If Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin

[po18guy]

Hi po18guy!
I believe that “God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” John 3/v16

Jesus born of a virgin (Mary) - suffered and died for the salvation of all mankind - dead three days and then rose from the dead - sits at the righthand of God the Father in heaven.

As for the original church “still existing” today as the one that Jesus founded – I don’t believe that the Catholic church of today, is the same church that existed back then. And mainly because of some of the “teachings that are hard to accept” as you put it…or the “teachings that have been “developed” over the years”, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary.

One word: EarlyChurchFathers. One must read them to avoid the revisionist history that has crept in. You will find that the current Church looks suspiciously like the first century Church.

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella:
And so was this statement put down in writing for future generations:

“They have no wine.”

Oh my…Yes…Well that settles everything doesn’t it!

Good Fella:
Isaac was also distinguished from other babies, but he wasn’t divine. Nor was Moses who was distinguished from other babies.

Can you show me those verses that distinguish Isaac and Moses in the same light as to the prophet Simeon’s pronouncements with regard to Jesus?

Good Fella:
Neither Simeon nor Anna make the claim that Jesus was divine. They were Jews who expected the Messiah to be of paternal lineage. By the word salvation, Simeon had the Jewish concept in mind. He wasn’t a Christian and member of the Church.

But LUKE – who was a Christian and member of the church, thought Simeon’s words significant enough, with regards to Jesus and “who He was” – to put them down in writing.

I repeat: (Post 109)
*You can doubt if you want too - or need too for some reason - but that doesn’t change what is actually put down in writing.

V 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ*. (this statement was put down in writing for future generations and as you read on, it is evident that “Lord’s Christ” is indeed the baby that Simeon held in his arms)

Good Fella:
The Holy Spirit was speaking through him. The same Spirit who descended at Pentecost interpreted Simeon’s prophecy through the medium of Sacred Tradition of the Church.

What???

Good Fella:
Meanwhile, both Luke and John implicitly reveal Mary’s contribution to the plan of God’s salvation as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocatrix.

It’s amazing how you can get all that out of Luke /John’s mention of Mary and yet you seem to struggle with Luke’s record of what Simeon, the Prophet, lead by the Holy Spirit had to say about Jesus – you can’t see any connection there about His “divinity”?

Good Fella:
You are outside the Church, so don’t count yourself as part of a future generation. What you believe the Holy Spirit is telling you is just your own voice inside your head.

Practising your gift of “prophecy” Good Fella?

Good Fella:
The Spirit has spoken through Peter and the Apostles and through their valid successors: the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church, since Pentecost.

I’m glad you specified “valid” – is there a reason for that - could there have been “invalid” ones do you think?

 

[po18guy]

Hi! Remember me? I started this topic. The topic of if Our Mother wasn’t perpetually virgin:

How did Her hymen break? (Could it be just because of the muscles stretching?)

If the hymen stayed in tact, did Jesus come out covered in amniotic fluid and whatever happened with the umbiblical cord.

Thank you for staying on topic.

Saint Joseph, being a righteous man, was fully aware that to touch the Ark of the Covenant resulted in death. He would have preferred death to a violation of the womb (Ark of the New Covenant) in which Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. My opinion.

 

[Leeann]

One word: EarlyChurchFathers. One must read them to avoid the revisionist history that has crept in. You will find that the current Church looks suspiciously like the first century Church.

That’s interesting…I’m going to take a chance (off topic) but could you give me some examples of what you’re referring too - some of the “revisionist history” that has crept in would be good.

And I’d be interested to see how the current church looks suspiciously like the first century church. That sounds intriguing.

 

[po18guy]

That’s interesting…I’m going to take a chance (off topic) but could you give me some examples of what you’re referring too - some of the “revisionist history” that has crept in would be good.

And I’d be interested to see how the current church looks suspiciously like the first century church. That sounds intriguing.

First: the error of sola scriptura. That alone is not taught by the bible. The Apostle Paul teaches Tradition and Scripture and so does the Catholic Church.

As an adjunct to this, separating the bible from the Church authority which tested it and canonized it can lead to error.

