quiet submission to the Authority Christ established - ie. the authority of the individual as being the authoritative interpreter.  Ah, very clear.  Truth is not the issue but rather quiet, docilic submission to the self alone.  The question "is it true" is off the radar, so to speak, a question the Protestant declared moot and replaced with the issue of unquestioning docile Submission to the individual.

Quote
The most stunning and obvious common denominator is the declaration of each alone for each alone that each alone is God's appointed mouthpiece - and thus the issue of whether what is claimed (including that) and taught is exempt from the question of whether it is true ("freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth") and the whole issue replaced with the insistence of self alone for self alone that all are to be quietly, docilicly SUBMISSIVE to self alone.   Truth is replaced with politics, power.
 

The same is true of Protestantism.  To reject the so called search for truth as a body of conflicting individuals is heresy in Protestantism.  It's listed in their anathemas.  Most of what the Protestant says goes without saying.  Like trying to convince a Protestant that they have tradition that they regard as Holy is very hard but it's true.  To deny the rapture for instance is considered to be a wrong interpretation in many circles of Protestantism and yet the rapture has a Tradition but since the Protestant insists that they are quietly divorced from Tradition, they don't admit that their ex-wife's name is John Nelson Darby and so insist he never existed but that the bible merely says what they believe it says, even if it's not true.  

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 11:24:21
Quote
I think it's a dangerous rubric and it seems to be quite unrelated to truth.  In fact, as a group that works with the LDS kept saying, "The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability, change the topic from truth to power; it is the false teacher who must build tall walls around self of the claims of self for self."  I think there's probably some truth in that.   Same group:  "In the cults, we see people who have confused submission with assurance, docility with certainty."  I think so....


Choose wisely.  Don't know what else to say.  A false teacher will say that they have the right interpretation of scripture and so will say that to go against what they believe the bible means to say is to go against God's word and then will use all kinds of reasoning to appeal to that teaching.  They try to paint a picture of authority without doing it overtly most often. 

Oh, well, I believe in Christ and have the Holy Spirit in me and he told me that this means what I believe it means.  Oh, well, these things aren't important anyway and are just divisive to us Christians and you know what the bible says about divisive people.  Well, these aren't really necessary because I proclaim the the bible says that x,y,z are the necessities and my interpretation is right and so don't go against the Word of God of which I am a mouth-piece for. 

It's the same.  It just pretends not to be. 

Accept the body of conflicting individuals or cease to be a part of the body of conflicting individual.  Cult is often a cheap way of trying to say that no one religion is right or appealing to personal relationship over corporate adherence to Truth. 

Quote
2.  In the case of the RCC and LDS (but rarely with the cults), there is a STUNNING double standard.  The RCC practically invented the concept of holding teachers accountable.  It STRESSED doctrine and the need for such to be "correct" in a congnative sense.  LONG, LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, it was INSISTING - boldly, passionately - that all teachers of doctrine are fully and immediately accountabile for what is taught.  It never hesitated to question, to test/norm, to arbitrate - and if such was found to be wrong, to condemn, rebuke, excommunicate, defroke, and even occasionally dispatch the teacher to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   WHY?  Because we MUST hold ALL teachers fully accountable for what is taught, investigating if such is CORRECT.   But then, when it comes to itself, it makes a STUNNING, absolute, total, complete, 180 degree reversal. 


Well, sure, if that's true then that's no good.  I mean, you have Pentecostals and Baptists teaching two contradictory things.  Protestants as a whole should hold each accountable and if they refuse to submit to the Truth then they ought to be defrocked. 

Will that happen any time soon?

If the rapture is a false teaching then Protestantism as a whole, if it is truly any kind of body, will spit that teaching out from within her.  However, she more often than not just absorbs ever wind of doctrine and expects everyone to submit to the pluralism of either personally accepting or rejecting in order to maintain the double standard. 

You can be a body of conflicting individuals on the inside but a body can't conflict with her outside of her and remain in good standing. 

It's the same....

Quote
Yes, I KNOW - I very, very much do - that the question I'm raising is not one Catholics are permitted to raise and for the conservative, "faithful" Catholic, is just "off the radar" and he/she can't even engage.   I tend to think they just stay out of these discussions (After all, whether it's TRUE is moot).  It's typically the Catholic apologetic who enters.  This one, however, is tough (although the Assumption is even tougher).  How do I know?  In my Catholics days, I was a Catholic apologists at interdenominational websites. 


Well, a protestant can question all she wants and authoritatively affirm what the Word of God says and means provided she doesn't claim to speak for all Protestants.  In other words, Protestants are not permitted to hold the body accountable for her actions as a whole but must in docility allow her to teach whatever peculiarity she absorbs. 

Mary in the Protestant expression is all kinds of contradictory ideas.  The body as a whole doesn't say anything uniformly and so she winds up with all sorts of contradictory roles.  She is what you want her to be or don't want her to be. 


Quote
I agree.   It's ONE of the reasons I'm not standing with most Protestants in rejecting this view. 

However, I'd also point out that many of these Marian DOGMAS are amazingly late and do NOT flow from major theological disputes (unlike most dogmas).   Even Catholics tend to have no clue WHY these dogmas even exist. 


Ask a rapture believer if they know who Darby is.  How late in the game are any number of Protestant teachings and personal dogmas? 

Open communion.  How late in the game is that penny?  It's still quite shiny. 

Quote
And I'd point out they are DOGMAS.  Including some the EO does not embrace.


Well, I'm not Roman Catholic.  I adhere to the EO tradition.  But despite the dogmas, we believe her to be Ever-Virgin and we believe that Jesus didn't have biological sibs.  We believe it to be a Christological position and if you disagree or aren't satisfied, you are free according to your tradition, to act as you want. 

Quote
It does, but as you just so keenly noted, that issue is moot for Catholicism.  It has been replaced by the insistence of the RCC aloen that all just be submissive to the RCC alone.


You can't be RCC and Protestant at the same time.  It's the same.  In protestantism you replace the Truth for the rights of the individual alone.  The (protestant) "church" is subject to the Individual. 

Quote
As I said, it seems to ME it SHOULD matter to the Catholic whether what he/she is insisting upon as a point of greatest importance, relevance and truth about Our Blessed Lady IS true or not.  It SHOULD matter, because we LOVE Her and SHOULD not want to hurt Her, and it SHOULD matter because to spread unconfirmed things about another person is regarded in Catholicism as gossip and condemned as a sin.   So YES, I agree with you - it SHOULD matter!   The reality that it doesn't is a result of the point you keenly noted.   


The Protestant expression according to the whole is that it doesn't matter to the body but only to the self and only if you want it to. 

(http://www.doubtingdan.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/haveityourway.jpg)


No?

Quote
Luther accepted it in large part because of his deep Marian spirituality and because he placed a LOT of "credit" the true Ecumenical Councils which had a strong, ecumenical and historic consensus among Giod's people (whom he regarded as the church).    This is ALSO why I'm very open on this - not yet decided. 


I do hope you don't throw out the councils and at the same time hope you don't just pick and choose what within the councils you want to fashion in your own image. 


Quote
BUT, a point that MUST be kept clearly in mind when speaking of Luther on this:  It was not dogma for him or any of the Lutheran Church "fathers." 


Call no man father!

Quote
Dogma requires Scripture, and in Luther's teachings on this, he noted teh strong tradition and the lack of Scripture.


Consider this?

lack of scripture and strong tradition vs Christology

or

Loads of Scripture and Strong Tradition vs Christology


We can have loads of scripture to back up a false claim and any number of false traditions (Darby etc.) but what it boils down to is who we say God IS according to the revelation of God.  If your only base is scripture and tradition then it depends on the "body" in question.   The RCC body? The Protestant body?  etc...   

Imagine what a Protestant ecumenical council would look like.  They would hurl anathemas and yet wouldn't excommunicate.  Pretty soon nearly everyone would be just as much in the right as they are in the wrong and all would go home just as Protestant as when they arrived. 


Quote
There were (rare) LUtheran pastors who did NOT teach the PVM - they were disagreed with but not excommunicated or defrocked - thus illustrating that while the "pious opinion" was very strongly and nearly universally held among 16th Century Lutherans, it was not regarded as dogma.  Today, some Lutheran pastors embrace this view, some do not, the great majority (according to my pastor anyway) simply have no view. 


So admitting you don't know you admit that no one might know as far as you are concerned and when Rome says they know it's "gossip" and "slander" but when Lutheran pastors teach the same in all directions, it's, uh, ok because no one is defrocked? 

Not sure how a system of contradictory stances and ideas and admitted indifference is a comfort to a person who seeks Truth. 

Quote
In MY Lutheran congregation (where about half are former Catholics),  some hold to these Marian views quite passionately (especially Hispanics), many of us still bring Her up in discussions and refer to Her as "Our Lady" (or similar), and I noted (!!!!!) in the pastor's Sunday Bible Class a couple of years ago one person refer to Her as "the Ever Virgin" (sic) and, with my eyes wide and my ears open, I waited to see what the response would be.  There was NONE.


Try that language in an evangelical church and count the slack jaws vs the ones holding open bibles, hollering that Mary was just a vessel God used to bring them their ticket to heaven.

You're in communion with them, no?  Even if you aren't, you are, no?



Quote
PERHAPS.... but it includes that. 

I think you "get" my point, but curiously are evading it?


I'm not evading that Mary's chastity has sexual implications just as Our Lord's Virginity has implications.  But again I do ask you if the Lord's Virginity at all matters to you or to Protestantism as a whole? 

I've met plenty of Protestants that say that it doesn't because the only utilitarian value placed on our Lord by some "believers" is that he gets them to heaven and who cares if he was married or not.  After all, marriage isn't a sin and he can still be the sacrificial lamb for them.  Some might even ask, why divide Christianity on such a thing. 

 ::eek::

Quote
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is simple, direct and sharply focused. 
1.  It's about Mary.
2.  It's about virginity (here meaning without sex)
3.  It's about perpetuality (forever).

It is that Mary had no sex ever.

It has one application (given in the Catechism itself):  Mary had no other children. 


I say that your characterization of them is  false here but I am not sure how the RCC views the application (if they even view it as an "application"). 

Forgive me if I won't take your word on what it is that the RCC believes to be the value in their teaching on Mary's Perpetual Virginity. 


Quote
.Uh, the RCC ALSO says that it is ALSO dogma (of equal footing) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath - the RCC is as yet withholding the situation there, yet to declare which).  It EQUALLY teaches the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Papacy, the Dogma of Purgatory, the Dogma of Original Sin, the Dogma of Transubstantiation (very specifically defined).  Are you saying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is confirmed as true because the RCC says it - and that's all the confirmation suggested?


I am saying that the RCC confirms it as true because the RCC confirms it as true.  Just as Protestantism confirms her truths as truth because they above scripture and tradition confirm it as true. 


Quote
No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.[/b][/u][/color]


But you are absolutely correct.  I just do NOT have the guts to post it as directly as you did.  [/quote]

Uh, but the same is true of Protestantism.  I'm basically saying that we can't all be right if we all contradict one another.  I saw you posted this comment in another thread and don't really feel that was in good taste as it was used to make a point that I never tried to make.  But such is life.

I'll say it again but in a way that shouldn't be perceived as negative:

We are all true to our tradition and we all hope that our tradition is True. 


Quote
No.   My position is I don't know if it's true.


If you only knew that you didn't know then you would be open to the possibility that some one or some group might actually know and so wouldn't accuse them of gossip.  Because if they are right and then they are not gossips. 

Your position based on charging them as gossips and single handedly dividing Christianity suggests that because you don't know you don't think anyone else does either. 

Quote
Your position is that it doesn't matter. 


My position is that it certainly does matter.  I adhere to the Tradition of my Church.  She IS Ever-Virgin.  She IS Theotokos. 

Quote
What I AM saying is that here we have a Dogma created.   Permanently dividing Christians.


Where's the protestant dogma against Modalism?  There is none.  Sometimes you have to divide.  Sometimes you have to embrace.  Protestant seems only to embrace. 



Quote
So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct? 


No, but if you belong to a tradition that confirms and rejects Truth from lie in a certain way then that's what you're bound to do as an adherent to that tradition. 

There's no scientific way to discern which tradition is the Truth.  We are a people of faith. 


No more than an Orthodox saying that the Immaculate Conception (born free of ORIGINAL SIN) isn't necessary WRONG but it's not affirmed as CORRECT either. 

Quote
No, this is not "pluralism" it's humility.  "I don't KNOW" is not the same as "All views are correct."


So Protestants as a whole doesn't know what the elementary teaching on baptisms is?  This is humility?  It's not expressed this way in her ecclessiology.  According to the whole of Protestantism, they have no stance.  Right? They don't know.  But as individuals they express it as if they do. 

As a Lutheran I'm sure you can look across the street at your Protestant neighbor who refuses to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or look even further down the road and look on as they baptize someone in a giant bowl of jello and say, well, we just don't know according to the whole and so in our humility....

Please. 

No. 



Quote
3.  There is no doctrine on this point anywhere in Protestantism known to me


Are there ANY doctrines in Protestantism that bind all Protestants? 



Christ is risen.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 13:50:10
Quote
I think it's a dangerous rubric and it seems to be quite unrelated to truth.  In fact, as a group that works with the LDS kept saying, "The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability, change the topic from truth to power; it is the false teacher who must build tall walls around self of the claims of self for self."  I think there's probably some truth in that.   Same group:  "In the cults, we see people who have confused submission with assurance, docility with certainty."  I think so....

Choose wisely.  Don't know what else to say.  A false teacher will say that they have the right interpretation of scripture and so will say that to go against what they believe the bible means to say is to go against God's word and then will use all kinds of reasoning to appeal to that teaching.  They try to paint a picture of authority without doing it overtly most often.  

It's not choosing, it's norming.

My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  





Quote
Oh, well, I believe in Christ and have the Holy Spirit in me and he told me that this means what I believe it means.

Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME).  


Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?




Quote
Quote from: Josiah


2.  In the case of the RCC and LDS (but rarely with the cults), there is a STUNNING double standard.  The RCC practically invented the concept of holding teachers accountable.  It STRESSED doctrine and the need for such to be "correct" in a congnative sense.  LONG, LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, it was INSISTING - boldly, passionately - that all teachers of doctrine are fully and immediately accountabile for what is taught.  It never hesitated to question, to test/norm, to arbitrate - and if such was found to be wrong, to condemn, rebuke, excommunicate, defroke, and even occasionally dispatch the teacher to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   WHY?  Because we MUST hold ALL teachers fully accountable for what is taught, investigating if such is CORRECT.   But then, when it comes to itself, it makes a STUNNING, absolute, total, complete, 180 degree reversal

.  


If the rapture is a false teaching then Protestantism as a whole, if it is truly any kind of body, will spit that teaching out from within her.  However, she more often than not just absorbs ever wind of doctrine and expects everyone to submit to the pluralism of either personally accepting or rejecting in order to maintain the double standard.  


1.  I think you entirely missed my point.  Perhaps you would re-read what you quoted from me....


2.  I admit I'm largely ignorant of this concept.  I don't know if it's dogma anywhere or what it exactly proclaims.  But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.


3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF.  But that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about.  Okay.  I realize that.  And I realize your point:  there are other denominations that are no better in this regard.  But I fail to see why that substantiates that if self alone agrees with self alone then the issue of whatever self alone says is exempt from the issue of whether it is correct?


Or are you TRYING to say taht since the RCC is as bad as some Protestant denominations in this regard, ergo those Protestant denominations are exempt from the issue of truth as well, and we all should embrace "the rapture" because self alone agress with self alone on it and it doesn't matter if it's true or not?





Quote
Quote

Yes, I KNOW - I very, very much do - that the question I'm raising is not one Catholics are permitted to raise and for the conservative, "faithful" Catholic, is just "off the radar" and he/she can't even engage.   I tend to think they just stay out of these discussions (After all, whether it's TRUE is moot).  It's typically the Catholic apologetic who enters.  This one, however, is tough (although the Assumption is even tougher).  How do I know?  In my Catholics days, I was a Catholic apologists at interdenominational websites.  



Mary in the Protestant expression is all kinds of contradictory ideas.  The body as a whole doesn't say anything uniformly and so she winds up with all sorts of contradictory roles.  She is what you want her to be or don't want her to be.  

Actually, I don't know of any Protestant denomination that has ANY doctrine of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex" or "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

Yes, PROTESTANTS are permitted to have varient opinions about such because there is no dogma on the matter, but no Denomination is saying, "It's MOOT if She did or did not because whatever I myself alone says is exempt from that issue."  

See my above obvious point about how the RCC being as bad as any other denomination (and a lot worse than many) in the area of doctrinal unity is moot to self being exempt from the issue of self being correct.




Quote
Quote from: Josiah


As I said, it seems to ME it SHOULD matter to the Catholic whether what he/she is insisting upon as a point of greatest importance, relevance and truth about Our Blessed Lady IS true or not.  It SHOULD matter, because we LOVE Her and SHOULD not want to hurt Her, and it SHOULD matter because to spread unconfirmed things about another person is regarded in Catholicism as gossip and condemned as a sin.   So YES, I agree with you - it SHOULD matter!   The reality that it doesn't is a result of the point you keenly noted


.    

The Protestant expression according to the whole is that it doesn't matter to the body but only to the self and only if you want it to.   No?

.


No.




Quote
Quote from: Josiah

Luther accepted it in large part because of his deep Marian spirituality and because he placed a LOT of "credit" the true Ecumenical Councils which had a strong, ecumenical and historic consensus among Giod's people (whom he regarded as the church).    This is ALSO why I'm very open on this - not yet decided.

BUT, a point that MUST be kept clearly in mind when speaking of Luther on this:  It was not dogma for him or any of the Lutheran Church "fathers."  

Dogma requires Scripture, and in Luther's teachings on this, he noted teh strong tradition and the lack of Scripture

.

Call no man father!


?


I have no idea how that replies to what I posted.





Quote
Quote from: Josiah

There were (rare) LUtheran pastors who did NOT teach the PVM - they were disagreed with but not excommunicated or defrocked - thus illustrating that while the "pious opinion" was very strongly and nearly universally held among 16th Century Lutherans, it was not regarded as dogma.  Today, some Lutheran pastors embrace this view, some do not, the great majority (according to my pastor anyway) simply have no view

.  

So admitting you don't know you admit that no one might know

Obviously not.

It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

IF the RCC has the substantiation, it should share it.  But as you've pointed out so very, very clearly - the RCC responds to the question by saying it doesn't MATTER if it's true.  As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.



 

Quote


No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.[/b][/u][/color]




Uh, but the same is true of Protestantism.  I'm basically saying that we can't all be right if we all contradict one another.  

It's not also true in all Protestant denominations.  And I fail to see how it would affirm such being the right rubric to use for the RCC if you rebuke a Protestant denomination for doing the same thing (which none, known to me, does).

You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 




Quote
Quote

No.   My position is I don't know if it's true

.

If you only knew that you didn't know then you would be open to the possibility that some one or some group might actually know


... and I am.  

But as you pointed out, the RCC position is that it doesn't matter if it's true.








Quote
Quote from: Josiah
So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct?  

.

No

.


So, it's exempt from truth if it's tradition but it's not too?
Or is it just if SELF says it, then SELF is exempt?




Interesting discussing, and I'm still quite surprised at how boldly and accurately you state the RCC position (and sad to gather it's the EO's too), but I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  Or why it means the RCC can condemn ME for not teaching correctly (truth matters if I teach it) but no one can even ask a question of the RCC because truth does not matter there, says itself.




Quote
Christ is risen.


...  He is risen indeed.


- Josiah




.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 14:14:31


You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

She remains faithful.

Does it matter that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding?  Probably not, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.


The Truth is available for you to accept or reject.

How do we discern the Truth?

1 John 4
 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.



This is the reason why protestants have such a problem with Catholic dogma;

The Syrian queen Semiramis was the Father of Tammuz the son of Nimrod. Nimrod was the renowned hunter that became known as the sun god Baal after his death and Semiramis' mysterious pregnancy. It was Semiramis that convinced her followers that Nimrod was a god and that her pregnancy was at his divine hand through the rays of the sun. After the death of Tammuz, Semiramis convinced her followers that Tammuz had ascended to his father and that they existed as one thus formulating the Syrian Trinity with herself as Queen of heaven.

I love the faith and I understand that Satan is most dangerous because he knows the truth and can manipulate and distort it to befuddle the innocent. With that being said I know men and how easily men are corrupted especially when they are given an opportunity to seize power. We all know the political and religious war that was going in Rome when the Council of Nicaea officiated doctrine and Christianity finally became the official religion of the longest reigning empire to date. New religions often adopt the customs, traditions or even insignificant dogmas of the local natives to make conversions less stressful.

This is indisputable. The early church leaders did it with December 25th, they did it with the Sabbath, the did it with Easter. These religious holidays, that had their own specific and known dates, were declared to be celebrated on the dates of those pagan festivals in order to make Christianity more acceptable to the average pagan.

I'm not saying whether these decisions are right or wrong because God did not ordain me with the authority to make such calls but I will say that when your denomination of Christianity so closely rides the coat tails of faiths we know to be false it scares people. Especially when John prophesies about a great church made corrupt by riding the back of a great empire and compiling together pieces of false faiths to the truth.

The early church fathers, although they subscribed to Christianity, were only second of third generation descendants of faithful pagans. Those traditions and beliefs don't die out so easily and it is too easy for a Greek or Italian to refer back to bits and pieces of their historical knowledge of mythology when trying to define or understand the God of Abraham nearly from scratch.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 14:32:02
So in a nutshell Chester's claim of Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit is completely false and baseless in scripture. The truth of God's perfect union with man is laid out in Revelation.

 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

 7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

 8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

 9And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

The Church is Christ's Bride not Mary. Christ and the Holy Spirit are one in the same.

And again in Ephesians 5:25-27

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 14:41:30
Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.
All generations will call me "a blessed tool".   ::frown::   Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 15:25:03
Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.
All generations will call me "a blessed tool".   ::frown::   Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".


Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol  ::lookaround::

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 15:36:45
Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.
All generations will call me "a blessed tool".   ::frown::   Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".


Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol  ::lookaround::

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.


I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 15:54:49
Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.
All generations will call me "a blessed tool".   ::frown::   Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".


Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol  ::lookaround::

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.


I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?

Uhh no?

First off God can't sin. To imply that I'm saying God is adulterous is way out of context.

No God did not consent with Mary before He used as the Vessel. That does not make Him guilty of adultery.

Thats just stupid. Thats like saying God committed murder when He protect the Jews crossing the Red Sea by reigning fire onto their persuers. Thats just a really really far stretch and breech of my reasoning. And honestly its the weakest rebutle I've ever been put up against on this site.

God has one Bride and that is His Church. He has remained faithful to her sense her crissonning. Point blank end of discussion.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:28:13
Quote
It's not choosing, it's norming.

Ok, let's look at "norming" from the Protestant perspective:

Norm : A 'norm' is something by which other things are measured and judged. When the Bible is called the 'norm', it means that what we think, teach, and do must measure up to the standards of Scripture. A norm helps stop us from getting carried away with ourselves and our supposed wisdom. Many traditions speak of the 'norming norm' or 'norm within the norm' or 'material norm' : the Gospel message of God's forgiving love in Jesus Christ. This means that all the rest of the Bible is measured according to (or is 'normed' by) Christ and the Gospel message. The Bible is the 'norm' because of who stands behind it and whose story it tells. This puts the main focus where it belongs -- Christ, not Moses or David or Paul or John, or even the Bible.


Alright.  That doesn't sound so bad upon first glance. But here's a problem:


Hebrews 5 and 6

5

 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6

 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


Ok.  This poses a big problem.  For starters, we have all these groups.  And each group is "norming" as you say and not "choosing".  Yet, each group norms and still comes up with contradictory teachings.  Look at the elementary teachings listed in Hebrews.  You can't get different groups WITHIN Protestantism to agree on those elementary teachings.  You just can't.  

There's a reality here, in Hebrews, that can't be fulfilled by protestants.  For one, the community that received this letter has in place the means to learn the elementary teachings ALL OVER AGAIN.  Even prior to the arrival of the epistle of Hebrews.  They knew about the "instruction about baptisms" because they were dunked either by the Apostles themselves OR those the Apostles dunked (baptized).  

This is what makes these teachings about Christ, "elementary".  You don't have to have a black-belt in scripture reading in order to know it.  It's authoritative because it is in continuity with the teaching of the Apostles.   This community that met the Apostles face to face and knew them personally as evidenced by the fact that the Apostles actually wrote a letter addressed to them.  How can you write someone you don't know?  You can't.  

So the community's experience with the Apostles helps to inform the text if a question about the text should ever arise.  This community doesn't gather the "instruction about baptisms" and the other elementary teachings of Christ based on scripture but on their experience with the Apostles.  They are being told in this very epistle to take advantage of what is ALREADY in place.  What is in place?  The deposit of the faith.  The teachings of the Apostles.  

So if two guys read the scriptures and they both come up with independent teachings as to what these elementary teachings are, this community doesn't go to the scriptures but instead refers to their experience with the Apostles.  

