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

[david_ruiz]

=ERose;7049538]

beliefs about the Blessed Mother do not directly come forth from her Virginity. In fact these doctrines or beliefs come from our belief in Christ.

]Thank-you. I understand co-redemptrix,as far as dealing with Christ. But how does my belief ,or yours, in Christ lead to The Assumption.or Immaculateness.This is a belief strictly about Mary, for both sides of her arguments do not affect Christology. She , from my viewpoint ,did not have to be Immaculate , nor did she have to be Assumed for Christ to do His saving work .As far as co-redemptrix ,it is logical to see the need for Mary ,in her obedience .What is illogical .or unbiblical .and perhaps gotten from other cultures is her being titled and elevated above all the other links to that great event of the Incarnation. The O.T.had many necesary links ,each as essential as Mary. “Father” Abraham , perhaps an elevated but truthful title , but still on solid ground , that he was oh so human like you and I . Indeed it was surely by God’s grace that anything good came from his loins .Just look at the twelve children : the foundation of the incarnation - they were a motley crew , a peyton place , a disaster ,BUT for the hand of God, and the working of grace .They were just like you and me .The final link needed to be no different( Mary) . Yes , full of grace , like Joseph( (of Jacob) , or Judah ( at the end). To make Mary perfect you make her unrelateable ,and dull the grace that says Christ can come and “sup” with a sinner. No wonder as , Luther says , some find it easier to pray to Mary than to Christ. For example: We believe that Mary is the Mother of God because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. She is referred as the Co-Redemptrix because it was through her accepting to be the Mother of our Lord “Let it be done to me as you said” that the Redeemer entered into the World. Etc. So maybe it would be a good idea for you to do a little research that is not bias to your side and try to understand why we believe what we believe.

All I know is that if it is good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. So I will pray to His Mother and to His Saints as well as to Him.

Off hand, I can not remember when Jesus prayed to anyone but the Father.Even when specifically asked on how to pray ,what did Jesus put forth ?

.

Acknowledging that those who have gone before us to our Lord are still interested in fighting for the souls of men and that the Holy Spirit has given them the grace and access to help us only magnifies His Work.

I am sorry,and I am sure you will agree but those alive on the other side do not communicate to us nor guide us (except by example) .I have heard too many priests and lay people say Mary led them to do this or that , much the same as apostles and first Christians said the Holy Spirit led them .Mary and the Holy Spirit are not interchangeable ,and your doctrine agrees , but the abuse is evident by the. testimony coming out of sincere but not rightly dividing folks.

.

but you didn’t have the Church Fathers saying that something was not true because it wasn’t in the Bible. They argued from the teachings of the Church.

Are you sure about this ? Mariology did not start to be debated until 3-4 th century ? Certainly most of the writings I see posted are around there , well within the time of the “written tradition”-past the oral.And most of the good debate I see posted deal with scripture or what early fathers said of the same scriptures. Where do you suppose those early fathers who said she was not ever-virgin ,or Immaculate or Assumed base it on ? Did they say , in their opinion , it was not in the bible ? Indeed , are we not admonished to be scriptural ,by scripture itself ? Look at the first big controversy arionism(?) . Was it not addressed at Council of Nicea with pretty much a scriptural response , forming our core basis of faith ?

 

[campeador]

Examples of UNTIL
We played until it got dark. - implication: dark came; couldn’t see; stopped playing.
Keep going until I tell you to stop. - “Stop”; so the person stopped.
I ran until I was breathless. Ran until ‘ran’ out of breath; no breath; stopped running.
Stay here until the danger has passed. - Danger gone; time to leave (or possible)
Stir the dough until it forms a ball." Ball formed; stopped stirring

Sigh…

Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

• Implication: The waters stopped decreasing after the tenth month.

Joshua 10:27
And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave’s mouth, which remain until this very day.

• Implication: After this very day the great stones no longer remain.

2 Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

• Implication: Michal bore children after death.

Psalm 57:1
Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge,** until** these calamities be overpast.

• Implication: After calamities have ended, no need to ask for mercy.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, **until **I make thine enemies thy footstool.

• Implication: After the enemies are made footstools, no more sitting at the Lord’s right hand.

