Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter irish1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
apophasis said:
A true poll would have to be taken back in time. Who knew at the time of His birth that He was God incarnate? Certainly neither Mary nor Joseph. Nor His half brothers and sisters. Nor did anyone in His hometown or all of Judea or Galilee. Pilate didn’t. Which Pharisee or Sadducee understood His divinity? If they would have understood it they would not have crucified Him. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Your question has no substance and implies many false notions. And typically Catholic, it elevates Mary, not Christ.

The previous post stated it well. Catholics believe all things about Mary because they’re told to by Rome. It’s what makes them “Catholic.” Reality or proof has nothing to do with it, or ever will.

Like Muslims believe all the things they do about Muhammad because it’s what makes them “Muslim.” No proof is ever required.

But true Christianity is rooted in Divine revelation, not men’s speculation or imagination. It glorifies Christ, not men.
Click to expand...
 
Warning: I’m going a little PG-13 on this one.

Ok, really, this whole “argument” just blows my mind.

Forget what anyone can “prove”, it seems like just a little common sense should be able to clear things up.

Here’s what I’m supposed to believe.

Mary had sex, because well that’s what “all” married people do, and they “must have” consummated their marriage.

[Let’s argue about the “brothers and sister’ of Christ elsewhere ok?]

So why wait? Why pray tell did Joseph wait to execute his marital rites and consummate the marriage **“until” **after the child was born?

It’s just a normal marriage between a man and a woman who are planning on having more kids, right?

There’s nothing special about Mary, right?

Is there some prohibition against having sex with a pregnant woman that I don’t know about?

So why wait?

I mean as dense as folks would like us to believe Mary and Joseph were its not like they “knew” something special was going on, right?

Cause Joseph is a guy that a “real man’s man” can be proud of.

Because: let’s see GOD comes to my betrothed and the MOST HIGH OVERSHADOWs HER tells her she’ll give birth to the SON of THE MOST HIGH.

Joseph thinks she’s nuts and cheated on him so he’s going to divorce her quietly because he doesn’t want her killed, but then **GOD **tells him. “No…really, She is going to give birth to **MY **SON the SON OF THE MOST HIGH.

And being the “real man” that Joseph is, the first thought Joseph has is “great” he’s going to be able to get a little from the MOTHER OF GOD because well that’s his marital rite.

Forget the Ark of the Covenant, the MOTHER OF GOD the woman OVERSHADOWED by THE MOST HIGH is someone I’m just guessing even the bravest (and or stupidest) of men isn’t going to want “touch” with at 10 foot gold plated acacia wood, or any other pole.

YBIC,

Chuck
 
pneuma07 said:
Let us suppose that Mary had planned a normal marital sexual life ( hopefully blessed by children).

When the angel told her: “You will conceive”, she could understand that this would happen either immediately, or after marriage.

In the first case, the likely reaction could have been " How…, since I am not married, yet ?" (or, “… since I don’t know man, at the moment ?”). Or simply, with beautiful naturalness: "But I am not married yet ! "
In the second case her actual response does not make sense at all.
Click to expand...
Mary could not understand that the conception of the child would be immediately, for she did not expect a virgin birth. The Messiah was believed to be born of paternal lineage. And of course Mary was aware that she was not having sexual relations with Joseph during the first stage of their marriage, the betrothal, which was forbidden by Jewish law. If Mary had intended to have sexual relations with Joseph upon the consummation of their marriage after the period of bethrothal, she would not have asked the angel, “How shall this be?” or “How can I conceive a child?” Obviously, she would have acknowledged that she would conceive the child by way of normal sexual relations. If Mary was concerned with the time the Messiah would be born through the paternal lineage of Joseph, she would have asked: “When will this be?” Mary says “I know not man.” after she asks the question, “How shall this be?” Not at what time, but by what manner. So it’s clear that Mary was asserting her perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34. Don’t waste your time arguing with PC and Apophasis. They are here only to contest the truth even though it’s staring right in their faces. I’m beginning to question their reading comprehension ability and I.Q. :rolleyes:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Randy Carson:
A man touched the Ark to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Click to expand...
First of all no N.T. writer ever refers to Mary as the Ark of the N.C. Such a concept developed by men over time.