As to the ECFs, read St. Polycarp (student of the Apostle John), his student Irenaeus, and Ignatius of Antioch for starters. Many Catholic converts began their journey by delving into church history. The further back, the better.

That’s the best I can advise. Christian bookstores may have the books, but you can rest assured that any Catholic bookstore will have them.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Leeann]

First: the error of sola scriptura. That alone is not taught by the bible. The Apostle Paul teaches Tradition and Scripture and so does the Catholic Church.

As an adjunct to this, separating the bible from the Church authority which tested it and canonized it can lead to error.

As to the ECFs, read St. Polycarp (student of the Apostle John), his student Irenaeus, and Ignatius of Antioch for starters. Many Catholic converts began their journey by delving into church history. The further back, the better.

That’s the best I can advise. Christian bookstores may have the books, but you can rest assured that any Catholic bookstore will have them.

Christ’s peace.

Oh…I see…so just make sure to get only Catholic history books…at a Catholic bookstore. Okay thanks.

 

[po18guy]

Oh…I see…so just make sure to get only Catholic history books…at a Catholic bookstore. Okay thanks.

You are so conspiratorial! Well, just go to a Protestant bookstore then. Wherever you get them, the writings are the same. The reason that I even mentioned the evil Catholic bookstores is that they are certain to have the ECFs. Protestants are not nearly so big on them, because, frankly, they appear too Catholic. That’s all.

 

[Good_Fella]

Can you show me those verses that distinguish Isaac and Moses in the same light as to the prophet Simeon’s pronouncements with regard to Jesus?

But LUKE – who was a Christian and member of the church, thought Simeon’s words significant enough, with regards to Jesus and “who He was” – to put them down in writing.

V 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. (this statement was put down in writing for future generations and as you read on, it is evident that “Lord’s Christ” is indeed the baby that Simeon held in his arms)

It’s amazing how you can get all that out of Luke /John’s mention of Mary and yet you seem to struggle with Luke’s record of what Simeon, the Prophet, lead by the Holy Spirit had to say about Jesus – you can’t see any connection there about His “divinity”?

Isaac is unique as a prefigurement of Christ. He gave birth to Jacob (Israel). Jesus gave birth to the New Israel, that is the Catholic Church. Moses prefigures Jesus as covenantal mediator. Thus Isaac and Moses were special babies in the history of salvation in light of Christ.

I don’t deny that Simeon was speaking of the divine Christ and Messiah, but he himself had no actual knowledge of the meaning of his words. No prophet is the interpreter of his own prophecy. The Spirit who speaks through his chosen prophet interprets the prophecy at a later date through his appointed emissary. Still we know that Simeon is referring to the divine Messiah by interpreting the text in light of Sacred Tradition. As you pointed out, even though you reject the notion of Sacred Tradition, Luke is expressing the traditional Christian belief of the divine Messiah through the words of Simeon. God’s revelation to his Church is not solely mediated through the scriptures. Peter and the Apostles were fully enlightened when the Holy Spirit descended on them at Pentecost. Simeon’s declaration about the Messiah is implicit, just as his prophecy concerning Mary’s participation is implicit. He is not merely alluding to the spiritual and emotional suffering she will have to endure because of her Son’s Passion and Death. He is prophetically drawing a connection between Jesus and his Blessed Mother in her association with our Lord’s mission. Let’s look at the verse.

“And you yourself a sword shall pierce so that the the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

Please note the subordinating conjunction of purpose: ‘so that’. In every day language we could say: “I eat so that I will live,” or “I studied hard all night so that I would pass the exam.” In these examples the conjunction illustrates a purpose. Thus Luke is telling us that “Mary suffered so that we could be saved by her Son from our sins.” Mary’s sorrow is vividly compared with a sword that passes through her soul. Her pain indicates the purpose and result of our Lord’s salvific mission and thereby serves as an incidental effect (grammatically speaking) of our salvation. Simeon singles out the Mother of our Lord for a unique share in the agony and death connected with the Messiah who would be despised and rejected by the religious elders and people of Israel. Jesus would not have saved us from our sins if it weren’t for Mary’s ‘Fiat’ and her pilgrimage of faith in association with her divine Son. Mary played a vital role in our salvation. Her faith and perseverance contributed to our redemption. Luke is teaching us this traditional belief of the Church. Elizabeth declares:

