Enough, lets get things straight!

[catsrus]

originally posted by JonNC
As a Lutheran who does believe in the her perpetual virginity, I don’t see how this comment adds to charitable dialogue in any way. Of all the arguments for and against semper virgo, this appears to me the least convincing.

Actually, I was making an observation.
Not attempting to convince anyone of anything.
BTW, I was raised a lutheran and was never taught semper virgo. Perhaps the lutherans have seen the light, so to say, since. Why not step in a bit further and jump that Tiber.
We’d love to have you.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I was making an observation.
Not attempting to convince anyone of anything.
BTW, I was raised a lutheran and was never taught semper virgo. Perhaps the lutherans have seen the light, so to say, since. Why not step in a bit further and jump that Tiber.
We’d love to have you.

It wasn’t a particularly helpful observation that I could see.
The reason you were not “taught” it is because it is not doctrine in Lutheranism, though it is implied in the Confessions. Since you were raised Lutheran, I suspect that you already knew that it is adiaphoron.
Certainly, Lutherans and Catholics are working toward reconciliation. Pray from the day when the Tiber and Elbe run together.

Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Still waiting to hear why, if it is so ‘clear’ that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, that this was not ‘taught’ from apostolic times.

The argument that people ‘didn’t have bibles’ is a specious one.
The argument that the so-called "religious authority’ persecuted people for reading Bibles is a specious one.

The very first ‘reformers’ who protested what they considered the ‘errors’ of the Catholic Church did not claim that Mary was anything other than a perpetual virgin.

Why not? They had the very same Bibles. If anything, they were looking more ‘critically’ at what they thought of as Catholic ‘error’ than Protestants today who are more inclined (at least the ones like Jon) to look for the similarities and to acknowledge the truths that are shared by Catholics and Protestants as Christians.

So why did the reformers not trumpet this ‘error’ --an error so ‘egregious’ that today some Christians practically foam at the mouth in their disgust and hatred of this idea?

Why did the reformers uphold the doctrine of her perpetual Virginity which they defended as legitimate Christian truth?

Why does Jon–a Lutheran–have no trouble accepting this teaching though his faith tradition is one of the oldest in Protestantism?

Is it possible that Jon–and his fellow Lutherans, and I and my fellow Catholics, and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and those others who believe this Christian teaching–are right?

Is it possible that the men (not God, but men) who were reading Scripture out of context and without an authority to guide them, thus ‘privately interpreting’ and then passing on that interpretation to their followers–**made a mistake? **

**Imagine that. You are asking US to imagine that OUR faith ‘made an error’. Well, return the favor then. YOU try to imagine that YOUR faith ‘made an error.’ Think about it. Pray about it. . .pray not that "our belief be made manifest’ but pray, “God, let me know your will, not my will.” Pray about it for some time too, daily Let me know. . .oh let’s say around Christmas, perhaps. . . in what way God has made His will known to you. I’ll do the same. I really will. **

 

[Joshua27]

Still waiting to hear why, if it is so ‘clear’ that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, that this was not ‘taught’ from apostolic times.

The argument that people ‘didn’t have bibles’ is a specious one.
The argument that the so-called "religious authority’ persecuted people for reading Bibles is a specious one.

The very first ‘reformers’ who protested what they considered the ‘errors’ of the Catholic Church did not claim that Mary was anything other than a perpetual virgin.

Why not? They had the very same Bibles. If anything, they were looking more ‘critically’ at what they thought of as Catholic ‘error’ than Protestants today who are more inclined (at least the ones like Jon) to look for the similarities and to acknowledge the truths that are shared by Catholics and Protestants as Christians.

So why did the reformers not trumpet this ‘error’ --an error so ‘egregious’ that today some Christians practically foam at the mouth in their disgust and hatred of this idea?

Why did the reformers uphold the doctrine of her perpetual Virginity which they defended as legitimate Christian truth?

Why does Jon–a Lutheran–have no trouble accepting this teaching though his faith tradition is one of the oldest in Protestantism?