The N.C. was inaugurated not by birth but by the shedding of precious blood. Christ Himself was not the N.C., but through His shed blood He inaugurated it. The “old covenant” was not just the Ark, or what was contained in the box below its mercy seat. The O.C. was the whole Law of Moses.

Secondly, the reason the anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah was not because he tried to keep the Ark from falling over, but Israel was given specific instruction that ONLY the consecrated sons of Kohath were allowed to transport or touch the holy objects (not just the Ark) assigned to the Tabernacle (see Num. 4:15). It was part of the Law of Moses.

After the incident David realized his error (see 1 Chron. 15:11-13). The Ark was to be carried by specific Levites, not just set upon a (new) cart and pulled by oxen.
 
Noting the close paralell between the Visitation (Luke 1:39-56) and the transportation of the Ark (2 Samuel 6: 1-14), it is quite obvious that Our Lady is the Ark of the New Covenant.

But now we are somewhat off topic.
 
apophasis said:
A true poll would have to be taken back in time. Who knew at the time of His birth that He was God incarnate? Certainly neither Mary nor Joseph. Nor His half brothers and sisters. Nor did anyone in His hometown or all of Judea or Galilee. Pilate didn’t. Which Pharisee or Sadducee understood His divinity? If they would have understood it they would not have crucified Him. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Your question has no substance and implies many false notions. And typically Catholic, it elevates Mary, not Christ.

The previous post stated it well. Catholics believe all things about Mary because they’re told to by Rome. It’s what makes them “Catholic.” Reality or proof has nothing to do with it, or ever will.

Like Muslims believe all the things they do about Muhammad because it’s what makes them “Muslim.” No proof is ever required.

But true Christianity is rooted in Divine revelation, not men’s speculation or imagination. It glorifies Christ, not men.
Click to expand...
“We believe all sort of things about Mary because they’re told to us by Rome.” Under other circumstances, I might be angry at that. But the truth is that Mother Church is infallible in dogmatic matters, and what has been taught by Scripture and Tradition given to us by the Church about Mary is to be believed.

You have not hit our soft underbelly. It is you who are left to stray. We know what we believe is true, and we would like to let it go at that with Protestants. They feel they must oppose. If we acceded to all their dogmatic wishes, they still would not join the Church.

We can stick their noses in Scripture on proof of the Real Presence; stick their noses in Scripture on the Papacy, and the Infallibility of the Church, and on Penance, and all the rest. Why should Protestants believe much about Mary? We don’t feel compelled to make them believe as we.

Peace.

October 4th is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. His great prayer is as follows:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
 
mgrfin said:
“We believe all sort of things about Mary because they’re told to us by Rome.” Under other circumstances, I might be angry at that. But the truth is that Mother Church is infallible in dogmatic matters, and what has been taught by Scripture and Tradition given to us by the Church about Mary is to be believed.

You have not hit our soft underbelly. It is you who are left to stray. We know what we believe is true, and we would like to let it go at that with Protestants. They feel they must oppose. If we acceded to all their dogmatic wishes, they still would not join the Church.

We can stick their noses in Scripture on proof of the Real Presence; stick their noses in Scripture on the Papacy, and the Infallibility of the Church, and on Penance, and all the rest. Why should Protestants believe much about Mary? We don’t feel compelled to make them believe as we.

Peace.

October 4th is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. His great prayer is as follows:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
Click to expand...
It’s funny how some Protestants insist that Catholics provide biblical “proof” for the Church’s Marian doctrines without first having proved themselves ‘sola scriptura’ is a true principal. That is something they will never be able to do, since the NT makes it clear that the bible alone is not sufficient. Besides, there are sufficient implicit truths about Mary in both the OT and NT.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Good Fella> I still await an answer to the question in my prior post.

By the way, questioning the reading comprehension of someone such as myself is pretty laughable when you haven’t even got the basics of present tense understood (in English, much less in the original Greek).

I’m also curious as to why you guys seem to think that no man touching the ark equates to no man touching Mary. Are you truly saying that God would strike dead any man who touched her? Surely her husband touched her at some point after Jesus’ birth, even if he didn’t consummate the marriage. A life without physical contact with anyone…that seems rather harsh for God to do.

