Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Janet1983]

Janet, I find something in almost every post of yours with which I disagree. Finally here is one where I agree 100%!

:extrahappy:

You know… there’s a German proverb I’d like to translate for you:
“Even a blind chicken may perchance find a grain.”
Guess I sometimes get it without us disagreeing…

 

[guanophore]

guanophore: I mentioned the word detour, because someone was whining about non sequitors, and straying off topic! And slicing and dicing seems to be the order of the day; as it seems a few posts back, that someone said that because the priests(and presumably the apostles) taught that one must also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.But what does that issue have to do with whether or not she had additional children?

Are you asking me what the doctrine of perpetual virginity has to do with whether or not Mary had onther children?

I think it is late, and you must be sleep deprived.

The biggest problem is that there is ONE FAITH. When parts of it begin to be subtracted the integrity of the whole is lost.

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: Okay, let me try this in English! I am not removing anything from THE Gospel, or abrogating it or slicing it or dicing it to fit my own agenda Simply saying that you have not DEFINITIVELY shown that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is required for salvation! It then comes back to interpretation of what the HS directed the disciples to teach This gives religions a lot of latitude in determining what to have their congregants do to be saved. So, in essence, you are saying that during confirmation, one is asked to express belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Since we are not certain that this doctrine was taught, would it not be dangerous to teach it to others?

 

[guanophore]

guanophore: Okay, let me try this in English! I am not removing anything from THE Gospel, or abrogating it or slicing it or dicing it to fit my own agenda;)

I know that is not what you intend to do, and you are not doing it purposefully, but it is the result of the artificial construct that one can excise certain simple elements from scripture, decide that they are essential, and that the others are non-essential. Catholics do not have the liberty to do such things, because to us has been entrusted the whole Gospel of Christ. We have a Divine commandment to receive it whole, and to mainatin it whole. We do not have the authority to discrimminate and categorize. This is a liberty taken during the Reformation. In an effort to excise the corrupt behaviors and teachings of the Latin clergy of the time, they excised parts of the Gospel message. This planted a seed which continues in every generation, each new ecclesial community excising the parts they don’t consider essential. In our day and age, we have people calling themselves Christians who embrace a faith that would be unrecognizeable by the Apostles. Some of these communities are so hostile toward the Apostolic faith they would throw out the Apostles! The slicing and dicing has made the Gospel unrecognizeable.

I just read a post on another thread by a fundamentalist who said praying the Lord’s Prayer is a Pagan ritual!!!

 Simply saying that you have not DEFINITIVELY shown that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is required for salvation! It then comes back to interpretation of what the HS directed the disciples to teach:confused:

I agree with you that the NT lacks the clarity on this issue, as it does on several others.

 This gives religions a lot of latitude in determining what to have their congregants do to be saved.

Exactly. This latitude is what creates division and departure from the Apsostolic faith.

So, in essence, you are saying that during confirmation, one is asked to express belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? :

Yes, during confirmation the candidate receives all that the Apostles believed and taught as preserved by the HS in the Church.

So, in essence, you are saying that during confirmation, one is asked to express belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Since we are not certain that this doctrine was taught, would it not be dangerous to teach it to others?:eek:

I suppose it would be for persons such as yourself who have not received the Apostolic faith in it’s fullness. But for us who have preserved the Traditions just as they were handed down to us, we are certain that this doctrine was taught.

 

[PRmerger]

… I joined on the 26th of September 2007 and I got saved after that date… So when I joined I was still Catholic.

Just curious: what is the significance of the “1983” in your username, Janet? (I thought I read in one of your posts that the “1983” indicated the date you were “saved”).