So let's call these two "hypothetical" guys, Johnny Baptist and Martha Pentecostal.  They both come to this "community" that the Apostle wrote the epistle of Hebrews to and after reading the bible and norming their hearts out, decide they know what these "elementary" teachings about Christ are.  

So they each take turns trying to convince others of their positions.  Johnny gets a few people to agree with him based on the way he presents and arranges and interprets scripture and Martha does her presentation and so the rest of the folks who just don't know wonder which two are right.  What to do?

Well, let's say that a five year old stands up and walks to the front where Johnny and Martha gave their presentation and stands right between these two really smart and charismatic presenters.  He then explains something that he has that Johnny and Martha do not.  

This little five year old was baptized by an Apostle.  

Now, whatever this little five year old said about how to baptize and what the Apostle told him it meant, it should, if you are honest with yourself, trump anything that Johnny or Martha said.  

That's the difference between the more ancient faiths on just the elementary teachings about Christ.  And notice that is says, "about Christ"...   "teachings" "about Christ".  

Instructions on baptisms and laying on of hands is a teaching about Christ?  

So what I say about baptism and the laying on of hands says something about WHO Christ is?

 ::pondering::

This is something that can not be reconciled in Protestantism as a whole.  Their experience is only as deep as their ability to interpret goes and they can pull out the hebrew lexicon and get a Masters degree in Koine Greek and ancient culture and use the latest historical constructions of early Christianity and apply really well developed Philosophical models to help create context and devote their entire life to studying the scriptures.  Whereas a mere child that had been baptized by an Apostle would easily trump them all simply because he has the experience.  

When I say "choose wisely" I am saying that you can choose to follow the way of Johnny and Martha and norm your hearts out OR go to those very "communities" who preserved what was given to them by the Apostles to preserve.  

Quote
My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  

Well sure.  That's no good.  

Quote
Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME).  

Well, refer to the story of the five year old.  Is the five year old saying "I am right"?  No.  He is telling you what he was given to tell.  His experience.  Big difference.  

Now, Johnny and Martha, after slinging all the verses they had in their cache on the subject, might after they reach a standstill, resort to, "the Holy Spirit told me" or "I have been given the Holy Spirit and it leads me" etc. to try and make their attempt sound authoritative.  But the five year old in the end has something neither of two smarty pants has.  Experience.  

When the five year old reads or hears the epistle of Hebrews read he's going to have continuity.  He's going to be able to go back to the basics.  He's going to be able to discern where Johnny and Martha are wrong and where they are right and what they are missing.  Does he have the authority to challenge them?  Sure.  All he has to do is present to them his experience, the text and leave the ball in their court.  

Now in protestantism what would happen is Johnny would just start up his own Church and Martha.  


Quote
Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

Hm. I'm not saying that whether it's true or not doesn't matter.  Using my example of the five year old, it doesn't matter if I fully understand it or not or if I have a different understanding of the Holy Scriptures because at the end of the day, that five year old kid knows.  For me, I'm not going to follow Martha or Johnny because I want to be in communion with the Apostles who are in communion with God.  


Quote
1.  I think you entirely missed my point.  Perhaps you would re-read what you quoted from me....


2.  I admit I'm largely ignorant of this concept.  I don't know if it's dogma anywhere or what it exactly proclaims.  But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.

Well, that's the problem with the Protestant concept of "church".  You guys are all the church.  The whole body of conflicting individuals.  You all have the authority of the church insofar as you interpret the bible correctly and yet there is no accountability for false interpretation according to the whole.   How is it accountable to itself if the whole of protestantism embraces contradiction?  

You can pretend that your little cog or denomination of Protestantism is independent from other Protestant groups but whatever you decide for self can't be applied outside of self.  So even if two Lutherans say they aren't in communion, they still are as they both are part of the "whole" of protestantism.  Otherwise, their entire ecclesiology falls apart.   What they say Church is, ceases to be.  

Quote
3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF.  

Pentecostals look like Pentecostals, Baptists like Baptists, non-denominations like non-denominations, individual as an individual.  Yet, according to the whole, you all say you are united because you believe that "Jesus" whoever he is, is guiding you to believe as you have come to believe.  

It's the same.  Same deal.  No difference other than it's hard to find a protestant that will admit it.  

Quote
But that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about.  

Not true in Protestantism?  So when they strip the altar or change the wine to jello shots or reduce the Trinity to Modalism this isn't institution?  Who decides these things?  Who "institutes" the policy change?  

Is it any less official if your official statement is that you have no official statement?  Is it any less institutionalized if you institute that no one may institute anything?  

And in regards to saying "NOTHING about any or all Christians" when a certain protestant group decides to strip the altar do they do so in regard for other Christians or only in regard to self and what seems right to them(selves)?  

By what authority?  

Quote
Okay.  I realize that.  And I realize your point:  there are other denominations that are no better in this regard.  But I fail to see why that substantiates that if self alone agrees with self alone then the issue of whatever self alone says is exempt from the issue of whether it is correct?

Well, no.  Wait.  A "denomination" is not independent from the "whole" otherwise you destroy what you say "the Church" is - the body of individual and contradictory believers...  

So you can't say that there are "other" denominations that are no better when in reality, according to the Protestant ecclessiology, those "no-betters" ARE the Church just as much as you are.  Again, I'm saying that this is according to Protestant ecclessiology. You have to play by your own rules I think.  

Oh, it certainly is not exempt from being correct just because someone or even a group agrees with self.  I'm simply saying that you can't peg this on the RCC and fail to see it in Protestantism.  If you believe the RCC is a cult then you necessarily have to see Protestantism as a cult.  


Quote
Or are you TRYING to say taht since the RCC is as bad as some Protestant denominations in this regard, ergo those Protestant denominations are exempt from the issue of truth as well, and we all should embrace "the rapture" because self alone agress with self alone on it and it doesn't matter if it's true or not?

I'm not saying that the RCC is "bad".  I'm just saying that you can't avoid this whole "self" thing you keep talking about.  

And no.  Of course not.  I think you should not embrace false teachings such as the rapture etc.  

Quote
Actually, I don't know of any Protestant denomination that has ANY doctrine of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex" or "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

I think you should take a sober look at Protestantism.  Can I be protestant and believe that babies should be baptized?  Yes.  Can I be protestant and believe that babies should not be baptized?  Yes.  

Is there any official protestant doctrine either for or against regarding the whole of Protestantism?  Nope.  Otherwise they would answer with one voice.  They still insist that they are united and in one accord.  How, I don't know but ok.  Doctrine and Dogma is EXPRESSED not according to the "whole" of Protestantism but according to the "individual".  

Again.  Doctrine and Dogma is expressed according to the individual in Protestantism.  So as many "doctrines" or "dogmas" that a protestant might believe as an individual, the doctrine/dogma IS a Protestant teaching.  

Read the replies on this thread.  One fellow says, "the word of God says that Jesus had brothers and sisters".  Now, does he speak for you?  Nope.  Does he speak for himself?  He will say no.  He is the mouthpiece for the "word of God".  

Easy as that.  You are in communion with him as you recognize him as "the Church".  But not in communion with the RCC otherwise you can't be Protestant.  


Quote
Yes, PROTESTANTS are permitted to have varient opinions about such because there is no dogma on the matter, but no Denomination is saying, "It's MOOT if She did or did not because whatever I myself alone says is exempt from that issue."  

What dogmas are there that the whole of Protestantism shares?  What doctrines?   Not the elementary teachings as listed in Hebrews.  So I can't imagine any doctrine or dogma would go beyond the elementary teachings.  So ask yourself what dogmas/doctrines do Protestants as a whole?


Quote
Call no man father!


?


I have no idea how that replies to what I posted.

Was a lame joke.  But just pointing at the fact that protestants have tradition.  If you recognize that Luther is indeed a "father" of Lutheranism and indeed a "father" of the Protestant "faith" as it is delivered, then some might be willing to accept that there's some "tradition" there.  


Quote
It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

But when the RCC says that there's life on other planets (to use your example) you call them gossips and slanderers.  And if they are right?  Who slandered who?  

Quote
IF the RCC has the substantiation, it should share it.  But as you've pointed out so very, very clearly - the RCC responds to the question by saying it doesn't MATTER if it's true.  

I never said that.  And if I did I would retract such a statement.  They don't say it doesn't matter.  

Quote
As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.

It's kind of hard to wag a finger at Catholics.  Even if they are wrong, Protestants teach contradictory things within themselves and are divided against themselves and yet say they are united and then turn around and point outside of themselves and say, "false teachings! false teachings!".   You guys are riddled with them.  Only difference is that you overlook those committed under your own banner and then try to light a match to Rome's.  

When the Protestants all believe one thing then maybe there will be a bit more credibility there.  
 
Quote
You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 

Two contradictory teachings can't be right and yet you embrace it within Protestantism and Protest it outside of Protestantism in order to "be" Protestant.  

Doesn't make sense.


Quote
But as you pointed out, the RCC position is that it doesn't matter if it's true.

That is not the RCCs position.   For some reason you are trying to assume that this is the case.  It's not.  




Quote
I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  

You don't abandon the issue. But if you're protestant there's no resolution.  You adhere to your tradition.  You can only quietly submit to personal belief but in Protestantism it just gets boiled down to a novel opinion to either have or reject.  

Quote
Or why it means the RCC can condemn ME for not teaching correctly (truth matters if I teach it) but no one can even ask a question of the RCC because truth does not matter there, says itself.

You can ask them questions.  People do all the time.  

 ::pondering::





Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Eagle on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:33:11
Married sex is not a sin. Why is it importiant to RCC for her to have not had sex after the birth of Christ?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:34:56
I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?

Uhh no?

First off God can't sin. To imply that I'm saying God is adulterous is way out of context.

How is this not sin?  Mary was "married", and according to you, not to God.  Apparently according to you, God was married, but not to Mary.  Yet God impregnated Mary.

Let's say that I took your wife-to-be and impregnated her without her consent.  Would that be a sin?  Yes or no?  YES!  So why does God go by a different standard?  What is a sin for a person to do is not a sin for God to do?

RATHER

Mary was a consecrated virgin.  Like nuns, she is in effect married to God, as she had consecrated herself to him.  Her betrothal to Joseph was one out of need for someone to take care of her.  Mary was very holy, and so was Joseph, and Mary knew that the baby that was to come was not going to be the result of sexual relations with Joseph, otherwise she wouldn't have asked "how could this be? for I have not had relations with a man?"  The Jews were not expecting God himself to become incarnate as the Messiah; any Jew was expecting a human person, like a prophet or a king, to be the Messiah.  So Mary, being an observant Jew, would have naturally assumed that the child would be the result of natural human relations with her husband.  The only way she would have reacted the way she did is IF she was never going to have relations with her husband because she had already been consecrated wholly to God.  A consecrated virgin.

So Mary had already espoused herself to God, in a way, and she became the spouse of the Holy Spirit in a profound way when she consented to carry the Son of God in her most sacred womb. 

No God did not consent with Mary before He used as the Vessel. That does not make Him guilty of adultery.

God does not use people, nor would he ever violate their bodies by forcing them to carry his child.  Mary was his spouse, and Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is God's spouse.  That is how this is not a sin, because Mary was consecrated to Him.

Thats just stupid. Thats like saying God committed murder when He protect the Jews crossing the Red Sea by reigning fire onto their persuers.

False.  In a just war, killing is not a sin; killing someone is not necessarily the same as murdering them.  The Egyptians were after the Jews, God's people, to murder them, and God defended them.  That's not murder.

Thats just a really really far stretch and breech of my reasoning. And honestly its the weakest rebutle I've ever been put up against on this site.

I find Protestant treatment of Mary as a "vessel" that was "used" revolting, irreverent, and blasphemous. 


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: The Great Baptizmo on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:49:34
Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  ::smile::- the other is an embarassment for Protestants ::frown::


 ::eatingpopcorn:

By making this personal against Josiah, you are showing that you are an embarrassment for Catholics. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:53:25
Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  ::smile::- the other is an embarassment for Protestants ::frown::


 ::eatingpopcorn:

By making this personal against Josiah, you are showing that you are an embarrassment for Catholics.  

Josiah posts the exact same rant 5 times a day on the Catholic forum (he has posted close to 300 times on this forum over the last 50 days)...he's a troll. Trolls need to be exposed.

Here's my challenge to you. If you can find at least 5 (out of about 300) posts of Josiah where he uses scripture to support a point, I will apologize. If not, maybe you should accept that Josiah is, in fact, a troll
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 17:24:37
Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  ::smile::- the other is an embarassment for Protestants ::frown::


 ::eatingpopcorn:

I like Ryan's post.  It's long, but it's intellectual.  I must admit, I learned a lot from his post. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 17:37:39
I was accused of unfairly attacking Josiah. This thread is a prime example of why I think he's a troll. He posted 28 times on this thread (more than anyone else) and he quoted scripture zero times.
When pushed he admited that "I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"

So the troll posts more than anyone else on this thread and he doesn't even have a view about the thread!!! Josiah kept posting 3-4 times a day just on this thread, without offering any scripture to support his trashing of the Catholic Church - just mostly copying and pasting his usual rants.

In contrast to Josiah, every other Protestant that posted on this thread (and no other Protestant posted more than 3-4 times vs. Josiah's 28) posted scripture to support a specific point of view.

So I think my critique is fair. Josiah is a troll who likes to trash the Catholic faith and never (or almost never) posts scripture; just repetitive rants calling the Catholic faith a "cult" (against forum rules)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:23:06
Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:36:32
Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.

John I appreciate your quoting from scripture, but this scripture has been posted before on this thread by other Protestants and answered by Catholics and Orthodox...your interpretation happens to be wrong feel free to read the replies on this thread regarding the scripture you posted
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:43:17
Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.

John I appreciate your quoting from scripture, but this scripture has been posted before on this thread by other Protestants and answered by Catholics and Orthodox...your interpretation happens to be wrong feel free to read the replies on this thread regarding the scripture you posted


Yes, there's even a thread on Mary that explains it too. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:09:01
If I were to take someone as my wife who was pregnant with child, and God tells me this was His doing and to not put her away, then say that she remained a virgin until the child was born, the RCC may not know or accept what this means, but most married couples would!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 08:59:39
Josiah kept posting 3-4 times a day just on this thread, without offering any scripture to support his trashing of the Catholic Church - just mostly copying and pasting his usual rants.


1.  You seem to forget that the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex Ever is YOUR view, not mine.   It's not for me to prove as true, it's for you. 

2.  I've posted my position on Catholicism.  It's SIGNIFICANTLY more positive than your position on Lutheranism.  The "anti" among us is you.

3.  You post, over and over, in thread after thread, your hateful, PERSONAL, flaming attacks - without contributing anything to the discussion or providing ANYTHING to substantiate the dogma you insist is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  It's just a diversion ploy, an attempt to evade substantiating your position.   It's hateful, PERSONAL, constant ATTACKS. 





Quote
So I think my critique is fair. Josiah is a troll who likes to trash the Catholic faith and never (or almost never) posts scripture; just repetitive rants calling the Catholic faith a "cult"

As everyone knows, I have - repeatedly - stated that I do NOT regard the RCC as a cult.   Your LYING is constant, personal, flaming and evasive of the issue of this thread.   

I have given my position vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.   It is FAR, FAR more positive than your position on my denomination.  YOU are the anti, not me.  YOU are the one "trashing," not me.  YOU are the one evading substantiating your position that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  IF you had anything to support your dogma, I suspect you would have offered it.  Instead, we have this ploy of PERSONAL, flaming, attacking - over and over and over and over. 



Could we return to the topic we are to discuss?   (HINT:  My name is nowhere in the title or opening post).  You claim it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Where is the substantiation for this to the level claimed?  Lying about me, attacking me, flaming posters, evading the topic does NOTHING to document this dogma you defend as true. 





.
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 09:27:32
Quote from: Josiah


1.  You seem to forget that the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex Ever is YOUR view, not mine.   It's not for me to prove as true, it's for you.

2.  I've posted my position on Catholicism.  It's SIGNIFICANTLY more positive than your position on Lutheranism.  The "anti" among us is you.

3.  You post, over and over, in thread after thread, your hateful, PERSONAL, flaming attacks - without contributing anything to the discussion or providing ANYTHING to substantiate the dogma you insist is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  It's just a diversion ploy, an attempt to evade substantiating your position.   It's hateful, PERSONAL, constant ATTACKS.



As everyone knows, I have - repeatedly - stated that I do NOT regard the RCC as a cult.   Your LYING is constant, personal, flaming and evasive of the issue of this thread.  

I have given my position vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.   It is FAR, FAR more positive than your position on my denomination.  YOU are the anti, not me.  YOU are the one "trashing," not me.  YOU are the one evading substantiating your position that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  IF you had anything to support your dogma, I suspect you would have offered it.  Instead, we have this ploy of PERSONAL, flaming, attacking - over and over and over and over.



Could we return to the topic we are to discuss?   (HINT:  My name is nowhere in the title or opening post).  You claim it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Where is the substantiation for this to the level claimed?  Lying about me, attacking me, flaming posters, evading the topic does NOTHING to document this dogma you defend as true



.

  
Josiah,

All of the other Protestants on this thread posted Scripture to support their view. You're different.


So, does truth matter to you or not?   Does substantiation matter to you or not?   Does it matter what people shout as dogma about Mary?  


YOU are the one insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  
You seem to think that if you endlessly flame and attack other posters, this is somehow confirmation of YOUR position to the level claimed, friend, that's silly.  
You seem to think that I should prove your position for you, that it is MY responsibility to confirm YOUR position to the level claimed, friend, that's silly.


It's YOUR position.
YOU claim it's true.
IF truth about Mary matters to you, where's the confirmation of this to the level claimed?



"How come you're always picn' on pur lit'l me" is irrelevant (and wrong).
" You ANTI my denomination" is irrelevant (and wrong - actually, you are)
"You said the RCC is a cult" is irrelevant and a LIE (and you know it)
"You aren't proving MY position with Scripture" is absurd and a diversion attempt.
"You are 22 years old" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.
"You post nearly as much as I do" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.
"You're Protestant!" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 10:19:38
Quote
How is this not sin?  Mary was "married", and according to you, not to God.  Apparently according to you, God was married, but not to Mary.  Yet God impregnated Mary.

Let's say that I took your wife-to-be and impregnated her without her consent.  Would that be a sin?  Yes or no?  YES!  So why does God go by a different standard?  What is a sin for a person to do is not a sin for God to do?

First off listen to what you're saying. You are implying that God is bound by the Laws that He instituted for man. You are applying adjetives like "adulterous" or "sinful" to actions performed by the Almighty like its even possible for Him to commit acts of a sin. God is the greatest authority in the universe. He is not subject to the law because He is Master of the Law just as Christ said He was Master of the Sabbath so therefore He could not be incriminated for doing works on the day.

You really need to tread carefully.

Secondly the marriage in Revelations is not yet to come. Jesus, the Lord of the Harvest, has not gathered together the Church. It is still being prepared. The weddig feast has not happened yet.


Quote
RATHER

Mary was a consecrated virgin.  Like nuns, she is in effect married to God, as she had consecrated herself to him.  Her betrothal to Joseph was one out of need for someone to take care of her.  Mary was very holy, and so was Joseph, and Mary knew that the baby that was to come was not going to be the result of sexual relations with Joseph, otherwise she wouldn't have asked "how could this be? for I have not had relations with a man?"  The Jews were not expecting God himself to become incarnate as the Messiah; any Jew was expecting a human person, like a prophet or a king, to be the Messiah.  So Mary, being an observant Jew, would have naturally assumed that the child would be the result of natural human relations with her husband.  The only way she would have reacted the way she did is IF she was never going to have relations with her husband because she had already been consecrated wholly to God.  A consecrated virgin.

So Mary had already espoused herself to God, in a way, and she became the spouse of the Holy Spirit in a profound way when she consented to carry the Son of God in her most sacred womb. 


This is all baseless. Comepletely baseless. The disciples, meaning the original twelve, did not teach this nor is recorded in scripture. The Catholic Church has a long track record of blending Christian beliefs with pagan foklore. It is as simple as that. I'm sure you can quote sevral early church fathers who may hint or even clearly express the belief in this dogma but at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Angelos on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 10:31:40

Quote
at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.



Lighthammer,

ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, John Wesley, and Calvin all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.

Was Luther a third generation pagan? Is you exegesis better than all of the leaders of the Reformation and all of the Orthodox and Catholic Bishops?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 10:47:26
Quote
God does not use people, nor would he ever violate their bodies by forcing them to carry his child.  Mary was his spouse, and Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is God's spouse.  That is how this is not a sin, because Mary was consecrated to Him.

I agree that Mary is apart of the Church but she wasn't born as such. Sorry but the testimonies of a few Italians hundred years after God gives scripture that greatly contradicts what they testify to does not validate your "immaculate conception".

As for your other piece:

God didn't consult Job when He tested him by allowing Satan to curse him with disease death and pain.

God didn't consult Paul before He put the thorn is his side to humble him.

God didn't consult Ezekial before He gave him overwhelming visions of divine prominence.

No my firend I think you may be looking at this with bias instead of openness. God does not consult and get the permission of those He wishes to bestow upon the great commision. Faith is a option but for those who He wishes to change the world through He is not as gentle because He is calling them to a greater standard.

Quote
False.  In a just war, killing is not a sin; killing someone is not necessarily the same as murdering them.  The Egyptians were after the Jews, God's people, to murder them, and God defended them.  That's not murder.

I see your point. The Red Sea escape wasn't really that good of a reference but I'm a bit shocked that this whole thing isn't really obvious.

Quote
I find Protestant treatment of Mary as a "vessel" that was "used" revolting, irreverent, and blasphemous.

I apologize if my words seem of offensive. However you must understand that protestants like myself who aim to look at the Truth without bias are not as passionate as you over doctrine. We more than any understand how easily corruption influences all. I expect you to be somewhat hostile because you have been groomed in a demonination of the faith that is not only the oldest but the most proud. I have found that even if I am able to refute a position of catholcism with reason or scripture you guys tend to fall back curl up into a ball and ununciate the same sentence "Well my Church has endured for 2000 years so I can't be wrong."

Forgive me for sounding forward but Catholics seem to refuse to admit the flaws of catholicism but seem to be offended when protestants refuse to accept the flaws of protestantism. You are "revolted" that I won't expect a pagan/christian blend of a dogma attached to Mary even though it is obvious that all this is doing is creating a fourth Semiramis. You are disgusted that I won't honor Mary as the Queen of Heaven but no man has ever ascended to a level of godhood. Queen of Heaven really? God is a gender neutral power that has no beginning and no end and you want me to believe that He took Mary a human to be His everlasting cosmic bride? Yea thats a no go.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 11:02:25

Quote
at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.



Lighthammer,

ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, John Wesley, and Calvin all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.

Was Luther a third generation pagan? Is you exegesis better than all of the leaders of the Reformation and all of the Orthodox and Catholic Bishops?


That is evident only because they were still brought up in that system of beliefs. Most reformers disputed the primacy of the pope other than that they lived happy catholic lives. Lutheranism is about as much catholic as a protestant can get. Calvin was a bit twisted and I don't know enough Zwingli or John Wesley to make a valid stance.

However these men were still groomed and TAUGHT to belief as you were by the preserved teachings of first second and third generation pagans. In my time on this site Catholics have quoted canonzied saints more than any piece of canonzied scripture point blank.

My exegesis is unbiased because I no longer bear any ulterior motives. Through my time with you all I have seen the beauty of the intellectual catholic church. In my time with Ryan, Macrina and Trifecta I have seen the same beauty in the EO ( although I think I agree more with EO when it comes to the papacy and a few other things). You guys have given me a reason to believe in the established Church so I no longer wish to see it rendered asunder, just perhaps maybe purged a bit.
Basically my ideals are not formulated with any other reason than to seek genuine truth. I am not taught by men like you or those before you so I have no foundation of doctrine laid that I feel I must measure up my ideals to beside the double edged sword of God's word.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 16:13:27
Lighthammer, I just would like to get this straight before replying to your post.  I know this thread is about Mary and I do hope to arrive on that direct topic but since there are all these forces at work making it difficult for everyone to understand where the other is coming from I think this is a key issue and I’d like to give it a go.  Feel free to correct me if what I think you are saying, isn’t what you are saying. 

You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 16:57:52
I am catching up after being away for a few days. I see not much progress has been made. I said I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore since neither side is willing to budge but I have to make some points.

1. Josiah and Angelos should both be given time outs. Both say the same things over and over and are very uncharitable to each other. Josiah is against all things Catholic and Angelos' main argument is "its Catholic belief so it must be right."

2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

4. Angelos divides the world into Catholic and Protestant. I don't accept many protestants and would group them in with Catholics. Anglicans are Ango-Catholics. Lutherans are German-Catholics. Methodists are democratized Anglicans. Pentecostals are Methodists who hear voices. I split those who claim to be Christians into those who know the truth and those who think they know the truth and are in error. Those of us in the Church of Christ have been accused of believing that we are the only ones going to heaven. Most (but not all) of us don't think that way anymore and I wouldn't be surprised to see some Baptists and Anabaptists in heaven, but no Catholics, JW, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists nor any others who don't practice baptism of adult believers by immersion. Angelos: don't lump me in with all Protestants.

