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

[adrift]

Take a deep breath, and think about it.

If the text in contemporay english says she lost her virginity, then that is the english meaning of the sentence.
If someone who knows the originial Greek says that is not the intent of the original greek, then they are the greek expert disputing the translation (not me).

Repeat
I am claiming an accurate interpretation of the english text using contemporay english
You are the one who is claiming the published english translation is poor
/misleading versus the original Greek. I do not disupute you on this

This is your problem IF. The text does not say she lost her virginity. No where in the bible does it say that. We do have her saying that she does not engage in sexual activity. So your if is just that an unfounded speculation.

 

[ERose]

Take a deep breath, and think about it.

If the text in contemporay english says she lost her virginity, then that is the english meaning of the sentence.
If someone who knows the originial Greek says that is not the intent of the original greek, then they are the greek expert disputing the translation (not me).

Repeat
I am claiming an accurate interpretation of the english text using contemporay english
You are the one who is claiming the published english translation is poor
/misleading versus the original Greek. I do not disupute you on this

Where in the Bible does it say she lost her virginity?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The translations of the Bible are clear through the Catholic Church. St Jerome, Erasmus, its all there, all you have to do is look.

And you can read in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and English and there is NO-VERSION which states Mary is anything but Blessed through the Holy Spirit GOD. As the GOD BEARER, The Blessed Virgin Mother Mary.

All out here, ya just have to read it.

 

[Magdalena09]

**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 . . .

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.

It is not in the interest of Mormons who want to be able to stay Mormons to study Church History. The conversion stories I read about those who leave the LDS church (either to Protestantism or Catholicism or any other religion) almost always talk about leaving when they realize there is not one tiny speck of historical evidence for any Great Apostacy.

I do think it is “unfair” in a sense to ask those who are LDS to use history to support their beliefs. They don’t even use history to support their beliefs. Not that I think that that shouldn’t be explored and really meditated upon (the lack of any historical proof or support whatsoever for validating the LDS Church) but to say “prove yourself with history” when, as far as I know, Mormons don’t try to claim history supports their beliefs seems to halt an opportunity for discussion instead of letting the door remain open for conversing. Just my opinion, though.

The benefit of historical proof favors Christianity, especially, specifically, the Catholic Church.

 

[Magdalena09]

I also just want to bring up something for Doki or others who seem to claim that the Catholic Church was not around until 300 years after the resurrection…

Why is it that many “prominent” Catholic converts such as Scott Hahn or Frank Beckwith, who deeply loved and cherished their (protestant) faith, upon studying history, decided to become Catholic? They lost friends, they lost prominent positions in their careers or social circles, in Scott Hahn’s case he almost lost his wife! Both of them were very resistant to coming home to Christ’s church initially, because they both spoke out against the Church. They sacrificed a great deal in many ways because they “did their homework” as you put it and were faced with the truth that Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.

If there existed even reasonable historical evidence (not fool-proof, air-tight evidence, but simply reasonable evidence) that supported the claim that the Catholic Church was a later-occurring, made-made institution, don’t you think people like Scott and Frank would have found it? Or the countless others who had every reason (except the most important reason–Truth) not to become Catholic?

Reading “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel–who, by the way, is not Catholic–gives amazingly convincing evidence of the accuracy of Church History as believed by Christians, as well as for the inerrancy of the Bible.

Do you have a resource to reccomend to me that supports your claim? Or are you still insisting we all find it on our own? You were quick to do a google search and paste the definition of arrogance here, but you have not yet even NAMED a resource that supports your claim. Give me the name of a book, anything? Something tells me you cannot, and that is the real reason you will not.

 

[dianaiad]

I wonder…

Countries that were formerly Chriistian and do not have devotion to Mary, Perpetual Virgin…or Chritianity without perpetual virginity and celibacy to be honored…are these same countries having alot of problems with alot of sexual immorality?..I am greatly generalizing here as sexual immorality is a problem world wide…

I also come to think a an English Cardinal …Madding?..who said once a culture idolizes sex, it has lost it faith in God…I think devotion to Mary helps many today to be strong againt the sins of the flesh.

It’s a thesis, Kathleen…except of course that societies that honor Mary without believing that she would have been sinning had she been fully married do not necessarily, by that, believe that sex outside marriage is a good thing.

You MIGHT want to consider Utah, for instance–and the rate of out of wedlock births as opposed do just about everywhere else.

Believing that married couples having sex with one another is a good thing is not the same thing as advocating free love and orgies, y’know.

 

[dianaiad]

This is your problem IF. The text does not say she lost her virginity. No where in the bible does it say that. We do have her saying that she does not engage in sexual activity. So your if is just that an unfounded speculation.

The text doesn’t say that she did NOT have marital relations with Joseph, either. Wouldn’t this mean that your position that she was a virgin for her entire life is also speculation?

