How is mary a virgin?

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

The Pope is right just like the time Jesus questioned His apostles ,“who do you say I am”.Your trying to turn God into one of these punkish guys who use someone and dumps them when their purpose is served.Do you even realise what you are saying?

In understanding the meaning of this single word in this context of course I do. It is not rocket science it is simply one little word that carries its normal meaning, nothing more.

But that normal meaning destroys your whole false church!

 

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

doulos1:

Guess what? Catholic answers is wrong!
According to who?You What Authority do you have?None

According to the normal meaning of what God has said in His word. God tells us that the Pope is wrong!

 

[doulos1]

Benadam:

Your interpreation of history is flawed by it’s limitation to concieve intent outside of it’s own experience. It does seem primative and beastly to treat women as property. In fact it is if not understood in the light of theconsequences it’s imposition was nuetralizing.A condition taken advantage of by lesser men and the cause of scandal in lesser women. Nevertheless it’s a spirit of rebellion against your fathers that blinds you to the possibility that there is the wisdom of the ages in regards to the original intentions when social rights were denied to women. Rest assured the rights of women were recognized as self evident to the shapers of societies and rest assured as well that the functionality of such social extremes will become and in fact are self evident today in certain societies cooperating in humanities struggle against a culture of death that is raising it’s ugly head to swallow us.

So why did your Pope insist that the world was the center of the universe? So much so that he threw the man telling the truth into jail? Huh?

Should the next subject be the mistresses of the Popes through history? The promotion of the illegitmate sons of the Popes? What shall it be next? Were these men the vicar of Christ on earth?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

According to the normal meaning of what God has said in His word. God tells us that the Pope is wrong!

No Gods word doesn’t,you attempt to write a sexual story out of one word,because you can’t understand holiness or celibacy,or St.Paul for that matter.Oh,did you throw St.Paul out of the Scriptures as well?

 

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

No Gods word doesn’t,you attempt to write a sexual story out of one word,because you can’t understand holiness or celibacy,or St.Paul for that matter.Oh,did you throw St.Paul out of the Scriptures as well?

So Peter was married not celibate. God has told us Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus!

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

So why did your Pope insist that the world was the center of the universe? So much so that he threw the man telling the truth into jail? Huh?

Should the next subject be the mistresses of the Popes through history? The promotion of the illegitmate sons of the Popes? What shall it be next? Were these men the vicar of Christ on earth?

The Pope is Human,but he is infallible on faith and moral,not astrology oh,angry protestant you

 

[doulos1]

Benadam:

I noticed doulos denied this response recognition as a good rebuttle to Michaels post. I repost it since he praised the post it was a rebuttle too and I would challenge doulos to a response of at the very least a recognition of understanding it’s concepts.

So the old “all sex is dirty sex” huh? So would sex have been sin had man not fallen? Marital sex is sin? I think Jesus words in Matt. 19 contradict this because Jesus is applying the fact that the man and woman coming together as one flesh to sinful men as God’s decree. Would he do this if it were sin? I think not.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

So Peter was married not celibate. God has told us Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus!

Celibacy was instituted later.Why?Because the Pope had the authority to bind and loose, given to him by Jesus.Your argument is with Jesus not the Pope.You would have turned away from Christianity and not followed Jesus because of Judas, oh angry one

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

So the old “all sex is dirty sex” huh? So would sex have been sin had man not fallen? Marital sex is sin? I think Jesus words in Matt. 19 contradict this because Jesus is applying the fact that the man and woman coming together as one flesh to sinful men as God’s decree. Would he do this if it were sin? I think not.

Oh, I see we are really having hormone problem that is why you don’t believe we can be celibate

 

[Benadam]

doulos1:

So why did your Pope insist that the world was the center of the universe? So much so that he threw the man telling the truth into jail? Huh?

Should the next subject be the mistresses of the Popes through history? The promotion of the illegitmate sons of the Popes? What shall it be next? Were these men the vicar of Christ on earth?

Doulos, did ‘our’ world produce the physical manifestation of this universes creator? That would make it a pretty central place if ya ask me…

But seriously, you’re irrelevant references to human behaviour that may or may not be understood correctly is much like dysfunctional relationships that remain encircled by the serpent forever swallowing it’s tail as the same external realities are rehashed because the internal objects they represent are denied.
There is a heel that crushes the head of that serpent my friend.

I’m sorry to have caused you this scandal.

 

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

The Pope is Human,but he is infallible on faith and moral,not astrology oh,angry protestant you

If he were infallible on doctrine then he would never have declared Mary a perpetual virgin since she was not. He has sinned against God and is against Christ!

 

[mercygate]

doulos1:

If he were infallible on doctrine then he would never have declared Mary a perpetual virgin since she was not. He has sinned against God and is against Christ!

And you are telling us this because . . .

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

If he were infallible on doctrine then he would never have declared Mary a perpetual virgin since she was not. He has sinned against God and is against Christ!

Sorry,but alas you again are wrong,Christ is the perfect son who honors his Mother,you want to make her a surragate throwaway,but hey in genesis God told satan He would put emnity between satan and the woman I don’t believe your protestant,your just being used by the enemy of God who can’t stand Mary or her Son Jesus,I do hope your not male however as a female I would be very weary of your stance on love and women.

 

[Benadam]

doulos1:

If he were infallible on doctrine then he would never have declared Mary a perpetual virgin since she was not. He has sinned against God and is against Christ!

Doulos, your rage has unbalanced you. You teach what you don’t see. Mary never had sex, something impossible for you to accept. Is it so difficult to accept a life driven by purposes other than breeding?
We teach what we have seen and what we have seen is there is no one claiming to be a sibling of Christ or the offspring of Mary. You would think this Royal line of people would be impossible to hide wouldn’t ya? Da Vinci Code flashback. Whew! man! gotta lay off the media hype and caffein.