Additionally, let’s quickly address something. What was the ark? It was that which carried the law (the stone tablets) after they were created, as a representation of the covenant made between God and Israel. On the other hand, Mary only “contained” Jesus prior to his birth, and at no time afterward.

Surely we can assume that Mary had physical contact with other people throughout her life, something that was forbidden for the first ark, except for those specially consecrated. Mary clearly is not the new ark.

To figure out what the ark is, instead of trying to establish premises from a given conclusion, let’s establish some premises, and then follow them through to a conclusion.

The ark of the covenant was, in the Old Testament, a vessel containing the covenant between God and Israel. The ark of the new covenant would be whatever it is that currently contains the new covenant.

The new covenant, of course, is explained in Jeremiah 31. The prophet explains that the new covenant will consist of God dwelling within us, and writing his words upon our hearts. So, our hearts (emotionally and spiritually, not physically) are the ark of the new covenant, not Mary.

Finally, I’d like to make comment on the matter of scripture versus tradition. Why is it that you guys accuse persons such as myself of being “sola scriptura” adherents? Have I even once stated that I hold to that belief? Nope. Have I not repeatedly stated that I believe that the ultimate rule of faith is God’s will, as revealed to us individually by the holy spirit?

If you insist on holding to Roman Catholic traditions as valid, at least say that’s what you’re doing. If folks like Good Fella, instead of arguing the ridiculous, had simply said “I believe it because church tradition tells me to”, we would have long since moved on.

But instead, we see borderline insanity, trying to twist present tense verbs to somehow speak of the future, all in an effort to prove that scripture not just supports, but actually proves, the tradition. We see claims such as vows of celibacy that not even the church itself dares to claim. Why?

Oh, and just for clarification, might someone provide me with any evidence of the practice of temple virgins in Israel? The typically cited bits of I Samuel speak nothing at all of vows of virginity, and in fact the only practice of the day I can find are the Vestal Virgins, which were paganists.
 
PC_Master said:
On the other hand, Mary only “contained” Jesus prior to his birth.
Click to expand...
Now I understand. You are one of those protestants who view the Virgin Mary as a simple “container”. How very sad. It would probably be best for those Catholic posters participating on this thread to discontinue their discussion with PC Master.

Here is my final comment on this thread:

The New Covenant is Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lover of Mankind. The Virgin Mary carried Jesus Christ in her womb–hence she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

It is a simple truth–yet some do not hear.

Peace and blessings to all,
Mickey
 
Mickey said:
Here is my final comment on this thread:

The New Covenant is Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lover of Mankind. The Virgin Mary carried Jesus Christ in her womb–hence she is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
Then by this same logic you must view Moses’ mother as the “ark of the old covenant.”

But the truth is, Mickey, a “covenant” is not a person, its a promise.
 
apophasis said:
But the truth is, Mickey, a “covenant” is not a person, its a promise.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus Christ is the promise of salvation for mankind. He is the Word made Flesh. And that my friend, is the Truth.
 
Mickey said:
Now I understand. You are one of those protestants who view the Virgin Mary as a simple “container”. How very sad.
Click to expand...
Not at all. She was highly favored by God to be the earthly mother of his incarnate self. That doesn’t mean we must be extremists to elevate things to the maximum possible extent. Does the fact that Jesus touched and healed the blind man somehow make the blind man holy as well?

If something has a particular role which is comparable to something else, it must be actually compared to determine if the comparison is accurate. In the case of Mary being the ark, it isn’t. Our hearts are the ark of the new covenant. Scripture and a tiny bit of logic reveal that.
It would probably be best for those Catholic posters participating on this thread to discontinue their discussion with PC Master.
Click to expand...
Why?
The New Covenant is Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lover of Mankind. The Virgin Mary carried Jesus Christ in her womb–hence she is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
So the ark of the old covenant carried the stone tablets before they were shown to the Jewish people?
apophasis said:
Then by this same logic you must view Moses’ mother as the “ark of the old covenant.”
Click to expand...
Nah – they’re not holding that Moses was the old covenant. They’re simply under the mistaken impression that Jesus himself is the new covenant, when it’s actually the promise of salvation provided because of his sacrifice.
Mickey said:
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus Christ is the promise of salvation for mankind. He is the Word made Flesh. And that my friend, is the Truth.
Click to expand...
Go read Jeremiah 31 - 32, and tell me what it says the new covenant will be.
 