 

[dianaiad]

Sigh…

Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

• Implication: The waters stopped decreasing after the tenth month.

No, there was no implication here at all; the change was specifically stated; the waters receded until the tenth month, at which point the mountains were seen. The change is the view of the mountains; it was a time measurement. This chapter goes on to mark other measurements of the receding water, thus destroying your point here.

until

this very day.

• Implication: After this very day the great stones no longer remain.

No. "this very day’ means that there is a change in the observer; he cannot tell anybody whether anything remains after ‘this very day,’ because nobody is to the next day to look, yet. When they are, the sentence can be repeated with equal accuracy.

This is one of those instances where the change is in the observer; “My neighbor walked his dog every morning until he moved to Baltimore.” This does indicate a change; after the move, there is no way to know if the neighbor keeps walking his dog, one way or the other, because the observer is no longer in a postion to see it. It is, nevertheless, a change.

until

the day of her death.

• Implication: Michal bore children after death.

Nope…and this one has been dealt with very specifically. Death is the final change; after death, nobody does anything (at least mortally) including having children. Therefore it is not necessary to claim that she bore no children after death; it is the final and ultimate boundary and change. It ends all actions.

until

these calamities be overpast.

• Implication: After calamities have ended, no need to ask for mercy.

Actually, yes, since the request for mercy specifically relates to 'these calamaties." There is no more need to request mercy regarding THEM after they ‘be overpast,’ is there?

until

I make thine enemies thy footstool.

• Implication: After the enemies are made footstools, no more sitting at the Lord’s right hand.

Actually, yes. the implication is that when the enemies are ‘thy footstool,’ something ends; no more enemies. Perhaps he WILL be still sitting at the right hand of the Lord, but then…perhaps not: the fight with the enemies will be over, and that is what the time measurement is. Perhaps he’ll be put on the left hand…who knows? The promise is only 'until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

 

[adrift]

Y’know, taking something as completely out of context as you just have is really dumb, when the context you are removing the quote from is immediately above it. What happened to the rest of the post you are quoting from, m’friend?

As to 'what will happen after the end of the world?" Are you serious? Having the world end isn’t a change? What, you think that the world is going to end and everybody will miss it?

Out of context? The rest was your opinion or are you saying that you were quoting the dictionary? You are NOT using a standard definition. You can’t and maintain your position. The definition which you also provide only means up to a certain point it does not indicate anything after. Dumb is making up your own definition.

 

[elvisman]

Examples of UNTIL
We played until it got dark. - implication: dark came; couldn’t see; stopped playing.
Keep going until I tell you to stop. - “Stop”; so the person stopped.
I ran until I was breathless. Ran until ‘ran’ out of breath; no breath; stopped running.
Stay here until the danger has passed. - Danger gone; time to leave (or possible)
Stir the dough until it forms a ball." Ball formed; stopped stirring

2 Samuel 6:23** tells us:
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.**

---

According to your logic - she had kids AFTER she died.

---

Acts 2:34-35** (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44):
For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’**

---

According to your logic – Jesus will CEASE to be at the right hand of the father when his enemies are made his footstool.

Pretty BIZARRE logic to me.

**Your failure to understand the different uses of the word, “Until” is yet another one of your follies. You can’t understand the word of God without comprehending the CONTEXT in which it was written. **
You and the other nay-sayers on this thread make the critical error of attempting to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

**The argument that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Christ makes liars out of virtually every single Church Father. **
According to your logic – they, and the Reformers - were ALL liars, but youaren’t.

 

[Dokimas]

2 Samuel 6:23** tells us:
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death**.

---

According to your logic - she had kids AFTER she died.

---

Acts 2:34-35** (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44**):
For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

---

According to your logic – Jesus will CEASE to be at the right hand of the father when his enemies are made his footstool.

Pretty BIZARRE logic to me.

Your failure to understand the different uses of the word, “Until” is yet another one of your follies. You can’t understand the word of God without comprehending the CONTEXT in which it was written.
You and the other nay-sayers on this thread make the critical error of attempting to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

The argument that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Christ makes liars out of virtually every single Church Father.
According to your logic – they, and the Reformers - were ALL liars, but youaren’t.

I’m not sure why one should bother responding but here goes.