Is it possible that Jon–and his fellow Lutherans, and I and my fellow Catholics, and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and those others who believe this Christian teaching–are right?

Is it possible that the men (not God, but men) who were reading Scripture out of context and without an authority to guide them, thus ‘privately interpreting’ and then passing on that interpretation to their followers–**made a mistake? **

**Imagine that. You are asking US to imagine that OUR faith ‘made an error’. Well, return the favor then. YOU try to imagine that YOUR faith ‘made an error.’ Think about it. Pray about it. . .pray not that "our belief be made manifest’ but pray, “God, let me know your will, not my will.” Pray about it for some time too, daily Let me know. . .oh let’s say around Christmas, perhaps. . . in what way God has made His will known to you. I’ll do the same. I really will. **

I’m asking you to answer my question from my second response to you (which you avoided…).

I’m asking you to read passage Matthew 1:24-25 using your God-given eyes and mind using all you know about ‘how the Jewish people spoke back then’, understanding that the very same institution that claims ownership of the New Testament never thought to retranslate it or correct it in any edition.

I’m asking you to explain this passage (which you haven’t done) as it related to perpetual virginity [not virgin conception] and how potential removal of (virginity AFTER the birth of Christ) in any way diminishes her.

I’ve been charitable in answering your questions until I realized that you weren’t reciprocating.

Every day I ask God to guide me closer to the full truth to his will, and he has faithfully done exactly that (I have many more truths to share other than this one). You’ll be surprised to know that for 28 years my faith WAS your faith…until I started to pray the very same prayer three months prior to the date of me joining this forum, because in truth there is NO contradiction…and if there is, something’s wrong with the “truth”. My faith; OUR faith ‘made an error’ here…which isn’t so bad if we were willing to correct ourselves, but (honestly) most people aren’t willing. Such is our hubris. We’re always right even when we’re wrong.

Why perpetuate an error? Well the answer lies in our human nature. The Christian faith is akin to the Titanic; it’s big with too many interrelated systems and with too much momentum to suddenly change directions, yet the longer we go in a specific direction the more momentum we pick up and its even harder to correct our path…The captain of the ship is steering but he can’t see as far as the spotters can, and yet there are very few spotters keeping an eye out for potential problems, and fewer still who are listened to…so some abandon ship (only to be stranded at sea). Others who see the same potential problem on the horizon earnestly try to warn as many on the ship as possible [for maybe if enough people were concerned, word would reach the captain] but they’re too convinced that the ship is “perfect and strong and unbreakable” to believe in problems…until the iceberg hits.

I’m earnestly contending for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints; the original saints…and this isn’t exactly it. I’m not trying to destroy the ship, but trying to get it back on course.

I’ll continue to pray the prayer and will also ask that a substantial sign be given to each of us - a single sign visible to as many who’ll also look for this sign - to confirm this particular argument, if but to lead me and others back to the truth of perpetual virginity or to lead you and others to the correction (if it is indeed such).

Christ said “as anything in my name and I will do…ask anything of my Father and he will do”.

So what sign would be fair to ask from the Holy Father and the Son to confirm or deny this truth?*

 

[benidict]

I’m asking you to answer my question from my second response to you (which you avoided…).

I’m asking you to read passage Matthew 1:24-25 using your God-given eyes and mind using all you know about ‘how the Jewish people spoke back then’, understanding that the very same institution that claims ownership of the New Testament never thought to retranslate it or correct it in any edition.

I’m asking you to explain this passage (which you haven’t done) as it related to perpetual virginity [not virgin conception] and how potential removal of (virginity AFTER the birth of Christ) in any way diminishes her.

I’ve been charitable in answering your questions until I realized that you weren’t reciprocating.

Every day I ask God to guide me closer to the full truth to his will, and he has faithfully done exactly that (I have many more truths to share other than this one). You’ll be surprised to know that for 28 years my faith WAS your faith…until I started to pray the very same prayer three months prior to the date of me joining this forum, because in truth there is NO contradiction…and if there is, something’s wrong with the “truth”. My faith; OUR faith ‘made an error’ here…which isn’t so bad if we were willing to correct ourselves, but (honestly) most people aren’t willing. Such is our hubris. We’re always right even when we’re wrong.