5. Several on the Catholic side have disputed our modern usage of some words. Do you feel that a person could not pick up a Bible and on his own determine what he had to do to be saved ("work out his salvation" in the words of scripture)? Would God allow translations that needed glosses by ancient writers.

6. I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).

7. I grew up being taught that the Catholic church apostatized at an early date and has spent close to 2000 years teaching error. After reading some of the discussion I am thinking that might be true.

8. Finally, look at the title of this thread. Protestants were invited to participate. I got involved because I thought a Catholic needed help understanding an opposing view. Instead of a sincere plea for help it was an ambush.


                                                                                   ::preachit::      ::twocents::  ::twocents:: [that was 4 cents worth]
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:15:32
You are pretty much dead on. However I would like to make a few clarifications on my position.

Quote
You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:21:52
.



Ryan, you raise some important issues here (in your typical very articulate fashion) and I would LOVE to discuss it in much greater detail.  But, I'm sensitive to not derailing this thread which the title and opening poster has stressed is about the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.   MY concern here is two-fold:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?  Thus, the proclaimation of such as TRUE and it's status among us as DOGMA.  

I have given my reasons why:  It's DIVISIVE (a WALL to unity) and it's potentially sinful gossip unless we can substantiate such as true and as dogma.

THAT said, I'll reply much too briefly to some things below, in hopes of returning to the issue...




Quote
It's not choosing, it's norming.

Ok, let's look at "norming" from the Protestant perspective:

Norm : A 'norm' is something by which other things are measured and judged. When the Bible is called the 'norm', it means that what we think, teach, and do must measure up to the standards of Scripture. A norm helps stop us from getting carried away with ourselves and our supposed wisdom. Many traditions speak of the 'norming norm' or 'norm within the norm' or 'material norm' : the Gospel message of God's forgiving love in Jesus Christ. This means that all the rest of the Bible is measured according to (or is 'normed' by) Christ and the Gospel message. The Bible is the 'norm' because of who stands behind it and whose story it tells. This puts the main focus where it belongs -- Christ, not Moses or David or Paul or John, or even the Bible.


Alright.  That doesn't sound so bad upon first glance.


.... IF one embraces that truth matters.  

We're having that discussion in another thread.   Yes, this IS a very fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.  It's not JUST how we arrive at it, it's not JUST a matter of hermeneutics or norming or arbitration.   It's more fundamental than that.  We're discussing this in at least two other threads here in this forum.




Quote
But here's a problem: Hebrews 5 and 6

 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6

 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


Ok.  This poses a big problem.  For starters, we have all these groups.  And each group is "norming" as you say and not "choosing".  Yet, each group norms and still comes up with contradictory teachings.  Look at the elementary teachings listed in Hebrews.  You can't get different groups WITHIN Protestantism to agree on those elementary teachings.  You just can't.  


IMHO, you are confusing two very different things (and it's MOOT if truth doesn't matter, we if are only to accept the "tradition" we are taught by our thousands of denominations WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TRUE.

1.  You are confusing the norm with arbitrating.   Let's return to my Bob the Builder builds a wall for us illustration.   We commission Bob to build a wall 6 feet tall on our property line between our two homes.  Bob is finished.   Bob says the wall is 6 feet tall.   YES, I know, we can just mutually declare that it doesn't matter if the wall is 6 feet tall or 1 foot tall, but that's another issue.  Let's assume truth matters.  IF so, then the position under evaluation becomes Bob's statement that the wall is 6 feet tall.   That becomes the position of review, he is in an episteomological sense, a "defendant" for such.   Bob alone excusing Bob alone from consideration of whether Bob alone is correct is convenient for Bob but of course is MOOT to the issue of whether Bob's position is correct.  Now, embracing the evaluation ("norming") first of all requires some Standard, Rule ("straight edge"), Canon ("measuring stick") - WHAT we will use as the plumbline.  Now in epistmology, the most sound rule/canon (or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans) is the most objective, most knowable to all and alterable to none, most embraced as reliable by all parties.  Perhaps we choose a standard Sears Measuring Tape.  We all have one.  It's objective, knowable, unalterable, above and outside us all.  And we all consider it sufficiently reliable for this evaluation.   IN THAT CASE, it would be our norma normans, our "canon" (measuring stick).  

2.  Arbitration follows.   It cannot happen until an agreed upon canon is embraced.  HOW will it be determined if the said position (Bob:  The Wall is Six Feet Tall) measures up (arbitration) to the measuring stick (canon)?  THAT process is called arbitration.  

3.  What you MAY be getting at is that it seems for AT LEAST the past 1200 years, we've had no arbitration beyond the denominmational level.  That's when the last true Ecumenical Council unraveled.   Since there is no ecumenical arbitratration anymore (pretty much destroyed by egoism, individualism and institutionalism - which this new Lutheran largely blames on the RCC), we are left with just denomintional arbitration.   RCC, EO, LDS, LCMS, UPC-USA, UCC, Episcopal Church in the USA, etc., etc., etc., etc.)  Sad, but true.   There's another issue too:  Is such arbitration regarded as inerrant?   In CAtholicism, the question is moot because truth is moot.  I don't know about in Orthodoxy.  Protestants tend to look to the Ecumenical Councils as profoundly wise but not necessarily INERRANT.

I WISH that we ALL would embrace accountability, a common objective/knowable norm and a common arbitration that at least ends the debate even if not seen as inerrant.  IF such was EVER the case in Christianity, it has not been for many, many, many CENTURIES before Luther was born....  


ACCOUNTABILITY:   Protestants embrace.   The RCC, LDS and it seems EO do not (except for others, not for self)
COMMON NORM:   Most Protestants embrace Scripture.   It's moot for the RCC, LDS and it seems EO.
COMMON ARBITRATION:   Protestants have but only on a denominational level.   It's moot for the RCC, LDS and EO.  



Quote
So the community's experience with the Apostles helps to inform the text if a question about the text should ever arise


WAY too many assumptions and connecting of dots for me to follow your point here.....

And it seems pretty moot.  All the Apostles are dead.  Have been for over 1900 years.  




Quote
The teachings of the Apostles


The only teachings we know of them are recorded in 5 books:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.   They were often wrong since Jesus' ministry was often directed toward correcting them.

Paul and Peter wrote epistles (it's ALL we know from either) but of course, it's not their words but the Holy Spirit's words.
Tradition says that Matthew, John and maybe James were penmen too but we can't confirm that, and again what is in the books Tradition attributes to them is not their words but the Holy Spriit's words.

We know NOTHING from any of the other Apostles.  
We know NOTHING from ANY of them outside of 27 books.  All in the NT.  

Sure, the Mormons insist that Jesus said ALL KINDS of things, some of which the LDS claims are dogmas, but for some reason, God choose to keep those things out of His Holy Scriptures (they can answer that question, BTW).  But these secrets were somehow made known to the LDS (again, they have an aswer to that "somehow").   COULD this be the case?  Obviously yes, but there's only one that so claims (the LDS for the LDS), there's ZERO confirmation of ANY of these things in the First Century (and often in the second or third - and at times, for the next 17 centuries).  So, any "connection" to ANY Apostle (well, biblical ones) is historically baseless and is simply the claim of the LDS.  As a pure article of faith, it stands of course.   As more than that, it does not.   ANYONE can say, "Arius had some secret awareness of what Jesus taught but God choose not to tell us in His Scriptures."  But without any connecting of dots, all we have is a baseless claim of self for self.  





Quote
So if two guys read the scriptures and they both come up with independent teachings as to what these elementary teachings are, this community doesn't go to the scriptures but instead refers to their experience with the Apostles.  


And yet..... Jesus refers us to Scripture 50 times and NEVER to ANY Apostle....
In Acts 15, NO ONE so much as mentions ANY Apostle as such (or any Keys or any Infallibility) but uses Scripture as the norm.
In Acts, Peter preaches and never ONCE even MENTIONS that he is an Apostle but over and over and over uses Scripture normatively.



Quote
we wonder which two are right.  What to do?


.... regard that truth matters, thus your question is relevant (herein exits the RCC.....)
.... regard BOTH as accountable (the RCC has already left the room....)
.... hold up BOTH of their teachings to the light of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) - an objective, knowable/unalterable, reliable rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE them both.
What we CAN'T do is what the RCC and EO can't do either (even if they cared, and they don't) - have some outside arbitration above them both, that last happened over 1200 years ago.  But the RC and EO can't do that, either (even if either wanted to).   Thus, the "court" happens quite in public, often rather loudly and not always neat or pretty.   BAD ideas, we pray, are slowly relegated to the tiny fringes by the Holy Spirit.   Not so different than how the early church did it, huh?   How we came up with our 27 NT books - a long, messy, "grass-roots" embrace, eventually CONFIRMED by some nonbinding denominational meetings but the "work" was done by a messy consensus.  I wish it wasn't so messy, but hey - in this mileau of institutionalism that the RC (and probably EO) created, with all this egoism ("I can't be wrong cuz I say I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong!"), with all this evasion of the issue ("Just accept what I tell you - it's MOOT if it's true!), how can it not be messy?  We need to get  to those fundamental problems that pre-date Protestantism by CENTURIES, stuff that goes back to you and the EO.  We need to bring back accountability, humility, community.  Welcome to my world.....




Quote
Now, whatever this little five year old said about how to baptize and what the Apostle told him it meant, it should, if you are honest with yourself, trump anything that Johnny or Martha said.  

Interesting, although the last one baptized by any Apostle would have died over 1800 years ago.  And with the POSSIBLE exception of ONE (I know he was a disciple, but don't know if he was baptized by him), none of them wrote anything so we don't know what they believed.  And IMHO, five year old Tommy would be WRONG if he is not in line with what GOD said in His Scriptures (God trumps five-year-olds, even ones voiceless and dead for over 1800 years).  




Quote
Quote


My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  


.

Well sure.  That's no good.  


It's pretty much all there is among those who reject accountability (by ANY norm  by ANY process)....
"Just swallow WHATEVER I tell you - whether or not it's true - but I'm ME"





Quote
Quote


Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME)

.  

Well, refer to the story of the five year old.  Is the five year old saying "I am right"?  No.  He is telling you what he was given to tell.


.
 

So was Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones.....   If the claim of self alone for self alone carries with it an exemption from whether that self is true in what he claims, then you seem to be defending a dangerous rubric.  

And with the POSSIBLE exception of ONE person, your illustration doesn't work.  Because at most - at most - we have some letters from ONE who was baptized by an Apostle.    It's moot otherwise.   And where do you see that being Baptized means being exempt from accountability?     

 

Continues in next post ......





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:22:48
.



... continues from above....



Quote
Quote

Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


.

It doesn't matter if I fully understand it or not or if I have a different understanding of the Holy Scriptures because at the end of the day, that five year old kid knows.  

Quote for me anyone ever Baptized by an Apostle who said, "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

... and hermeneutics is moot to this issue.   I think we've already established that there is no Scripture about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born for us to interpret.






Quote
Quote

 But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.

Well, that's the problem with the Protestant concept of "church".  You guys are all the church.  The whole body of conflicting individuals.  


Yes, we have a corporate (body) view of the church, not an institution declaring self to be the church.  
Yes, not all 2.2 billion Christians totally agree on all matters.  I can't think of a time when all Christians did.  
But this does not mean that any one of them (or any one institutition) is exempt from the issue of Truth.


Again, what I SUSPECT you are decrying is NOT in any sense unique to Protestants.  It's that there is no final ARBITRATION among us today among the issues that divide us today.   That's not just true for all the Protestant denominations however, it's true for ALL denominations - which is why it's been IMPOSSIBLE to have an ecumenical council for over 1200 years.  Don't blame Luther for that, he wasn't even a wink in his dad's eye in the 8th Century!   How CAN there be any common arbitration today in this milaeu you guys created - all the egoism ("I'm essentially Jesus"  "I alone am INFALLIBLE"), all the institutionalism ("I was founded by Jesus so...............") and all the evasion of the very topic (Whether my teaching is true or not is MOOT because I'M ME!).   If you are decrying the egoism, institutionalism and evasion of truth that dragged the church into this position some 1200 + years ago, then you're preaching to the choir, my friend !!!!!!!




Quote
Whatever you decide for self can't be applied outside of self

The same is true for the EO and RC.    Even the two of you - with the SAME "Apostolic Tradition," the SAME "Apostolic Succession" can't do this even with each other!    Check a bit closer to home before you rebuke other denominations for not being able to arbitrate outside of itself, lol





Quote
Quote


3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF


But even that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about



.  


 Yet, according to the whole, you all say you are united because you believe that "Jesus" whoever he is, is guiding you to believe as you have come to believe.  


The United Pentecostal Church is EXACTLY the same as the RCC (and I suspect EO).   It is in unity with ONE: itself.   Same/same.





Quote
So you can't say that there are "other" denominations that are no better when in reality, according to the Protestant ecclessiology, those "no-betters" ARE the Church just as much as you are.

No,  from my perspective, my brother, you need to step outside that individualism and institutionalism.  The church is not ME, it's WE.  I'm not the church, Billy Graham is not the church.  There are not 2.2 billion churches or 300,000,000 ones.  The whole corpus of believers - living and sainted - are the church TOGETHER, inseparable, the "communion of saints" as the ancient Creed puts it.  There was/is/ever will be ONE church - holy and catholic - the communion of saints.  It ain't an it.   We don't believe Christians is an institutional, denominational IT.   I realize the word "church" is used variously - leading to understandable misunderstandings, but The Methodist Church is not the church in the sense we are talking about it, CHRISTIANS are the church.   St. Augustine, Luther, Billy Graham - all are members of His Body.  





Quote
If you believe the RCC is a cult then you necessarily have to see Protestantism as a cult.  

I don't see either as such.  




Quote
Quote
It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

But when the RCC says that there's life on other planets (to use your example) you call them gossips and slanderers.  And if they are right?  Who slandered who?  


Read what I said.   It was my CATHOLIC TEACHERS who said that to spread something (especially potentially harmful, embarassing, etc.) about a person that we don't confirm as true is the definition of gossip, and it is a sin.  I raised this in the sense that it seems RELEVANT thus to ask if this thing said about Mary IS true.  I haven't said it isn't.  You've said it doesn't matter.  






Quote
Quote
As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.

It's kind of hard to wag a finger at Catholics.  


What is, is.   I gave the verbatim quotes.   You so boldly affirmed it.




 
Quote
Quote
You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 

Two contradictory teachings can't be right and yet you embrace it within Protestantism and Protest it outside of Protestantism in order to "be" Protestant.  


1.  I'm lost as to what that has to do with what I posted

2.  Friend, from my perspective, you are just using an altogether different paradigm.   We don't accept your institutional denomination model.   There is no such thing as The Protestant Denomination.  And it would not - IN ANY SENSE - be the church even if there was.   Yes,  WE ALL KNOW the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone, ONE denomination agrees with ONE denomination - itself (but ONLY officially, formally, instituionally and ONLY in those matters where it and it itself alone CURRENTLY says it should agree with itself on).   Yes, I know.  AT LEAST as much can be said of The United Methodist Church USA or any Protestant denomination.  AT LEAST.  I know.  But I totally fail to understand how that relates to the issue of the RCC saying that its MOOT if what it teaches is true because it is the one saying it.   Lost me, brother.




I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  



 ::pondering::




Back to the issue of this thread.....




- Josiah



PS.  Even though we are OBVIOUSLY of fundamentally different perspectives (and thus struggling to "connect" in our conversations), you make me think.  You make my brain work.  THANK YOU.   I appreciate that.

.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:48:04
2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

Quote
3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

Quote
6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).


The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?

 

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:55:10
2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

Quote
3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

Quote
6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).


The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?

 




The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to? If He did I doubt the Successors would've split apart. Error lies some where and the repetitive "Do you think you know more than the early church fathers" or "The what makes you think you can measure up to 2000 years of congruent doctrine" is no longer going to cut it in a generation that is being trained to doubt the crowd and trust only in scripture.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:29:07


The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:32:31


The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 

Impossible when the Successors the early church are divided over ced doctrines.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:39:41


The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 

Impossible when the Successors the early church are divided over ced doctrines.

What is ced? 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 08:38:00
For a Muslim to question whether or not Muhammad was Allah's (Arabic for God) true and last representative on earth completing God's message to mankind regarding how man should submit to Allah is nothing short of blasphemy for Muslims.

The same is true for any member of the RCC to question the beliefs that have been formulated by RCC fathers that are not clearly revealed in Scripture. 

When Luther and the early church reformers began to do so, they knew exactly what they were doing.  Many Believers in the Lord lost their lives standing up for their faith that salvation was by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no man could either give God's salvation or take it away.

Do Protestants now have a lock on God's truth regarding His salvation?  No we don't!  When anyone ignores the clear teaching of God's Word using God's truth that Scripture interprets Scripture, then any Believer or church can get into error.  The wonderful truth of God's Word is that "the Lord adds day by day those who are being saved" (Acts 2:47) to His church family.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 08:48:15

 What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  Obviously.
It's just an EVASION of the question, using the exact same "tack" as was used in the LDS for nearly a century and is still used in many American "Christian" cults, the circumvention of the question of correctness by insisting that if self says it - it is just to be embraced with quiet, docilic submission (truth being moot).  "Just go with whatever I say cuz I'm saying, insists I alone" has nothing to do with that one being correct, follow?

Now, my friend, you certainly MAY simply wave the issue of correctness for anyone who so suggests that you must in the singular case of that self alone - I'm NOT going to dispute that act of pure faith (in you, a Mormon, or anyone else).  That's a different issue for another day and thread.  The issue before us here is not whether you choose to just docilicly submit to one who insists that you do but rather a DOGMA that divides Christianity, the insistence that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Here's the issue of dispute:  Does truth about Mary matter?   Does dogma that divides us matter?  The Protestants are rather consistenly saying YES and the Catholics and Orthodox are insisting NO (submission to the teacher so requiring such does).   Out of respect for truth AND FOR MARY, out of a desire NOT to gossip, out of a desire to NOT needlessly divide the church, Protestants here seem to be saying we need to determine if this tidbit of bedroom info is true.   As I see it, the "other side" if you will is saying, no we don't, or is presenting a plethora of diversions (suggesting things not related to the issue) or simply wrong things (a verse for example but changing the verb tense from what is it to what it is NOT so as to suggest some support).  



 

Now, back to the issue.   Since you insist that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever - where's the substantiation for this?   Why is it true?  Why does this matter to such a very high level and degree?  You care if what Protestants say is true (not giving them a "pass" on the issue of correctness), well - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 12:50:03
Let’s consider doing a case study experiment.  Find 1000 people who have never before read or heard about the Bible, or know anything whatsoever RCC and Protestant churches teach/believe, and let them read the Bible straight through as many time as they like.  Then bring them all together and ask them this one question,

“Has anything you have read in the Bible led you to believe that Mary remained a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus; and if you believe this, where in the Bible did you find reference to this belief?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 16:38:44
You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 17:43:05
2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

Quote
3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

Quote
6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).


The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?


The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

The passage in Mark can also be used to address the question of whether scripture should say "cousin" or "brother." Mark 3:32-35, "'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and brothers ', he asked. Then he looked at those seated in circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'"
If we say the word in question should be translated as cousins the passage doesn't have much impact. "Your cousins are here", "No, these are my cousins" doesn't make it. This only makes sense if we are talking about brothers.

You ask if only the apostles were inspired by God and I say YES. Do you think men are still inspired today? How can you tell? Is the pope inspired? Is Billy Graham inspired? Is Binny Hinn inspired? All three have their supporters but to me they are only men. God could inspire men today if he chose to (he can do anything) but I have seen no indication that he continues to do so. To say that we need the help of someone who wrote in AD 200 to understand the Bible means that a person who lived in AD 190 could not have that understanding.

You say Christ is the head of the church but then you equate church with RCC. I agree that Christ is the head of the church but I don't consider the RCC to be a part of the church, having aposticized. In the verse you use, John 14:26, Jesus is talking to the apostles, not to all who would later be a part of his church. The apostles were to receive teaching from the HS so that they could go out and teach the gospel. Since the Bible did not yet exist they needed this help. We don't need this particular gift today because we can go to the Bible and understand all that we need to know to receive salvation. God and his spirit have taken care of us by supplying us what we need to know through the inspired writings found from Genesis to Revelation.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 17:55:56
Reply to Selene Part II

I think it was you who said that it would have insulted Jesus' brothers if he had asked John to watch their mother. In light of the verses I quoted above showing that his brothers did not believe, consider this situation:

As the oldest girl in the family you have been taking care of your elderly widowed mother. Your employer is transfering you to his call center in India. Your brother Bill could take care of Mom but he is in and out of jail for dealing drugs and pimping. Your sister Sue has converted to Islam and thinks the US got what it deserved on 9/11. Would you rather have one of them watch Mom or would it be better if your best friend Jill who always went to your house after school, who ate Sunday dinner with you and who refers to your mother as her second mother took over her care. Would you care what Bill and Sue thought about your asking Jill to take over for you?
It was the same thing for Jesus. John and Mary were already close and Jesus brothers thought he was "out of his mind" as scripture puts it. Better to insult the brothers and sisters than think they would take good care of Mary. Sometimes you follow tradition and sometimes you do what is right.  Hey  ::idea:: might this apply to religion, also? Tradition has its place but it cannot replace the truth.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 18:15:31
The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

Jesus who had no sin did not need to experience water baptism because he had not sins to repent from.  Neither did Mary.  Mary also did not have any sins unless you believe that Jesus was born from sin.  Mary already had a Savior.  The blood of Christ who died 2000 years ago also effects us and all those who are not yet born in the future.  In the same way, His blood also effected those who died before Christ was born in Bethlehem.  His redemption on the cross is for all who were not only there at the time that He died, but also for those in the future and in the past.  

Quote
You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

First of all, you need to read the entire story.  It wasn't Jesus' home that He was in.  He was in the house of Levi.  Jesus' mother was not even in the house.  It was after the scribes blasphemied against Jesus that his mother arrived and stood outside.  

Quote
The passage in Mark can also be used to address the question of whether scripture should say "cousin" or "brother." Mark 3:32-35, "'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and brothers ', he asked. Then he looked at those seated in circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'"
If we say the word in question should be translated as cousins the passage doesn't have much impact. "Your cousins are here", "No, these are my cousins" doesn't make it. This only makes sense if we are talking about brothers

There is no Hebrew word for cousins; therefore, the Hebrew word for brother was used.  It is the same in my native language.  The chamorro word for "brother" is chelu.  We use the same word for cousins or other close relatives.  It is the same in Hebrew.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 20:01:59
The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

Jesus who had no sin did not need to experience water baptism because he had not sins to repent from.  Neither did Mary.  Mary also did not have any sins unless you believe that Jesus was born from sin. 
Quote
You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

First of all, you need to read the entire story.  It wasn't Jesus' home that He was in.  He was in the house of Levi.  Jesus' mother was not even in the house.  It was after the scribes blasphemied against Jesus that his mother arrived and stood outside. 


The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.
Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

(Angelos says Josiah doesn't quote scripture. I am trying to do that.)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 20:28:37
Mark 6:3

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon?
Aren't his sisters here with us? (Matthew13:55,56)

Not to be confused with his disciples. These are Jesus brothers, sons of Joseph-daughters names not given.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: trifecta on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 20:40:46
Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 21:37:09
Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?

Honest question: Does the same reasoning apply to "sisters"? Do you have an example in scripture where the word translated here as sisters is translated as something else?

Anybody out there know how this verse is translated in Martin Luther's German Bible?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: trifecta on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 21:48:15
Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?

Honest question: Does the same reasoning apply to "sisters"? Do you have an example in scripture where the word translated here as sisters is translated as something else?


I'm not sure about this one, but wasn't the other Mary a cousin of Mary (not her sister).
So, I guess the idea of cousin being a sister was around then. Not sure about the sister equivalence of brethren.  I'm guessing no, because male pronouns prevailed when talking about more abstract concepts (esp. brothers in Christ).
 
Quote

Anybody out there know how this verse is translated in Martin Luther's German Bible?

How ever he wanted.   ::reading::

My point is the early church believed in the virginity of Mary.  Don't you think that claim would be ridiculous if there were brothers and sisters of Christ walking around?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 22:03:07
Quote
My point is the early church believed in the virginity of Mary.  Don't you think that claim would be ridiculous if there were brothers and sisters of Christ walking around?

How early is "early"? If by early you mean AD 100, then all of Jesus' brothers and sisters could have already died a natural death and they wouldn't be walking around. We need something from say AD 60 that says Mary was always a virgin. It doesn't take long after any noteworthy act or long after any important person's death for legends to spring up. That is how modern saints get miracles credited to them.

Last post for the evening; I am going to bed so I can stay awake in church tomorrow.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 22:07:37
The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

The story began in Mark Chapter 2.  