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

“He became man by ‘the’ Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But ‘the’ Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him (Gen 3:15); but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 [A.D. 155]

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying His Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that ‘the’ Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19, 1 [A.D. 180]

PAX :tiphat:

 

[elvisman]

Yessss …the issue of “Authority” is often raised in every thread…eventually.

This usually occurs when doubts begin to prevail from comments that have been posted by visitors addressing the “thread topic” in question…and the responders cannot reply directly to them (whether it be lack of reasoning ability on their part or simply blind faith in the church…as opposed to God) …who knows?

But nevertheless, you have to love 'em for trying!:yup:

You are still dodging the question:
**CAN you post the Scripture verses in favor of factions (denominations)? **

I’ve already provided you with a litany of scripture verses with the proof and importance of Authority and Unity.

What part of "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that ARE COMING", do you NOT understand?

This includes any and ALL truth revealed to the Church. If it doesn’t - Jesus is a liar. You can believe that if you want, but I won’t.

 

[elvisman]

Isn’t it also possible that various popes over time have been listening to voices inside their own head believing it to be the Spirit? The Spirit isn’t going to force anyone to do anything; if It says to do something, you can certainly resist. Jonah tried to get as far away from Nineveh as possible after being told to go to the city, so what would prevent a church leader from following his own path?

Oh wait, there’s that apostate condemned Protestant “voice in my head” posting on this forum.

As I already asked the equally smug and spiritually prideful Leeann:

What part of "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that ARE COMING", do you NOT understand?

**This includes any and ALL truth revealed to the Church. If it doesn’t - Jesus is a liar. **

 

[Leeann]

**Originally posted by Leeann:
Can you show me those verses that distinguish Isaac and Moses in the same light as to the prophet Simeon’s pronouncements with regard to Jesus?

But LUKE – who was a Christian and member of the church, thought Simeon’s words significant enough, with regards to Jesus and “who He was” – to put them down in writing.

V 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. (this statement was put down in writing for future generations and as you read on, it is evident that “Lord’s Christ” is indeed the baby that Simeon held in his arms**)

It’s amazing how you can get all that out of Luke /John’s mention of Mary and yet you seem to struggle with Luke’s record of what Simeon, the Prophet, lead by the Holy Spirit had to say about Jesus – you can’t see any connection there about His “divinity”?

Good Fella:
Isaac is unique as a prefigurement of Christ. He gave birth to Jacob (Israel). Jesus gave birth to the New Israel,that is the Catholic Church. Moses prefigures Jesus as covenantal mediator. Thus Isaac and Moses were special babies in the history of salvation in light of Christ.

I was referring to an actual “pronouncement” by someone that establishes Isaac and Moses in the same status level as Jesus’ divinity.

Good Fella:
I don’t deny that Simeon was speaking of the divine Christ and Messiah, but he himself had no actual knowledge of the meaning of his words. No prophet is the interpreter of his own prophecy. The Spirit who speaks through his chosen prophet interprets the prophecy at a later date through his appointed emissary. Still we know that Simeon is referring to the divine Messiah by interpreting the text in light of Sacred Tradition.

So you needed the “church” to interpret and explain to you what Simeon said.

Good Fella:
Let’s look at the verse.

“And you yourself a sword shall pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

Please note the subordinating conjunction of purpose: ‘so that’. In every day language we could say: “I eat so that I will live,” or “I studied hard all night so that I would pass the exam.” In these examples the conjunction illustrates a purpose. Thus Luke is telling us that “Mary suffered so that we could be saved by her Son from our sins.”

Perhaps you are reading too much into that one sentence. Luke is indeed telling us that Mary would suffer, but that does not indicate as you put forth, that as a “result” of Mary’s suffering, Jesus “could” thereby save us from our sins.
Thank you for the grammatical explanation. I’ve posted an excerpt from the King James version below, as you can see, it reads differently.