Why perpetuate an error? Well the answer lies in our human nature. The Christian faith is akin to the Titanic; it’s big with too many interrelated systems and with too much momentum to suddenly change directions, yet the longer we go in a specific direction the more momentum we pick up and its even harder to correct our path…The captain of the ship is steering but he can’t see as far as the spotters can, and yet there are very few spotters keeping an eye out for potential problems, and fewer still who are listened to…so some abandon ship (only to be stranded at sea). Others who see the same potential problem on the horizon earnestly try to warn as many on the ship as possible [for maybe if enough people were concerned, word would reach the captain] but they’re too convinced that the ship is “perfect and strong and unbreakable” to believe in problems…until the iceberg hits.

I’m earnestly contending for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints; the original saints…and this isn’t exactly it. I’m not trying to destroy the ship, but trying to get it back on course.

I’ll continue to pray the prayer and will also ask that a substantial sign* be given to each of us - a single sign visible to as many who’ll also look for this sign - to confirm this particular argument, if but to lead me and others back to the truth of perpetual virginity or to lead you and others to the correction (if it is indeed such).

Christ said “as anything in my name and I will do…ask anything of my Father and he will do”.

So what sign would be fair to ask from the Holy Father and the Son to confirm or deny this truth?so let me get this straight. the apostles, the early Church fathers, and even the reformers who did not deny the perpetual virginity got it wrong… and you, simply by meditating and contemplating got it right? wow! im going to go with what your saying. are you thinking of starting your own denomination? ill be the first to join. seeing how you are wiser than the Church fathers, and even the reformers who NEVER denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. and for the record. i dont need a sign. signs are for unbelievers. and last i knew, putting the Lord our God to a test is forbidden. if you continue on the path you are on, you are ripe for deception. as others have been. Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones. just to name a few. please be very careful, and find someone to place in authority over you. Peace

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have read the passage over and over. I have meditated on it, pondered it, and read the entire Bible, especially in regard to Revelation and to the Old Testament typology of the Ark of the Covenant. I have read the early Church Fathers. And I find absolutely no indication in the passage that indicates that Mary and Joseph did (or did not) have sexual relations. So using my “God-given reason” I checked with the ‘rest’ of Scripture (and its companion which never contradicts it, sacred tradition, of which St. Paul himself spoke) to see if there was any indication that Mary was NOT a virgin thereafter. I found that the ‘children’ listed in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Jesus could all be proven by Scripture not to be a child of Mary. Indeed the name “the son of Mary” applied to Jesus (rather than the NORM of ‘Son of Joseph") would indicate that Jesus was felt, though ‘technically’ a son of Joseph as Joseph in living with Mary had ‘accepted’ legal paternity, to be at best a child conceived ‘before’ marriage, though after betrothal, and at worst a child of someone other than Joseph whom Joseph, to ‘spare’ Mary, had ‘accepted’ as his. I found that the typology of ‘the woman’ in Revelation, the testimony of Scripture in regard to Christ ‘giving’ the care of Mary to St. John, the lack of evidence for any of Jesus’ brethren to be ‘of Mary’ and the lack of evidence of her own ‘whereabouts’ among other things point to the fact that she–living with St. John ONLY as there were no 'other children of Mary–was being protected from capture, torture and death as the mother of that “rebel” Jesus.