I’ve said over and over and over again on CAF that one needs to look at context to understand the use of ‘until’. So you’re just parroting me. Thanks.

You should try harder to follow the discussion. Someone challenged the understanding of the use of ‘until’ based on definition and word usage. I gave a dictionary definition.

The early church fathers AREN’T liars if I’m correct, just mistaken. There’s NOTHING in my logic that calls for calling anyone a liar. The only time I come close is when I catch some bearing false witness, Elvis.

The context of the Mary issue falls best on the side that she did not remain celebate.

 

[dianaiad]

Out of context? The rest was your opinion or are you saying that you were quoting the dictionary? You are NOT using a standard definition. You can’t and maintain your position. The definition which you also provide only means up to a certain point it does not indicate anything after. Dumb is making up your own definition.

I gave you the exact definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. That’s about as standard as it gets.

 

[Dokimas]

Sigh…

Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

• Implication: The waters stopped decreasing after the tenth month.

Joshua 10:27
And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave’s mouth, which remain until this very day.

• Implication: After this very day the great stones no longer remain.

2 Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

• Implication: Michal bore children after death.

Psalm 57:1
Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge,** until** these calamities be overpast.

• Implication: After calamities have ended, no need to ask for mercy.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, **until **I make thine enemies thy footstool.

• Implication: After the enemies are made footstools, no more sitting at the Lord’s right hand.

Your missing the point – CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

Not only are you missing the point, you’re little game of implication falls real short.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Last warning, remain on topic and stop attacking each other.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[KathleenGee]

I had to do a medical case last night…Since the Assumption of Mary feast day August 15 and around it…we have really been going over the nature of Mary and her mission.

Again, everything is truly half-baked if you do not understand Catholic mysticism and the spirituality of perfection. And it derives from the liturgy of the Mass and Christ.

Christ Himself is mystery.

You can’t teach it here…Check out St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bonaventure, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux…St. John Climacus the desert father from Syria…

Mary’s perpetual virginity – always honored by God, was never broken. Her mission to Jesus was single focused. She was sinless and because of that followed in the same path as Christ…recall that the wages of sin is death.

I mean, I see sinful priests and religious living celibate lives giving all to Christ and the building of His kingdom…why can’t Mary do it? My word, the Mother of the Savior of the World…

Well, my remaining impression…and a little sadness is that those who do not know Mary as we do are missing out on a great dimension on their Christianity…there is so much to know about God through His saints, and especially our – I mean that to all of you – OUR Blessed Mother…

need to sleep now…God bless you all!

 

[elvisman]

I’m not sure why one should bother responding but here goes.

I’ve said over and over and over again on CAF that one needs to look at context to understand the use of ‘until’. So you’re just parroting me. Thanks.

You should try harder to follow the discussion. Someone challenged the understanding of the use of ‘until’ based on definition and word usage. I gave a dictionary definition.

The early church fathers AREN’T liars if I’m correct, just mistaken. There’s NOTHING in my logic that calls for calling anyone a liar. The only time I come close is when I catch some bearing false witness, Elvis.

The context of the Mary issue falls best on the side that she did not remain celebate.

That’s just it - you gave a 21st century dictionary definition of a word used thousands of years ago. This is the very same mistake - in reverse - that is made when Protestants attack the idea pf praying to anybody but God.

**I have given the dictionary definition of the word, “Pray” - which means to “implore” or to “petition” - to show that we do not worship Mary or any other saint. Yet, I am told by anti-Catholics that we worship them by praying to them to ask for help - simply because those same anti-Catholics refuse to accept any other definition of the word, “Pray”. **
To them, it has only ONE meaning, which is to worship.

You are making the same blunder with the word, “Until”. The Greek usage of this Word, "Heos" (until) has many meanings, including:**
To, while, how much longer, before, as far as, how long, still, even to the point, all the way to, as many as, how much, completely, since, even, ended up, down to, as long as.

---

The definitions in red illustrate completely different meanings for this word.

---

You - and the other nay-sayers - simply cannot come up with an argument for this other than spiritual pride. You cannot simply read ONE meaning into a word that has several usasges. This is how the tragedy of the splintering that is Protestantism perpetuates itself.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s just it - you gave a 21st century dictionary definition of a word used thousands of years ago. This is the very same mistake - in reverse - that is made when Protestants attack the idea pf praying to anybody but God.