Mark 2:1  When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.  

Jesus was not from Capernaum.  He was from Nazareth.  The Bible, however, says that He was at home.  This simply means that he was back or He returned.   It does not mean that He was home in Nazareth.  He was preaching in someone else's house...not His house.  When people heard that Christ returned, they brought many of the sick and the disabled to Him so He could cure them.  The story goes on and Jesus met Levi.  Jesus was having dinner in the Levi's house.  

Mark 2:14-16 As He was walking on He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting by the customs house, and He said to him, "Follow me" And he got up and followed Him.  When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were at the tablw with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them among His followers.

Jesus did not leave Capernaum.  In Chapter 3 of Mark, He was still in Capernaum.  Mark 3:1 starts out with Jesus going into the synagogue AGAIN just as Mark 2:1 says that He was in the synagogue.  Then we get to Mark 3:20, which says "He went home AGAIN."  He was once again in Levi's house.  His mother and his relatives are not in the house because it's not even their house.  The ones who seized him out of concern were His friends.  Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims Bible used the word "friends" instead of relatives.    

Quote
You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.

Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes, not to take away any personal sins He had because He had none.  

Quote
Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

Then I guess you believed that Jesus was born from sin and came from sin.  The Catholics do not believe this.  We believe that Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with sin whatsoever.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: trifecta on Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 22:18:00
My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Thanks for reading. Goodnight.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 08:54:39
My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, and salvation in Christ Jesus were clearly known in the churches Luke wrote about in Acts and in Paul's letters. 

God has always had a remnant of His children in every age who remained true to the truth of His Word.

Protestants choose to believe what we believe based on what the inspired words of the Bible say.  If the term "ever-virgin Mary" was God's truth, He would have inspired the writers of the books/letters of the Bible to clearly pin these words and doctrine there.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 12:04:45
The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

The story began in Mark Chapter 2. 

Mark 2:1  When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. 

Jesus was not from Capernaum.  He was from Nazareth.  The Bible, however, says that He was at home.  This simply means that he was back or He returned.   It does not mean that He was home in Nazareth.  He was preaching in someone else's house...not His house.  When people heard that Christ returned, they brought many of the sick and the disabled to Him so He could cure them.  The story goes on and Jesus met Levi.  Jesus was having dinner in the Levi's house. 

Mark 2:14-16 As He was walking on He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting by the customs house, and He said to him, "Follow me" And he got up and followed Him.  When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were at the tablw with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them among His followers.

Jesus did not leave Capernaum.  In Chapter 3 of Mark, He was still in Capernaum.  Mark 3:1 starts out with Jesus going into the synagogue AGAIN just as Mark 2:1 says that He was in the synagogue.  Then we get to Mark 3:20, which says "He went home AGAIN."  He was once again in Levi's house.  His mother and his relatives are not in the house because it's not even their house.  The ones who seized him out of concern were His friends.  Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims Bible used the word "friends" instead of relatives.   

Quote
You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.

Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes, not to take away any personal sins He had because He had none. 

Quote
Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

Then I guess you believed that Jesus was born from sin and came from sin.  The Catholics do not believe this.  We believe that Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with sin whatsoever. 


NIV and New Revised Standard say family and they are better translations than KJ and D-R. You are right that the activity did not take place in Jesus' home. Mary and her children were somewhere else when they heard that Jesus was teaching so they went to him and in verse 31 they arrived.

Jesus was not baptized because he had sin but because all must be baptized. Jesus was partly divine and partly human. Mary was 100% human and therefore had to sin. If Mary was not 100% human then Jesus would not have able to experience the life that we do which is what makes him such an effective advocate for us.

The key to your arguments is when you say "Catholics do not believe this." We should not think as Catholics or Lutherans or Presbyterians. We have to think as Christians and not rely on the traditions of men.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 12:09:17
My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, and salvation in Christ Jesus were clearly known in the churches Luke wrote about in Acts and in Paul's letters. 

God has always had a remnant of His children in every age who remained true to the truth of His Word.

Protestants choose to believe what we believe based on what the inspired words of the Bible say.  If the term "ever-virgin Mary" was God's truth, He would have inspired the writers of the books/letters of the Bible to clearly pin these words and doctrine there.



I don't reconize the Nicean Creed as having any validation and have never heard it refered to in church. It came after the close of scripture so it is only the opinion of men.

I believe in the literal inspired word of God as found from Genesis to Revelation.

The majority of the church had gone off the rails before the 4th century but has now been restored to what God intended.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 12:31:18
If you have never heard the Nicene creed in church snargles then what church do you belong?

The nicene creed declares the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The sound doctrine that is taught in every church belonging to God.

One doctrine Jesus taught that is not included in the nicene creed is the doctrine of the laying on of hands.

More examples....

Jesus virgin birth...Son of God and Son of Man is doctrine taught.

The forgiveness of sins through Jesus blood is doctrine taught.

Jesus resurrection is doctrine taught.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost is doctrine taught.

Baptism is doctrine taught.

Of which are included in the nicene creed. SOUND DOCTRINE!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 12:56:33
Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: trifecta on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 13:26:25
Snargles,

I appreciate your honesty and your attitude.  I really disagree with your (and most
Baptist traditions) take in church history.   Fortunately, we worship the same God.


I don't reconize the Nicean Creed as having any validation and have never heard it refered to in church.


Most Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, and I think Lutherans recite the Nicene Creed each
week in their services.  That's more than three-quarters of churches that are called Christians. 

More importantly, the Nicean Creed is the historical test of genuine Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism and host of other heresies during its time.  The Creed has had
staying power all this time.

Quote

It came after the close of scripture so it is only the opinion of men.


I understand what you are saying, but you and many evangelicals have reduced the Christian faith to a book.  I believe in a living God who works through history.  History is a record of how God works.

Quote

I believe in the literal inspired word of God as found from Genesis to Revelation.


No argument here.

Quote

The majority of the church had gone off the rails before the 4th century but has now been restored to what God intended.

I know you are not alone in believing this, but was the church really lost for more than
1000 years?   Doesn't this invalidate Jesus's promise that the gates of Hades will not
prevail against it?

Here is the truth, IMHO:  Those radical Reformationists and other Protestants leaders didn't know what to do when their reading of Scripture contradicted with what the early church taught.  Rather than agree with the early church, they proclaimed their own doctrine as not only divine but the teaching of the early church.   Talk about traditions of men.

The other major problem with this viewpoint is who came up with the idea of a New Testament?  Those same people you (and others) say went off the rails.

So, according to your view, the early church goes apostate very early on, but at the end of the 4th century, it comes out of its apostate funk to decide which books should be in the New Testament.  Then, falls back into their bad ways.

The argument of some is the now-apostate church was affirming what was obvious (the books that belong in the New Testament).  There were many books and lists that were floating about in those times.  The list of books was not so obvious.  Even so, if the church were so apostate, how could they be trusted to compile the Word of God?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: trifecta on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 13:46:10
4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Christians do not deny her virginity.  But I do deny the perpetual virginity.

Do you consider Calvin and Luther to be Christians?  They believed in her perpetual
virginity - Luther insisted on it.

The Scriptural evidence that people use (mention of brothers and sisters of Jesus and
the use of "until" in a reference that was not about the Mary's virginity) is scant.

What about when Jesus turns Mary over to John?.   All those other younger sons of Mary died before age 32 else they would be obligated culturally to care for her.   Then we have to assume that any of Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters would not have had any children who would give testimony to Mary's lack of virginity--or maybe they all died young too.

Then, there is the fact that creator of the Universe was contained for 9 months in
the womb of a woman.  It is a holy place.  Did the Jews have a concept of holy place?
Hmm, let see:

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Exodus 3:5.


I can't prove Mary's virginity; no one can.  But to insist that our post-Freudian values
MUST be applied to a time where many women were dedicated virgins and that the birth of the Saviour of the World would have no impact of Mary's sex life borders on disrespectful.

Thanks for reading.
 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:04:00
4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Christians do not deny her virginity.  But I do deny the perpetual virginity.

Do you consider Calvin and Luther to be Christians?  They believed in her perpetual
virginity - Luther insisted on it.

The Scriptural evidence that people use (mention of brothers and sisters of Jesus and
the use of "until" in a reference that was not about the Mary's virginity) is scant.

What about when Jesus turns Mary over to John?.   All those other younger sons of Mary died before age 32 else they would be obligated culturally to care for her.   Then we have to assume that any of Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters would not have had any children who would give testimony to Mary's lack of virginity--or maybe they all died young too.

Then, there is the fact that creator of the Universe was contained for 9 months in
the womb of a woman.  It is a holy place.  Did the Jews have a concept of holy place?
Hmm, let see:

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Exodus 3:5.


I can't prove Mary's virginity; no one can.  But to insist that our post-Freudian values
MUST be applied to a time where many women were dedicated virgins and that the birth of the Saviour of the World would have no impact of Mary's sex life borders on disrespectful.

Thanks for reading.
 

OHHH! What a waste of time to read presumptuous posts when the scriptures and history show us plainly After Jesus was born Mary had other children fathered by Joseph! Luke 1:26-38 How can I be with child having not known a man? Polite way of saying had not had sexual relations with man.

Mark 6:3 Why do they take offense that Joseph married Mary? 1Corinthians 7:5 Matthew 1:18-23 Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife...

I hope you realize that those that are mentioned in the bible are there for a reason and those who are not mentioned in the bible are not there for a reason! John 5:39 These are the scriptures that testify about me, Jesus said.

His lineage is recorded!!! All the way back to Adam!!!

People ask, who was the first Jew(natural) ADAM! The son of God.(natural)
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:07:54
4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

No, it is not a salvation issue.  In fact it is totally irrelevant whether she did or did not have other children.

But the RCC has made this to be a dogma. Those that claim to be Catholic HAVE to believe this, regardless of the fact that Scripture doesn't say this, and indeed implies that Jesus did in fact have blood brothers and sisters. 

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:17:34
Reality Check! There is no debate when it comes to scripture!

"Did God really say" is what the devil says to cause you to doubt and he wants to keep you in unbelief...debator!

Jesus said "if you do not become as little children you shall not enter the kingdom."

Matthew 12:36 for you who would debate Gods word.

Psalm 45:17 Whose name is perpetuated from beginning to end? From the first announcement Genesis 3:15 to his Amen! Revelation 3:14 ...JESUS!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:22:07
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01297/firstborn_1297010c.jpg)

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray a first-born?  

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray an only-begotten?


It can't be both.

It can't be both unless the "brothers" depicted in the photograph have a different Mother.  




Not every first-born is an only-begotten but every only-begotten is a first-born.  







Christ is risen.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:29:03
God bless 4him.

We must hold to ALL truths. As we see many look for reasons not to belive or for proofs.

John 20:31

But honestly, these debators have been a benefit causing me to seek things I might not otherwise have looked into.

2Timothy 3:15,16

And also at times you just know what is said is not true but don't know why...

1Corinthians 2:10-12
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 14:40:55
God bless 4him.

We must hold to ALL truths.

I agree.  But there are many that believe as truths, things that are not grounded in God's word.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 15:15:03
Amen 4him.

Everwhere the full gospel message is given opposition arises.

So I wont tell you the words that were said to me the very very first time I testified to Gods salvation.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Nyoka on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 15:25:22
([url]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01297/firstborn_1297010c.jpg[/url])

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray a first-born? 

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray an only-begotten?


It can't be both.

It can't be both unless the "brothers" depicted in the photograph have a different Mother.   




Not every first-born is an only-begotten but every only-begotten is a first-born. 







Christ is risen.




I don't normally post here as no side, in this debate, will convince the other side that they are wrong.  I had to answer this post though.  The bible tells us that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of God:

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1Jn 4:9  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 15:37:14
Quote
..... I hope you realize that those that are mentioned in the bible are there for a reason and those who are not mentioned in the bible are not there for a reason! John 5:39 These are the scriptures that testify about me, Jesus said.


Yes.  

The entire OT points to Christ and through him, as our lens, the OT tells the story of the relationship between man and God fulfilled.  

Eve points to the fruit, man partakes, man points to Eve, "the woman you gave me..."

Mary points to the fruit of her womb, man partakes, man points to Mary, "the woman you gave us...."   Mary points to Christ.

The ark points to the womb, the womb to the temple

Jacobs Ladder points to the ascension of man, Mary points to the descension of the Son of Man, Christ becoming flesh, the flesh to Mary, Mary to Christ...

On and on.  It's all over the OT and Mary is there, pointing to Christ.  



It is written....

Ezekial

2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way."




If you don't see Mary as the portico, the very doorway through which the Son of Man came into the world, it does not matter.  Mary is still called blessed.    Mary still points to Christ.  

(http://www.akathistofthanksgiving.com/wonderworking_icons_of_the_most_holy_theotokos/theotokos.threehands.jpg)





Christ is risen


 

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 15:45:18
([url]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01297/firstborn_1297010c.jpg[/url])

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray a first-born? 

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray an only-begotten?


It can't be both.

It can't be both unless the "brothers" depicted in the photograph have a different Mother.   




Not every first-born is an only-begotten but every only-begotten is a first-born. 







Christ is risen.




I don't normally post here as no side, in this debate, will convince the other side that they are wrong.  I had to answer this post though.  The bible tells us that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of God:

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1Jn 4:9  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.





I think that very question points to a divorce between the two natures of Christ of which the term Theotokos marries and rightly so... 

Google Nestorius and you will have, unless I am mistaken, stumbled upon the same question.

Do you agree with Nestorius against the council? 


In short, do you believe that it takes two in order to be "begotten".


For the record, I am not saying that Jesus was "made" by the Father or by Mary. 

As the creed says, "begotten, not made". 


In his human nature Jesus would not be an only begotten if he had brothers and sisters, no? 


Fully man, fully God. 



This is hard stuff.  The reason why entire assemblies of bishops got together to wrestle it out in prayer and in the fear of God. 


 ::prayinghard::


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Nyoka on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:31:42
Ryan2010 Please answer my question without trying to sidetrack it: Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.  All it needs to answer me is to give the scriptures that state it as such.  Now most of us are adults here and know that it is physically possible for a woman to have children to more than one father. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:32:12
Does Jesus being "begotten" only point to him being born of the Father or is it not also bound up in his incarnation?

Can we divorce his incarnation from him being begotten of the Father?

Can we divorce the Son of Man from the Son of God?

Can we divorce Mary from the incarnation?

Can we divorce the temple from Christ or the incarnation of the temple in the flesh from Mary?  

That God became man that man might become by grace what God is by nature means that we must know Christ, not cognitively, but through the uniting of God and His creation through the incarnation.  We must become partakers in the divine nature.  

We can not remove Mary from the marriage of the divine nature to the entire cosmos (all of creation) or we risk over-spiritualizing the very tangible relationship that God's creatures can have with their Creator through His Son.  Jesus is incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary.  

We can not divorce the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary or who we say we believe God is runs the risk of becoming unorthodox.  

If we live a life according to who we say God is, then this necessarily effects our communion with God.  

As St. Paul said, (if I remember correctly and I am paraphrasing here) we are our own epistles and how we life our life is how those epistles are to be read.  

In short, how we live our life IS our doctrine.  

(http://www.11th-hour.info/images/solomon_temple.jpg)

Do you see Mary here, pointing to Christ?  Do you see how she even points to his crucifixion?  



We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.


Amen




Glory to Jesus Christ




Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: davidmac on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:33:04
Quote
In his human nature Jesus would not be an only begotten if he had brothers and sisters, no?  
He is the only begotten of The Father (God)-not the only child of Mary!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:35:31
God bless Ryan.

Just imagine how the wind and the waves of confusion would cease if people listened and learned from God through his Spirit than to men...

 ::destroyingcomputer:: all them strange voices...

None of us are any better than another, we have all been hardened by sins deceitfulness, therefore God has put together the parts of the body - those honored and those without so much honor - together to work together for the common good.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Nyoka on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:36:09
Ryan2010 it is fast becoming obvious you can't give me the answer to my question.  Either answer my question or admit you can't answer it using the bible: Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:45:26
Ryan2010 Please answer my question without trying to sidetrack it: Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.  All it needs to answer me is to give the scriptures that state it as such.  Now most of us are adults here and know that it is physically possible for a woman to have children to more than one father. 

Ezekiel 44:2-3

2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way."


I apologize if you feel that I am sidetracking but I don't see these issues as being separate from one other.  They are bound up in each other.  

Yes, it's physically possible for women to have more than one child but if we believe that Mary had other children then we have divorce the "incarnation" from the term "only-begotten".  

As a Christian I can not do this and there are lots of supports for this reality in the Holy Scripture.  

I thought that the best answer to your question was more clearly described when The Church faced Nestorius.  When I read over the council's decision against Nestorius I was moved to see the Holy Scriptures in a fuller expression of the faith and helped me overcome my belief against Mary being Ever-Virgin.  


God bless

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:50:54
Ryan2010 it is fast becoming obvious you can't give me the answer to my question.  Either answer my question or admit you can't answer it using the bible: Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.  


Sorry, I had not yet replied to your question by the time you posted this.  You have to be patient and long suffering with me.  I often overlook replies and wind up responding to other replies out of sequence. 

Of course I am not saying that Jesus was begotten ONLY of Mary but I think in my various replies to others I've covered the issue of why I can't divorce the incarnation from Christ having been "begotten" and why I believe to do so would be unorthodox. 

I also gave you a scriptural reference that points to Christ being an only-begotten child of Mary but whether or not you will accept the interpretation might either have to do with your tradition or presuppositions or the way in which you approve or reject interpretations. 


Sorry for the misunderstanding or any burden of frustration I may have cause you. 


Christ is risen

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 16:52:08
Ryan2010 Please answer my question without trying to sidetrack it: Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.  All it needs to answer me is to give the scriptures that state it as such.  Now most of us are adults here and know that it is physically possible for a woman to have children to more than one father.  

Ezekiel 44:2-3

2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way."


I apologize if you feel that I am sidetracking but I don't see these issues as being separate from one other.  They are bound up in each other.  

Yes, it's physically possible for women to have more than one child but if we believe that Mary had other children then we have divorce the "incarnation" from the term "only-begotten".  

As a Christian I can not do this and there are lots of supports for this reality in the Holy Scripture.  

I thought that the best answer to your question was more clearly described when The Church faced Nestorius.  When I read over the council's decision against Nestorius I was moved to see the Holy Scriptures in a fuller expression of the faith and helped me overcome my belief against Mary being Ever-Virgin.  


God bless



God bless Ryan. The scripture you mentioned is not a reference to Mary.

Only-Begotten from the dead - Jesus body did not see decay. This is the only explanation for the term "Only Begotten"

Ref: Acts 13:33-36 Hebrews 11:17,19
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 17:04:17
Quote
God bless Ryan. The scripture you mentioned is not a reference to Mary.

All scripture points to Christ and the story of the God's relationship with man through His Son...  

You don't see Mary as that portico, sotospeak?  

Quote
Only-Begotten from the dead - Jesus body did not see decay. This is the only explanation for the term "Only Begotten"

Ok, so for you, you see his only-begotteness (so not a word!  lol) as the first-fruits of the resurrection and not as his incarnational reality.  Hm.

I suppose we have a gap that neither of us has a bridge for when it comes to this topic that divides us.  


Back in the good ol' days when such a thing happened they would tell it to the Church.  

What we have today seems to be only the willingness to agree to disagree.  

A far cry from the unity of the faith that our forefathers spoke of.  




But regardless! let us love one another since we can't, with one mind, confess.  

 ::smile::







Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Nyoka on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 17:12:47
Ryan2010 thank you for at least admitting that bible doesn't say that Jesus is the only begotten son of Mary.  I do understand that you can't divorce the incarnation from Mary but to be honest if there is no scriptural support for Jesus being the only begotten son of Mary then maybe what is believed by you is wrong.  

I don't see either of us convincing the other over this but I do see you love God so I will just agree that we won't agree on this as it has no bearing on our salvation.  

God bless Ryan2010  ::kissing::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 17:24:18
 


God bless Ryan. The scripture you mentioned is not a reference to Mary.

Only-Begotten from the dead - Jesus body did not see decay. This is the only explanation for the term "Only Begotten"

Ref: Acts 13:33-36 Hebrews 11:17,19

I thought it best I give you the references again to what only begotten means so that perhaps this time you will read the proofs.

God bless.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 18:34:08
Yes.  

The entire OT points to Christ and through him, as our lens, the OT tells the story of the relationship between man and God fulfilled.  

Eve points to the fruit, man partakes, man points to Eve, "the woman you gave me..."

Mary points to the fruit of her womb, man partakes, man points to Mary, "the woman you gave us...."   Mary points to Christ.

The ark points to the womb, the womb to the temple

Jacobs Ladder points to the ascension of man, Mary points to the descension of the Son of Man, Christ becoming flesh, the flesh to Mary, Mary to Christ...

On and on.  It's all over the OT and Mary is there, pointing to Christ.  



It is written....

Ezekial

2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way."




If you don't see Mary as the portico, the very doorway through which the Son of Man came into the world, it does not matter.  Mary is still called blessed.    Mary still points to Christ.  
Christ is risen

I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  The Old Testament is correct.  As it says:  This gate is to remain shut.  It must not be opened; no one may enter through it.  It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel has entered through it and The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway.  

Jesus who is God was in Mary's womb.  No other human can be in it because no man can enter where God passed through or sits at.  That is what the Old Testament is alluding to.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:08:53
Quote
author=Selene

I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  The Old Testament is correct.  As it says:  This gate is to remain shut.  It must not be opened; no one may enter through it.  It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel has entered through it and The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway.  

Jesus who is God was in Mary's womb.  No other human can be in it because no man can enter where God passed through or sits at.  That is what the Old Testament is alluding to.  

Eze. 44 is speaking of the LITERAL temple, not Mary's womb.

“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3 As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:21:26
Man alive!!!

 ::shrug::

Where do you guys come up with these fantasies???

 ::destroyingcomputer::

Mary is Noah's arK???

 rofl

Mary carried two of all kinds of animals???

 ::frustrated::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:23:02
Quote
author=Selene

I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  The Old Testament is correct.  As it says:  This gate is to remain shut.  It must not be opened; no one may enter through it.  It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel has entered through it and The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway.  

Jesus who is God was in Mary's womb.  No other human can be in it because no man can enter where God passed through or sits at.  That is what the Old Testament is alluding to.  

Eze. 44 is speaking of the LITERAL temple, not Mary's womb.

“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3 As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
Man alive!!!

 ::shrug::

Where do you guys come up with these fantasies???

 ::destroyingcomputer::

Mary is Noah's arK???

 rofl

Mary carried two of all kinds of animals???

 ::frustrated::

Who said anything about Noah's ark? 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:31:36

In the Old Testament, the temple is a building.  What do you think the Temple is in the New Testament?  Is it not the human body?  Yes, Jesus sat in Mary's womb and ate bread.   Whatever the mother ate, the baby ate through the umbilical cord.  

WAKE UP SELENE!!!

My FOOD... said Jesus is... John 4:32-34

What does God eat??? Psalm 50

Stop thinking about the flesh!!!

God is Spirit!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:42:52
The temple is not my area of expertice so I will point you towards a paper I just read yesterday concerning the three areas of the temple and how it is representative of the three areas of the body and three levels of the presence of God.
The writer of BLOODLINES paper I found by searching google...dimensions of God.


www.hanby.org/newsletter/BloodlineDEC2001.pdf - Similar
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:52:44

In the Old Testament, the temple is a building.  What do you think the Temple is in the New Testament?  Is it not the human body?  Yes, Jesus sat in Mary's womb and ate bread.   Whatever the mother ate, the baby ate through the umbilical cord.  

WAKE UP SELENE!!!

My FOOD... said Jesus is... John 4:32-34

What does God eat??? Psalm 50

Stop thinking about the flesh!!!

God is Spirit!

I thought we were speaking about Jesus Christ who is a man who came down in the flesh.  Remember what St. John said, "That the Word was made flesh?"  Did you honestly think that Jesus cannot eat fish?  

Luke 24:41-44  But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, He said: Have you any thing to eat?  And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb.  And when He had eaten before them, taking the remains, He gave to them.  And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me

As you can see, Jesus ate fish.  And by the way, you still did not answer my question.  Who said anything about Noah's ark?  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: davidmac on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:56:07
Selene you said-
Quote
I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:57:35
The temple is not my area of expertice so I will point you towards a paper I just read yesterday concerning the three areas of the temple and how it is representative of the three areas of the body and three levels of the presence of God.
The writer of BLOODLINES paper I found by searching google...dimensions of God.


www.hanby.org/newsletter/BloodlineDEC2001.pdf - Similar


You have to read all that to try and figure out the three areas of the temple.  Visionary, now is the time for you to rely on Scripture.  