I see 1500 years continuously (and by Catholics, Orthodox and those others I mentioned above, for the next 500 years through the current time) the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I see this not as a ‘false teaching’ planted by a ‘religious authority’ for an unknown purpose (I mean, really, what purpose is it to make a ‘false teaching’ like that, setting aside that all other false teachings were thoroughly dealt with in a timely manner?) but as a true teaching, with excellent Scriptural and traditional ‘proofs’ and the ‘false’ teaching is the man-made doctrine that attempts to claim Mary as not a perpetual virgin. Again, the names of those given as ‘brothers’ do not cross-reference in Scripture as children of Mary. . .there is no mention of ‘brethren’ at the time that Jesus, Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, and no mention of Joseph when Jesus starts his ministry, indicating his death by then. The ‘oldest’ of Jesus’ so-called brethren, since none were evident in that trip to Jerusalem at his age of 12, could have been no older than 17 when Jesus started His ministry at 30; yet these ‘brethren’ listed were given ‘authority’ over Jesus as though they were his elders or betters; nearly unheard of for people only 4 years from their bar mitzvah. . .

 

[JonNC]

=

Tantum ergo;6791341]So why did the reformers not trumpet this ‘error’ --an error so ‘egregious’ that today some Christians practically foam at the mouth in their disgust and hatred of this idea?

Why did the reformers uphold the doctrine of her perpetual Virginity which they defended as legitimate Christian truth?

This is a good point. When one considers the polemics and nastiness of the time, both ways, one might thknk Luther would have chomped at the bit to reject a teaching that is not explicit in scripture to, as it were, rub rome’s nose in it.

Why does Jon–a Lutheran–have no trouble accepting this teaching though his faith tradition is one of the oldest in Protestantism?

Is it possible that Jon–and his fellow Lutherans, and I and my fellow Catholics, and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and those others who believe this Christian teaching–are right?

Just a clarification: not all Lutherans hold to semper virgo, and are not required to, as it is considered by us adiaphoron. I do not want to leave the impression that my belief in it speaks for all Lutherans. That said, there seems to be a growing movement in Lutheranism to recapture a greater honoring of the Holy Theotokos.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I’m asking you to answer my question from my second response to you (which you avoided…).

I’m asking you to read passage Matthew 1:24-25 using your God-given eyes and mind using all you know about ‘how the Jewish people spoke back then’, understanding that the very same institution that claims ownership of the New Testament never thought to retranslate it or correct it in any edition.

I’m asking you to explain this passage (which you haven’t done) as it related to perpetual virginity [not virgin conception] and how potential removal of (virginity AFTER the birth of Christ) in any way diminishes her.

I’ve been charitable in answering your questions until I realized that you weren’t reciprocating.

Every day I ask God to guide me closer to the full truth to his will, and he has faithfully done exactly that (I have many more truths to share other than this one). You’ll be surprised to know that for 28 years my faith WAS your faith…until I started to pray the very same prayer three months prior to the date of me joining this forum, because in truth there is NO contradiction…and if there is, something’s wrong with the “truth”. My faith; OUR faith ‘made an error’ here…which isn’t so bad if we were willing to correct ourselves, but (honestly) most people aren’t willing. Such is our hubris. We’re always right even when we’re wrong.

Why perpetuate an error? Well the answer lies in our human nature. The Christian faith is akin to the Titanic; it’s big with too many interrelated systems and with too much momentum to suddenly change directions, yet the longer we go in a specific direction the more momentum we pick up and its even harder to correct our path…The captain of the ship is steering but he can’t see as far as the spotters can, and yet there are very few spotters keeping an eye out for potential problems, and fewer still who are listened to…so some abandon ship (only to be stranded at sea). Others who see the same potential problem on the horizon earnestly try to warn as many on the ship as possible [for maybe if enough people were concerned, word would reach the captain] but they’re too convinced that the ship is “perfect and strong and unbreakable” to believe in problems…until the iceberg hits.

I’m earnestly contending for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints; the original saints…and this isn’t exactly it. I’m not trying to destroy the ship, but trying to get it back on course.

I’ll continue to pray the prayer and will also ask that a substantial sign* be given to each of us - a single sign visible to as many who’ll also look for this sign - to confirm this particular argument, if but to lead me and others back to the truth of perpetual virginity or to lead you and others to the correction (if it is indeed such).

Christ said “as anything in my name and I will do…ask anything of my Father and he will do”.

So what sign would be fair to ask from the Holy Father and the Son to confirm or deny this truth?