The definition I gave you, from the OED, gives examples from a great deal longer ago than the 21st century. In fact, none of the examples I gave are newer than the 18th century. (That would be from Walpole’s “Castle of Otranto”). There were others that I did not give you…because old English is almost unreadable to a modern English speaker…and Old English dates to at least 800 AD.

As well, if “until” has been translated erroniously in all those biblical passages, then we have a far larger problem than the concept of time measurements and changes in events.

I have given the dictionary definition of the word, "Pray" - which means to “implore” or to “petition” - to show that we do not worship Mary or any other saint. Yet, I am told by anti-Catholics that we worship them by praying to them to ask for help - simply because those same anti-Catholics refuse to accept any other definition of the word, “Pray”.
To them, it has only ONE meaning, which is to worship.

Wow. How about keeping this on topic? Nobody here is talking about prayer…either to God or petitions to Mary and Saints for intercession. (pulling on the rope here…) Back to the topic. The OP question was “do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?” Many of us don’t. Others do. Some don’t see what difference it makes to Christ’s role–or Mary’s role as His mother. One of the reasons we don’t is that problem with ‘until.’ It’s not the only reason, but it is one of them, and I do believe that the problem with the term is worth discussing. Going off on a tangent regarding prayer isn’t going to help you, especially with me, because (whisper this) you are right about what people do with the word 'prayer."

The problem is, being right about the meaning of the word ‘prayer’ SHOULD allow you to see the accurate definition of the word 'until…" and you seem to have a problem with that.

You are making the same blunder with the word,* “Until”.* The Greek usage of this Word, "Heos" (until) has many meanings, including:
To, while, how much longer, before, as far as, how long, still, even to the point, all the way to, as many as, how much, completely, since, even, ended up, down to, as long as.

---

The definitions in red illustrate completely different meanings for this word.

and every meaning is indicated by the context; to insist that it must mean one thing because it means another in a different context is the fallacy of equivocation.

The thing is, saying that Joseph didn’t ‘know’ Mary until the birth of Jesus is very, very straightforward. The subject of the sentence is Joseph’s relationship with Mary. That’s the ONLY subject of the sentence. Therefore it is that which is being measured, and bounded by the phrase 'until the birth of Jesus." That doesn’t imply an end to that timeline, it outright states it…and leaves all the options open. True, ONE of those options would be to continue celibacy, but really–that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, given the context. After all, if the celibate relationship were to continue, why bring it up in the first place? The sentence is a complete and total non-sequitur if something about specific relationship did NOT change. It is, in fact, a very strange thing to write if nothing about that specific relationship were to change. It makes no sense.

You - and the other nay-sayers - simply cannot come up with an argument for this other than spiritual pride. You cannot simply read ONE meaning into a word that has several usasges. This is how the tragedy of the splintering that is Protestantism perpetuates itself.

Whew. Well, you have presented your view.

We have shown you a couple of reasons why we have a different one. I believe that our points are valid.

 

[ERose]

Actually, it seems that Mary and Joseph were in what is known as Kiddushin: a state that is the first stage of marriage, where the woman stays in her home and the man builds/finds a home for them both. According to “Judaism 101,” , this state required ONE of the following: a gift of money, a contract, or sexual intercourse. While all three are usually done, only one is required…and in the case of very young women, only the contract/gift of money was used. It would not have been a bit unusual for Mary to have remained a virgin while in her parent’s home, given how young she was.

I found out something when I was researching this…it speaks to a point made earlier, about 'what if Joseph was too old for sex?"

It seems, according to Jewish law, that this would have been a big problem. Sex in marriage is not the right of the man, but of the woman; HE has no right to demand sex of his wife, but SHE has the right to demand it of him…and thus the man must be able to provide it. Hence, if Joseph was too old, or incapable, the marraige would not have taken place.

I thought that was interesting. I’m not sure which position this bit of information supports, though!

The earliest writing concerning the Blessed mother is the Protoevangelium of James, which is dated at least the 2nd century. This writing explains why Mary spent time at the Temple, why she was betroth to Joseph, etc. Good reading if you are interested.

