Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[GaryTaylor]

Just some food for thought. Have you ever thought about “why” so little is told in the Bible about the Holy Family?

It certainly wasn’t for lack of knowledge.

 

[Dokimas]

Just some food for thought. Have you ever thought about “why” so little is told in the Bible about the Holy Family?

It certainly wasn’t for lack of knowledge.

Yes. To put focus where focus should be: on the Lord Jesus Christ. His family was wonderful but no different than any other godly man or woman, IMO.

 

[dianaiad]

You are making the conclusion that she isn’t despite your protest. Her question remains strange for a woman who is married. Even if she were in the betrothal stage. That Joseph was told by the angel to take her into his home is telling him to complete the marriage is undisputed. It doesn’t alter that what Mary asked of the angel was strange. It is my opinion that unless you were trying to deny her pv that it would be obvious what her question meant only going backward from a conclusion gives us the crooked answers seen here.

So it wouldn’t be seen as proof that he wasn’t the father.

I am confuse why you wrote this. What point were you making? I said What you wrote doesn’t dispute my post. The neighbors were not going to Joseph and saying Mary is pregnant by another man. In fact, there is no description of how Joseph found out about Mary’s pregnancy other than the found with. Which the greek word means to discover. " I don’t understand why you made that point. I didn’t say that he discovered, I said he became aware of. Why you find a big difference I am curious to know.

The thing was, if Joseph were the one who figured it out, or if Mary told him, the 'Mary was found to be with" would have been phrased differently, it seems to me. The way the phrase reads indicates that someone other than Mary or Joseph discovered the situation, and told Joseph.

Not that this matters…the point is, once Joseph found out, he had a choice to make–and the choice was not originally one that included ‘coming for’ her and completing the marrage. He could have divorced her with a simple git.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes. To put focus where focus should be: on the Lord Jesus Christ. His family was wonderful but no different than any other godly man or woman, IMO.

You know bro, I believe we are left in silience, so we do just what we are doing here. Constantly call them to mind.

Which is exactly what is happening here.

Free Will is one heck of a reality.

 

[adrift]

The thing was, if Joseph were the one who figured it out, or if Mary told him, the 'Mary was found to be with" would have been phrased differently, it seems to me. The way the phrase reads indicates that someone other than Mary or Joseph discovered the situation, and told Joseph.

Not that this matters…the point is, once Joseph found out, he had a choice to make–and the choice was not originally one that included ‘coming for’ her and completing the marrage. He could have divorced her with a simple git.

How did you come to the conclusion or speculation that someone other than Joseph discovered the situation. I can’t see your logic. I think it is phrased that way not because someone told Joseph but to emphasis that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and not by the usual way, hence found to be.

 

[Dokimas]

You know bro, I believe we are left in silience, so we do just what we are doing here. Constantly call them to mind.

Which is exactly what is happening here.

Free Will is one heck of a reality.

I’m not sure what you’re communicating.

 

[elvisman]

I have yet to see you respond positively to being admonished.

Oh, Doki -
You can always be counted on to derail the thread when you run out of things to say . . .

 

[elvisman]

elvisman, your method of posting is very much in the tradition of the grandest of pulpet pounders. It is a long respected and used tradition–successful, too, obviously, or it wouldn’t still be used.

However, I don’t have to put up with it, so…

ta ta…

If you don’t want to dialogue - that’s fine. I can respect that.
Only - be honest about the real reason why:**
You cannot respond to many of my points.

You painted youself into a corner with your claim about some “great apostasy” because I challenged you to provide some proof. I knew the conversation was coming to an end when you couldn’t provide any . . .