1 Corinthians 3:16  Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

What part in this biblical verse did you not understand?  It says that we are the Temple of God.  As a matter of fact, Jesus even refers to His body as a temple.  The human body is now the temple.  And the Holy Spirit dwells in this temple.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 19:58:54
Selene you said-
Quote
I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  

In here, I was not referring to Noah's ark.  I was referring to the Ark of the Covenant, which was the dwelling place of God in the Old Testament.  Mary's womb was the dwelling place of Jesus who is God.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 20:10:17
Visionary, you've got to be kidding.  The article you posted says that the holiest place in the human body would be the head?  That is where the Holy Spirit dwells?  Catholic teachings says that the entire human body is the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells.  It does not specify the Head, the Kidney, or the stomach.  We are created in the image of God, and our bodies is the temple in the New Testament.  As Jesus said, "destroy this temple and within three days, I will raise it up."  He was speaking about His entire body, which we consider all Holy. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 20:14:18
Selene you said-
Quote
I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  

In here, I was not referring to Noah's ark.  I was referring to the Ark of the Covenant, which was the dwelling place of God in the Old Testament.  Mary's womb was the dwelling place of Jesus who is God.

OH BOY!!! What does he who ascended mean except he also descended!

Where does this idea Jesus dwells in Mary's womb come from?

Take a step back Selene. I am not wearing steel toed boots.

OF COURSE THE TEMPLE OF GOD IS OUR BODY!

Perhaps you should allow him in so that you do not continue to utter things with no foundation in Gods word.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 20:17:45
Visionary, you've got to be kidding.  The article you posted says that the holiest place in the human body would be the head?  That is where the Holy Spirit dwells?  Catholic teachings says that the entire human body is the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells.  It does not specify the Head, the Kidney, or the stomach.  We are created in the image of God, and our bodies is the temple in the New Testament.  As Jesus said, "destroy this temple and within three days, I will raise it up."  He was speaking about His entire body, which we consider all Holy. 

God bless Selene.

1Corinthians 2:16
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 20:20:46
Ryan -- you know I don't agree with you but I like that quote from Ezekial. I will give you a point on that one.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 20:25:44
If you have never heard the Nicene creed in church snargles then what church do you belong?

The nicene creed declares the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The sound doctrine that is taught in every church belonging to God.


Church of Christ.
Most of the people in my congregation have probably never even heard of the Nicean Creed.
One of our old sayings is "No creed but the Bible". We believe most (I would have to read through it again to say how much) of what is in the creed but just not in that form.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 21:07:31
Quote
author=Selene

In the Old Testament, the temple is a building.  What do you think the Temple is in the New Testament?  Is it not the human body?  Yes, Jesus sat in Mary's womb and ate bread.   Whatever the mother ate, the baby ate through the umbilical cord.  

I guess the context of EZE 44 means nothing to you?

Mary's virginity is irrelevant after the birth of Christ.  And the OT testifes of HIM, not His mother.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 21:13:01
Quote
author=Selene

In the Old Testament, the temple is a building.  What do you think the Temple is in the New Testament?  Is it not the human body?  Yes, Jesus sat in Mary's womb and ate bread.   Whatever the mother ate, the baby ate through the umbilical cord.  

I guess the context of EZE 44 means nothing to you?

Mary's virginity is irrelevant after the birth of Christ.  And the OT testifes of HIM, not His mother.

Why do you say that the context of Ezekiel means nothing to me?  We know that no one can sit where God sits.  No one in Heaven can sit on His throne.  And when God sat in Mary's womb, what makes you think that another human being can sit there too?  

And you are incorrect.  The OT does testify of His mother too.  See the Scripture below.  Who did you think this virgin was?   

Isiah 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 21:18:41
Visionary, you've got to be kidding.  The article you posted says that the holiest place in the human body would be the head?  That is where the Holy Spirit dwells?  Catholic teachings says that the entire human body is the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells.  It does not specify the Head, the Kidney, or the stomach.  We are created in the image of God, and our bodies is the temple in the New Testament.  As Jesus said, "destroy this temple and within three days, I will raise it up."  He was speaking about His entire body, which we consider all Holy. 

God bless Selene.

1Corinthians 2:16

God bless  you too, Visionary. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 08:16:57
Quote
author=Selene

I agree.  Mary is in the Old Testament just like Jesus is in the Old Testament.  Mary is seen as the Ark.  The Old Testament is correct.  As it says:  This gate is to remain shut.  It must not be opened; no one may enter through it.  It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel has entered through it and The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway.  

Jesus who is God was in Mary's womb.  No other human can be in it because no man can enter where God passed through or sits at.  That is what the Old Testament is alluding to.  

Eze. 44 is speaking of the LITERAL temple, not Mary's womb.

“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3 As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 08:19:24
Mary's womb was the dwelling place of Jesus who is God.

Actually, according to God's Scripture, the world is.  John 1:14 for example.  By your "logic," all people must be perpetual virgins.  I'm quite certain you're wrong.




.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 08:26:04
My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.

Yes.  It seems the first even mention of this DOGMA is a title used by this singular individual in 362 AD.   Nothin' before that.  Nothin' more than that.




Quote
Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Yes.  It says Our Lord was BORN of the virgin Mary.   No one is contending here about Her being a virgin at the birth of Our Lord.  It does not say, "Born of the PERPETUAL virgin" or "Born of Mary who was a virgin at that time and remained so until Her death or possibilty undeath, we aren't disclosing which."






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:07:55
Does Jesus being "begotten" only point to him being born of the Father or is it not also bound up in his incarnation?

Jesus being "begotten" is bound up in the truth of His resurrection, as is revealed in Acts 13:32-33,

"And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

Sinners are reconciled to God by the death of Jesus, and are saved by His resurrection life, as is given in Rom 5:10,

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

If sinners need more than this to be reconciled to God and saved, it is a false gospel.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: zoonance on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:13:51
I heard a female catholic priest quoted on the radio last night that "Mary is part of the Trinity"
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:38:55
I heard a female catholic priest quoted on the radio last night that "Mary is part of the Trinity"
If she was female, then she was not a Catholic priest, and if she said that, then she is also a heretic.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:42:11
Quote
So what?   How does that confirm that it's a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


This is where the binding and loosing enters the Arena and the topic of councils come up.  This is where I will leave off the conversation because on this point it goes well beyond elementary teachings that I believe would, if we did talk much about this, would only end up making things worse for those who can not even agree on the elementary teachings.

(http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/LRG/20/2016/GOB4D00Z.jpg)



If she is Ever-Virgin and the interpretation of Ezekial is sound then to deny this reality would in fact effect our communion with God but not necessarily mean that God won't save such an individual.  We can not judge those outside the Church which is why the dogmas are applicable to those within and judgment outside is not made.


I can't go outside of the territory of which I am bound to reside.  


God bless.


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:44:14
I heard an Anglican Bishop deny the bodily resurrection and therefore all protestants deny the bodily resurrection? 


 ::pondering::


Survey says, no. 


Catholica cleared up the issue.  Let's not resort to trying to distort beliefs that aren't within the confines of what the body in question actually teaches. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 10:06:33
Quote
Actually, according to God's Scripture, the world is.  John 1:14 for example.  By your "logic," all people must be perpetual virgins.  I'm quite certain you're wrong.

We can't over-spritualize for the sake of winning an argument.  You are well aware that Mary had a unique relationship in the story of man's salvation. Otherwise the "Virgin" that is prophesied about in the OT  would merely refer not to Mary but instead some "spiritual virgin". 

We can't have it both ways when it comes to certain levels of reality. 

Mary gave birth to God. 

Full stop.

We are called to have Christ in us as Christ had Christ in her and yet that was experienced on much different level of reality for Mary.

I don't think we should resort to legalese on such matters.  It's not healthy in our search for the Truth.



Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: stevehut on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 10:32:57
I heard an Anglican Bishop deny the bodily resurrection and therefore all protestants deny the bodily resurrection? 


That would Bishop Spong.  Not a good guideline for anything, methinks.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 10:39:27
Quote
Actually, according to God's Scripture, the world is.  John 1:14 for example.  By your "logic," all people must be perpetual virgins.  I'm quite certain you're wrong.

We can't over-spritualize for the sake of winning an argument.  


I could not possibly agree more......


Yes, of course, Jesus "dwelt" in the womb of Mary.  Scripture specifically states that He dwelt in the world.   Thus, if "dwelling" = perpetual virginity, then obviously not only would Mary be a perpetual virginity, but all human beings (at least from the Incarnation on), all for the last 2000+ years at least, would be perpetual virgins.   But this "Jesus dwelt" connection is obviously a case of wild spiritualization, merely to "win the argument" as you say.  





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 11:03:30


Quote
Yes, of course, Jesus "dwelt" in the womb of Mary.  Scripture specifically states that He dwelt in the world.   Thus, if "dwelling" = perpetual virginity, then obviously not only would Mary be a perpetual virginity, but all human beings (at least from the Incarnation on) would be perpetual virginity.   But this "Jesus dwelt" connection is obviously a result of wild spiritualization, merely to "win the argument" as you say. 

Jesus dwelled in Mary's womb and took on flesh in a much different way in which we as believers do.  Though we are to give flesh, our entire being, to Christ as Mary had, the specific reality points toward Mary through the OT stories and Mary of course points to Christ.  This is why we can see both Mary and the Church and New Jerusalem in St. John the beloved's account of the prophecy of the Lord in the book of Revelation. 

You are saying that "dwelling" = perpetual virginity and yet the verse points not to "dwelling" in general but that of the Holy Theotokos and then also points to the shadow of the temple, portico, gateway etc. 

You strip the Theotokos from your illustration of logic in order to apply it to the "world" making the visible tangible reality of Mary a "spiritual invisible reality" and then use that tactic in order to arrive at your conclusion.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to see love in your logic puzzles, Josiah and because I am not pure of heart and find it difficult to see Christ in certain areas, as a way of protecting myself and others from sin, I have nothing to do with such areas and withdraw.  I feel the sincerity of this discussion is leaving us and if I can not find it I will have nothing to do with such replies. 

I feel less like we are seeking the unity of the faith, the Kingdom of God and more like a lawyer sent in to fight against another lawyer who was paid to exonerate the guilty. 

I don't wish to persecute either the guilty or his lawyer. 



1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

1 Peter 3:4
Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

1 Timothy 6:11
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

Ephesians 4:2
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.



Glory to Jesus Christ
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 11:29:49
[quote author=4Him link=topic=47614.msg830621#msg830621 

I guess the context of EZE 44 means nothing to you?

Mary's virginity is irrelevant after the birth of Christ.  And the OT testifes of HIM, not His mother.
[/quote]

 

1) Mary is the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit

2) It is taught and accepted by traditional Christianity, but rejected by modern sects

3) Mary is the spiritual mother of all who follow Jesus
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 11:40:01


Quote from: Josiah


Yes, of course, Jesus "dwelt" in the womb of Mary.  Scripture specifically states that He dwelt in the world.   Thus, if "dwelling" = perpetual virginity, then obviously not only would Mary be a perpetual virginity, but all human beings (at least from the Incarnation on) would be perpetual virginity.   But this "Jesus dwelt" connection is obviously a result of wild spiritualization, merely to "win the argument" as you say





You are saying that "dwelling" = perpetual virginity and yet the verse points not to "dwelling" in general but that of the Holy Theotokos and then also points to the shadow of the temple, portico, gateway etc. 


I agree with you.  The point is wild spiritualization and "we should not spiritualize for the sake of winning an argument."




Quote
I feel less like we are seeking the unity of the faith, the Kingdom of God and more like a lawyer sent in to fight against another lawyer who was paid to exonerate the guilty.  I don't wish to persecute either the guilty or his lawyer. 

I agree with the RCC (but don't know if the EO) that truth matters.  That includes what is stated as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth about the "bedroom activiites" of couples - and that includes Mary.  In fact, my Catholic teachers taught us that to share something about another that we have not confirmed as true is GOSSIP (the specific word they used) - especially if such is potentially harmful, embarrassing or offending to the person about whom the rumor is being spread.  And doing so was specifically stated to be a violation of the Commandment, "Thou Shall Not Lie" and thus a sin.   Now, we LOVE Our Lady (possibly far more than our own mothers).  We adore and esteem Her.   I'm of the position that it MATTERS if what is said about Her (especially so forcefully - as a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty) is true or not.  I see nothing UNLOVING about caring about the truth of what is being dogmatically shouted about Her.  

Friend, I don't think anyone here is questioning the sincerity, devotion, faith or spirituality of any one here -  Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or other.   I think the questions are two:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?   And the motivation is two:  Love for Our Lady (and thus deep concern for what is said about Her) and Love of Truth.



Quote
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

So, with gentleness and respect, what is the reason for holding this tidbid of bedroom data as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth?

IMHO, simply saying, "But I believe it" or "But my denomination teaches it" are  positions NO ONE disputes or rebukes, but it's not doing what this verse counsels to be done.


And I remind you, that the RCC (again, I can't speak for the EO) was not treating all teachers with docilic submissing.  It was/is passionate about regarding teachers of doctrine as fully and immediately accountable, subject to testing/norming, to arbitration.  And if found appropriate, to condemning them, rebuking them, excommunicating them, and perhaps even dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.  Let's not suggest a double standard here where the RCC does one thing for all OTHERS but insists on the exact opposite, a total 180, for itself.   I'm sure you agree.






.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 12:50:37
Quote
I agree with the RCC (but don't know if the EO) that truth matters.  


Of course Truth matters. 

Quote
That includes what is stated as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth about the "bedroom activiites" of couples - and that includes Mary.
 

I won't reply to your statements when you reduce the fidelity of our Lord's mother to mere gossip about bed-room talk.



Quote
In fact, my Catholic teachers taught us that to share something about another that we have not confirmed as true is GOSSIP (the specific word they used) - especially if such is potentially harmful, embarrassing or offending to the person about whom the rumor is being spread.  



I've addressed this idea of the teaching about Mary's Ever-Virginity being gossip.  It's not gossip but for you it is, ok.  If you spoke on behalf of Christ on this issue I would concede but you only have a construct built on logic and the sole aim is not even with the teaching but in order to try to disagree with the RCC and anyone else that holds it, on this point of dogma. 

The original topic was two-fold - Mary's Ever-Virginity and Jesus not having sibs and you want to make it about dogma and have been blasting this horn for awhile and regardless of any progress in the discussion on that point you continue as if nothing was said to you. 

I don't have anything else to say on the issue of dogma. 

Quote
And doing so was specifically stated to be a violation of the Commandment, "Thou Shall Not Lie" and thus a sin.  


Easily refuted.  Read over the replies to this point that were offered prior to your re-assertion that it's gossip and a sin. 

Quote
Friend, I don't think anyone here is questioning the sincerity, devotion, faith or spirituality of any one here -  Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or other.   I think the questions are two:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?   And the motivation is two:  Love for Our Lady (and thus deep concern for what is said about Her) and Love of Truth.


The question is about her being Ever-Virgin and if Jesus had sibs.  You haven't answered the question but would really really really like to talk about the dogma and yet that relates to councils and I've said three times now (at least), that I'm not going there. 

I wish you well. 


Quote
So, with gentleness and respect, what is the reason for holding this tidbid of bedroom data as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth?


When you phrase your questions and couple them with statements that belittle the faith we hold I personally won't reply beyond what I have. 

You may believe that this is what the ancient faiths are doing, gossiping etc.  I disagree. 

Quote
IMHO, simply saying, "But I believe it" or "But my denomination teaches it" are  positions NO ONE disputes or rebukes, but it's not doing what this verse counsels to be done.


I find the teaching on the Theotokos are gentle, wise, loving, edifying.  I am sorry if you do not. 

Quote
And I remind you, that the RCC (again, I can't speak for the EO) was not treating all teachers with docilic submissing.  It was/is passionate about regarding teachers of doctrine as fully and immediately accountable, subject to testing/norming, to arbitration.  And if found appropriate, to condemning them, rebuking them, excommunicating them, and perhaps even dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.  Let's not suggest a double standard here where the RCC does one thing for all OTHERS but insists on the exact opposite, a total 180, for itself.   I'm sure you agree.


You must have misunderstood me but even if I speak clearly we have reached a point where it's becoming repetitive.  We have had this same conversation several times. 

I don't mind repetition and so perhaps we can best speak to one another in song since we would probably dispute the meaning of the psalms as instructed in the epistle of St. Paul. 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHNArEfBKdc[/youtube]




Christ is risen


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 13:17:26
Quote
I agree with the RCC (but don't know if the EO) that truth matters.  

Of course Truth matters.  


Good!  Then we should look for confirmation of the TRUTH of this - to the level claimed.






Quote

Quote

In fact, my Catholic teachers taught us that to share something about another that we have not confirmed as true is GOSSIP (the specific word they used) - especially if such is potentially harmful, embarrassing or offending to the person about whom the rumor is being spread.  


I've addressed this idea of the teaching about Mary's Ever-Virginity being gossip.  


I never said it was gossip.  I never said it wasn't true.  What I've said is that MY CATHOLIC TEACHERS taught that if a statement about another (particularly one harmful, embarrassing or offensive) is not confirmed as truth, then to spread such is gossip and a sin.  Thus, it seems to ME, it's important for that reason alone to carefully determine if this is TRUE - not simply is such is being spread.

AND I've shared that, in MY view, our deep LOVE for Her also mandates this.   If we didn't care about Mary's heart (and ergo Jesus') then it wouldn't matter whether it's true or not.  We'd only care about spread it - whether or not it's true, climbing in on it.

 




Quote
Quote
So, with gentleness and respect, what is the reason for holding this tidbid of bedroom data as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth?


IMHO, simply saying, "But I believe it" or "But my denomination teaches it" are  positions NO ONE disputes or rebukes, but it's not doing what this verse counsels to be done.

I find the teaching on the Theotokos are gentle, wise, loving, edifying.  


Perhaps, but the Scripture you quoted said we are to give REASON for the truthfulless of what we teach.   As you noted, it's not about lovingly submitting, it's about lovingly revealing the confirmation of it.


I think we've long ago agreed that this view EXISTS (and seems to have since perhaps 362, at least for one).  And we've long ago agreed that some teach it as true.  And we've agreed that some are very, very sincerely, loving and pious in the embrace of it.  I don't think ANYONE here (least of all me) questions ANY of that.  I think the questions are two:  Is it true?  Is it necessary as dogma?



If this were just some academic debate ("how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?") I'd not waste my time posting in the thread.  If this were just a pious opinion of some, not dogma and not divisive ("are their guardian angels?") I'd probably also not participate (the issue of how many sibs Jesus had - if any - comes remarkably close to that for me).  But, we're talking about something PROFOUNDLY personal, HIGHLY probable to be potentially embarrassing and offensive, about a person - one of THE most esteemed, loved, adored saints in all of Christainity, one many of us love more than our own mothers.   And it's DOGMA - a dividing point, a wall to divide Christians and shatter the church, a point made of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth.  It is for THESE reasons that I'd like to know where the substantiation is.  If we meet Mary weeping and being held in the arms of her Son, hurt for this - I'd RATHER say "I didn't know if it was true" than to say, "I didn't care if it was true."  Of course, you assume such will not be the case, and I understand that.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 14:10:30
A question I have asked hasn't been answered yet - where do the early (but post-biblical) writers get their authority? Give me an answer and I won't agrue with you, I just want to understand the RCC thinking on this. I have quoted Justin Martyr duing a talk before serving the Lords Supper and I have refered to the Didache during Bible calss discussion (even though some of it goes against scripture) so I know the early writers have some usefulness to present day Christians but why does the RCC place so much emphasis on them? Are there any writers today who you think have the same authority as the men from the first couple of centuries?
In a similar way, some of you have supported the perpetual virginity of Mary by saying that Luther, Zwingli and Wesley taught it. As Catholic, don't you view them as heritics and men who distorted the truth and therefore people you shouldn't be using to support your argument?

Let's not yell at each other, just explain the thought process.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 14:14:47
Quote
I agree with the RCC (but don't know if the EO) that truth matters.  


Of course Truth matters.  



Good!  Then we should look for confirmation of the TRUTH of this - to the level claimed.






Quote

Quote

In fact, my Catholic teachers taught us that to share something about another that we have not confirmed as true is GOSSIP (the specific word they used) - especially if such is potentially harmful, embarrassing or offending to the person about whom the rumor is being spread.  



I've addressed this idea of the teaching about Mary's Ever-Virginity being gossip.  



I never said it was gossip.  I never said it wasn't true.  What I've said is that MY CATHOLIC TEACHERS taught that if a statement about another (particularly one harmful, embarrassing or offensive) is not confirmed as truth, then to spread such is gossip and a sin.  Thus, it seems to ME, it's important for that reason alone to carefully determine if this is TRUE - not simply is such is being spread.

AND I've shared that, in MY view, our deep LOVE for Her also mandates this.   If we didn't care about Mary's heart (and ergo Jesus') then it wouldn't matter whether it's true or not.  We'd only care about spread it - whether or not it's true, climbing in on it.

 




Quote
Quote
So, with gentleness and respect, what is the reason for holding this tidbid of bedroom data as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth?


IMHO, simply saying, "But I believe it" or "But my denomination teaches it" are  positions NO ONE disputes or rebukes, but it's not doing what this verse counsels to be done.


I find the teaching on the Theotokos are gentle, wise, loving, edifying.  



Perhaps, but the Scripture you quoted said we are to give REASON for the truthfulless of what we teach.   As you noted, it's not about lovingly submitting, it's about lovingly revealing the confirmation of it.


I think we've long ago agreed that this view EXISTS (and seems to have since perhaps 362, at least for one).  And we've long ago agreed that some teach it as true.  And we've agreed that some are very, very sincerely, loving and pious in the embrace of it.  I don't think ANYONE here (least of all me) questions ANY of that.  I think the questions are two:  Is it true?  Is it necessary as dogma?



If this were just some academic debate ("how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?") I'd not waste my time posting in the thread.  If this were just a pious opinion of some, not dogma and not divisive ("are their guardian angels?") I'd probably also not participate (the issue of how many sibs Jesus had - if any - comes remarkably close to that for me).  But, we're talking about something PROFOUNDLY personal, HIGHLY probable to be potentially embarrassing and offensive, about a person - one of THE most esteemed, loved, adored saints in all of Christainity, one many of us love more than our own mothers.   And it's DOGMA - a dividing point, a wall to divide Christians and shatter the church, a point made of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth.  It is for THESE reasons that I'd like to know where the substantiation is.  If we meet Mary weeping and being held in the arms of her Son, hurt for this - I'd RATHER say "I didn't know if it was true" than to say, "I didn't care if it was true."  Of course, you assume such will not be the case, and I understand that.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.




[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D50-8JlcwSg[/youtube]


ICXC NIKA


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 14:49:21

Quote
A question I have asked hasn't been answered yet - where do the early (but post-biblical) writers get their authority?


Well even the writers are subject to The Church.  Not all of the things that the early Church fathers are in line with the teachings of The Church. 

That is hard for some to reconcile because of the way in which people see what the Church is.  It's not like there are some folks in power and everyone just nods and walks along hand in hand with them.  If you look at history there are even popes whose teachings were anathematized - 8th century. 

It's not this institution of "man" as people are want to paint it. 

Quote
Give me an answer and I won't agrue with you, I just want to understand the RCC thinking on this.


Even though the RCC, EO and Coptic faiths (all have the same history at her base but wound up out of communion with one another) have different views on this, they are, at their base quite similar if not the same. 

I used not to think this but the more I study it seems that often we get tied into semantics over things we on a much deeper level we seem to agree. 

Never the less, Patristics isn't just and adherence to whatever the early Fathers said, did and wrote.  I mean, that's why all three faiths consider Origin to be a heretic. 

If you go outside the bounds of Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition or the faith "according to the whole" then you wind up either with a teaching or at worst the entire individual not being absorbed into the body. 

People look at the ancient faiths and think we just put our faith in the fathers sotospeak but if you ever start reading all the fathers (and early Christian writings like didache etc.) then you will find that they need to be in agreement not only with the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition but also in regards to the "whole".  It's not compartmentalized. Like, "oh you agree with the scriptures so you're right" or "oh, you adhere to the tradition and so are right". 

It's not like there are just a group of men sitting in some smoke filled room coming up with this or that or saying, let's affirm this and not that. 

There are parameters that even the bishops and councils must adhere to and are subject to.  Those parameters are based not on what any one as "come up with" or "thought up" but instead what has been revealed to us in regards to the revelation of God as God revealed Himself to us. 

I can see Josiah doing backward flips over the word "us" but I only mean it in a general sense right now in regards to the ancient faiths and how The Church sees herself.  When I say, "the Church" I am only talking from an ecclessiology point of view as all three ancient faiths have a very similar ecclessiology and have a few things here and there that the other two don't have. 

However, unlike the Holy Trinity, the three ancient faiths have yet to attain to the unity of the faith amongst themselves.  I would like to see the Roman Catholics, the Coptics and the Eastern Orthodox be in communion as it would be a wonderful witness and a mighty return to our shared roots. 

But yeah.  It's not as black and white as we would hope it to be.  There's no boogie man or guy sitting behind the veil saying, "ignore that man behind the curtain". 

The Church, as Christ, also has two natures and so can mistep in some regards.  But she spits out whatever pebble she found in her shoe and moves on. 
 