 

[LongJourney]

sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob06.htm

 

[ERose]

This entire discussion has made me wonder if I just shouldn’t ask to be rebaptized Mormon again … the arguments for a dogmatic view of Mary’s perpetual virginity seem to be really half-baked.

The arguments against are even more half-baked. Here is the situation. If you want to argue exclusively from the Bible you will not find conclusive evidence for her perpetual virginity. It is only inferred. You have to look at the whole Apostolic teaching to find understanding. Also the virginity of Mary has only truly been in question only recently in history. St. Jerome wrote a rebuttal to someone that challenged her chasity and i would recommend to you to read it: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

But it is very obvious in your post that you do not have a very good foundation of knowledge and that is the reason why you are showing lack of understanding concerning Catholic teaching. I would recommend reading the CCC and other books and maybe participating in a RCIA class to help you gain that foundation.

 

[KathleenGee]

ERose…agree…and people need to learn more of Jewish culture…It was custom first born were consecrated to God…as Mary. And once you are consecrated in Judeo-Catholic culture it is not broken except through loss of faith and vocation.

I find it clear that Mary’s consecrated virginity was acknowledged and bound in heaven at the Annunciation. And the passage of Joseph not knowing her…consecrated virgins were further protected by an elderly Jewish man. And most likely in this case, Joseph was truly chaste and guardian not only of Christ but of her virginity.

I think what is missing here is the behavior of people totally consecrated to God, living celibate lives. How many here are close in friendship with celibate people or have worked with them?? I know and have read of Catholic couples, very devout and in true friendship, but want to remain celibate for the kingdom of Christ.

I find them singularly focused and work very hard to live constantly in God’s presence, and have a detachment from the world. They are on a greater transcendent level and are open to the needs of everyone coming into contact with them on a daily basis, able to serve Christ in others 24 hours a day.

It helps me to accept Mary’s continued virginity and she living a more consecrated life. And the fact that her home was shelter to God Himself…I cannot help but think the manner of relating in their home was more sedate and pious…and for her to have other children would truly take her away from her mission to bear and raise the Christ Child. And having normal children would take her attention away from Christ as they would have a different constitution. One thought that ERose’s reference is that Joseph had other children prior to Mary.

And people know Jewish people take care of their own. Mary had no one at Christ’s death.

In Jewish times, a single child was still called Firstborn irregardless of other siblings. And the Incarnation happened beforehand. So it is understood that Joseph did not know her…an arrangement to protect her … until they were bethrothed and lived together.

Again, knowing those living the consecrated life, there are men and women living together but as celibates. Why can’t Mary?..

 

[ERose]

=ERose;7049538] ]Thank-you. I understand co-redemptrix,as far as dealing with Christ. But how does my belief ,or yours, in Christ lead to The Assumption.or Immaculateness.This is a belief strictly about Mary, for both sides of her arguments do not affect Christology. She , from my viewpoint ,did not have to be Immaculate , nor did she have to be Assumed for Christ to do His saving work .

First let us look at the Immaculateness or sinlessness of Mary. This is referenced to the coming of the New Covenant and Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. If you look back to the Ark of the Old Covenant you will see a pre-figuring of Mary. Why do I say that? Well look at the contents inside the Old Ark. There were three. A jar of Manna, the Rod of Aaron, and the 2nd set of Tablets that were written the 10 Commandments. All three of the items represent Jesus our Lord. The Jar of Manna (bread from Heaven), which also represents the office of Prophet. The Rod of Aaron, the High Priest, represents the office of the High Priest. The 10 Commandments or the Word of God or the leadership or Kingship. As we both know all three of these offices are completed in Christ who is Prophet, High Priest and King. Now who or what in the New Covenant possessed all three. It is Mary the Mother of Jesus who for nine months was the Ark of the New Convenant possessing withing her the Bread of Heaven, the High Priest, the Word who is Jesus Christ. As the old Ark was the most excellent and sacred artifact of Isreal in which nothing unclean could come in contact with this item, so with Mary nothing unclean or impure can be found in the the Ark of the New Convenant. The scripture that references this the most is Rev 11:19 and Rev 12: 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her son was taken up to God and to his throne.
Who is the woman that gave birth to the messiah? Only Mary. Who is the only woman that is titled in John’s writings as Woman? Mary. (See the Gospel of John.) So to summarize that temple of God in Heaven the Ark of the Convenant was found and this sign in heaven was a Woman, who happens to be Mary. The Ark is the purest sign of the Convenants both Old and New. So Mary is the Purest sign of the New Convenant.