 

[Todd520]

**First of all - my mind IS /COLOR] and always WAS /U] /COLOR] made up. The Bible is the inerrant written /U] word of God. /B]

**Secondly - every /COLOR]translation may have suffered in the process over the centuries because of the handwritten copies that were made by Catholi /U]c monks. Again - had it not been for the dedication /COLOR] of these monks of the Catholic Church /U] - we might not have ANY /COLOR] reliable versions. /B]

Lastly - you can continue to say that this is all moot because you reject /COLOR] the Authority of the Catholic Church. But, in doing so - you reject the Gospel of Jesus himself (Luke 10:16 /COLOR]). /B] /QUOTE]****

 

[elvisman]

 

[Todd520]

**Ummm . . . that’s a pretty humorous /COLOR] charge coming from a Mormon. /B]
**You say that the Catholic Church is a man-made /COLOR] organization, yet we can trace our history all the way back to Christ himself. /B]
**You can only /COLOR]go back as far as Joseph Smith /U] . . . /B]

Ummm . . . and you say we’re /I] /U] /COLOR] a man-made organization . . . : rolleyes: /B]******

Althought we both feel that Christ is the head of our respectetive Churches,
I would say that Jesus inspired but Man made it

 

[elvisman]

Althought we both feel that Christ is the head of our respectetive Churches,
I would say that Jesus inspired but Man made it

WRONG.
Jesus built HIS Church:
Matt. 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

By contrast, Joseph Smith - a flawed human being built HIS.

 

[Todd520]

**WRONG /COLOR]. /B]
**Jesus /U] built HIS /COLOR] Church: /B]
**Matt. 16:18 /COLOR] /B]
**And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church /COLOR] /U], and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. /B]

By contrast, Joseph Smith - a flawed human being /I] /U] built HIS /I] /COLOR]. /B]********

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus died and was resurrected maybe 300 years before the ‘catholic’ church started to take formal structure, before the first council. DEFINITELY MAN MADE

 

[elvisman]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus died and was resurrected maybe 300 years before the ‘catholic’ church started to take formal structure, before the first council. DEFINITELY MAN MADE

Todd -
It’s no wonder you left Christ’s Church for a man-mad institution because you are completely ignorant of it. The Name “Catholic Church” has be around since the FIRST Century:

"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

---

Sorry - but you REALLY need to study Church history before making such outlandish claims.

 

[adrift]

How did you come to the conclusion or speculation that someone other than Joseph discovered the situation. I can’t see your logic. I think it is phrased that way not because someone told Joseph but to emphasis that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and not by the usual way, hence found to be.

A little addition. It is my speculation that the neighbors, friends and family of Mary and Joseph probably gossiped about Mary’s pregnanacy. That this gossip got to the ears of Joseph I think is obvious. What I am disputing with you is

To be coldly practical, one of the ‘proofs’ to other people, if you will, that Jesus was not Joseph’s son is that he did NOT come for her, or intend to ‘come for’ her, any time soon. Otherwise all the historians and the critics would have simply dismissed her (and His) claims of being begotten of God.

The proof is not that Joseph did not come for Mary but that he wanted to divorce her privatley. Really all that proves is that Joseph was not the father. All this is really a red herring from what the point is. It was a strange question for a woman who was preparing to live with her husband. You have to speculate when that might occur. But it really is beside the point. It wouldn’t matter if it was an entire year. The angel didn’t say when only that it would happen. Compare this to Sarah. The angel told her it would be a year. Yet Mary didn’t ask about when it would happen but how it could happen. It is a very strange response.

 

[Todd520]

Elvis,
I thought Eastern and Oriental Orthodox did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the unique successor of St. Peter?
I thought they also considered him to be in a state of schism and heresy?
I thought the Orthodox Church considered that St. Linus, not Peter, to be the actual first Bishop of Rome.

**I thought “the Rock” was referring to God. **
This is supported by Deuteronomy 32:3-4 (“God…is the Rock, his work is perfect”) as well as Cor 10:4; 1co. , ("…that Rock is Christ.") and iIn Ephesians 2:20, Jesus is called “the chief cornerstone”.

I think you raised an off-topic point, but I felt compelled to respond. I won’t respond again in this thread.

