C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Again, it only says she was kept a virgin till she gave birth. Nothing about remaining a virgin afterwards is even hinted at in scripture. That’s my disagreement.
- Status
V
Vincent1560
Guest
I am an evangelical and am confused about something. If I understand Catholic doctrine correctly it is wrong to get married if the couple intends to be celibate or can’t consumate, because marriage is supposed to be about producing life. Paul also writes that a married couple should only not have sex for set times, but should always come together again so as not to be tempted. Given these things would not Mary and Joseph be requried to consumate their marriage?
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
I’m trying to explain there’s no biblical basis for the teaching that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. If it’s not in the bible, then it’s safe to say that human traditions are the source. Traditions that contradict or add to scripture are wrong. This is a good point you make too.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
Chris LaRock:
You have to leave room for the Holy Spirit working through Christians. Jesus said that the Spirit would be given to us as a helper and thus I do not think you can declare every non scriptural thing as coming from man, but I do agree that the only thing of which you can be certain is infallible is the bible.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
You make a good point, but Matthew 1:25 contradicts the traditional teaching that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth.
Traditions that contradict the bible cannot be from God.
Traditions that contradict the bible cannot be from God.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
Chris LaRock:
I agree with that. Furthermore if you look at other historical writings such as the histories of Josephus, you find references to Jesus’ brother James (he is explicitly referred to as Jesus’ brother) and his death.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
When someone said to Jesus, ‘there are your brothers and your mother.’, he didn’t correct them by saying she was a virgin.
Veneration of Mary is nothing new. A woman said to Jesus as he preached ‘blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you’. Jesus corrected her, ‘blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it’. We are not to venerate Mary.
Veneration of Mary is nothing new. A woman said to Jesus as he preached ‘blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you’. Jesus corrected her, ‘blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it’. We are not to venerate Mary.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Chris LaRock:
As to this particular passage, you truly need to understand the Bible a lot better. Jesus’ correction here is that the woman is saying blessed be the objects of breasts and womb. His correction lies in blessed are people not objects without association to a person. If you were to take this line literally as you state then a deaf person could not be blessed because he or she cannot “hear” the the Word.
What Jesus means is that breasts and womb are just that, but it is the person who keeps The Word who is called “Blessed.” Mary is honored for being Mary the person. It is not just her body parts that remained untouched, or virgin, it is the whole person of Mary throughout her entire existence.
I find the most trouble in helping specifically Evangelicals get their minds to grasp these concepts because in my experience Evangelicals are taught only to interpret from their own point of view. God is outside of time. If you are strapped to a timeline, as most Protestants are, then you cannot see things as God wants you too.
What if you had lived in the year 200? What would you believe about Mary’s ever-virginity? You would have no Bible, would possibly be illiterate anyway, (most people were, I know I would have been.) Does that make those in the year 200 less able to love God? Does having your personal interpretation of Scripture make you more Christian now than a man from the year 200?
No, in 200 you would have believed that Mary was an ever-virgin and that she was a “spouse” of the Holy Spirit. You would have believed that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was very special, one that could be held as a model of perfect submission to the will of God. And you would have thought that Joseph was a saint for being a humble guardian of the perfect vessel who brought The Word in The Flesh.
Please reread my post #47 as it doesn’t appear you read it or the accompanying link to Scripture.
As to this particular passage, you truly need to understand the Bible a lot better. Jesus’ correction here is that the woman is saying blessed be the objects of breasts and womb. His correction lies in blessed are people not objects without association to a person. If you were to take this line literally as you state then a deaf person could not be blessed because he or she cannot “hear” the the Word.
What Jesus means is that breasts and womb are just that, but it is the person who keeps The Word who is called “Blessed.” Mary is honored for being Mary the person. It is not just her body parts that remained untouched, or virgin, it is the whole person of Mary throughout her entire existence.
I find the most trouble in helping specifically Evangelicals get their minds to grasp these concepts because in my experience Evangelicals are taught only to interpret from their own point of view. God is outside of time. If you are strapped to a timeline, as most Protestants are, then you cannot see things as God wants you too.