Concerning the Assumption. You can see Mary’s assumption as a sign of the promise that Jesus gave us after His Ascension from heaven that all of us that persevere to the end shall be resurrected and assumed into heaven with Him.

Now concerning one that you did not ask about the “Queen of Heaven”. It is probably better to refer to his in its long form the Queen-Mother of Heaven. The first question you have to ask yourself is who is the King of Heaven? I believe that we can both agree that it is Jesus who is the King of kings. In Old Testament there was an office of Queen Mother who was the mother of the current king. She had significant power in Isreal as you can see reading the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. This is who Mary is. She is the Queen Mother of the King of Heaven. Since queen and queen mother was interchangable titles then using the Queen of Heaven is ok.

 

[ERose]

As far as co-redemptrix ,it is logical to see the need for Mary ,in her obedience .

At least we are making headway.

What is illogical .or unbiblical .and perhaps gotten from other cultures is her being titled and elevated above all the other links to that great event of the Incarnation. The O.T.had many necesary links ,each as essential as Mary. “Father” Abraham , perhaps an elevated but truthful title , but still on solid ground , that he was oh so human like you and I .

The great thing is so is Mary. Like us she could have sinned but she didn’t. She chose completely to following the path of her Son even from the womb. She knows temptation just like us, but unlike us she knows how to combat it and defeat the devil completely by surrenduring herself completely to her Son.

The final link needed to be no different( Mary) . Yes , full of grace , like Joseph( (of Jacob) , or Judah ( at the end). To make Mary perfect you make her unrelateable ,and dull the grace that says Christ can come and “sup” with a sinner. No wonder as , Luther says , some find it easier to pray to Mary than to Christ.

I do not think so and the popularity of the devotion to Mary disproves this.

For example: We believe that Mary is the Mother of God because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. She is referred as the Co-Redemptrix because it was through her accepting to be the Mother of our Lord “Let it be done to me as you said” that the Redeemer entered into the World. Etc.

Again making headway.

So maybe it would be a good idea for you to do a little research that is not bias to your side and try to understand why we believe what we believe.

I came from your side so I know your side of the argument because I have used the arguments used by your side in the past.

Off hand, I can not remember when Jesus prayed to anyone but the Father.Even when specifically asked on how to pray ,what did Jesus put forth ?

The Lord’s Transfiguation? Luke Ch 9. Jesus was speaking to two saints Moses and Elijah. Prayer I believe can be defined as communication between two spirits. For you that would be praying or communicating to God alone. For us we believe in the doctrine of the Communion of Saints which means for us that we can do as Jesus did and pray for assistance from those who have gone before us. It is the same concept as you going to your preacher and asking him to intercede for you.

I am sorry,and I am sure you will agree but those alive on the other side do not communicate to us nor guide us (except by example) .I have heard too many priests and lay people say Mary led them to do this or that , much the same as apostles and first Christians said the Holy Spirit led them .Mary and the Holy Spirit are not interchangeable ,and your doctrine agrees , but the abuse is evident by the. testimony coming out of sincere but not rightly dividing folks.

They communicate to us by their writings they left us, by their examples of holy life, by having prayers answered by their intercession, and for some even direct assistance such as shown by angels in the Old Testament. Remember Jesus said that we will be like the angels in heaven.

Are you sure about this ? Mariology did not start to be debated until 3-4 th century ? Certainly most of the writings I see posted are around there , well within the time of the “written tradition”-past the oral.And most of the good debate I see posted deal with scripture or what early fathers said of the same scriptures.

There were greater issues to be debated such as the Trinity and the Incarnation and that in the early period there was no debate or arguments proposed by heretics concerning Mary. Most probably back then there was no reason to attack Mary for her life was still fresh in the early Church.

Where do you suppose those early fathers who said she was not ever-virgin ,or Immaculate or Assumed base it on ?

