I’ll restate it for him then. If Mary were not perpetually virgin it wouldn’t impede her status as Queen of Heaven or Mother of God. It wouldn’t mean she had committed a sin if she had sexual relations with Joseph after they were married. Mary would have an exalted status either way. Absolutely nothing would have been different.
If I may suggest one more point to consider ,on both sides,is to consider the long term ramifications of such dogma on ,: more Marion dogma -this being the beginning ,and the fruits thereof? It seems we go from ever -virgin ,to Immaculate ,to Assumption,mother of God, co -redemptrix etc.etc…I also understand there are more titles to be put before current pope. We also have alledged visions of Mary,and a lot of praying to her etc…I see the evrer-virgin doctrine as a slippery slope to further untruths and carnal ,even pagan imitating practices. On the flip side ,Mary is venerated , by what is simply put forth scripturally.Our prayers generally are to the Lord . Luther ,sees it as wrong to be "active " towards Mary ,and preferred passive veneration-and veneration, still close to catholic dogmas.Protetstants could be lukewarm in her veneartion ,then probably lukewarm to all saints ,but Catholics could go overboard , almost displacing what is reserved for the ministry of the Holy Spirit. You would have a stronger position with me if your Mary dogma stopped at ever-virgin. We also have a stronger base from which to debate -Holy Scriptures .Indeed ,that is what church fathers did -discuss the same scriptures we do today.I believe it is wise to use hindsight to help determine the very beginning of it all. The ever-virgin doctrine today,does not stand alone as it did at the beginning.
All the points deleted above and below were good pointsLet me throw in my two (or fifty) cents about this. I’ll first make the case that Mary WAS immaculate with some new details:
This proves nothing. As pointed out in another thread, John was the only male disciple at the foot of the cross ergo, John was the only person he could bind to care for his mother. It was a profound act of love and caring for Jesus to think first of his mother while dying on the cross.
The victors write the history - I’m sure dissenting opinions from most writers were not preserved and promoted. Tertullian is an exception, but he often promoted core dogma.
These examples are erroneous. I check both NIV and KJV translations
While it is good to know the custom, the logic is faulty or evidence incomplete.
This is pure fancy that is not explicit in scripture.
Sir,
This thread was started by a catholic to debate the evidence.
Fine, except that I find that Cathoilicism pushes in that direction. Take the title Mary has been given (among many): Queen of the Universe. Or, Queen of Heaven. Now, this would give many non-Catholics the idea that she is clearly a goddess, How can you be Queen of Heaven or of the entire universe and not be a goddess?
Since the early church, there has been this drive to more and more deify Mary, to make here a co-Redeemer ith Christ, and more. I know that this is denied but the evidence seem overwhelming. Does this come from the Bible? Or, was this imported from cults during those early centuries when goddesses were major players in the pantheons of pagan faiths?
Okay. The Protestants may have gone too far in a backlash re Mary. The Catholics may have gone too far in elevating Mary to the status of the great goddess. I believe the 'Hail Mary' is the most-repeated prayer among Catholics. Shouldn't it be the 'Our Father', given to us by Christ himself?
Such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the perpetual virginity and total sinlessness of Mary seem to have moved the church in that direction. To those who can believe them, fine. But what about those who doubt them? Does such doubt automatically mean excommunication?
I, for one, prefer to regard Mary more or human terms, a model we can emulate, and less as a goddess. When I go into church and find a massive mutal of Mary across the wall or a crowned state of Mary nearby - hm! I have problems.My point, precisely, m’friend. It was this slippery slope idea presented that those who have problems with ‘perpetual virginity’ would then find themselves atheists that I was addressing.
OK Sir, - then I apologise to you.
We may accept scripture outside the bible, but we understand that we can’t use that scripture as a prooftext for those who do not accept it; that is, we can use quotes from the Book of Mormon to show what we believe, but not to prove that those beliefs are ‘true.’
First, define what you think the “LDS version’ is. If it is what I suspect, I will correct you and tell you that it is NOT the 'LDS version.”
Dear Roy5,
Mormons aren’t Protestants. In fact, our view of salvation is a lot closer to Catholicism than to Calvinism–or any strictly belief based system. No 'name it and claim it" ideology over here.
Care to share? That’s quite a sweeping statement.
(sigh)
Now that is an ironic statement indeed, given what you wrote about Mormons in this post.
Well, Christians didn’t have problems with the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity for centuries. One who did in the fourth had a discussion with St Jerome who, in his letter, made short shrift of his argumentation.My point, precisely, m’friend. It was this slippery slope idea presented that those who have problems with ‘perpetual virginity’ would then find themselves atheists that I was addressing.