Author Topic: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity  (Read 224254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #245 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.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #246 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"

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #247 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.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #248 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.





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.



Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #249 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. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #249 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 09:44:14 »



Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #250 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.




Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #251 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.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #252 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.  





.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 10:49:44 by Josiah »

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #253 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

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #254 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

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #255 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.






.


Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #256 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



Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #257 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






.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 13:24:37 by Josiah »

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #258 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.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #259 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



Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #260 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::


Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #261 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:: 

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #262 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.  







Offline 4Him

  • Christian
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Manna: 2
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #263 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. 

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #264 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.   

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #265 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:48:48 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:29:00 by Hehealedme »

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #266 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 17:50:19 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:28:27 by Hehealedme »

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #267 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.  
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:02:31 by Selene »

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #268 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.  

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #269 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?




.

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #270 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:27:22 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:27:36 by Hehealedme »

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #271 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 18:51:58 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:27:09 by Hehealedme »

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #272 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 19:14:41 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:26:44 by Hehealedme »

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #273 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.  
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:29:57 by Selene »

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #274 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.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #275 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...

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #276 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?



.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #277 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?

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #278 on: Mon Sep 27, 2010 - 20:33:59 »
LOL Josiah. Lets not say... because it is not true!

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #279 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.  

 

     
anything