Joshua:

Please provide one church father who taught Joesph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth? Why is it so difficult for you to over come your carnal beliefs and accept God can do ANYTHING to anyone He freely chooses.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Joshua:

Please provide one church father who taught Joesph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth? Why is it so difficult for you to over come your carnal beliefs and accept God can do ANYTHING to anyone He freely chooses.

Not only that, but Joshua is simply stating that the ‘ship of faith’ went ‘off course’. If so. . .where is the date and documentation for that happening? When was the Church Jesus gave us ‘right’ and what happened to make it wrong?

And if things were incorrectly taught, what authority does Joshua possess that assures him that the teachings he accepts as ‘truth’ (even though they were not taught until less than 500 years ago, and not for the first 1500 years of Christianity) ARE truth? If people can err, Joshua, why are you so sure that your ‘teachers’ weren’t the ones making the errors?

 

[Joshua27]

so let me get this straight. the apostles, the early Church fathers, and even the reformers who did not deny the perpetual virginity got it wrong… and you, simply by meditating and contemplating got it right? wow! im going to go with what your saying. are you thinking of starting your own denomination? ill be the first to join. seeing how you are wiser than the Church fathers, and even the reformers who NEVER denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. and for the record. i dont need a sign. signs are for unbelievers. and last i knew, putting the Lord our God to a test is forbidden. if you continue on the path you are on, you are ripe for deception. as others have been. Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones. just to name a few. please be very careful, and find someone to place in authority over you. Peace

Signs ARE for unbelievers as believers don’t need them.

But with respect, Ben, your comment about testing God is what I mean about errors…where did you hear that its forbidden to prove God? I know where I first heard it; it was a common saying among people in the church.

…Most people are refering to where the Lord said “don’t put me to the test”. But look at these verses:

Deuteronomy 6:16 “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.”

Now we can take the first part of this statement out of context and determine that God doesn’t want us to test him at all, or we can take this statement in full context of the conversation that has developed and see that it applies to Exodus 17:7, when the sons of Israel specifically tested the Lord disrespectfully by asking “Is the LORD among us, or not?” because of course the Lord was with them, he just freed them, but they were somehow uncomfortable with their conditions.

Matthew 4:7 (Luke 4:12) "Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

What did satan tell Christ to do to put God to the test in the prior verses? He told Him to jump off a cliff. This is again disrespectful to the life God gave. One should NEVER test God in this way; to directly put oneself in harms way just to force God to take action; or to purposely do something dumb to elicite a response, as if God’s our errand boy or servant.

…but look at what God has said in this reference…

Malachi 3:10 “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.”

…the situation referenced was specifically concerning tithing, but read what the Lord specifically said. Why would he say “put me to the test” it in this instance if such was altogether forbidden? Prophets even pit pagan priests (and their gods) against God (without His direct approval) to prove God.

ALL scripture must syncronize and not contradict…yet on the surface Malachi 3:10 would contradict what God said earlier in Deutoronomy if taken out of context, until we read the earlier passage and see that there was a level of disrespect to the request of proof.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 The Father inspired Paul to tell us to “Diligently study [not just read the scriptures] to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [dissecting] the word of truth.”…to John 14:13] "ask anything in [Christ’s] name and [He] would do so [but only so] that the Father may be glorified."…and (James 1:5) “If any of [of us] lack wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

We must (1 Thessalonians 5:21) “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”. The original version of this passage uses the word prove (test).

---

And understanding my Titanic parallel, you should relate “starting a new denomination” to those “abandoning ship (only to be stranded at sea)”. The answer isn’t to abandon ship or to be the new head of any new religion…the answer is simply to correct our mistakes. And concerning the wisdom of the Church fathers, isn’t it written…

1 Corinthians 1:26-30:

[Siblings], think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

This has always been God’s M.O., and God’s never changes. So where would the next new revelation from God to his Church come from: from one at the top, or from someone lowly at the bottom?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Joshua:

Please provide one church father who taught Joesph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth? Why is it so difficult for you to over come your carnal beliefs and accept God can do ANYTHING to anyone He freely chooses.