Quote
I have quoted Justin Martyr duing a talk before serving the Lords Supper and I have refered to the Didache during Bible calss discussion (even though some of it goes against scripture) so I know the early writers have some usefulness to present day Christians but why does the RCC place so much emphasis on them?


Usually the ancient faiths appeal to modern Christians about them because they teach what we teach insofar as we are all in agreement.  I mean, St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius are in agreement as we are in agreement with them.  So yes, we point to them often because one of the marks of the Church is that she is "one". 

That means that you should be able to point back in history to the very same Church and see the same Church.  St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius and St. Clement etc. provide a usefulness in being able to point to a continuity.  You can see the same ecclessiology at work, the same way in which they approach and view the Holy Eucharist and the role and function and teachings about the presbytery and episkipos. 

Also, we are told to remember our leaders and to consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith and since they played a pivotal role in preserving the teaching of the Apostles against the numerous attacks on The Church, they are good reminder for us. 

Ultimately it is Christ in them who we see and so honor Christ's work in them. 

Quote
Are there any writers today who you think have the same authority as the men from the first couple of centuries?


Sure, but we don't call them writers.  We don't even consider St. Ignatius or St. Justin Martyr or any of the fathers of the Church "writers". 

We should always be producing fathers but they are rare.  As St. Paul says, though you have many guardians you have few fathers but I (St. Paul) became a father to you... 

Yes, we still have fathers of the Church today and they are in complete agreement with the fathers of old. 


Quote
In a similar way, some of you have supported the perpetual virginity of Mary by saying that Luther, Zwingli and Wesley taught it. As Catholic, don't you view them as heritics and men who distorted the truth and therefore people you shouldn't be using to support your argument?


Well, it's not about "teams", if you are right you are right insofar as you are right.  They also said Jesus is God and aren't going to say they were wrong.  It's not like anything the folks in the different colored jerseys say is wrong just because they are opposed to you in other things. 

There's no problem quoting heretics etc. insofar as they true.  Even St. Paul quoted from the pagans in the Holy Scriptures:

Acts 17:28
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

This "him we live and move and have our being" wasn't a Christian or even a Jew!  No, but St. Paul knew who this "him" truly was and so pointed the truth of that saying to it's truest source - Christ.  Christ is Truth. 

Quote
Let's not yell at each other, just explain the thought process.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRp4UQQbRk&feature=related[/youtube]



 ::prayinghard::

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 15:12:57
Thanks Ryan, that helps.
I had the feeling there was a council or perhaps the pope, who said "Tertulian is in, Origen is out". From what you said it looks like it is a gradual process and a building of concensus to decide who gets accepted. If it takes time for a teaching to be accepted then how would you ever know what modern thinker to accept?

The reason I asked about your use of Luther, et al, is because I was brought up that everything Catholic is bad, everything Lutheran is bad, etc. Most of my fellow church-folk think all Catholics are going to hell and I thought you think all Protestants are going to hell. Therefore, why should you use a hell-bent Protestant for support.

We are never going to agree; we use different sets of rules. At least we can see why we disagree. Am I being bad when I suggest we attack Muslims instead of each other?  ::blushing:: 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 16:18:31
Quote
I had the feeling there was a council or perhaps the pope, who said "Tertulian is in, Origen is out". From what you said it looks like it is a gradual process and a building of concensus to decide who gets accepted. If it takes time for a teaching to be accepted then how would you ever know what modern thinker to accept?

Well even the council has to accept what is known before they can say what is not known.  That's why most of the christological stances of the first seven ecumenical councils are in a language that is a "negative" language.

It's not that they were coming up with stuff to teach everyone but instead were often getting together to wrestle some innovative teaching of their time.  Some fellow says that Jesus is His own Father etc. or something like that and the council gets together and tries to figure out based on creeds and things that they have been handed down throughout the ages in regards to what the revelation of God IS.  

Even the Nicene Creed is based on various other baptismal creeds that were in practice throughout different jurisdictions.  More than this they also took statements of the early fathers into account.  For instance, we have St. Ignatius calling Jesus, God.  

So for people who said that Jesus is not God and is not an Apostolic teaching we can point to the fact that St. Ignatius knew the Apostles, was even an Overseer (bishop) and was instructed under St. John the beloved and so if he had said Jesus is God and if it was an innovation, The Church etc. would have corrected him and he would have been refuted by not only bishops and priests or "elders" but even lay persons.  

Lay person stood up during the council of Nicaea and corrected bishops.  

We adhere to the faith as it has been handed down.  That's the charge.  The Holy Spirit will guide us through trials and tribulations (certain heresies) and through our wrestling with that heresy we discover what it is which had always been believed.  

It's like an apple.  We say we believe in eating apples.  Someone comes along and introduces a red apple and low and behold we have never seen a red! apple.  No.  We have never had red apples.  We have been eating green apples.  We never had to call our apples "green" before because we never had to distinguish them from red ones because we never heard of a red one.  So then we get together and say, ok, it's green.  If it's not green, then it's not what we've been eating.  Anathema to red apples.  

Of course heresy is not trivial like the color of apples is trivial but it's same thing.  negative language.  It's not innovation but instead usually statements of faith against certain things that are in contradiction to the revelation of God as it was deposited into the body.  

Quote
The reason I asked about your use of Luther, et al, is because I was brought up that everything Catholic is bad, everything Lutheran is bad, etc.

Nope.  Everything is good if we can see Christ in it or if it pure and good.  I mean, like the pagan poetry that St. Paul quotes in Holy Scripture.  It's not like we think that what the pagan wrote was wrong, it's just that it was wrong in the sense that it only regarded the Majesty of the Lord in creation (Romans 1) but did not mention the Lord himself. So sometimes we can see certain truths but only insofar as they point toward the revelation of God as it was deposited into the body of those early Christian communities.  

Quote
Most of my fellow church-folk think all Catholics are going to hell and I thought you think all Protestants are going to hell. Therefore, why should you use a hell-bent Protestant for support.

St. Paul said not to judge outside the Church.  We don't.  I don't think the RCC does either.  God will save whom He saves and we can't say that we will know His judgment concerning anyone outside the Church.  

That is a wide misconception.  

When we say that we belong to the One True Church we are not saying that in a limited sense of personal salvation but in regards to the fullness of the faith, the dispensation of the sacraments, Holy consecrated practices through which God promises to extend Grace to the faithful, etc.  It's not merely because of the presbytery or believers but much more than this.  

Church in the ancient faiths are larger than the sum of her parts so outside of what we are able to judge as it has been revealed to the body, we can't make proclamations.  

Quote
We are never going to agree; we use different sets of rules. At least we can see why we disagree. Am I being bad when I suggest we attack Muslims instead of each other?  ::blushing::  


I don't think we should attack muslims either.  We speak the Truth in Love and if someone won't listen we kick the dust from our sandals and move along.  Regardless we still love and extend to them what God extends to us that through our pouring out of our self, they might see God in us and so repent.  

 ::smile::

And I wouldn't say that we have a set of "rules" because that kind of connotes that we make up these rules.  The canons are the closest things we have to "rules" I think and when I say canons I'm not speaking merely of the canon of scripture but also things like, bishops not spending too much time in one region or should let the other know if they are coming into anothers jurisdiction etc.  

Like you can see the creation of the deacons arise out of an issue with the widows.  The Church got gummed up a little, the Apostles acted and viola, deacons were on the scene.  It's helpful and helps the body to dispense virtue.  

Things which keep the body from getting gummed up so we can focus on being a faithful witness of Christ.  A Kingdom divided against itself will fall down.  






Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:09:50
Quote
author=chestertonrules
 

1) Mary is the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit

Scripture does not teach this. Mary is the faithful spouse of Joseph.  She was not a bigamist.

Quote
2) It is taught and accepted by traditional Christianity,

No, it is taught by the Catholic church.

Quote
3) Mary is the spiritual mother of all who follow Jesus

No, she isn't.  She is our sister in Christ. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:34:02
Mary is our mother.  When Christ gave His mother to the Apostle John, He accepted her as His mother for Jesus said to St. John "Behold your mother."  Just as St. John took her in as his mother, so do we also take her as our mother.  Mary is our mother.  Jesus, the son of Mary, is our brother.  And God is our Father.   
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:48:48
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:50:19
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:55:26
I fully agree with Mary being our sister in Christ, not everyone's mother...

Mary is Jesus' human mother, this is true, but she isn't my mother in any way, she didn't give birth to me...my mother's name is Monique.

Mary is a sinner, just like any other human being is a sinner. Mary needed  Christ as her Saviour and needed to repent just like everyone else does on this earth...

We, on the other hand, do believe that Mary is our mother.  Eve is the mother of the entire human race.  Mary became the mother of the Church when Jesus gave her to the Apostle John and said "Behold, your mother."

We also don't believe that Mary had sin because we believe that Jesus was not born from sin and did not come from sin.  We believe that Jesus had nothing to do with sin whatsoever.  If God can make Adam and Eve without sin from the very beginning; He certainly can make Mary be born without sin from the moment of her conception.  Mary had a savior....God.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:59:00
Mary is our mother.  When Christ gave His mother to the Apostle John, He accepted her as His mother for Jesus said to St. John "Behold your mother."  Just as St. John took her in as his mother, so do we also take her as our mother.  Mary is our mother.  Jesus, the son of Mary, is our brother.  And God is our Father.    


Does this mean that you are denying our own mother, Selene?!... ::pondering::

On the contrary.  I know that Adam and Eve were our first parents.  Eve was the mother of the human race.  This, in no way, means that I am denying my own mother who gave birth to me. See my reply above.   The fact that Jesus gave us His mother is a blessing.  His mother is also our mother.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:23:10
Mary is our mother.  When Christ gave His mother to the Apostle John, He accepted her as His mother for Jesus said to St. John "Behold your mother."  Just as St. John took her in as his mother, so do we also take her as our mother.  Mary is our mother.  Jesus, the son of Mary, is our brother.  And God is our Father.   

I understand all that, but how does that confirm to the highest level of importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?  Surely you are not suggesting that mothers are perpetual virgins?




.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:27:22
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:51:58
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 19:14:41
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 19:52:50
Hehealedme, all your sources are from NON-CATHOLIC sources.  If you really want to know why Catholics say that Mary is born without sin, then you ask a Catholic or go to a CATHOLIC source.  They can explain it better.  And if I wanted to know why you thiink Mary was a sinful person while she carried Jesus for nine months, I wouldn't be in a Catholic board.  I would ask that question in a Protestant forum board.  

Quote
Eve isn't my mother, she was however my ancestor. Mary didn't become the mother of the church, I have no idea where your information comes from...from what the Cathechism teaches maybe?

We got the information from the bible.  Eve is called the Mother of all the living because the human race came from her and Adam.  So, you can call Eve your ancestor or great great great great grandma for all I care.  The Bible calls Eve the mother of the living simply because the human race came from her.

Genesis 4:1  And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.

As for Mary being the Mother of the Church, that is already explain.  Jesus gave His mother to St. John who represents the Church and said "Behold your mother."  It was also St. John who wrote Revelations where he describes Mary as being the mother of the Church.  

Revelations 12:13-17   And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:........And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her offsprings, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


This passage in Revelations that St. John wrote (the same Apostle who took in Mary as his mother) describes Mary as the mother of the Church.  It was Mary who gave birth to this man-child (Jesus) and the rest of the offsprings is US....both the Catholics and Orthodox Christians who call Mary our Mother, NOT our sister.   Isn't it amazing that the dragon (Satan) not only goes after Jesus, but also tries to BASH the mother AND the offsprings who call her "Mother."  

Now, I'm certain that you will say that the woman in Revelations is Israel.  Well, Revelations shows that the man-child Jesus is an individual person and that Satan the dragon is an individual being; therefore, it stands to reason that the woman in that passage is ALSO an individual person rather than a symbol for a nation.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:15:05
Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:23:36
God bless hehealedme. Galatians if I recall correctly... Jerusalem that is above is our mother. The grace of God has appeared to all men...
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:24:09
.


Let's say that Mary was born without original sin....  How is that confirmation that She had no sex ever?



.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:32:14
I just have one question for you Selene. Why would anyone who has received the Holy Spirit that comes from God study "Catholic Sources" that are added to the Scriptures? The scripture is flawless purified seven times over. So why would anyone seek another Counsellor other than the One Jesus promised to all those who obey him?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:33:59
LOL Josiah. Lets not say... because it is not true!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:35:27
Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God.

Yes, the sword did pierce Mary's soul.  What has that have to do with sin?

Sorry, Visionary.  Catholics believe that Jesus was not born from sin nor did He come from sin.  We believe that Jesus had nothing to do with sin whatsoever.  Jesus is holy and a consuming fire because He is God.  Sin cannot touch God.  If sin touches God, it is sin that will burn and die.  Therefore, if Mary was full of sin she would have died and Jesus would not have been born.  Why?  Because sin can never contain holiness.  In other words, sin cannot hold Jesus Christ.  

If you want to believe that Christ was born from sin and came from sin, that's your right.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:38:52
I just have one question for you Selene. Why would anyone who has received the Holy Spirit that comes from God study "Catholic Sources" that are added to the Scriptures? The scripture is flawless purified seven times over. So why would anyone seek another Counsellor other than the One Jesus promised to all those who obey him?

Because the Holy Spirit is in the Church and Christ is the Head of the Church.  Scripture says that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).  Scripture NEVER said that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Bible. 

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:53:13
There was only one man born without sin Josiah. Who is Jesus Christ. A scripture comes to mind... they exchanged the glory of God (JESUS CHRIST) for a lie (MARY) and worshiped and served created things (MARY) rather than the Creator (JESUS). Romans 1
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:57:39
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 21:39:42
You didnt believe your school teacher that you are the offspring of a monkey did you Selene? Surely the bible tells us otherwise! Just like those things the Catholics were telling you as a child were not true. Surely the bible told you otherwise! Now before there is another inquisition and Catholics start burning Christians at the stake again... Lol. Someone shared with me the meaning of the word "Catholic" from its original language Greek. Does anyone have a strongs concordance? In part Catholic means universal but there is more to it. I dont want you or anyone to be focused on your church or its traditions even the things now commonplace ... like bakesales ??? Those things should not be! But be focused on Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith. In the "full meaning" of the word all who are born of God are Catholic! SO YO!!! There are enough proofs given here already that Mary was just as much a sinner as you or me. She was blessed! Consider what God said to her, the one born in you.....con,t
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 21:43:10
... how I wish Christ were formed in you. If I recall correctly Paul said this to the Corinthians. Therefore blessed like Mary we receive the Holy Spirit in us...piercing our hearts...just as Mary,s was... Romans 2:28,29
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 22:24:35
You didnt believe your school teacher that you are the offspring of a monkey did you Selene? Surely the bible tells us otherwise! Just like those things the Catholics were telling you as a child were not true. Surely the bible told you otherwise! Now before there is another inquisition and Catholics start burning Christians at the stake again... Lol. Someone shared with me the meaning of the word "Catholic" from its original language Greek. Does anyone have a strongs concordance? In part Catholic means universal but there is more to it. I dont want you or anyone to be focused on your church or its traditions even the things now commonplace ... like bakesales ??? Those things should not be! But be focused on Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith. In the "full meaning" of the word all who are born of God are Catholic! SO YO!!! There are enough proofs given here already that Mary was just as much a sinner as you or me. She was blessed! Consider what God said to her, the one born in you.....con,t

Now, where is this coming from?  You asked me a question in your post,....remember?  You asked me this question below:  

From Visionary:  I just have one question for you Selene. Why would anyone who has received the Holy Spirit that comes from God study "Catholic Sources" that are added to the Scriptures? The scripture is flawless purified seven times over. So why would anyone seek another Counsellor other than the One Jesus promised to all those who obey him?

I answered your question in my last post.  My answer was this below:  

From Selene:  Because the Holy Spirit is in the Church and Christ is the Head of the Church.  Scripture says that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).  Scripture NEVER said that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Bible.  

And now, suddenly, you are being insulting by asking me if I believe my school teacher saying that I was an offspring of a monkey?  What gives?  How did my school teacher even come into the discussion?  Why don't you simply address what I wrote?  Do you see anything in my post about a school teacher or even about evolution, monkeys or even the Inquisition?  So, where did this come from?    
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 22:34:19

Selene...My sources come directly from the Bible. I just find sources on the internet that explain what I believe to be the Truth. Why do I do it this way?...very simple. I am French, my English stinks, I am not a good writer. If I tried writing all this by myself, it would take me days...


As for you, HehealedmeNOT, your sources came directly from NON-CATHOLIC websites.  Didn't you see the weblinks you posted in your own posts?  Here, let me help you put on your glasses for you.   I placed it in bold so you can see it better.  I agree with you....Your English stinks!  You can't even read the part where you posted "Quote taken from" and right after it was a weblink from a NON-CATHOLIC website.  


Quote taken from   [url]http://www.trinitycrc.org/sermons/jn19v26.html[/url] ([url]http://www.trinitycrc.org/sermons/jn19v26.html[/url]).


Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 22:56:42
... how I wish Christ were formed in you. If I recall correctly Paul said this to the Corinthians. Therefore blessed like Mary we receive the Holy Spirit in us...piercing our hearts...just as Mary,s was... Romans 2:28,29

So, what does sword piercing the heart have to do with sin?  Oh really?  St. Paul said "blessed like Mary, we receive the Holy Spirit?" Wow!  Imagine that.  The Apostle Paul recognize Mary and even called her bless just like us Catholics.  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 22:58:56
Again, what does sword piercing have to do with sin?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 23:14:02
Selene. Hebrews 4:12 Yet new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins. And no one sews a new patch on old cloth. Would you do this not for me or anyone else but for yourself... Throw out those Catholic Sources you trust so much and put your trust in Jesus Christ and call on him to intercede for you instead of Mary? I tell you the truth...if you are sincere you will find him and he will give you a Counsellor that will lead you into all truth. God bless.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 23:40:21


So, what does sword piercing the heart have to do with sin?  

What does sin have to do with insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 23:46:07
Selene. Hebrews 4:12 Yet new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins. And no one sews a new patch on old cloth. Would you do this not for me or anyone else but for yourself... Throw out those Catholic Sources you trust so much and put your trust in Jesus Christ and call on him to intercede for you instead of Mary? I tell you the truth...if you are sincere you will find him and he will give you a Counsellor that will lead you into all truth. God bless.

Visionary, I already answered your question when you asked me about why we use Catholic sources.  This is what you said in your post:  

From Visionary:  Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God.  

So, now answer the question.  What has sword piercing Mary's soul have to do with sin?  Answer the question.  HehealedmeNOT already have an excuse if she can't answer questions.  Her excuse as she pointed out was that her English stinks.  You, on the other hand, can speak English, do you not?  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 23:57:25
Selene. When Daniel applied himself to seek understanding an answer was immediately given to him. Where did his answer come from? I tell you the truth if you ask you will receive if you seek you will find if you knock the door will be opened for you. No one can receive anything except it is given him from heaven. God bless. Everything we need for life and godliness God has given to us through his divine nature and his promises... Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of the heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows. The Spirit and the bride say Come! ...take the free gift of the water of life. These promises are given to those who will receive them by faith. God bless you all.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 00:33:02
Selene. When Daniel applied himself to seek understanding an answer was immediately given to him. Where did his answer come from? I tell you the truth if you ask you will receive if you seek you will find if you knock the door will be opened for you. No one can receive anything except it is given him from heaven. God bless. Everything we need for life and godliness God has given to us through his divine nature and his promises... Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of the heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows. The Spirit and the bride say Come! ...take the free gift of the water of life. These promises are given to those who will receive them by faith. God bless you all.

Again, you did not answer the question.  What has sword piercing have to do with sin?  You were the one who made this statement below, NOT Daniel, so don't even go there. 

From Visionary:  From Visionary:  Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God. 

You made the above statement, and I asked YOU a question about your statement.  What has swording piercing have to do with sin?  You do understand what I'm saying, do you not?  You can read English, can't you?  So, then explain your position regarding the statement you made. 

 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 00:50:56
Selene. When Daniel applied himself to seek understanding an answer was immediately given to him. Where did his answer come from? I tell you the truth if you ask you will receive if you seek you will find if you knock the door will be opened for you. No one can receive anything except it is given him from heaven. God bless. Everything we need for life and godliness God has given to us through his divine nature and his promises... Every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of the heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows. The Spirit and the bride say Come! ...take the free gift of the water of life. These promises are given to those who will receive them by faith. God bless you all.
 

So, Visionary, answer the question. YOU made the statement, and I asked a question regarding your statement, so answer it.  I will be waiting and checking up on this thread for your answer. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: k-pappy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 08:34:55
From Selene:  Because the Holy Spirit is in the Church and Christ is the Head of the Church.  Scripture says that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).  Scripture NEVER said that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Bible.  


Wrong.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  Acts 17:11

"15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."  2 Peter 3:15-17

"16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."  2 Timothy 3:16-17
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 08:41:00
If you want to believe that Christ was born from sin and came from sin, that's your right.  

The sin seed in the human race from Adam & Eve forward was passed to ALL following generations through the seed of man, not through the woman!  

Mary was born from the seed of man; therefore, she inherited a fallen nature just like every other human since the fall.

Jesus did not inherit the seed of Adam because Mary only provided the egg, while God provided the seed, the Word of God who became flesh.

This is why Jesus was sinless at His birth and throughout His life, and Mary was not.  All sinners, including Mary, need the redemption that is only found in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Blessings
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 09:36:14
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  Acts 17:11
The authority here was Paul, teaching the Sacred Tradition of the Church.  Then the Bereans looked to see if what he was teaching was true, with regard to prophecies of Christ.  Yet they still had to believe that Jesus existed, they had to trust that the oral teachings of Paul were not fabrications.  They had to trust Paul's authority.
 
"15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."  2 Peter 3:15-17
No doubt.  Paul's letters are hard to understand sometimes.  That is why we have the Magisterium of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit on issues of faith and morals, who are able to correctly interpret scripture based on the teachings of the fathers and the Truths guarded by the Church through established doctrine and dogmas.

"16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."  2 Timothy 3:16-17
Selene is not saying that scripture is not the Truth.  She is saying that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.  A "pillar and foundation" are things that uphold something, therefore scripture is saying that the Church stands up for the truth and defends it.  That has played out for the past 2000 years, but some opinions may vary.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 10:05:14

Paul writes this in 1 Tim 3:15,

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

Many churches down through the ages, both Catholic and Protestant, have at times NOT been pillars and supported the truth as given and revealed in His Word the Bible, showing is how we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God - the universal Church. 

When this happened, God always raised up faithful men and women of God to bring us back to the truth of His Word - the Bible.  Local churches come and go, but

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 10:35:32

The authority here was Paul

Then where did Paul say that Mary Had No Sex Ever?





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 11:06:02
Since you didnt understand the first time you were answered not by man but by Gods word... listen and understand... Hebrews 4:12 He was pierced for your transgression... Therefore if that does not pierce your soul... Why not?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 11:18:40
Bondservant... you should know the truth yourself! 1john 2:26,27 The very first thing after receiving the Holy Spirit I was shown is that the Church leaders have defiled the "milk" and I know it is true!!! Listen to yourself!!! Since when did a man need the Catholic church to tell him what truth was? NEVER!!! The Spirit is the truth. The Spirit comes from God the Father not from man! Christ means anointed and unless you are born of Spirit/anointed... John 3:5
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 11:38:03
Not so long ago I crashed my pc bad! Not even the installation cd could recover it. After many attempts through various means I tried to get it to reboot. Finally I had to wipe the entire drive and start from nothing. It took two whole days just to install the operating systems updates. In this same way God operates. He wipes the slate clean and installs a brand new operating system updating your minds a little at a time continually until you reach maturity and become like Christ. Boasting not in men or a church but in knowing The Father and the Son who alone is righteous just and faithful...and if you are Gods temple then Jesus is faithful as a servant over Gods temple for its good. I tell you the truth I learned more through experiencing Gods grace than I ever did in church!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 12:21:55
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFYcREO5-j0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkxFTPc0cBs&NR=1[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOSsCz02wOI&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxl-sdGn1ss&feature=related[/youtube]


Here is what the Coptics! have to say about the Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God.


The St. Justin Martyr reference is quite interesting, no?




St. Justin Martyr,
Christian apologist, born at Flavia Neapolis, about A.D. 100, converted to Christianity about A.D. 130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165.










Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 12:32:31
Here is St. Jerome (often used by Protestants in bible "canon" debates against the ancient faiths) against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. 

Saint Jerome (c. 347 – 30 September 420) (formerly Saint Hierom) (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος) was an Illyrian Christian priest [1] and apologist. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, which was on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia (and was overthrown by the Goths). He is best known for his new translation of the Bible into Latin, which has since come to be called the Vulgate and his list of writings are extensive.[2] (See Jerome and Early Church Fathers, Chapter 135)

He is recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint and Doctor of the Church, and his version of the Bible is still an important text in Catholicism. He is also recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, where he is known as St. Jerome of Stridonium or Blessed Jerome.[3]


....   (the following) tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:15:57
Tell me to create another thread if asking this question is too inappropriate.