Remember, I am not insisting that she was not; I leave the option open. I am simply saying that there isn’t any real evidence for it–and since she WAS married, well…the odds are against her remaining virgin throughout her life.

The argument here is a lot more about basic attitudes regarding sex and sin than they are about the specific case of Mary. I am seeing people here who think that,. if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, she would be ‘less’ somehow; a sinner, perhaps–less dedicated to God, less fully the divine mother of the Messiah, as if even fully sanctioned and holy marital sex is a sin.

I don’t see it. I honestly do not see how, if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, that her role, her virtue, her dedication or her position is in anyway lessened. In fact, I would honor her more, because she could fulfull all her responsibilities. Not that her role as Jesus mother isn’t sufficient, but that she could do that,…and everything else, too.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Time to wrap it up folks, you’re coming close to the magic 1000.

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

 

[elvisman]

It is not in the interest of Mormons who want to be able to stay Mormons to study Church History. The conversion stories I read about those who leave the LDS church (either to Protestantism or Catholicism or any other religion) almost always talk about leaving when they realize there is not one tiny speck of historical evidence for any Great Apostacy.

I do think it is “unfair” in a sense to ask those who are LDS to use history to support their beliefs. They don’t even use history to support their beliefs. Not that I think that that shouldn’t be explored and really meditated upon (the lack of any historical proof or support whatsoever for validating the LDS Church) but to say “prove yourself with history” when, as far as I know, Mormons don’t try to claim history supports their beliefs seems to halt an opportunity for discussion instead of letting the door remain open for conversing. Just my opinion, though.

The benefit of historical proof favors Christianity, especially, specifically, the Catholic Church.

**I do see your point about their lack of historical knowledge. However, to deem it unfair to ask them to prove their point regarding some random historical event - by using history itself - is not logical. They must be held accountable to history as we all are. **

You don’t get a special pass just because you’re willingly ignorant of history.

 

[ERose]

The text doesn’t say that she did NOT have marital relations with Joseph, either. Wouldn’t this mean that your position that she was a virgin for her entire life is also speculation?

Remember, I am not insisting that she was not; I leave the option open. I am simply saying that there isn’t any real evidence for it–and since she WAS married, well…the odds are against her remaining virgin throughout her life.

The argument here is a lot more about basic attitudes regarding sex and sin than they are about the specific case of Mary. I am seeing people here who think that,. if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, she would be ‘less’ somehow; a sinner, perhaps–less dedicated to God, less fully the divine mother of the Messiah, as if even fully sanctioned and holy marital sex is a sin.

I don’t see it. I honestly do not see how, if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, that her role, her virtue, her dedication or her position is in anyway lessened. In fact, I would honor her more, because she could fulfull all her responsibilities. Not that her role as Jesus mother isn’t sufficient, but that she could do that,…and everything else, too.

You keep referring to tradition and custom, but you keep forgetting that Jesus came and challenged tradition and custom. According to your thinking, Jesus should have been married and having kids. Yet we all know that Jesus was celibate, not married, and had no children. But the problem with that assertion is that it is not specificately spoken of in the Bible is it. But, I do not know of any “Christian” denomination that teaches Jesus was a married man and had kids. Do you? We also know from Scripture that people did not always follow customs. We know that St. Paul was celibate and had no wife, even though custom dictated he would be married.

The facts are that there is nothing in the Bible that directs us to the belief that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage and in fact everything that is written about this marriage displays a super-normal marriage. So customs and traditions, which is the only argument you have, would not apply to this marriage.

With that being said. If we agreed that there was silence in the Bible concerning the sex life of Mary and Joseph, I would believe that we follow the teaching of historical tradition as we do when it concerns the sex-life of Jesus.

 

[brumano]

Non Catholic denominations have always maintained that St. Paul had no regard for Mariology, and literally we cannot deny this statement, but we may well ignore it as we read without bias Phil.ch.4v4-7 as it will be recognized as distinctly Marian in tone and consolation.
“Finally,” brothers, …as we continue reading v 8 it is not a “thing” that will come to mind, but rather a person: Holy Mary.

 

[adrift]

The text doesn’t say that she did NOT have marital relations with Joseph, either. Wouldn’t this mean that your position that she was a virgin for her entire life is also speculation?.

I have already stated tht it doesn’t prove her virginity either way. However, I also said that Mary stated she was a virgin and that she had no intention of changing that so not speculation but taking her at her word.

Remember, I am not insisting that she was not; I leave the option open. I am simply saying that there isn’t any real evidence for it–and since she WAS married, well…the odds are against her remaining virgin throughout her life

.
That ignores not only what Mary said but what was said by the Fathers of the Church and other documents that we don’t accept as scripture but do show the mind set of the time.

The argument here is a lot more about basic attitudes regarding sex and sin than they are about the specific case of Mary. I am seeing people here who think that,. if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, she would be ‘less’ somehow; a sinner, perhaps–less dedicated to God, less fully the divine mother of the Messiah, as if even fully sanctioned and holy marital sex is a sin.