Proof please. I have read alot of the old writings and haven’t come across those who are called early church fathers refuting any of these teachings. But if you have them please supply them.

Did they say , in their opinion , it was not in the bible ? Indeed , are we not admonished to be scriptural ,by scripture itself ? Look at the first big controversy arionism(?) . Was it not addressed at Council of Nicea with pretty much a scriptural response , forming our core basis of faith ?

It was scriptural, philosophical and theological response. You should understand by now if you have done any reading of Church history and on the history of the Bible that there was not a set canon that was agreed upon universally. It was the oral teachings of the Apostles that were the most prevalent authority.

 

[cruisin]

the question for me is not, why can’t she? but did she?

consecrated virgin
elderly Jewish man
Jewish customs and traditions

all keep three ideas keep coming up, but yet I have found no evidence that Mary and Joseph where practicing any of this.

Lu 1:1 As a number of attempts have been made to put together in order an account of those events which took place among us,
Lu 1:2 As they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first and were preachers of the word,
Lu 1:3 It seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus;
Lu 1:4 So that you might have certain knowledge of those things about which you were given teaching…

Lu 1:26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lu 1:27 To a virgin who was to be married to a man named Joseph, of the family of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.

If Luke was being as thorough as he claims in the opening verses, Why does he not mention Mary being a Temple Virgin being betrothed to and elderly man who was assigned to be her protector?

Can these ideas be truly shown to have been taught and understood from the very beginning? or are they ideas created out of want and desire?

i’m still waiting for the proof.

 

[elvisman]

The definition I gave you, from the OED, gives examples from a great deal longer ago than the 21st century. In fact, none of the examples I gave are newer than the 18th century. (That would be from Walpole’s “Castle of Otranto”). There were others that I did not give you…because old English is almost unreadable to a modern English speaker…and Old English dates to at least 800 AD.

As well, if “until” has been translated erroniously in all those biblical passages, then we have a far larger problem than the concept of time measurements and changes in events.

Wow. How about keeping this on topic? Nobody here is talking about prayer…either to God or petitions to Mary and Saints for intercession. (pulling on the rope here…) Back to the topic. The OP question was “do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?” Many of us don’t. Others do. Some don’t see what difference it makes to Christ’s role–or Mary’s role as His mother. One of the reasons we don’t is that problem with ‘until.’ It’s not the only reason, but it is one of them, and I do believe that the problem with the term is worth discussing. Going off on a tangent regarding prayer isn’t going to help you, especially with me, because (whisper this) you are right about what people do with the word 'prayer."

The problem is, being right about the meaning of the word ‘prayer’ SHOULD allow you to see the accurate definition of the word 'until…" and you seem to have a problem with that.

and every meaning is indicated by the context; to insist that it must mean one thing because it means another in a different context is the fallacy of equivocation.

The thing is, saying that Joseph didn’t ‘know’ Mary until the birth of Jesus is very, very straightforward. The subject of the sentence is Joseph’s relationship with Mary. That’s the ONLY subject of the sentence. Therefore it is that which is being measured, and bounded by the phrase 'until the birth of Jesus." That doesn’t imply an end to that timeline, it outright states it…and leaves all the options open. True, ONE of those options would be to continue celibacy, but really–that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, given the context. After all, if the celibate relationship were to continue, why bring it up in the first place? The sentence is a complete and total non-sequitur if something about specific relationship did NOT change. It is, in fact, a very strange thing to write if nothing about that specific relationship were to change. It makes no sense.
Whew. Well, you have presented your view.

We have shown you a couple of reasons why we have a different one. I believe that our points are valid.

Sorry Diana - but NO cigar.
As Dom DeLuise told the male chorus line in Blazing Saddles, “WRONG!”

---

I have illustrated – with the definitions of the Greek, “Heos” (until) - that the word can carry the following meanings:
While***, still, even to the point, since.***

---

Therefore, Matt. 1:25 can (and probably should) be read as one of the following:
**1. He had no relations with her while (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
**2. He had no relations with her, even to the point (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
**3. He had no relations with her since (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
4. He had no relations with her, still (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

---

In short - you’re still playing word games with the original Greek. Your** rendering of the Greek is limited to one meaning, while the actual Greek is not. **

---

****CASE CLOSED.