Not only that, but Joshua is simply stating that the ‘ship of faith’ went ‘off course’. If so. . .where is the date and documentation for that happening? When was the Church Jesus gave us ‘right’ and what happened to make it wrong?

Oh yeah, I forgot the same old rhetoric,the ship went off course one liner. What Joshua does not realize is that he starts to become the judge of truth and God becomes the student and not the Teacher.

And if things were incorrectly taught, what authority does Joshua possess that assures him that the teachings he accepts as ‘truth’ (even though they were not taught until less than 500 years ago, and not for the first 1500 years of Christianity) ARE truth? If people can err, Joshua, why are you so sure that your ‘teachers’ weren’t the ones making the errors?

He has none and Joshua is no different than the scores of men and women who become their own authority and as I stated become the Judge of Truth. It is called human pride.

 

[Joshua27]

Joshua:

Please provide one church father who taught Joesph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth? Why is it so difficult for you to over come your carnal beliefs and accept God can do ANYTHING to anyone He freely chooses.

The author of St. Matthew. Your statement leads me to believe that you think sexual relationship is evil and dirty, even between a married couple.

Again, we’re talking about “Perpetual Virginity”, not “Vigrinal Conception of the HS”…we’re also talking about a Jewish family from a Jewish culture. It’s recorded that the angel of God told Joseph to marry Mary rather than put her away (as he was going to do) because she was ALREADY pregnant. Again, Joseph was not going to marry Mary because she was already with child and as far as he was initially concerned, such meant “she was already ‘with’ - already ‘known’ - another man”; no longer a virgin as is the old Jewish custom of betrothal & marriage. Also, God’s Law dictated that such would’ve been adultery if he married her (based on his initial assumption). Following instructions, he married her but then it’s recorded that he did not ‘know’ her until she gave birth and He (being the man of the house) named the child.

Why is it so difficult to believe in what is recorded in black & white? What’s interesting is when it comes to the Eucharist (for example), we must “read the statement exactly as it appears, because Christ talks about eating his real flesh” but when we come to reading Matthew 1:24-25, now (amazingly) there’s not significant proof to make a determination.

Does anyone else see a double standard here?

 

[Nicea325]

The author of St. Matthew. Your statement leads me to believe that you think sexual relationship is evil and dirty, even between a married couple.

Again, we’re talking about “Perpetual Virginity”, not “Vigrinal Conception of the HS”…we’re also talking about a Jewish family from a Jewish culture. It’s recorded that the angel of God told Joseph to marry Mary rather than put her away (as he was going to do) because she was ALREADY pregnant. Again, Joseph was not going to marry Mary because she was already with child and as far as he was initially concerned, such meant “she was already ‘with’ - already ‘known’ - another man”; no longer a virgin as is the old Jewish custom of betrothal & marriage. Also, God’s Law dictated that such would’ve been adultery if he married her (based on his initial assumption). Following instructions, he married her but then it’s recorded that he did not ‘know’ her until she gave birth and He (being the man of the house) named the child.

Why is it so difficult to believe in what is recorded in black & white? What’s interesting is when it comes to the Eucharist (for example), we must “read the statement exactly as it appears, because Christ talks about eating his real flesh” but when we come to reading Matthew 1:24-25, now (amazingly) there’s not significant proof to make a determination.

Does anyone else see a double standard here?

And why is it so difficult to believe you are not God? You are setting up yourself to be the Judge of Truth and you are to blind to accept it.

Wrong! I do not ACCEPT your poor biblical exegesis Joshua.Why should I listen to you? Why should accept your theological methods of interpreting scripture? What makes you RIGHT and 2,000 years incorrect?

And your statement leads me to believe you think remaining an ever-virgin is unnatural and against God’s? Again, sorry,but your human carnal beliefs are leading you in a massive error. Go ahead and accept a NOVEL belief because it is and nothing you say or rave about will change what the early church taught and believed.