Todd /COLOR] - /B]
It’s no /COLOR] /U] wonder you left Christ’s Church for a man-mad institution because you are completely /COLOR] ignorant of it. The Name “Catholic Church” has be around since the FIRST /U] /COLOR] Century: /B]
/FONT]
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. /COLOR] Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church /U] /COLOR] (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). /I] /B] /FONT]
** /B] /FONT]
Sorry - but you REALLY /COLOR] /U] need to study Church history before making such outlandish /I] /U] claims. /B] /FONT]**

 

[dianaiad]

How did you come to the conclusion or speculation that someone other than Joseph discovered the situation. I can’t see your logic. I think it is phrased that way not because someone told Joseph but to emphasis that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and not by the usual way, hence found to be.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion…but the part about being found to be with child ‘by the Holy Ghost,’ though true, wasn’t something that Mary’s family (or Joseph) knew…else why would he have been contemplating putting her aside? He didn’t know about the miraculous nature of this until the angel told him, remember?

So the part about Who was responsible for her pregnancy was recognized in hindsite. The important thing for Joseph at the time was that she was 'found to be pregnant."

Caused problems.

 

[dianaiad]

A little addition. It is my speculation that the neighbors, friends and family of Mary and Joseph probably gossiped about Mary’s pregnanacy. That this gossip got to the ears of Joseph I think is obvious. What I am disputing with you is

The proof is not that Joseph did not come for Mary but that he wanted to divorce her privatley. Really all that proves is that Joseph was not the father. All this is really a red herring from what the point is. It was a strange question for a woman who was preparing to live with her husband. You have to speculate when that might occur. But it really is beside the point. It wouldn’t matter if it was an entire year. The angel didn’t say when only that it would happen. Compare this to Sarah. The angel told her it would be a year. Yet Mary didn’t ask about when it would happen but how it could happen. It is a very strange response.

Not really…if the entire thing was immediate. The ironic thing about this entire position is how the tenses of things change according to the purpose for looking at them.

For instance, even though there is really no reason to assume that Mary meant ‘forever’ when she said that she was a vrigin, those who use that quote are fairly adamant that ‘of course,’ that’s what it means.

On the other hand, that same incident is utterly dismissed as meaning this is going to happen to you right now." when in reality there is more sense in that than in the other, seems to me.

 

[adrift]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion…but the part about being found to be with child ‘by the Holy Ghost,’ though true, wasn’t something that Mary’s family (or Joseph) knew…else why would he have been contemplating putting her aside? He didn’t know about the miraculous nature of this until the angel told him, remember?

So the part about Who was responsible for her pregnancy was recognized in hindsite. The important thing for Joseph at the time was that she was 'found to be pregnant."

Caused problems.

Yes it was hindsight. It was written not to be a history but to be a religious truth. That truth was that Mary concieved through the Holy Spirit and that she was a virgin. Your point is confusing. Of course, until the Holy Spirit reveled it to Joseph he did not know. What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Again this seems like a distraction a red herring that has nothing to do with Mary being ever virgin. It does not answer the odd question that Mary asked.

 

[adrift]

Not really…if the entire thing was immediate. The ironic thing about this entire position is how the tenses of things change according to the purpose for looking at them.

For instance, even though there is really no reason to assume that Mary meant ‘forever’ when she said that she was a vrigin, those who use that quote are fairly adamant that ‘of course,’ that’s what it means.

On the other hand, that same incident is utterly dismissed as meaning this is going to happen to you right now." when in reality there is more sense in that than in the other, seems to me.

It is unreasonable to make the statement that there is “no reason”. It dismisses the argument put forth and shows a closed mind. It is ironic that those who will accuse us of being adamant are themselves adamant that how we understand the scripture couldn’t possibly be that way because of x, y and z. Yet when answers are provided they than say there was no reasoning on our part and we are just adament in holding to an indefensible position while ignoring the reasoning presented.
It isn’t that I dismiss that the angel meant immediately I just hold you to the same proof you demand of me. Why do yelp ironic when you do the same thing