 

[Benadam]

doulos1:

So the old “all sex is dirty sex” huh? So would sex have been sin had man not fallen? Marital sex is sin? I think Jesus words in Matt. 19 contradict this because Jesus is applying the fact that the man and woman coming together as one flesh to sinful men as God’s decree. Would he do this if it were sin? I think not.

I said sex is a physical expression of fulfillment and divine union.

if you want to offer substance to your sentiment you would give evidence against how I defined it as inherently sin. Not personal sin mind you. But it’s an act that is unavoidably tainted by our fallen state.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dont get worked up over this doulos punk. Hes just an oridiary mud slinger, getting people worked up.
If you look after a while these protest guys start exposing themselves the more they talk. If you look at the big picture of his overall position as a protestant his position will look like melting icecream.

A few questions should shake him up:
1)What are you, Baptist, Non-D, Ang, Unit, Meth, Naz, what?
2)How long have they existed?
3)What are some teachings your pastor says that you dont accept as Biblical?
come on, if your so much better.

(I dont think well see him again)

 

[Benadam]

Catholic Dude:

Dont get worked up over this doulos punk. Hes just an oridiary mud slinger, getting people worked up.
If you look after a while these protest guys start exposing themselves the more they talk. If you look at the big picture of his overall position as a protestant his position will look like melting icecream.

A few questions should shake him up:
1)What are you, Baptist, Non-D, Ang, Unit, Meth, Naz, what?
2)How long have they existed?
3)What are some teachings your pastor says that you dont accept as Biblical?
come on, if your so much better.

(I dont think well see him again)

Thanks Dude,
I could use the benefit of an organized scholarly approach…
I seem to be destined to forever be wingin’ it…:whacky:

 

[MaggieOH]

TobyLue:

Many years ago I found myself in a rut. I had a job where I was going nowhere. It got to the point where I actually loathed going to work. I would get sick in my stomach each morning before going to work. I was not (nor am I now) a very educated person. I didn’t know what kind of job to get. I prayed to God to help me. But still I was doing nothing. Then one day when things were really bad I felt the Lord asking me if I trusted Him. I said “yes”. So he told me to quit my job. It was very, very clear that he was telling me that. I questioned God about “quit my job!!!” Yes he said. “Look at the birds in the sky. I take care of them. Don’t you think you are more important to me than the birds?” I answered “yes”. “So quit your job. I will take care of you”. This happened on a Saturday evening and on Monday I quit with nothing, absolutely nothing lined up. I had no idea what I would be doing. A month later I found a job, which was what I needed, and I retired from it after 25 years. Now, this is the thing. Did I interpret for myself what this scripture meant for me or did I have to go ask a priest? We are allowed to interpret scripture for ourselves as long as it does not go contrary to what the Church teaches. Now, does this mean that everybody, when they are having problems at work, should automatically quit their jobs? Of course not. So please don’t make the claim that Catholics cannot interpret scripture for themselves. We are encouraged to do so. But we must always do so with the mind of the Church. We can’t go off on different tangents and make claims that 2000 years of interpretation are false. Besides scripture says that there are many things that are hard to understand and some do so to their own ruin. This thing about “until” is hard to understand so we let the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret for us.

So I guess to Protestants, their hero Martin Luther was wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity. If he was wrong on that, could he then have been wrong on everything else? If some non-Catholics claim that Church has lied, then they readily follow ML who was also a liar?

That is an interesting conclusion because both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

doulos1:

So Peter was married not celibate. God has told us Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus!

I am not sure what conclusions that you are drawing here or what St. Peter’s marital status has to do with the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. As for saying that God told us that Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus, I say, where is the precise proof? Please tell me the names and ages of all of the younger children of Mary, and please provide Scriptural references of where they are named explicitly as sons of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

doulos1:

I have read this all before. It is all a pitiful attempt to read RC theolgoy back into the Scriptures. Eisegesis is you all. The question “how can this be” is modified by the statement “seeing I know not a man.” Again the familiar euphamism “know” being for sexual relations. And it is in the present tense meaning she was not then in a normal marriage relationship of ongoing sexual relations to her husband. And Numbers 30 is not about your eisegetical interpretation of reading celibacy back into the Bible. (the idea of life long celibacy with in marriage is not found in the Bible). It is the law of vows for women as it regards the authority of her father and her husband. This is all to sad

Let me see how many errors there are in the above statements:

1. Numbers 30 speaks about the making of a vow by a woman. Yes it also speaks about the authority of both father and husband over the girl/woman. However, what has been left out above is that Numbers 30 specifically says that if the husband or father upon hearing of the vow does not annul it within a day, then the vow is to be enforced. This means that if a young maiden makes a vow to God that she will remain a virgin and her spouse is informed of this vow on the day of their betrothal and he does not annul the vow then that vow cannot be broken. It is not good exegesis to leave out this extra detail.
2. The other statement regarding Mary’s statement to the angel is also not a very precise understanding of what actually took place.
   The purpose of the inclusion of this Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke is to show that prophecy is being fulfilled, that Jesus who is the only begotten Son of God is born of a virgin. It is correct to point out that “to know” is a euphemism for an intimate relationship between husband and wife. However, the statement does not indicate that Mary had any intention of being a mother as a result of her marriage. I would think that Mary knew what was required in marriage and that since she was betrothed she knew that once she was taken into the home of Joseph then the likelihood of having children was on the cards. Yet she said “how can this be, I do not know man?”
3. It must be remembered that the Protestant Reformers believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Maggie