 

[Joshua27]

And why is it so difficult to believe you are not God? You are setting up yourself to be the Judge of Truth and you are to blind to accept it.

Wrong! I do not ACCEPT your poor biblical exegesis Joshua.Why should I listen to you? Why should accept your theological methods of interpreting scripture? What makes you RIGHT and 2,000 years incorrect?

And your statement leads me to believe you think remaining an ever-virgin is unnatural and against God’s? Again, sorry,but your human carnal beliefs are leading you in a massive error. Go ahead and accept a NOVEL belief because it is and nothing you say or rave about will change what the early church taught and believed.

[Suddenly two now conclude that I’m trying to be God…and that my theological methods of “reading in context” (which the CC promotes) is somehow a strange voodoo when a different interpretation is reached.]

I doubt, if God himself came down and said (matter-of-factly) “no…she wasn’t an ‘ever-virgin’”, many would believe even Him…but I guess (indeed) it’s left up to him when He returns (during the Second Advent), right? That much we can agree upon (I think).

---

It IS unnatural for a MARRIED JEWISH WOMAN to remain a virgin throughout a JEWISH marriage in a 2000 year old society. There were indeed “eunichs” and those equivalent to “nuns” but they did NOT enter into MARRIAGE. The Marriage Covenant is as much of a LAW of God as any other of God’s laws. No faithful Jewish woman - as highly obedient as Mary is recorded to be - would break any of God’s Laws, least of all this one.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Um, was the ‘average Jewish woman’ the mother of the Messiah?

So Joshua. . .we do agree, do we not, that Jesus was the son of Mary. And He was also the Son of God.

Now. . .unless you want to teach that God was no more or less than any ‘pagan’ god who would ‘impregnate’ a human female (Zeus supposedly did so in a ‘shower of gold’) and then ‘let’ the woman go back to her ‘human’ husband. . .when did God ‘remove’ Himself from a relationship–a ‘spousal’ relationship–to Mary?

Or are children ‘supposed’ to be conceived in a relationship where the woman is married–to another man?

Does a woman who has a child with one man then go on to marry and have sexual relations with the ‘new’ spouse even though her first spouse is alive? Did MARY commit adultery that God could ‘discard her?’

 

[Loboto-Me]

Once the Lord has been in a Tabernacle, then even if He is no longer there for some reason, it doesn’t occur to anyone to take the Tabernacle into the kitchen and use it as an ordinary bread box - even though from a practical point of view, that could be done - but you just wouldn’t, and it’s hard to explain why - it just “feels” completely wrong - and for myself, I would just leave an empty Tabernacle sitting where it is, without touching it or doing anything with it, because I wouldn’t want to profane it in any way, even by accident.

If this is so when Jesus is hidden under the appearance of bread, how much more so, when Jesus was plainly visible to Joseph? Having met God face to face, would it even occur to Joseph to try to have other children with Mary?

I love this analogy! Thanks J, I hope to be able to remember this if I ever have to explain the sacred vessel.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And why is it so difficult to believe you are not God? You are setting up yourself to be the Judge of Truth and you are to blind to accept it.

Wrong! I do not ACCEPT your poor biblical exegesis Joshua.Why should I listen to you? Why should accept your theological methods of interpreting scripture? What makes you RIGHT and 2,000 years incorrect?

And your statement leads me to believe you think remaining an ever-virgin is unnatural and against God’s? Again, sorry,but your human carnal beliefs are leading you in a massive error. Go ahead and accept a NOVEL belief because it is and nothing you say or rave about will change what the early church taught and believed.

[Suddenly two now conclude that I’m trying to be God…and that my theological methods of “reading in context” (which the CC promotes) is somehow a strange voodoo when a different interpretation is reached.]

Yes Joshua! Commom problem today, many like yourself become their own theologians and believe his or her interpretation is the ‘right’ one. Geeeee…you think that idea has led to thousands upon thousands different sects/churches? I asked you,why should I accept your interpretation? Is it infallible and if so,based on what?