King James online
[34] And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
[35] (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

If you note in the above excerpt from the KJV bible above, the brackets break the sentence and the portion of sentence following – “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” – is the continuation of the beginning of the sentence referring to Jesus…not Mary.

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella:
Mary’s sorrow is vividly compared with a sword that passes through her soul. Her pain indicates the purpose and result of our Lord’s salvific mission and thereby serves as an incidental effect (grammatically speaking) of our salvation. Simeon singles out the Mother of our Lord for a unique share in the agony and death connected with the Messiah who would be despised and rejected by the religious elders and people of Israel. Jesus would not have saved us from our sins if it weren’t for Mary’s ‘Fiat’ and her pilgrimage of faith in association with her divine Son. Mary played a vital role in our salvation. Her faith and perseverance contributed to our redemption. Luke is teaching us this traditional belief of the Church. Elizabeth declares:

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

Although you once cautioned me about putting too much significance on any bible version, as the Catholic church used “both scripture and sacred tradition” – I have taken this opportunity to also take an excerpt from the Douay Rheims bible – as I understand this is a popular Catholic translation and the King James Version may not be as acceptable.

As you see below (the “red” is their commentary) – no reference is made to Mary at all with regards to Verse 35 in this commentary.

There is only a reference to Verse 34 –“for the fall” and of what this would mean for the people who would believe – or not believe in regards to Jesus.

It would appear that clarifying this portion of scripture was more significant, than that of Mary’s “vital role” in our salvation.

Douary Rheims online

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;
35 And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

34 “For the fall”… Christ came for the salvation of all men; but here Simeon prophesies what would come to pass, that many through their own wilful blindness and obstinacy would not believe in Christ, nor receive his doctrine, which therefore would be ruin to them: but to others a resurrection, by their believing in him, and obeying his commandments.

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity

Good Fella:
“He became man by ‘the’ Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But ‘the’ Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him (Gen 3:15); but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 [A.D. 155]

As Justin Martyr points out – Mary received “faith and joy” when Gabriel announced **what was **going to happen to her - her “fiat” would be a natural result of that wouldn’t it?

*Good Fella:
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying His Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter **was persuaded to obey ***God, so that ‘the’ Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19, 1 [A.D. 180]

When we read Luke, I cannot see much “persuasion” as Irenaeus says above. I can see where the angel, Gabriel - stated what was going to happen, he didn’t make a request or ask for Mary’s agreement…same in Matthew’s account.

 

[Leeann]

When we read Luke, I cannot see much “persuasion” as Irenaeus says above. I can see where the angel, Gabriel - stated what was going to happen, he didn’t make a request or ask for Mary’s agreement…same in Matthew’s account.

Luke Chapter 1:
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold **thou shalt **conceive in thy womb, and **shalt **bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Matthew’s account: Chapter 1

20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and **thou shalt **call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
22 **Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:
23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. **24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.

 

[Leeann]

You are so conspiratorial! Well, just go to a Protestant bookstore then. Wherever you get them, the writings are the same. The reason that I even mentioned the evil Catholic bookstores is that they are certain to have the ECFs. Protestants are not nearly so big on them, because, frankly, they appear too Catholic. That’s all.

Oh no po18guy - don’t you start with the name calling - you’re even calling yourselves names now!
I don’t believe Catholic bookstores to be evil!
Your last sentence is probably correct.
I’m not conspiratorial…“skeptical” would be a more accurate assertion. And, sincerely, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Leeann]

You are still dodging the question:
CAN you post the Scripture verses in favor of factions (denominations)?

I’ve already provided you with a litany of scripture verses with the proof and importance of Authority and Unity.

What part of "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that ARE COMING", do you NOT understand?

This includes any and ALL truth revealed to the Church. If it doesn’t - Jesus is a liar. You can believe that if you want, but I won’t.

Originally posted by Leeann (way,way,way,way,back…and never answered)

*“Getting back to the topic of the thread on the “perpetual virginity of Mary”…I asked a question quite awhile ago…a couple of times and no one responded.