By who's testimony does the Church teach that Mary ascended to heaven and did not die the first death.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:26:53
Tell me to create another thread if asking this question is too inappropriate.

By who's testimony does the Church teach that Mary ascended to heaven and did not die the first death.


I believe that this teaching is based on extrapolation of revelation. 

It is not a problem for Catholics and others who accept that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all Truth.

I agree that the case seems weak, but who am I?  I am willing to accept Church authority on the matter.

Here's a good summary:

The Assumption



The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

 
No Remains



There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

 
Complement to the Immaculate Conception



Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:56:57
Here is St. Jerome (often used by Protestants in bible "canon" debates against the ancient faiths) against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. 

Saint Jerome (c. 347 – 30 September 420) (formerly Saint Hierom) (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος) was an Illyrian Christian priest [1] and apologist. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, which was on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia (and was overthrown by the Goths). He is best known for his new translation of the Bible into Latin, which has since come to be called the Vulgate and his list of writings are extensive.[2] (See Jerome and Early Church Fathers, Chapter 135)

He is recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint and Doctor of the Church, and his version of the Bible is still an important text in Catholicism. He is also recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, where he is known as St. Jerome of Stridonium or Blessed Jerome.[3]


....   (the following) tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:58:40
Bondservant... you should know the truth yourself! 1john 2:26,27 The very first thing after receiving the Holy Spirit I was shown is that the Church leaders have defiled the "milk" and I know it is true!!! Listen to yourself!!! Since when did a man need the Catholic church to tell him what truth was? NEVER!!! The Spirit is the truth. The Spirit comes from God the Father not from man! Christ means anointed and unless you are born of Spirit/anointed... John 3:5

Do you believe that you are an infallible interpreter of scripture?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 15:02:25


Do you believe that you are an infallible interpreter of scripture?

Is there something wrong with self alone insisting that self alone is the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter?  IF so, then take that up with the ONLY ONE (outside of the cults) that so insists for self alone: the RCC (The Catechism of the RCC itself in what it says in # 85 for example).

But, are you suggesting that there is a verse that is grammatically best interpreted to confirm to the highest level possible that Mary Had No Sex Ever?  If so, let's look at that verse where the words and grammar used so indicate.  Otherwise, this is not a hermeneutics issue.





.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 15:04:39


Do you believe that you are an infallible interpreter of scripture?

Is there something wrong with self alone insisting that self alone is the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter?  IF so, then take that up with the ONLY ONE (outside of the cults) that so insists for self alone: the RCC (The Catechism of the RCC itself in what it says in # 85 for example).

But, are you suggesting that there is a verse that is grammatically best interpreted to confirm to the highest level possible that Mary Had No Sex Ever?  If so, let's look at that verse where the words and grammar used so indicate.  Otherwise, this is not a hermeneutics issue.





.


We already know that you claim infallibility.

We also see it starting to crumble as you make your way back home!  Keep up the good work!!
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 16:09:45
Quote

Thank you.

So we not only know that this view is very late (4th century) but was debated at that time, with no consensus.


Those who debated against her Ever-Virginity were often charismatic heretics or individuals within the Church who were out on their own attempting to create a following and make a name for themselves and rise to power.  

They were few and far between and like swatting a troublesome fly they weren't difficult to rid because few and far between ever believed them especially since the vast majority of them were gnostic or from other outside fringe groups that believed that Jesus wasn't "God" until later in life or attempted to use the idea of Mary and Joseph being married as a license for carnal indulgence like in the case at Corinth (not the Christians at Corinth but those outside the church using Jesus to exploit their philosophy of indulging in the pleasures to increase sin and thereby mercy.  

And this particular apologetic is written by St. Jerome in and around the year 383 AD, but if you read the commentaries of Ezekial by the church fathers you will find that even St. Justin Martyr considered Mary to be the gate spoken of by the prophet Ezekial.  

Since some can only be convinced when there is a paper trail or some tangible evidence that can satisfy the mind's ability to grasp and reason, we can, insofar as the "paper trail" goes, point back to St. Justin Martyr.  

However, this won't satisfy the incorrigible and they will, according to their nature and by necessity of their nature, charge that St. Justin Martyr merely "innovated" the teaching.  We see this in those who are convinced that the Trinity is a doctrine created in the 3rd and 4th centuries and has it's roots in paganism.  

When you point out to them that St. Ignatius calls Jesus, God and speaks of Him in Trinitarian formula then they charge St. Ignatius with innovation.  I've had discussions with muslims who then attempt to tempt me against St. John the beloved's instruction of St. Ignatius by asking me how I knew for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that St. Ignatius had in fact not innovated the Holy Trinity.

However, like St. Ignatius, you have to take a leap of faith to believe, given the outcome of St. Justin Martyr's way of life, that he would, against the revelation of God, dare innovate.  The likelihood is that St. Justin Martyr did not innovate but instead, either using Christ as his lens, merely affirmed what had always been there or simply transmitted what he had been taught by those who rightly interpreted Ezekial before him.  

Only the bold lead you in such contradictory directions and when I face such broods of vipers I know my struggle is to keep my eyes on the purity of the faith, which like the dove that descended on Christ during the theophany, leads The Church into all Truth.  

Quote
How does this confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


Choose your way, Josiah.  There are three paths you can take.  

1.  Take the stand that the interpretation of Ezekial is correct and is in communion with the revelation of God.  And since the purpose of Christian living is to be in communion with God, then insofar as we are not in communion with God, admit that it can be harmful to our soul.  

2.  Take the stand that the interpretation is incorrect and is out of communion with God and therefore should not be taught.  

3.  Sit on the fence between the two and say that you don't know.  

However, if you say that because you don't personally know, this necessarily means that number 1 and number 2 can't possibly know, then this 3rd stance is not based on the revelation of God but instead is based on the inability of an individual to see the Truth and reveals a pride only in the individual self over a united others.  

If one is in such a position as #3, it is best not to rail against number 1 for claiming to know and calling the issue "important". Because at the end of the day, they very well might be right.  And if you are found fighting against that which brings humanity in closer communion with their Creator, this can be harmful to your soul.  And if you are found attempting to say that, that which brings us in closer communion with our Creator is not! important then when the deeds of all lay naked before the dread judgment seat of Christ, you will as an individual have yet one more reason to cry out, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgZD-zP-cY[/youtube]










Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 16:44:39
Quote

Thank you.

So we not only know that this view is very late (4th century) but was debated at that time, with no consensus.

Those who debated against her Ever-Virginity were often charismatic heretics or individuals within the Church who were out on their own attempting to create a following and make a name for themselves and rise to power.  

So....

Supposedly, Jesus and all 13-14 Apostles taught that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and yet:

1.  The first mention of it is in the 4th century.

2.  It was debated, with no consensus or generally agreement.

How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?






Quote
Quote

How does this confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

Choose your way, Josiah.  There are three paths you can take.  

1.  Take the stand that the interpretation of Ezekial is correct and is in communion with the revelation of God.  And since the purpose of Christian living is to be in communion with God, then insofar as we are not in communion with God, admit that it can be harmful to our soul.  
2.  Take the stand that the interpretation is incorrect and is out of communion with God and therefore should not be taught. 


The "interpretation" is textually baseless.

 


Quote
3.  Sit on the fence between the two and say that you don't know.  


Since no one has shown anything either way...
Since it seems entirely moot to anything either way...
Since I don't want to commit the sin of gossip....

BUT, truth matters to me.  And I will CONTINUE to vest considerable effort in this (and other topics) in HOPES that it can be resolved.  I'm not anything if not persistent, lol. 





Quote
Because at the end of the day, they very well might be right.


... which seems like a good reason NOT to declare it dogma.  Such requires that then some brothers and sisters are made heretics (even dispatched to the afterlife smelling like smoke) for disagreeing.

... which probably suggests that pure acts of faith be given some respect.  Even if they are say Mormons.  Their support for their unique views are, not infrequently, considerably more sound than what has been presented here, but again - it IS believed and it IS possible (as ALL things not known to be contrary to Truth are).  My policy has been to respect such acts of faith in one to the same degree as they do to others (including me, my LDS friends, my Calvinist friends, etc.).  Seems reasonble, I'm sure you agree.

... and of course, at the end of the day they may very well be wrong.  IF we enter heaven and see Our Blessed Lady weeping in Her Son's arms because of what's being said about Her, some MIGHT have to say:  "I didn't care if it was true, I just joined in."  And yes, some might find her being praised for her "shut gate" and MIGHT have to say, "I didn't know if it was true." 

  


Quote
And if you are found fighting against that which brings humanity in closer communion with their Creator, this can be harmful to your soul.

Well, I'm 22, single and a virgin.  I sense where you are going, but I'm just not SURE that sexual virginity means we are in greater communion with our Creator.  I DO believe that we are to keep the Ten Commandments, including vis-a-vis Our Lady.  Maybe ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis Our Lady.





.













[/quote]
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 17:36:04
Since you didnt understand the first time you were answered not by man but by Gods word... listen and understand... Hebrews 4:12 He was pierced for your transgression... Therefore if that does not pierce your soul... Why not?

What has sword piercing have to do with sin?  It is now morning in my country, and I am back on this thread and still no explaination!  Again, below is what you stated: 

From Visionary:  Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God. 

You quoted Luke 2:35 and stated that Mary sinned based on this biblical verse.   And I still don't see an explaination.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 17:58:16

Quote
So....

Supposedly, Jesus and all 13-14 Apostles taught that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and yet:

They didn't have to wrestle the issue of circumcision until it came up how many years after the resurrection?  The Holy Trinity wasn't, in statements of language, laid out as we have them today until heretics rose up and attempted to severe communion, that is, to divide Christ, until when?  


Quote
1.  The first mention of it is in the 4th century.

1st Century.  St. Justin Martyr.  You have to charge that he innovated it or dismiss and minimize his interpretation which dismisses then all those who came after and affirmed it.  

You can't say it's not important if it's true.  People do this all the time it seems.  They say, hm, how little do I have to do to get to heaven?  

Oh, well, the thief got to paradise and there's no record of baptism therefore baptism isn't necessary.  Oh, well, the laying on of hands isn't important because everyone does it different and I'm sure they aren't going to go to hell because of that.  Oh, communion isn't important because I can get to heaven without it (so they presuppose).  Oh, well, I don't have to go to Church in order to be saved because I am my own Church.  On and on and on...  

Dogmatics isn't a utilitarian device used to smote folks but instead a safety rail that lets us know we are out of our jurisdiction and are in contradiction to the revelation of God.  

There are dogmatics on baptism, the Eucharist, sacraments as countless as they are...   People think dogma is a dirty word these days but that's because there is no dogma in many expressions of the faith other than don't you dare say that you "know" or say that it "matters" outside of yourself and so long as you let me in the front door even though I am in sharp contrast to who you say God is because that would be mean or unkind.

It's hate for the Truth wearing a mask of kindness and humility.  

That sort of pluralistic standard just isn't found in the Holy Scriptures.  

Quote
2.  It was debated, with no consensus or generally agreement.

It was debated primarily by groups that weren't Christians and if you are studious you can look at the individuals who rose up from within the Church to argue against her Ever-Virginity.  

When you say, "no consensus" you are using a very wide stroke.  The secular historians do this when they want to paint the Church as being divided in early Christianity by trying show groups that aren't even Christian as Christians or pointing to individuals who crawl out the woodwork.  

You can't lump all these groups together to create a narrative and have it be true.  


Start with the fellow St. Jerome refutes if you want to see what kind of person these advocates against her Ever-Virginity were like...

Research each individual that stood up against her Ever-Virginity and notice they are usually using it to issue forth other ideas lumped in together.  

Look at which groups those individuals belonged to and what their agenda was.  Then come back and tell me that there was no "consensus" among "Christians".  

If you can call these groups Christian when most of them deny basic tenants that even Protestants believe in (somewhat regularly) then in your view, I guess you would believe yourself to be right on this issue.  

Quote
How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

If the Christological interpretation of the book of Ezekial the prophet  is sound then it is in communion with God and since whatever is not in communion with God is a threat to our communion then it is of highest importance, relevance and can, with all certainty, be called harmful to ones soul if rejected.  

The interpretation of course is based on the revelation of God otherwise it would be rejected and rightly so.  So in regards to the certainty of "Truth" it is sound for it through Christ (Truth!) as our lens, that we declare such interpretations as being true.

Quote
The "interpretation" is textually baseless.

I guess your "base" is not based on the same "base" that those who came before you (St. Justin Martyr and St. Jerome) and stood upon so firmly "based" their interpretation on.

More than this it appears that insofar as this topic goes you appear to agree less with Luther and appeal more to those who would disagree with him.  Can you, as a Lutheran, be sure that you are even standing on the same "base" as Luther?  


Quote
Since no one has shown anything either way...
Since it seems entirely moot to anything either way...
Since I don't want to commit the sin of gossip....

BUT, truth matters to me.  And I will CONTINUE to vest considerable effort in this (and other topics) in HOPES that it can be resolved.  I'm not anything if not persistent, lol. 

Sometimes we can be as persistent as the mule and yet unlike the mule, we ultimately wind up only kicking our self.  As Christ said to St. Paul, "it hurts to kick against the pricks".  



Quote
Quote
Because at the end of the day, they very well might be right.


... which seems like a good reason NOT to declare it dogma.  Such requires that then some brothers and sisters are made heretics (even dispatched to the afterlife smelling like smoke) for disagreeing.

You are responsible for what you know.  Your whole argument of "not knowing" falls apart because in reality what you are saying is that because you don't know then it's impossible for others to know.  Your position of reversing dogmatics isn't based on truth but on your own limitations.  You admit you don't know but then you go one further by insisting that neither does anyone else.  

The problem here is that if it's true then it's not there to harm you but instead to help you be conformed to the image of the Son.  By declaring it dogmatic it is there as a safety rail to show you that you are leaving the reservation and are entering unknown and dangerous territory.  Just because you can't see the safety rail, doesn't mean it's not there.  


Quote
... which probably suggests that pure acts of faith be given some respect.  Even if they are say Mormons.  Their support for their unique views are, not infrequently, considerably more sound than what has been presented here, but again - it IS believed and it IS possible (as ALL things not known to be contrary to Truth are).  My policy has been to respect such acts of faith in one to the same degree as they do to others (including me, my LDS friends, my Calvinist friends, etc.).  Seems reasonble, I'm sure you agree.

We respect the person but don't embrace that which is counter to communion with God.  You can go to plenty of churches where every wind of doctrine is welcome but there is no scriptural grounds for such a practice.  

Quote
... and of course, at the end of the day they may very well be wrong.  IF we enter heaven and see Our Blessed Lady weeping in Her Son's arms because of what's being said about Her, some MIGHT have to say:  "I didn't care if it was true, I just joined in."  And yes, some might find her being praised for her "shut gate" and MIGHT have to say, "I didn't know if it was true." 


The problem is that it's not about her sexuality but is bound up in the Holiness of the incarnation of Our Lord and like the Cherubim, a good steward is often faced with having to stand guard and draw the sword of Truth.  If someone says, let them in that we might embrace both positions even though they are contradictory positions, then that one is not for us but instead only seeks to let the wolves in the front door by appealing to false charity and so up go the safety rails.

Quote
Well, I'm 22, single and a virgin.  I sense where you are going, but I'm just not SURE that sexual virginity means we are in greater communion with our Creator.  I DO believe that we are to keep the Ten Commandments, including vis-a-vis Our Lady.  Maybe ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis Our Lady.

I think that you don't realize that this "Virginity" is not merely about sex but points to a greater Truth about partaking in the divine nature.  A uniting between the Creator and His creation.   It's not merely about the virtue of virginity in and of itself as a means within it's own end.  

It's a Christological position, not a biological one.  

And if flies in the face of dualism which is why most Gnostics were totally convinced Mary had other children.  Otherwise creation might could be, well, "good".  






Glory to Jesus Christ
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Hehealedme on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 19:37:28
.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: 4Him on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 20:24:19
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

Quote
When Christ gave His mother to the Apostle John, He accepted her as His mother for Jesus said to St. John "Behold your mother."  Just as St. John took her in as his mother, so do we also take her as our mother.

Jesus was speaking to John and John alone, not you,not me, not anyone else.

You are embellishing.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 20:26:48
If you want to believe that Christ was born from sin and came from sin, that's your right.  

The sin seed in the human race from Adam & Eve forward was passed to ALL following generations through the seed of man, not through the woman!  

Mary was born from the seed of man; therefore, she inherited a fallen nature just like every other human since the fall.

Jesus did not inherit the seed of Adam because Mary only provided the egg, while God provided the seed, the Word of God who became flesh.

This is why Jesus was sinless at His birth and throughout His life, and Mary was not.  All sinners, including Mary, need the redemption that is only found in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Blessings
 

God provided the seed, but Mary provided the egg.  So, are you saying that the egg that Mary provided was sinless?  How can a sinful woman provide a sinless egg?  Didn't the Bible say that a bad tree produces only bad fruits and a good tree produce only good fruits?  So, if Mary is full of sin, how did she produce a sinless egg?  And more importantly, how was a sinful body able to contain a holy seed like Jesus?  Since when was sin able to hold down and contain holiness?  
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 20:37:17
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

Quote
When Christ gave His mother to the Apostle John, He accepted her as His mother for Jesus said to St. John "Behold your mother."  Just as St. John took her in as his mother, so do we also take her as our mother.

Jesus was speaking to John and John alone, not you,not me, not anyone else.

You are embellishing.


No, I am not embellishing.  Every Catholic on this forum board will tell you that Mary is considered our blessed Mother; therefore, I am not embelllishing. 

We consider Mary as our blessed Mother and the mother of the Church.  Jesus gave His mother to St. John who represents the Church and said "Behold your mother."  It was also St. John who wrote Revelations where he describes Mary as being the mother of the Church. 

Revelations 12:13-17   And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:........And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her offsprings, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This passage in Revelations that St. John wrote (the same Apostle who took in Mary as his mother) describes Mary as the mother of the Church.  It was Mary who gave birth to this man-child (Jesus) and the rest of the offsprings is US....both the Catholics and Orthodox Christians who call Mary our Mother, NOT our sister.   Isn't it amazing that the dragon (Satan) not only goes after Jesus, but also tries to BASH the mother AND the offsprings who call her "Mother." 

Now, I'm certain that you will say that the woman in Revelations is Israel.  Well, Revelations shows that the man-child Jesus is an individual person and that Satan the dragon is an individual being; therefore, it stands to reason that the woman in that passage is ALSO an individual person rather than a symbol for a nation. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 20:42:51
Quote
your sources came directly from NON-CATHOLIC websites.


Well of course, what did you expect !?!?!...did you think I would go on catholic sites and agree with what they say?!?...I did go read numerous times before and did again yesterday and I still don't believe nor do I agree with most of the catholic doctrines!...

I don't agree with your doctrines, as well.  But do you see me going into any Protestant forum board judging my Protestant brothers and sisters that they are wrong and we are right?  Do you see me publishing anti-Protestant weblinks in a Protestant forum board showing them and judging them how wrong they are?  Nope!  You have no intention of trying to understand us and our beliefs.  Your every intention is to judge and put us down. 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 21:32:46
 ::announcment:: WOWZERS!!! The truths revealed in the scriptures judge??? Hebrews 4:12 I hope so!!!

Godly sorrow leads to repentance and leaves no regret. But worldly sorrow produces death. 2Corinthians 7
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 22:34:57
::announcment:: WOWZERS!!! The truths revealed in the scriptures judge??? Hebrews 4:12 I hope so!!!

Godly sorrow leads to repentance and leaves no regret. But worldly sorrow produces death. 2Corinthians 7

The Bible tells us not to judge.  And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.  Why is it taking you so long to explain what a piercing sword have to do with sin? 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Selene on Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 22:45:53
Visionary, I am still waiting for you to answer my question.  Remember....YOU were the one who posted this post below: 

From Visionary:  From Visionary:  Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God. 


What is your excuse for your inability to explain your own post above? 
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Snargles on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 09:33:21
This thread has been educational for me. Around here the woods are full of Catholics but if you ask them the reason behind their doctrine most would give you a "whatever." Most of the Catholics here are less zealous in their beliefs than the posters. If the pope declared a Catholic jihad Selene would be first in line to be a suicide bomber. I am not used to Catholics being as adamant as her.

The discussion has shown me that the divide between Catholics and Protestants in wider than I thought. I am part of a tradition that says any person can pick up a Bible and after reading, understand all that he needs to know about God, Jesus and heaven. When I was younger it was commom to hear people talk against commentaries since they are written by uninspired men. It was said the only things needed to understand the Bible were common sense, a dictionary and a concordance. We now all use commentaries but we feel free to disagree with them.  Despite 6 years of college I wasn't aware of the writings of the early church fathers until I was in my 30s. I have never heard them or their opinions mentioned in church.

We aspire to copy the church of the apostles, although I realize Paul never sang four part harmony. We don't want to be like the second century or later church, we don't use creeds, we try to use only terms found in scripture (no theotokos or theopany), we believe in a priesthood of all believers and we believe that there have been no revelations since John sat down his pen.

Our preachers wear suits, not robes, and if the preacher is on vacation one of the men of the congregation fills in for him. The men take turns being in charge of the Lords Supper where the elements are seen as symbolic of the Lords body and blood. The only incense we use is some Febreeze is we have had some stinky visitors. All prayers are extemporaneous.

This plain, simple way of worship and understanding God has nothing in common with Catholicism and there is little common ground. The arguments back on forth concerning Mary's perpetual virginity have bee reduced to name calling ("HealedmeNOT") and repetition (most of Josiah's posts). Neither side is ever going to budge the opposition. I have learned how different we are but there isn't much else to gain from this. I am retreating from the field.  ::isurrender:: and will let the rest of you   ::beatingdeadhorse::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 09:41:07
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

As Father Corapi often says, no one can have Jesus for a brother who does not also have Mary for a mother.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Catholica on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 09:47:54
Visionary, I am still waiting for you to answer my question.  Remember....YOU were the one who posted this post below: 

From Visionary:  From Visionary:  Luke 2:35 If I recall correctly Simeon prophecied to Mary concerning Jesus... saying, ...and a sword will pierce your soul also... Mary was not born free from sin!!! She like all of us was born of man the seed of man born under the curse upon all men! Maybe you should read your bible with open eyes Selene. John 5:39 A person can read a bible their whole lives and Jesus will still say, I never knew you. Understanding what is written is an entirely different matter... It is God breathed and can ONLY be understood by the Spirit that comes from God. John 3:8 The wind is with him who has been born of the Spirit of God. 


What is your excuse for your inability to explain your own post above? 

Just to expound on the "sword will pierce your soul", as Catholics we know that this refers to suffering, and suffering isn't always due to sin, because no one suffered more than Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 10:36:47

Quote


So....

Supposedly, Jesus and all 13-14 Apostles taught that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and yet:


1.  The first mention of it is in the 4th century



.

1st Century.  St. Justin Martyr.  

.


Okay.  Quote St. Justin Martyr in a writing clearly before 100 AD where he writes, "Mary had no sex ever" or "Mary was a perpetual virgin"




Quote
Quote

2.  It was debated, with no consensus or generally agreement


.

It was debated primarily by groups that weren't Christians


... well, that's your evasion.  The point is obvious:  This springs up in the 4th century - and was highly controversal.   HARDLY an indicator of the claim:  That Jesus and all 13 or 14 Apostles all believed, taught and confessed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and all Christians knew this until, for some mysterious reason, a few individuals began to actually say this in the 4th century. 





Quote
Quote


How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?



.

If the Christological interpretation of the book of Ezekial the prophet  is sound then


Any conditional clause, if true, is true.   

Actually, it still doesn't address the issue.   You'd need to show that since 31 AD, all Christians understood this statement from Ezekiel to mean that Mary Had No Sex Ever for the point to be true that the Apostle's taught and all Christians believed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.






Quote
Quote

Since no one has shown anything either way...
Since it seems entirely moot to anything either way...
Since I don't want to commit the sin of gossip....

BUT, truth matters to me.  And I will CONTINUE to vest considerable effort in this (and other topics) in HOPES that it can be resolved.  I'm not anything if not persistent, lol




Sometimes we can be as persistent as the mule and yet unlike the mule, we ultimately wind up only kicking our self.  As Christ said to St. Paul, "it hurts to kick against the pricks".  

I don't find that to be a compelling apologetic that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever....

The 3 points I raised seem unaddressed by your reply.



Quote
Quote




... which seems like a good reason NOT to declare it dogma.  Such requires that then some brothers and sisters are made heretics (even dispatched to the afterlife smelling like smoke) for disagreeing.


... which probably suggests that pure acts of faith be given some respect.  Even if they are say Mormons.  Their support for their unique views are, not infrequently, considerably more sound than what has been presented here, but again - it IS believed and it IS possible (as ALL things not known to be contrary to Truth are).  My policy has been to respect such acts of faith in one to the same degree as they do to others (including me, my LDS friends, my Calvinist friends, etc.).  Seems reasonble, I'm sure you agree.