 

[elvisman]

You do however realize that I am participating in discussions and that I almost exclusively write on News and in the Non-Catholic forum, do you?
I am a former Catholic and I have an opinion… when I came to this forum I was on the brink between being a Catholic and a Non-Catholic… I joined on the 26th of September 2007 and I got saved after that date… So when I joined I was still Catholic.
Other than that I spend most of my time in a forum that has the following description (according to the forum rules):

(LINK)
So if you go ahead and write in this part of CAF, don’t wonder if you run into a lot of Protestants who have their own views about certain subjects…
Call it persecution if you like… call it a discussion between people who have equal rights of participating in it too… This forum is made for interdenominational and inter-religious interaction and communication… get used to it and let’s just get back on-topic instead of talking about whether or not I should be here…

First of all - I don’t have any problem with you being here. I was speaking of those who come here simply to attack. I then told you to ask yourself why you were here.
If you’re getting defensive about it - I must have struck a chord. Disagreement is fine. Ad hominem attacks are childish.

As for a date when you were “saved” - there is no such thing in the context of Scripture. Salvation is a process, not a one-time slam dunk:
Matt. 7:21, Matt. 24:13, Romans 11:22, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15, Hebrews 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:26-27, 1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12, 1 Cor. 4:4.

---

BUT - that’s a debate for another thread . . .

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: Ah, but I am one who walks and talks with Christ;

Amen, brother! I admire your walk. You and He enjoy a wonderful friendship, no doubt.

But only those who have the Eucharist are able to consummate their relationship with Him.

Just as in marriage there is no greater intimacy than the One Flesh Union, so with our relationship with Jesus, there is no greater intimacy than the One Flesh Union with Christ through the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

This gives religions a lot of latitude in determining what to have their congregants do to be saved.

What you call “latitude” we would call false doctrine.

 

[Good_Fella]

As for a date when you were “saved” - there is no such thing in the context of Scripture. Salvation is a process, not a one-time slam dunk:
Matt. 7:21, Matt. 24:13, Romans 11:22, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15, Hebrews 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:26-27, 1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12, 1 Cor. 4:4.

:ballspin:

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: It seems like it has become not so much an issue of whether Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin, but rather, whether Jesus passed on through His disciples, that she was, and ALL must believe in the fact that she was to be saved To presume what Jesus or for that matter God MAY have said is treading on dangerous ground You can probably convince of her perpetual virginity; but her being a part of salvation, is a major stretch! Look, we know that apostolic successors have taught many things, seemingly passed down from Jesus, through chosen men, who may or may not have changed a word here or there; but until now, I have never heard of the theory that in order to be completely saved, one must believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin

There is no end to this. At this point it seems you argue for the sake of arguing. I mentioned that God can have you accountable “for not believing the ones He sent you and told you about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.” Can you see the difference?

If we are to argue, instead of arguing whether Jesus passed on through His disciples that Mary was Ever Virgin, shouldn’t we be arguing if Jesus asked His disciples to write down the Gospels in the first place? Non Christians say that the Apostles themselves “may or may not have changed a word here or there” too. Be careful to attack the integrity of the Church, it might backfire on you.

OK, let me try from another angle and this is about the thread, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

Was there anyone else that could have explained Mary’s Perpetual Virginity to the Apostles, if Jesus didn’t? Yes, MARY Herself!

Do we know who told Luke the sentence “How can this be if I’m a Virgin”? MARY!

Is it possible that Mary “explained” to Luke what “I’m a Virgin” really meant? YES!

How long did Mary remained on earth after Pentecost? YEARS!

Who were around Mary all those years? THE APOSTLES!

Were all the conversations between Mary and the Apostles “RECORDED” in the Bible? NO!

Does the fact that all Her conversations with the Apostles were not recorded in the Bible mean they never took place? NO!

Is it possible that Mary had a greater role in the writing of the Gospels than previously thought? YES!

How? Matthew, Mark, Luke and even the other writers showed Her, asked Her if what they wrote was right. After all, who is the person that was at Jesus side ALL THE DAYS OF HIS EARTHLY LIFE, right up to the moment that He ascended to the Heavens, and could have known details of Jesus’ and Her life that others didn’t know? MARY!

Was it necessary for the writers to write down Her Perpetual Virginity? No, they didn’t to protect Her and Her Son’s Divinity.