I doubt, if God himself came down and said (matter-of-factly) “no…she wasn’t an ‘ever-virgin’”, many would believe even Him…but I guess (indeed) it’s left up to him when He returns (during the Second Advent), right? That much we can agree upon (I think).

I do not have to wait for that to happen. God is NOW! God is not time and matter! He is not a revisionist as so many Bible-only Christians are today. They see something they do not agree,then go after it with all their private interpretations of scripture. Again,what makes you RIGHT and 2,000 years wrong?

 

[Joshua27]

Um, was the ‘average Jewish woman’ the mother of the Messiah?

…if an ‘average Jewish woman’ means someone as faithful and obedient as Mary is recorded to be, “yes”. If ‘average Jewish women’ are not as faithful and obedient to God’s Laws, “no”.

So Joshua. . .we do agree, do we not, that Jesus was the son of Mary. And He was also the Son of God.

Yes…we agree.

Now. . .unless you want to teach that God was no more or less than any ‘pagan’ god who would ‘impregnate’ a human female (Zeus supposedly did so in a ‘shower of gold’) and then ‘let’ the woman go back to her ‘human’ husband. . .when did God ‘remove’ Himself from a relationship–a ‘spousal’ relationship–to Mary?

Or are children ‘supposed’ to be conceived in a relationship where the woman is married–to another man?

God was never in a “spousal” relationship with Mary, and unlike the pagan Zeus, He never ‘knew’ her in a sexual way. The Holy Spirit descended upon Mary in a similar way the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ during his baptism; descended upon Zachariah after John the Baptist was born; descended upon Elizabeth when Mary told her the good news…

The Holy Spirit descended and filled up this person SO MUCH [imagine a light bulb in the middle of a power surge] that particularly her “holy one” [an old Hebrew term used to describe the “first” child who penetrates the womb (thus the reason why “firstborns” are sanctified of God)] would be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that ‘holy one’ which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”

Does a woman who has a child with one man then go on to marry and have sexual relations with the ‘new’ spouse even though her first spouse is alive? Did MARY commit adultery that God could ‘discard her?’

No, such is adultery. Mary did not commit adultery because she was not the spouse of God; she did not have sexual relations with God.

–To Nicea–

What makes me RIGHT and “time spent believing in a truth” wrong? I’m not claiming to be right; I’m claiming that some things are wrong. But if (by default) I’m claiming what your question suggests, then the answer would be “the same kind of proof that led to the eventual realization that the earth is round”, because the prevailing “truth” (which was supported by scolars, philosophers, and great minds & leaders of the time) was that “the earth was flat”…and NO ONE could tell them otherwise until they experienced it for themselves. But such is how we learn and grow: we’ll always know more “tomorrow” than we do today; we’ll always have more understanding today than we did “yesterday”.

So I ask you, Nicea, was the earth truly flat simply because a great many people believed it to be, for a substancial length of time?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Is it possible that Jon–and his fellow Lutherans, and I and my fellow Catholics, and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and those others who believe this Christian teaching–are right?

Umm…possible I suppose.

As with many of the prooftexts I have heard here (on all sides), the Scriptural case against does not really prove against, the claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

At the very least, given the historical figures who have believed for, it is hard for me to imagine this as a great, big, fat heresy.

But in my mind questions remain.

The simplest and most natural interpretation of “brothers” and “sisters”…is…well…what I normally think when I hear the words.

And the natural assumption is that married couples have sex.

Against this backdrop I guess the first question is "Why should I believe something that in my mind goes against how one naturally views marriage and one naturally views the word “brother”. But even more important might be the second question which would be “Why is it oh-so-very-important that I believe for”.

 

[regression]

The simplest and most natural interpretation of “brothers” and “sisters”…is…well…what I normally think when I hear the words.

Just throwing this out there, but for me, the most natural interpretation of “brothers and sisters” depends on the context. If I am at home and hear that, I think of my biological brother and sister. If I am at church, I think of the community (not a blood relative). And, I am using the 20th / 21st century perspective.