PC_Master said:
Not at all. She was highly favored by God to be the earthly mother of his incarnate self. That doesn’t mean we must be extremists to elevate things to the maximum possible extent. Does the fact that Jesus touched and healed the blind man somehow make the blind man holy as well?

If something has a particular role which is comparable to something else, it must be actually compared to determine if the comparison is accurate. In the case of Mary being the ark, it isn’t. Our hearts are the ark of the new covenant. Scripture and a tiny bit of logic reveal that.

Why?

So the ark of the old covenant carried the stone tablets before they were shown to the Jewish people?

Nah – they’re not holding that Moses was the old covenant. They’re simply under the mistaken impression that Jesus himself is the new covenant, when it’s actually the promise of salvation provided because of his sacrifice.

Go read Jeremiah 31 - 32, and tell me what it says the new covenant will be.
Click to expand...
The Church has many honorable titles for Mary. “The Ark of the New Covenant” is not one of them.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
The Church has many honorable titles for Mary. “The Ark of the New Covenant” is not one of them.

peace
Click to expand...
Great to know. Thanks.

It would seem if the church held her to such a position, they would label her in such a way. Thus, we can assume that the RCC does not hold her to that position.
 
mgrfin said:
The Church has many honorable titles for Mary. “The Ark of the New Covenant” is not one of them.

peace
Click to expand...
mgrfin, the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary uses this title. Although this Litany is not used in Liturgy, its still a valid litany.
 
PC_Master said:
Great to know. Thanks.

It would seem if the church held her to such a position, they would label her in such a way. Thus, we can assume that the RCC does not hold her to that position.
Click to expand...
You can assume that all you want, but she is the Ark of the New Covenant, nevertheless.

I haven’t done any research but I would be willing to bet She is referred in this manner many times by Popes, bishops, saints, etc.
 
Out of the twelve points made there…
  • The last two are based on supposed RC visions.
  • Several of the others are more relevant to Jesus than to Mary.
  • Coincidence accounts for others.
This doesn’t discredit every point made, but again, we still have the one key thing – Jesus himself is not the new covenant. Jesus’ sacrifice is a part of that new covenant.

My other points remain, as of yet unanswered.
 
PC_Master said:
Nah – they’re not holding that Moses was the old covenant. They’re simply under the mistaken impression that Jesus himself is the new covenant, when it’s actually the promise of salvation provided because of his sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Dah. You keep making my same points! If you identify the New Covenant as a person then you must identify the Old Covenant as person as well. But neither is a “person.” A covenant is a “promise.” Both the Old and New Covenants were promises. The former conditional, the latter unconditional. Neither were inaugurated by birth, but both by * blood* (Ex. 24:6-7; Heb. 9:19; Lk. 22:20; Heb. 12:24). Comprende?
 
apophasis said:
Dah. You keep making my same points! If you identify the New Covenant as a person then you must identify the Old Covenant as person as well. But neither is a “person.” A covenant is a “promise.” Both the Old and New Covenants were promises. The former conditional, the latter unconditional. Neither were inaugurated by birth, but both by * blood* (Ex. 24:6-7; Heb. 9:19; Lk. 22:20; Heb. 12:24). Comprende?
Click to expand...
The point is they don’t identify both as people. Posting as if it is a foregone conclusion is to ignore what they’re actually saying. While I agree that it makes no sense for a person to be a covenant, they clearly don’t agree with this point. To them, the old covenant was as given in the scriptures, visibly represented by the two stone tablets. Quite certainly, they are not saying they believe Moses is the old covenant. They also believe that the person of Jesus is the new covenant.

Thus, if you’re going to disagree with the comparison, provide grounds for it. Don’t simply ignore how they say it – to do so is to set up a straw man which ultimately weakens the point you’re trying to make.

(Bear in mind that I don’t say this out of anger, but out of a true desire that you would fully understand how God intends for us to communicate with others. I’ve said all I intend to say on this matter, and if you still disagree, that’s your prerogative.)

Anywho, back to the subject at hand – can anyone explain the huge discrepancies I explained previously?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top