Author Topic: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity  (Read 224248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #315 on: Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 19:37:28 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 12:25:37 by Hehealedme »

Offline 4Him

  • Christian
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Manna: 2
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #316 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.

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #317 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?  

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #318 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. 

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #319 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. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #319 on: Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 20:42:51 »



Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #320 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

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #321 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? 

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #322 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? 

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #323 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::

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #324 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.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #325 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.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #326 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







.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #327 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.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #328 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.


Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #329 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.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #330 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.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #331 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.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #332 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::

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #333 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.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #334 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?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #335 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?






.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #336 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.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #337 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?

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #338 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

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #339 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  





Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #340 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?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #341 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?




Quote
Anathema to the dogma of the Ever-Virginity.  Josiah has spoken

Except as you know, I haven't said that.  




Quote
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.  


Perhaps.  Although I'm giving you a MUCH lower "bar" than Catholics give any noncatholic position.   I've affording you FAR, FAR more respect, credibility and openness than I've seen Catholic apologetists give to Mormon apologists.  







Quote

If you say that the Ever-Virginity is a 4th century innovation and I point beyond the 4th century you call it baseless.  

Actually, YOU presented a single quote form a single person in the late 4th Century as evidence that Jesus, 13-14 Apostles, and all Christians from at least Pentecost on have believed, taught and confessed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  I simply pointed out the unavoidable and undeniable, what you presented is pretty moot to your point.



Quote
If I show you continuity you say there's no continuity.  

But you didn't.  You showed ONE case of ONE person using a TITLE in the late 4th century, then proved that the position was controvrsal and debated.  How does that confirm some "continuity" from Jesus and the 13-14 Apostles?

I CAN (and in fact do) give great consideration to ancient, ecumenical consensus.  BY FAR, the strongest affirmation of this that I'm aware of is a point you've oddly never mentioned:  It was affirmed in an ecumenical council.  I give a LOT of credence to that; and yes - at least from the 4th century on, I think it DOES have a pretty solid consensus.  That's the one thing (and it's a big thing) on the side of this - and a SOLID reason why I'm not joining with all my Protestant brothers and sisters here in denying this.  

But, my friend, you've built your case very differently:  by insisting that JESUS and the 13-14 APOSTLES taught this; it has ALWAYS been taught as dogma.  And then, it seems to ME, consistently have shot yourself in the foot - strongly undermining your own position with rather powerful, compelling evidence to the contrary.

And, it seems to me, you MUST be constantly confusing me with other posters (I hold no ill feelings, it's EASY to do in these discussions, I fear I'm guilty of it myself too often).  I'm not debating the point. I'm not saying it's false.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm just looking for some confirmation to the level claimed.  




Quote
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.

The church RARELY declares dogma.  Such typically results from a huge, long, very critical debate - one that is seen as threatening the heart of the faith.  It is - in the most formal, powerful, bold sense - a "line in the sand" as it were.  Of course, people have been defroked, excommunicated, even burned to death for a lot less than denying dogma (1054?), but dogma is the highest level of such.   Again, positions are to be affirmed to the level claimed.   No one is dividing Christian in such a bold, formal, extreme sense over the Shoud of Turin - or even over the date of Christmas or Sunday worship or Limbo or whether priests may be married. But THIS one has that status.   I'm curious why, I admit - since none of my teachers were able (even after research) to discover any GREAT, foundational debate to the heart of Christianity concerning how often Mary had sex.  BUT, that's actually moot.  The point is, it IS dogma in the RC (and it seems EO).  It's not in Protestantism (either that She did or did not have sex - once or any other number).  So, not ONLY is the issue itself at hand here, but so is the STATUS claimed.  I'm interested in BOTH.






Quote
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?"  


.


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 seem to have me confused with the RCC.  







.
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:29:06 by Josiah »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #342 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:21:02 »
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.

I think what happened here is that you read in a measure of exclusivity to this quote.  If I were to reword it, I would say it like this: "If you believe that Jesus is your brother, then whether you believe it or not, Mary is your mother".    Can one who is "in Jesus", one who is in "the body of Christ" not really have Mary for a mother, when Mary is the one who gave Jesus his human body.  Jesus' body sprung from Mary's body.  He received his humanity from his mother and his divinity from his Father.

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.

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

The fact is this: stuff happened first, later it was written down.  The scriptures are a tool of the Church, and the Church is faithful to them, but they are not the complete revelation.  The Church only proclaims what it has been given by God to proclaim.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #343 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:34:27 »



.
Quote from: Catholica



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

.


Okay....

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






.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #344 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:39:45 »


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

What does the RCC submit itself to?

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



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





.

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #345 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 14:59:06 »
If I were to reword it, I would say it like this: "If you believe that Jesus is your brother, then whether you believe it or not, Mary is your mother".  

Jesus put it like this in Matt 12:

46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers ?"
49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."


I will take the Word of our Lord over ANY other word.  Doing the will of God in our lives means to accept and honor the Word He has given us as His truth in the Bible, and

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27).

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #346 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 16:55:44 »
A summation of the conversation between Protestants (P) and the more Ancient Faiths (AF) on the Ever-Virginity of the Holy Theotokos (Mother of God) and nearly every other topic that comes up on this board:

AF:  Mary is Ever-Virgin and she did not have children after or before giving birth to Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

P:  The bible says Jesus has brothers.

AF:  Those “brothers

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #347 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 17:07:20 »
God bless ryan. You left out a group... Those God has foreknown.

 ::playingguitar::

Matthew 11:16:-19

Offline John 10:10

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Manna: 29
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #348 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 17:15:00 »

Protestants simply believe God the Father & our Lord Jesus come and make their abode with those who honor His Word as Jesus reveals in John 14,

16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."
22 Judas (not Iscariot ) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world ?"
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.


If we need more than that, yes, it's another gospel of Jesus.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity
« Reply #349 on: Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 17:32:14 »
A summation of the conversation between Protestants (P) and the more Ancient Faiths (AF) on the Ever-Virginity of the Holy Theotokos (Mother of God) and nearly every other topic that comes up on this board:

AF:  Mary is Ever-Virgin and she did not have children after or before giving birth to Our Lord, Jesus Christ.


Wrong.

The dogma is that She had no SEX.



Quote
P:  The bible says Jesus has brothers.

IF this can be documented as correct, it obviously makes the dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever problematic at best.

IF this cannot be documented, it's MOOT to the issue.  No children does not prove no sex.



Quote
P:  We don’t accept that interpretation, we accept our interpretation.

1.  There is no "interpretation" involved because there is no verse about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born.

2.  There is only ONE that dogmatically insists that SELF is the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture - and that's the RCC.


Quote
P:  The Apostles never taught the Ever-Virginity of Mary.

AF:  The more ancient faiths use the deposit of the revelation of God as a base through which to read the scriptures.

And yet, it is the whole basis of the RCC that this is a fact.  Your evasion of the point "P" made simply seems to confirm the point "P" made.  It's not "Apostolic Teaching" if you agree you have ZERO evidence that ANY apostle had so much of HEARD of this.

 

Quote
AF:  There are commentaries on Ezekial, Isaiah, the Song of Solomon by early Christian fathers and writers going back to the first century that are undoubtedly about Mary’s Ever-Virginity.

You have YET to produce a SINGLE person (pagan or believer) before the 4th Century who declared that Mary had no sex ever, or that even once even used the TITLE "ever virgin."  The MOST you produced is a SINGLE person who on ONE occassion said "Ever Virgin" in 362 AD.  That hardly indicates that everyone believe that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had no Sex Ever from the 13-14 Apostles on (from at 31 AD at the very latest on).




.