Are there any scripture verses that refer to Mary as a “virgin” after Jesus’ birth?

I can see ones that call her Jesus’ mother and Mary, the mother of Jesus and coupled in with Joseph (as in His parents), but nothing that states for instance:

Mary the virgin and the mother of Jesus - or – the Holy Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother.

I ask, as we are often directed to verses in the Old Testament with regards to proof of her virginity and of course in the gospels (the Annunciation) prior to His birth – but is there any reference after His birth that would suggest that Mary was still a virgin, by way of how she was described in the writings.”*

 

[po18guy]

Oh no po18guy - don’t you start with the name calling - you’re even calling yourselves names now!
I don’t believe Catholic bookstores to be evil!
Your last sentence is probably correct.
I’m not conspiratorial…“skeptical” would be a more accurate assertion. And, sincerely, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Well, your reply did make it kinda sound like I was part of a shadowy Opus Dei plan to inculcate you in the secret rites of the underground church. OK, maybe your are just skeptical after all. But, really, the ECFs reveal the earliest beliefs and practices of the Church.

But, you are testing everything and retaining that which is good. Good for you.

 

[Good_Fella]

I was referring to an actual “pronouncement” by someone that establishes Isaac and Moses in the same status level as Jesus’ divinity.

So you needed the “church” to interpret and explain to you what Simeon said.

Perhaps you are reading too much into that one sentence. Luke is indeed telling us that Mary would suffer, but that does not indicate as you put forth, that as a “result” of Mary’s suffering, Jesus “could” thereby save us from our sins.
Thank you for the grammatical explanation. I’ve posted an excerpt from the King James version below, as you can see, it reads differently.

King James online
[34] And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
[35] (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

If you note in the above excerpt from the KJV bible above, the brackets break the sentence and the portion of sentence following – “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” – is the continuation of the beginning of the sentence referring to Jesus…not Mary.

You need the Church to interpret Simeon’s prophecy as well. The Church believed in the meaning of this prophecy before it was recorded in the scriptures. So Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. If you accept the church’s interpretation with regard to Jesus, then you must also accept her interpretation with regard to Mary. Of course, you pick and choose what you wish to believe, which is why Protestantism is a divided house - a crumbling cookie. Christians certainly don’t need a competent-soul like Leeann to interpret the scriptures for them.

I just love the way you quibble and mince words.You better learn your grammar. A subordinate clause is a subordinate clause notwithstanding the hyphen in the distorted KJV version; “so that” or “that” can be equally used as subordinate conjunctions of purpose. Trust me. I’m a high school English teacher.

“I eat - that I may live.”

I won’t live unless I eat. The purpose to eat is to live. The result of eating is a prolonged life. Mary suffered out of love for her Son because she freely accepted to be our Lord’s mother. If she hadn’t pronounced her ‘Fiat’ then she wouldn’t have suffered, because there wouldn’t have been a saviour to grieve over. Mary’s suffering contributed to our salvation (Col 1, 24). Unless Mary was willing to make the personal sacrifices in faith and love of God, Jesus would not have come into the world to save us. The reason for her suffering was our salvation. As a result of Mary’s willingness to suffer, Jesus came into the world to save us.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Hajnalcsillag **
Isn’t it also possible that various popes over time have been listening to voices inside their own head believing it to be the Spirit? The Spirit isn’t going to force anyone to do anything; if It says to do something, you can certainly resist. Jonah tried to get as far away from Nineveh as possible after being told to go to the city, so what would prevent a church leader from following his own path?

Oh wait, there’s that apostate condemned Protestant “voice in my head” posting on this forum.

Originally posted by elvisman to Hajnalcsillag

As I already asked the **equally smug **and **spiritually prideful **Leeann:

What part of “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that ARE COMING”, do you NOT understand?

This includes any and ALL truth revealed to the Church. If it doesn’t - Jesus is a liar.

It’s okay Hajnalcsillag – this type of response usually follows the one that I referred too in an earlier post about “the Authority” being brought into every topic thread and “why”.