... and of course, at the end of the day they may very well be wrong.  IF we enter heaven and see Our Blessed Lady weeping in Her Son's arms because of what's being said about Her, some MIGHT have to say:  "I didn't care if it was true, I just joined in."  And yes, some might find her being praised for her "shut gate" and MIGHT have to say, "I didn't know if it was true."



.



You admit you don't know but then you go one further by insisting that neither does anyone else.  

The problem here is that if it's true then it's not there to harm you but instead to help you be conformed to the image of the Son.  By declaring it dogmatic it is there as a safety rail to show you that you are leaving the reservation and are entering unknown and dangerous territory.  Just because you can't see the safety rail, doesn't mean it's not there.  


1.  I NEVER said no one knows or no one CAN know.   Strawman.

2.  I'm ASKING for the confirmation of the fact to the level claimed.   You said that truth about this doesn't matter, you just submit to the tradition about it.  That's not confirmation.    Let's say, in the year 2394, someone says, "President Obama and Hilary Clinton had a "love child."  And such insists that this is a matter of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth.   I think it would matter if such is true and, remembering what my Catholic teachers taught me, to spread a story that is potentially personal, embarrasing and offensive that we haven't confirmed as true is the definition of "gossip" and is a sin.  Your position seems to be that it is our task to spread stories - regardless of whether such is true.  We seem to fundamentally disagree there.  And, I guess, if this were purely academic ("How many angels fit on the head of a pin?"  How many sibs did Jesus have?") I'd not spend any time discussing it.  But this is a HIGHLY personal (and potentially offensive) issue to one of THE most respective, esteemed, loved persons in Christianity (FAR more so than President Obama or Hilary Clinton, lol).  Follow?   AND it's DOGMA - an issue created to divide Christian in a way that cannot be questioned or examined.   Thus, two issues seem relevant:  Is it true?  Does it matter?    Indeed, those same Catholic teachers taught US:  "Before you say something personal about another, especially something potentially harmful and hurtful, ask:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?"   





Quote
Quote


... which probably suggests that pure acts of faith be given some respect.  Even if they are say Mormons.  Their support for their unique views are, not infrequently, considerably more sound than what has been presented here, but again - it IS believed and it IS possible (as ALL things not known to be contrary to Truth are).  My policy has been to respect such acts of faith in one to the same degree as they do to others (including me, my LDS friends, my Calvinist friends, etc.).  Seems reasonble, I'm sure you agree.

... and of course, at the end of the day they may very well be wrong.  IF we enter heaven and see Our Blessed Lady weeping in Her Son's arms because of what's being said about Her, some MIGHT have to say:  "I didn't care if it was true, I just joined in."  And yes, some might find her being praised for her "shut gate" and MIGHT have to say, "I didn't know if it was true."



.



We respect the person but don't embrace that which is counter to communion with God.  



The problem is that it's not about her sexuality [/quote]


So, you believe She DID have sex?




Quote
Quote
Well, I'm 22, single and a virgin.  I sense where you are going, but I'm just not SURE that sexual virginity means we are in greater communion with our Creator.  I DO believe that we are to keep the Ten Commandments, including vis-a-vis Our Lady.  Maybe ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis Our Lady


.

I think that you don't realize that this "Virginity" is not merely about sex
It's not a biological position.


I never said it was.  But funny how you are now, after all these pages of posts, trying to distance yourself from the issue of discussion.   


Yes, I KNOW well that there is all kinds of spirituality that has flowed FROM this dogma.  But none of that changes the dogma.  It is what it is. 

How is the DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex Ever not biological?   All this "her 'gate' was shut" stuff not biological?   Come on, my friend and brother.....




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah







.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:07:44
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

[

Yes, she is, assuming you hold to the testimony of Jesus.


Rev 12
17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:11:56
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

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

 ::doh::


You guys and your absolution. It's kind of frustrating really.

Its statements like these that makes thousands of believers so oppossed to the Catholic faith. Although I'm fairly certain that no Catholic doctrine decrees that to completely accept Jesus Christ you have to accept Mary as your mother, most Catholics will boastfully repeat this more than the official position of the Church and succeed only in creating more oppossition.

Every catholic I've met has never be without an abundance of pride even if they were drastically lacking in the knowledge of their own faith as a foundation of ced pride. In all honesty the doctrines concerning Mary are the least supported when it comes to Sacred Scripture so the unnecessary arrogance when exalting her as "our Mother" or "Queen of Heaven" is completely unwarranted.

Due to the serious stretch of scripture to support a serious stretch of a doctrine, I'd like my Catholic bros to help me by focusing mainly on supporting the doctrine's concerning Mary through Sacred Tradition alone. Having this debate sola scriptura will only serve to create a giant mess, so I will fight this battle in your arena.

Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:19:21
If you want to believe that Christ was born from sin and came from sin, that's your right.  

The sin seed in the human race from Adam & Eve forward was passed to ALL following generations through the seed of man, not through the woman

Mary was born from the seed of man; therefore, she inherited a fallen nature just like every other human since the fall.

Jesus did not inherit the seed of Adam because Mary only provided the egg, while God provided the seed, the Word of God who became flesh.

This is why Jesus was sinless at His birth and throughout His life, and Mary was not.  All sinners, including Mary, need the redemption that is only found in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Blessings
 

God provided the seed, but Mary provided the egg.  So, are you saying that the egg that Mary provided was sinless?  How can a sinful woman provide a sinless egg?  Didn't the Bible say that a bad tree produces only bad fruits and a good tree produce only good fruits?  So, if Mary is full of sin, how did she produce a sinless egg?  And more importantly, how was a sinful body able to contain a holy seed like Jesus?  Since when was sin able to hold down and contain holiness?   

Yes, the sin nature was passed down to the human race through the seed of Adam, not through Eve.  Even though Mary inherited the sin nature because she was fathered by her earthly father, the egg in Mary's womb was Fathered by God.  Therefore, her offspring, the Word of God who became flesh, was sinless.

1 Cor 15:22 declares "For as in Adam all die (not "as in Eve all die"), so also in Christ all will be made alive." 

All mankind who have their physical life source in Adam inherit a sin nature, including Mary, and will die in their sins unless they are made alive in Christ, including Mary. 

Protestants have no problem believing Mary was made alive in Christ her Redeemer after Christ's resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God the Father.

But we have a serious problem with the un-Scriptural belief that Mary was sinless before, during and after giving birth to Jesus, and remained a virgin thereafter.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:21:10
Mary is our mother. 

No, she isn't.

[

Yes, she is, assuming you hold to the testimony of Jesus.


Rev 12
17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.


You can't be serious! This isn't a literal woman and you just have to know that. The woman is Israel. The woman clothed in the sun with moon at her feet and twelve stars that make up her crown. The moon represnts Moses (and others who were not perfectly united with their perspective tribes through war) and the crown the twelve tribes of Israel. Her image is compiled of the history of the true faith.

IT IS NOT MARY.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:32:19



You can't be serious! This isn't a literal woman and you just have to know that. The woman is Israel. The woman clothed in the sun with moon at her feet and twelve stars that make up her crown. The moon represnts Moses (and others who were not perfectly united with their perspective tribes through war) and the crown the twelve tribes of Israel. Her image is compiled of the history of the true faith.

IT IS NOT MARY.

Your interpretation is quite a stretch.

Which woman gave birth to Jesus?  Is it your claim that Israel is the mother of all who hold the testimony of Jesus?

Rev 12
 1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth... The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne....13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach....17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Visionary on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:50:21
God bless John.

Matthew 15:13-20 We can lead a horse to water but we cannot force the mule to drink. ::frown::

Let them trust the church if they want but let the one who hears what God says do it blamelessly and without compulsion. ::saint::
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:53:44



You can't be serious! This isn't a literal woman and you just have to know that. The woman is Israel. The woman clothed in the sun with moon at her feet and twelve stars that make up her crown. The moon represnts Moses (and others who were not perfectly united with their perspective tribes through war) and the crown the twelve tribes of Israel. Her image is compiled of the history of the true faith.

IT IS NOT MARY.

Your interpretation is quite a stretch.

Which woman gave birth to Jesus?  Is it your claim that Israel is the mother of all who hold the testimony of Jesus?

Rev 12
 1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth... The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne....13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach....17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Umm yes? Israel is the mother of all that hold to the testimony of Jesus. Abraham was the great patriarch of the truth. Jacob aka Israel was the father of all the one path to man's ascension to a relationship with God. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. Mary's innocence her strong faith in God was rare during her time but not rare among her the patriarchs, her ancestors that God came to love. Don't you see brother. Mary reminded God so much of those select few who came before her. Those whose faith were great are far from. Mary doesn't represent herself she represented all of Israel. All of the faithful.

It was God's union with Jacob through faith that gave birth to the first Church/Nation which was Israel. Israel was the womb that the Word passed through for centuries. Then the Word became flesh through a daughter of Israel.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:57:02



You can't be serious! This isn't a literal woman and you just have to know that. The woman is Israel. The woman clothed in the sun with moon at her feet and twelve stars that make up her crown. The moon represnts Moses (and others who were not perfectly united with their perspective tribes through war) and the crown the twelve tribes of Israel. Her image is compiled of the history of the true faith.

IT IS NOT MARY.

Your interpretation is quite a stretch.

Which woman gave birth to Jesus?  Is it your claim that Israel is the mother of all who hold the testimony of Jesus?

Rev 12
 1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth... The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne....13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach....17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Umm yes? Israel is the mother of all that hold to the testimony of Jesus. Abraham was the great patriarch of the truth. Jacob aka Israel was the father of all the one path to man's ascension to a relationship with God. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. Mary's innocence her strong faith in God was rare during her time but not rare among her the patriarchs, her ancestors that God came to love. Don't you see brother. Mary reminded God so much of those select few who came before her. Those whose faith were great are far from. Mary doesn't represent herself she represented all of Israel. All of the faithful.

It was God's union with Jacob through faith that gave birth to the first Church/Nation which was Israel. Israel was the womb that the Word passed through for centuries. Then the Word became flesh through a daughter of Israel.


I don't have an answer for this, but if you do it would help your case.

Was Israel ever referred to as a woman in the Old or New Testament?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:57:51


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


Okay....

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






.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:08:22



You can't be serious! This isn't a literal woman and you just have to know that. The woman is Israel. The woman clothed in the sun with moon at her feet and twelve stars that make up her crown. The moon represnts Moses (and others who were not perfectly united with their perspective tribes through war) and the crown the twelve tribes of Israel. Her image is compiled of the history of the true faith.

IT IS NOT MARY.

Your interpretation is quite a stretch.

Which woman gave birth to Jesus?  Is it your claim that Israel is the mother of all who hold the testimony of Jesus?

Rev 12
 1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth... The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne....13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach....17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Umm yes? Israel is the mother of all that hold to the testimony of Jesus. Abraham was the great patriarch of the truth. Jacob aka Israel was the father of all the one path to man's ascension to a relationship with God. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. Mary's innocence her strong faith in God was rare during her time but not rare among her the patriarchs, her ancestors that God came to love. Don't you see brother. Mary reminded God so much of those select few who came before her. Those whose faith were great are far from. Mary doesn't represent herself she represented all of Israel. All of the faithful.

It was God's union with Jacob through faith that gave birth to the first Church/Nation which was Israel. Israel was the womb that the Word passed through for centuries. Then the Word became flesh through a daughter of Israel.


I don't have an answer for this, but if you do it would help your case.

Was Israel ever referred to as a woman in the Old or New Testament?

Actually in all honesty Israel was referred to as God's firstborn son in the OT. However in the New Testament we do have the prophetic depection of Israel as the woman clothed in the sun crown with twelve stars standing on the moon. This is Israel. Like the woman in the later part of Revelation referred to another great nation Rome. In prophecy these women are not female humans that is why they are preceded by "and the I beheld a great and wondous sign". It is a sign, a representation of something far greater than what it appears to be. It is never as juvenile and blut as an actual person.

I mean it can't be that hard. The disciple John was given the prophecy and told by Christ to accept Mary as his mother. If Mary were, as your Church teaches, assumed body and spirit into heaven John would've recognized her and stated clearly in astonishment over her. This was indeed a prophecy of the future and although Mary was not yet dead in John's present time it is safe to say that she was in the time frame his vision took him too.
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: chestertonrules on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:13:18


Actually in all honesty Israel was referred to as God's firstborn son in the OT. However in the New Testament we do have the prophetic depection of Israel as the woman clothed in the sun crown with twelve stars standing on the moon. This is Israel. Like the woman in the later part of Revelation referred to another great nation Rome. In prophecy these women are not female humans that is why they are preceded by "and the I beheld a great and wondous sign". It is a sign, a representation of something far greater than what it appears to be. It is never as juvenile and blut as an actual person.

I mean it can't be that hard. The disciple John was given the prophecy and told by Christ to accept Mary as his mother. If Mary were, as your Church teaches, assumed body and spirit into heaven John would've recognized her and stated clearly in astonishment over her. This was indeed a prophecy of the future and although Mary was not yet dead in John's present time it is safe to say that she was in the time frame his vision took him too.

John wrote the passage about Mary being clothed in the Sun.  I think this is a clear statement of his recognition of her place in salvation history.   John wrote this late in life and Mary would have been dead by this time.

I'll repeat that I think your interpretation is a stretch.  Why assume that the woman who gave birth to Jesus is anyone other than Mary?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: John 10:10 on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:34:11
God bless John.

Matthew 15:13-20 We can lead a horse to water but we cannot force the mule to drink. ::frown::

Let them trust the church if they want but let the one who hears what God says do it blamelessly and without compulsion. ::saint:: 

It's best to just present the Word, and then let the Word (Christ Himself) speak what is God's truth.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word (rhema) of Christ.   (Rom 10:17)

Blessings
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Ryan2010 on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:36:53
Quote
Okay.  Quote St. Justin Martyr in a writing clearly before 100 AD where he writes, "Mary had no sex ever" or "Mary was a perpetual virgin"


Read St. Justin Martyr's commentary on Ezekiel 44:2.  Hard to believe that Mary is this gateway and then on the other hand that she wasn't Ever-Virgin...


Also read all the earliest Christian commentaries on Isaiah 66:7 and Song of Songs 4:12.  

Quote
... well, that's your evasion. 


That's not an evasion.  You are saying it was in contention and there was no consensus just become some Gnostics and Apollonarianist and other dualist nasties tried to say that Mary was not Ever-Virgin.  

Where's the evasion?  

Quote
The point is obvious:  This springs up in the 4th century - and was highly controversal.   


This is not unlike talking to someone that denies the Holy Trinity.  They insist that the Holy Trinity springs up in the 4th century and then says that it's "obvious".  You show them earlier Trinitarian statements that have continuity and use liturgical hymns, Chrisitan writings, art, etc. and then they just dismiss it and call it baseless.  

Have you read Kafka before?  

Quote
HARDLY an indicator of the claim:  That Jesus and all 13 or 14 Apostles all believed, taught and confessed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and all Christians knew this until, for some mysterious reason, a few individuals began to actually say this in the 4th century. 


Did the Apostles have a bible canon?  

You're creating these logical puzzles that only lean one way.  If you didn't accept the canon you could say what you said above against the authenticity of the canon.  You could say it wasn't until St. Jerome that the "canon" was innovated and the claim is baseless because it's a 4th century invention.  


Quote
Any conditional clause, if true, is true.   

Actually, it still doesn't address the issue.   You'd need to show that since 31 AD, all Christians understood this statement from Ezekiel to mean that Mary Had No Sex Ever for the point to be true that the Apostle's taught and all Christians believed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.


If you understood dogmatics that's not necessarily true.  Again, I'll point to the "canon".  Did the Apostles teach and Christians believe that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that we open and close a bible "canon"???

You can't say yes without betraying the argument you are using against the Ever Virginity of the Theotokos.

Quote
I don't find that to be a compelling apologetic that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever....


That's why you are protestant.  You are your own authority on what should or shouldn't be a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty.  Not your protestant neighbor or your bishop or pastor or anyone else other than your self for self alone.  It's like the LDS or something.  

Where in the bible does it mention that Josiah has to find a compelling apologetic that is a dogmatic fact of highest importance in order for it to be true?  

Nowhere.  The bible doesn't meantion Josiah but instead, "YOU" "ME" "US" and "WE" whoever those people are....  

Quote

1.  I NEVER said no one knows or no one CAN know.   Strawman.


But if your position is that you don't know then you can't be against some calling it dogmatic otherwise you betray your stance and change it to: I don't know and because I personally can't find support for this dogmatic it thereby by my own personal standards of excellence does not receive the Josiahian seal of approval.  Anathema to the dogma of the Ever-Virginity.  Josiah has spoken.  

Quote
2.  I'm ASKING for the confirmation of the fact to the level claimed. 
 

The problem is that the things you personally as an individual will accept as a "confirmation" is as unique as you are.  I've provided bible verses and their right interpretation by early Chrisitans and pointed to their affirmation by the fathers that came after them and the theological accordance with Tradition and Holy Scripture according to the whole but unfortunately you play by Josiahian rules and so you call them "baseless" despite those who are found them to be sound.

Quote

You said that truth about this doesn't matter, you just submit to the tradition about it.  That's not confirmation. 
 

No, I the gist of what I said is that the truth doesn't matter at the end of the day because if the position is true you are going to deny it because you already believe as you do anyway and aren't going to deviate from that tradition.  

You can't change a Protestants mind unless by some divine intervention you wind up satisfying their own personal and unique system for confirming and rejecting.  

Quote
Let's say, in the year 2394, someone says, "President Obama and Hilary Clinton had a "love child."  And such insists that this is a matter of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth.   I think it would matter if such is true and, remembering what my Catholic teachers taught me, to spread a story that is potentially personal, embarrasing and offensive that we haven't confirmed as true is the definition of "gossip" and is a sin.  Your position seems to be that it is our task to spread stories - regardless of whether such is true.  We seem to fundamentally disagree there. 


Yeah, you aren't understanding what I'm saying but seem to be arguing against some construct of what I said meant to rather than what I was actually said.  

Yes.  Truth matters.  How you confirm that Truth matters.  But I have no idea what Josiah personally requires in order to satisfy that criteria.  

If you say that the Ever-Virginity is a 4th century innovation and I point beyond the 4th century you call it baseless.  

If you say there are no bible verses that speak of her Ever-Virginity and provide them (which I'm always hesitant to do) you call them baseless.  

If I show you continuity you say there's no continuity.  

If I say the truth matters then you say I adhere to tradition and say that I don't think that the truth matters.  

If I answer the question you say that I evade.  

If I point out your self for self system you deny or don't respond to it but instead point out the self for self of others outside of yourself.  

Quote
AND it's DOGMA - an issue created to divide Christian in a way that cannot be questioned or examined.   


I'm sorry I can't take seriously a protestant using "division" as an argument against the more ancient faiths let alone complaining about not being able to question.  

You are in a denomination that can question everything and there is no consequence.  You can be an atheist in most protestant churches and receive communion.  You can say all sorts of contradictory things about who Jesus is and then try to convince others that you are unified.  

Sorry Josiah.  I can't embrace or even give any weight to the idea of ancient dogmatics being divisive when you are standing in a field of pluralism.  

I would rather lock out a few sheep (the Lord will see them through anyway) than open the gates to let in hordes of wolves.

Quote
Thus, two issues seem relevant:  Is it true?  Does it matter?    Indeed, those same Catholic teachers taught US:  "Before you say something personal about another, especially something potentially harmful and hurtful, ask:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?"   


relevant to you for your self and self alone....  

You alone are given the authority to proclaim a thing true and judge if it matters and to weight if you think if something is good or bad, helpful or harmful, and proclaim what is true and necessary.  

You have spoken.  All those of like minds will follow Josiah where the dogma of the Ever-Virginity of Mary will be no more and not give in to the supposed sin of gossip and sin...


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXs8OS6EdAE[/youtube]



Quote
So, you believe She DID have sex?



What?  No!


Seriously?  


Quote
I never said it was.  But funny how you are now, after all these pages of posts, trying to distance yourself from the issue of discussion.   


I'm not trying to distance myself from the...


 ::prayinghard:: Lord have mercy Lord have mercy Lord have mercy  ::prayinghard::






[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_h5DMHh5_M[/youtube]






I think maybe I'm finito responding to your posts Josiah.  Sorry brother.  See you on the flip side.   ::smile::


God willing....





Christ is risen  




Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: LightHammer on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:07:08


Actually in all honesty Israel was referred to as God's firstborn son in the OT. However in the New Testament we do have the prophetic depection of Israel as the woman clothed in the sun crown with twelve stars standing on the moon. This is Israel. Like the woman in the later part of Revelation referred to another great nation Rome. In prophecy these women are not female humans that is why they are preceded by "and the I beheld a great and wondous sign". It is a sign, a representation of something far greater than what it appears to be. It is never as juvenile and blut as an actual person.

I mean it can't be that hard. The disciple John was given the prophecy and told by Christ to accept Mary as his mother. If Mary were, as your Church teaches, assumed body and spirit into heaven John would've recognized her and stated clearly in astonishment over her. This was indeed a prophecy of the future and although Mary was not yet dead in John's present time it is safe to say that she was in the time frame his vision took him too.

John wrote the passage about Mary being clothed in the Sun.  I think this is a clear statement of his recognition of her place in salvation history.   John wrote this late in life and Mary would have been dead by this time.

I'll repeat that I think your interpretation is a stretch.  Why assume that the woman who gave birth to Jesus is anyone other than Mary?

I think that's why I view your intepretation as flawed. Revelation was John's tribute to anything. Every inch of this message was prophecy given to John by God. He wasn't giving recognition to anyone concerning anything. Every sight he beheld contained in it a message protected by metaphorical imaging.

And I'm going to repeat that this isn't a vision of an actual woman. Just as the woman who rides the back of the beast represents Rome, this woman represents a great nation. The "child" being born wasn't Christ because it wasn't an actual "child" this vision was referring to. The "child" in question is a metaphor for the truth in general. Throughout the history before the time of Christ before the "birth"(notice the connection) of a new way, there was only one way to God one nation that held the Truth of God. That was Israel.

Can we see eye to eye on this before we move on?
Title: Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
Post by: Josiah on Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:20:33
Quote
Okay.  Quote St. Justin Martyr in a writing clearly before 100 AD where he writes, "Mary had no sex ever" or "Mary was a perpetual virgin"

Read St. Justin Martyr's commentary on Ezekiel 44:2.  


Since it is your contention that Jesus and the 13-14 Apostles taught, as a matter of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever, I'm just trying to see the confirmation of such before we can discuss the relevence of such.  You quoted a title used once by one person from the late 4th century, but that leaves us FAR, FAR removed from the claim.  

If you would, would you please quote Justin writting before 100 AD where he states that Mary Had No Sex Ever?   That would move our discussion forward.  Thanks.




Quote
That's not an evasion.  You are saying it was in contention and there was no consensus just become some Gnostics and Apollonarianist and other dualist nasties tried to say that Mary was not Ever-Virgin

In an attempt to show the view was held in a consensus in the late 4th century, you posted that it was debated in the late 4th century.






Quote

Quote

I don't find that to be a compelling apologetic that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever....


That's why you are protestant.  You are your own authority

No.  The only ones I PERSONALLY know of that declare self is the sole, infallible, unaccountable teacher where truth is to be waved and instead we are simply to embrace whatever that self so teaches (in some cases any) is the RCC and also a few cults.  The LDS once held to that position - quite passionately in the works of Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie - but it largely abandoned that roughly a century ago or so.  But we digress.  

The issue here is quite simple.  Some hold to a position that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   The issues before us are two:  Is it true?  Is it dogma?





Quote
Quote

1.  I NEVER said no one knows or no one CAN know.   Strawman.

But if your position is that you don't know then you can't be against some calling it dogmatic


I'm not.   But it does place the "burden of proof" on the one do declaring it.

For example, I may not have a dogmatic position on whether life as we know it exists on other planets.  I'm NOT saying it's unknowable, only that I don't know.  I'm NOT saying it's true or it's false (certainly not as dogma), I'm saying I don't know.  Now, if you came and said, "It is a dogmatic FACT of highest certainty that there are 6,544,821,003 furry brown mammals living on the Moon of Endor!"  I can assure you that all in the room would seek some confirmation for your position.  Is that so unreasonable to you?  And yes, the level of substantiation IS related to the claim made.  If you said, "With the shere number of earth-like planets that some theorize might exist in the universe, it seems likely to me that life as we know it probably exists somewhere else."  Yes, the substantiation required of you would be significantly less.  Some Catholics rather passionately think the Shoud of Turin is real, some just as passionately think it's not what at times now is claimed.  No one is declaring DOGMA on this, one way or the other.  No priest has yet to be defroked and no one has yet to be dispatched to the appointed afterlife smelling like smoke over this.  Yes, in all epistemology - and in the custom of Christianity - the level of the claim is significant; simply put:  a position needs substantiation to the level claimed.  That's why there are TWO issues here:  Is this True?  Is this DOMGA?