Protect Her, Him? Why? Jesus enemies know that if they can destroy Her first it would be easier to destroy Him afterward. Nazis in Germany spread the fable that Jesus was “blond” (Nazis hated Jews), and that his father was actually a Roman soldier recruited from the northern end of the Roman Empire (today’s Germany), and was assigned in Jerusalem by the time of Jesus birth. This happened 1900+ years after Jesus birth, imagine what the enemies of Jesus would have said about Him and Mary if her Perpetual Virginity was “preached” to them! By looking at your own reaction I can picture the scene clearly!

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The discussion has morphed into whether or not this belief is necessary for salvation, given all the other verses which tell US,“all who call upon the Name of Jesus will be saved,” or “turn back to God for forgiveness of your sins, repent, be baptized(I like full immersion) in the Name of Jesus, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” “whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Is it a requirement for salvation? We don’t know! Did Jesus tell His disciples that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was necessary for salvation? Are all of us Christians who don’t believe it is necessary, unsaved?We do read the words of the apostles, and we do know that through the Holy Spirit, we can and do enjoy a personal relationship with Christ! HALLELUJAH!!!

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: I thank God every day, that through the Holy Spirit, I am able to enjoy a personal relationship with my Saviour and friend, Jesus Christ! The ones whom I would like to say,“You don’t know what you are missing,” are those who have yet to experience the joys of serving their Lord(Mark 10:45). I mean getting out of your “comfort zone”, and sharing the Gospel with others(even strangers), feeding the homeless, etc. And because of my growing obedience, my Saviour continues to fill me up, and give me more opportunities to serve Him! And I totally understand that latitude could encourage some to engage in false doctrine But, unfortunately, it happens!

 

[1beleevr]

Hey, elvisman: I don’t see anything wrong with remembering the day that the Holy Spirit convicyrd your heart of its’ sin, and you finally said YES to Jesus’s offer of salvation! Most of US realize that salvation, is an ongoing process, and God is continually molding us and shaping US into what He wants us to look like(more like Christ). But that day(May 15,1967, for me) was the beginning of our NEW life in Christ("Behold, I stand at the door and knock). But, it is not a “slam dunk”, as you call it! Similarly, confirmation is not the final answer, but a beginning! Curious though, why Janet1983, would say that she was raised catholic, and then got saved in 2007Wasn’t she saved at confirmation?

 

[PRmerger]

Curious though, why Janet1983, would say that she was raised catholic, and then got saved in 2007Wasn’t she saved at confirmation?

Actually, what Catholicism teaches is that salvation begins at baptism, not confirmation.

 

[PRmerger]

I mean getting out of your “comfort zone”, and sharing the Gospel with others(even strangers), feeding the homeless, etc. And because of my growing obedience, my Saviour continues to fill me up, and give me more opportunities to serve Him!

Knock yourself out, 1beleevr, in your service to the homeless and evangelization to even strangers! God love you for that.

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: Actually, when those of us who go about Our Father’s business, reach someone who is lost, and he/she is led to a knowledge of and forgiveness of sin, we knock it out of the park! Is there a confession of sin, and repentance before baptism; thus making the confession an acceptance of Christ’s offering of salvation, the beginning(Acts 2:38) Is this the correct"order?"

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: You are correct, there is no end to this Even if we believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin’ it does not necessarily mean that believing said Marian doctrine is necessary for salvation! Suffice it to say, that she was vitally important to God’s plan, hoever, we do not have(other than apostolic passdown) verification of this piece of information. That being said, my position remains that even if I believe that she was a perpetual virgin, that belief is not a part of salvation

 

[PRmerger]

Is there a confession of sin, and repentance before baptism; thus making the confession an acceptance of Christ’s offering of salvation, the beginning(Acts 2:38) Is this the correct"order?"

Yes, indeed, there is.

(Of course, babies have no sin to confess, so it’s only adult converts who make this confession of sin.)

 

[PRmerger]

, hoever, we do not have(other than apostolic passdown) verification of this piece of information

1beleevr, did you know that we get the Bible from this “apostolic passdown”??

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: Thank you for your correspondence; always enjoy your posts! So Acts 2:38 is the order, so to speak of salvation? And I suppose it doesn’t matter whether you are sprinkled or fully immersed, when it comes to baptism!