In most cases the “name calling” which is exhibited above – :tsktsk: comes shortly thereafter, however that is not always the case, it may vary at times. Sometimes the “labeling”, “name calling” and posting what “you” think and “why you think it” can be interspersed at *any *given time during these discussions, along with “judgement being passed” of course.

I’m not being “smug” here - it’s the truth.:sad_yes:

 

[elvisman]

Originally posted by Leeann (way,way,way,way,back…and never answered)

“Getting back to the topic of the thread on the “perpetual virginity of Mary”…I asked a question quite awhile ago…a couple of times and no one responded.

Are there any scripture verses that refer to Mary as a “virgin” after Jesus’ birth?

I can see ones that call her Jesus’ mother and Mary, the mother of Jesus and coupled in with Joseph (as in His parents), but nothing that states for instance:

Mary the virgin and the mother of Jesus - or – the Holy Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother.

I ask, as we are often directed to verses in the Old Testament with regards to proof of her virginity and of course in the gospels (the Annunciation) prior to His birth – but is there any reference after His birth that would suggest that Mary was still a virgin, by way of how she was described in the writings.”

Sure - I’ll tackle that one!
**As soon as you tell me where the word “Trinity” is found anywhere in scripture. **
Show me where the word “Bible” is found, too.

Can you show me ONE verse that says Jesus didn’t marry Mary Magdalen? Or where Jesus stubbed his toe?
Of course not! With you’re feeble reasoning you fail to understand that not everything you and I believe in is spelled out that way in scripture.

**Can you show me one, single, solitary verse that says Mary gave birth to another child? **
**No Protestant has ever been able to show me one. Can YOU? **

While you’re at it - answer my original question - you know, the one you keep dodging:
**CAN you post the Scripture verses in favor of factions (denominations)? **

PS - I didn’t resort to name-calling. I said you were being smug and spiritually prideful.
"By their fruits, you shall know them" (Matt. 7:16, 20)
Name-calling would have been something like “ignoramus” or a “typical baiting blow-hard” . Gee, I would never resort to THAT . . . **

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella:
You need the Church to interpret Simeon’s prophecy as well. The Church believed in the meaning of this prophecy before it was recorded in the scriptures. So Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. If you accept the church’s interpretation with regard to Jesus, then you must also accept her interpretation with regard to Mary.

Of course, you pick and choose what you wish to believe, which is why Protestantism is a divided house - a crumbling cookie. Christians certainly don’t need a competent-soul like Leeann to interpret the scriptures for them.

Yes…it’s evident in how you’re kind of “hog-tied” into what you “must accept” and of course how that translates into how you’ve been misinformed……

Good Fella:
I just love the way you quibble and mince words.

I’ve learned it’s wise to clearly read how something is posted.

Good Fella:
You better learn your grammar. A subordinate clause is a subordinate clause notwithstanding the hyphen in the distorted KJV version; “so that” or “that” can be equally used as subordinate conjunctions of purpose. Trust me. I’m a high school English teacher.

“I eat - that I may live.”

I won’t live unless I eat. The purpose to eat is to live. The result of eating is a prolonged life.

Yes….and you forgot to mention…again…that you went to college!
I think I already addressed this in a posting I just made, but don’t think you’ve seen it yet.

Good Fella:
Mary suffered out of love for her Son because she freely accepted to be our Lord’s mother. If she hadn’t pronounced her ‘Fiat’ then she wouldn’t have suffered, because there wouldn’t have been a saviour to grieve over. Mary’s suffering contributed to our salvation (Col 1, 24).

Oh come on Good Fella….that’s a stretch and a half – Col 1,24!!!

Good Fella:
Unless Mary was willing to make the personal sacrifices in faith and love of God, Jesus would not have come into the world to save us. The reason for her suffering was our salvation. As a result of Mary’s willingness to suffer, Jesus came into the world to save us.

I’ve already addressed this too, in a posting I just made, but don’t think you’ve seen it yet.

:hypno: :yawn: Must get some sleep!