What if you had lived in the year 200? What would you believe about Mary’s ever-virginity? You would have no Bible, would possibly be illiterate anyway, (most people were, I know I would have been.) Does that make those in the year 200 less able to love God? Does having your personal interpretation of Scripture make you more Christian now than a man from the year 200?
No, in 200 you would have believed that Mary was an ever-virgin and that she was a “spouse” of the Holy Spirit. You would have believed that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was very special, one that could be held as a model of perfect submission to the will of God. And you would have thought that Joseph was a saint for being a humble guardian of the perfect vessel who brought The Word in The Flesh.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
I think what this all comes down to is that Catholics want to hold onto the traditions they are taught at all costs. The incident with Jesus and the woman praising his mother was inspired by the holy spirit for a reason. God knew that there would be people who elevate Mary up to the level of a diety, and he wanted to provide scripture to refute it.
Again, there’s no biblical proof to suggest Mary remained a virgin her whole life, and no reason for her to once Christ was already born.
Again, there’s no biblical proof to suggest Mary remained a virgin her whole life, and no reason for her to once Christ was already born.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Chris LaRock:
You say Catholics hold on to our man-made traditions even though it has been shown to you that the early Church all believed Mary was an ever-virgin and that she was held to a place of honor. Please tell me WHEN this man-made tradition started if it dates all the way back to the apostles?
Again you acknowledge that she had no other children since she was given to John at the foot of the cross, but you continue to hold to your man-made tradition that “somehow” Mary had sexual relations with Joseph and yet bore no other children. I really cannot see how your mind can comparmentalize that.
You say Catholics hold on to our man-made traditions even though it has been shown to you that the early Church all believed Mary was an ever-virgin and that she was held to a place of honor. Please tell me WHEN this man-made tradition started if it dates all the way back to the apostles?
M
Milliardo
Guest
There’s a difference between dedicating one’s body and soul to God and remain celibate, even when married, and when one doesn’t want to have children solely because they are, as modern minds think it, a burden or a bother, as if having children is a disease. The former is to be commended, in that the couple has dedicated their life for the greater glory of God; the latter is simply caught up with this world, and would not share or give anything back to God.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Chris LaRock:
There is no Biblical proof as well that Mary had other children, nor suggest that Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life. Again, you are simply trying to impose your modern views on marriage, since for the modern mind marriage has to be cosumated somehow. Even the early Protestants like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli hung to the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity, seeing that to think otherwise would mean to cling to heresy.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Where in the bible does it say that Mary remained a virgin for life? WHERE??? The belief is an invention of human tradition and has no truth behind it.
C
catsrus
Guest
You are approaching this from a protestant, “Bible only” stance.
As Catholics, we are not tied to the Bible as the only source of information. Considering there was no Bible until the 4th century.
How do you believe the truth of Christ was passed on before the Bible? By word of mouth, that’s how. It’s called oral Tradition.
So, look at the issue this way; do you believe that God would allow the sanctified womb in which He resided for nine months to be polluted by sinful man? It’s a reasonable question.
Would God have allowed The Ark Of The Covenant to be used for garbage scraps when the tablets were not in it?
Mary’s womb was the new Ark.
See? Reason.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Chris LaRock:
Why did your early Protestant founders–Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli–then affirmed it, if it’s merely human tradition? Are you going to tell us they didn’t know any better?
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
The ark was used over and over again. The tablets were taken out and put back in. I can see why that was kept holy. However, to keep the womb of Mary as it was and to keep her a virgin was not needed, since the womb wasn’t used as a vessel after Christ was born. Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph only kept her a virgin ‘till the birth of her firstborn son’.
Why would you trust anything other than the bible, and what is keeping someone from introducing false doctrin into the CC - since it doesn’t have to match scripture in order for you to buy in to it?
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
They were still somewhat Catholic in thier thinking that traditions are equal to scripture.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Chris LaRock:
It seems you don’t even know the teachings of your own founders then if you say that…
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
They were still holding onto Catholic traditions, is what I’m saying.
This is the deal; There are many ‘traditions’ out there. I don’t see them as all that reliable. I know I can trust the bible, so I trust it to a greater extent than traditions that are not rooted in the scriptures. Don’t you understand where I’m coming from? You don’t think the bible is the complete word of God, and seek out the rest through Church traditions. I don’t understand that.
- Status