This is an assumption that has no basis in fact. We do NOT regard Mary as divine:tsktsk:

I don’t see it. I honestly do not see how, if Mary was fully a wife to Joseph, that her role, her virtue, her dedication or her position is in anyway lessened. In fact, I would honor her more, because she could fulfull all her responsibilities. Not that her role as Jesus mother isn’t sufficient, but that she could do that,…and everything else, too

What I don’t understand is how anyone could believe that after God was in Mary’s womb anyone else would dare touch her as wife.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What I don’t understand is how anyone could believe that after God was in Mary’s womb anyone else would dare touch her as wife.

Yes thus we have The Blessed Mother Mary and Saint Joesph.

Listen, that Angel came to Joseph also. There wasn’t some vague understanding of what he was getting into. Were talking GOD here. He had a responsibility also. And he fulfilled it.

I’m not sure what they are teaching you in your church, but does it even sound right, that Mary had sex after Jesus?

You guys just are not grasping the significance of Luke. I’m worried about you guys.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So lets see, the Angels are sent “from GOD” to Mary and Joseph. This whole plan is carefully laid out by GOD. There is not gonna be another Adam and Eve problem here. God surely thought this out I would assume:shrug: And his plan “was” MARY!

So knowing what has been told in the Genesis and everywhere else in the Bible. What Luke testifing is wrong? He sat and broke bread with Mary. He spoke countless hours with her. Do you not think if Jesus Christ had a brother through Mary, he would not have been seriously venerated? Where is he? Who is he? What did he do? Whats his name in the Bible? Come On, lets be for real now.

If you actually believe this, you must have serious doubts about the entire Bible and its reality. I can’t conclude anything else.

 

[rev_kevin]

There is not proof positive by Catholics and Non-Catholics that Mary stayed a virgin and none that she did not remain a virgin. The Bible is not clear on this matter. Even though there are some in the days of Mary and Joseph that remained virgins does not mean that Mary and Joseph remained vigins. If she didn’t remain a virgin, would you see Mary in a different light? Would you not have the same respect of her that you have now?

 

[elvisman]

There is not proof positive by Catholics and Non-Catholics that Mary stayed a virgin and none that she did not remain a virgin. The Bible is not clear on this matter. Even though there are some in the days of Mary and Joseph that remained virgins does not mean that Mary and Joseph remained vigins. If she didn’t remain a virgin, would you see Mary in a different light? Would you not have the same respect of her that you have now?

The Ark of the Covenant was to be pure and undefiled by man. In fact - men were not allowed to touch it under penalty of death (1 Chron. 13:10).

**It has been shown that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus) and that the Ark of the Old Covenant was a type of Mary *(**2 Sam. 6:9/Luke 1:43, *****2 Sam. 6:14/Luke 2:38, ****2 Sam. 6:11/Luke 1:56, 1 Sam 4:11, 1 Sam 6:13/Matt. 2:14).

Ezek. 44:1-2 further points to the fact that she was to remain pure and not to be “entered” by man.

The simple fact about NT fulfillments: They are ALWAYS more glorious than their OT types. ALWAYS - without exception.

If she didn’t remain a virgin, the the OT was a pack of lies. I happen to believe that it wasn’t.

 

[Dokimas]

The burden of proof is NOT on Elvis 's side because he did not make the claim.

The burden of proof is on you and Todd.

Either provide proof or acknowledge that neither of your knew what you were talking about when you made that claim.

lt’s not a matter of proof. I assume we all want to know the truth. It is up to each one of us to seek for ourselves. There’s enough info out there if Elvis really wants to know, he can find it and it will be much more thorough than I could cut and paste here.

BTW, the ‘proof’ was not proof.

 

[Dokimas]

Cutting and pasting? I typed all of this.
**Whether or not somebody actually DID **paste their proof doesn’t make it any less true.

You have offered NOTHING to this debate but 1 or 2 line hit-and-run posts, ignorance of history and tradition and good old fashioned *arrogance *. . .

:yawn:

 

[Dokimas]

World History, European History, History of Christianity

And where did they get their info?

 

[elvisman]

lt’s not a matter of proof. I assume we all want to know the truth. It is up to each one of us to seek for ourselves. There’s enough info out there if Elvis really wants to know, he can find it and it will be much more thorough than I could cut and paste here.

BTW, the ‘proof’ was not proof.

Whenever you make an historically incorrect statement - it is up to YOU to substantiate it - not your opponent.**

I know for a fact that you are wrong - so I don’t have to look anything up.
**I thought since you made the statement - you would provide something in the way of proof for your claim. If you know something different than millions of Catholics - it is your duty to let us know where we have erred. **

If not - it is YOU ho have to stand if front of God and account for not having saved millions of souls when you had the chance.