perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EvangelCatholic said:
Dustin

Can you accept Luther’s statement that Mary comes right after the Holy Trinity and is second only to Christ?
Click to expand...
I do, that’s the order of Grace which Luther was well aware of. So this makes her higher than the angels in order. Indeed something to think about. And if the Lords angels protect His saints then so does she, which is all in accord to His will.

And if Gabriel stands in the presence of God then where does Mary stand? “I am Gabriel that stands in the presence of God, and am sent”

Revelation- Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I do, that’s the order of Grace which Luther was well aware of. So this makes her higher than the angels in order. Indeed something to think about. And if the Lords angels protect His saints then so does she, which is all in accord to His will.

And if Gabriel stands in the presence of God then where does Mary stand? “I am Gabriel that stands in the presence of God, and am sent”

Revelation- Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
Click to expand...
Agree 👍

Martin Luther believed that:
• Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
• Mary remained a virgin all her life.
• Mary is the Mother of God.
• Mary was Immaculately Conceived and remained sinless,
by the grace of Christ.
• Mary was assumed into heaven.

But only as personal devotion. Christ is our one and only Savior.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Agree 👍

Martin Luther believed that:
• Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
• Mary remained a virgin all her life.
• Mary is the Mother of God.
• Mary was Immaculately Conceived and remained sinless,
by the grace of Christ.
• Mary was assumed into heaven.

But only as personal devotion. Christ is our one and only Savior.
Click to expand...
I believe as Lutheranism spread further away from Europe, these beliefs became less important.

Many of the Lutherans I know around my area (ELCA,LCMC,LCMS) really do not pay Mary much attention. 🤷

TEC only holds firmly to two of those points.
-the virgin birth
-Mother of God

The orthers are not frowned upon but are not required beliefs within TEC. The Nicene Creed states the two above.
 
Many reformers don’t follow what the actual reformers believed, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, let alone the early church fathers and dating back at least to Origen.

Many don’t hear any of this so they see no need to consider and contemplate. Certainly not true in the apostolic church’s. You can’t go to church weekly and recite hymns about Mary being ever virgin and higher than the cherubim and seraphim without at some point asking yourself what the heck your doing and really believe. Why in the world would anyone recite any of this if they didn’t believe it. To me that is indeed foolishness. Seems to me the first step resides there which leads deeper research.

Now I understand why those who may attend for Christmas or whatever may well see this as nothing more the pious tradition. And they would probably sing along with the Mickey Mouse hymn in whatever state of mind they live in also.

Fact is the Church’s do not have the hymns because they are to be disbelieved. And as you see above with the angels, it is indeed biblical. But its not part of the cherry pick bible. 😉
 
aidanbradypop said:
I believe as Lutheranism spread further away from Europe, these beliefs became less important.

Many of the Lutherans I know around my area (ELCA,LCMC,LCMS) really do not pay Mary much attention. 🤷

TEC only holds firmly to two of those points.
-the virgin birth
-Mother of God

The orthers are not frowned upon but are not required beliefs within TEC. The Nicene Creed states the two above.
Click to expand...
Seems like an ‘American Reaction’ to Mary; we just forget or consider it less important. But, to be honest, Anglican and Lutheran cathedrals have shrines to Mary and the candles are lite.
 
Kliska said:
I do believe there is scripture to support the idea of Mary having children after Jesus. I don’t see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe she didn’t. I believe she and Joseph were actually married, and as such would have had relations after the birth of Jesus. In fact, that was a defining feature in Jewish culture, or so I’ve found in research.

I also think that helps explain James as the head of the organized church in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
And it was also a defining feature of Jewish culture for a sibling to leave another sibling in care of their mother. Jesus does nothing of the sort.
 
aidanbradypop said:
I know that. The doctrine is te PV. Whether or not they were step siblings or cousins depends on ones tradition.
Click to expand...
The tradition prior to the Reformation or the post-Reformation tradition? I prefer the ancient one.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Another interesting claim is that the RCC took the stance they took because if James was the brother of Christ and head of the Jerusalem Church then that would have made him the first “pope” and not Peter. The Gospel of Thomas states that Christ made James the head of the Church on earth. Not sure what religion or faith the guy is that told me that. 🤷

He went on to state that the CC need Mary to remain a virgin so that Peter could become pope and not the brother of Christ.

Just goes to show us that there are so many arguments out there about this subject.
Click to expand...
The Gospel of Thomas is not canonical as countless others. James might have been the head of the church in Jerusalem,but James was not the Head of the Apostles-big difference. Every major See had its head.
 
The brothers listed in Scripture with names, we know who their mothers and fathers are, and they are not children of the BVM. Why is this ignored?

And does anyone really believe that Joseph, as a pious and righteous Jew, would DARE to have sexual relations with the Ark of the New Covenant???!?!?!
 
Nicea325 said:
And it was also a defining feature of Jewish culture for a sibling to leave another sibling in care of their mother. Jesus does nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Already answered. Jesus taught explicitly that those who do the will of the Father are His brothers. James was not a believer at the time of the crucifixion, so He would never have let His Mother to the care of an unbeliever.
 
Kliska said:
Already answered. Jesus taught explicitly that those who do the will of the Father are His brothers. James was not a believer at the time of the crucifixion, so He would never have let His Mother to the care of an unbeliever.
Click to expand...
Weak argument. You are also my sister in Christ,hence are we blood related? Sorry,but your argument holds no water against what orthodox Jews practiced.
 
zz912 said:
The brothers listed in Scripture with names, we know who their mothers and fathers are, and they are not children of the BVM. Why is this ignored?

And does anyone really believe that Joseph, as a pious and righteous Jew, would DARE to have sexual relations with the Ark of the New Covenant???!?!?!
Click to expand...
Exactly! Protestants simply want to apply a belief every Jewish women naturally would have had other children.
 
Kliska said:
Already answered. Jesus taught explicitly that those who do the will of the Father are His brothers. James was not a believer at the time of the crucifixion, so He would never have let His Mother to the care of an unbeliever.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the Greek Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew / Aramaic, which has no word for things like “cousins”. The translators simply continued the use of the word “brothers” in Greek because the Hebrew also used the word for “brothers”; but it’s obvious in context (of both secular and religious history, as well as logical) that Jesus did not have blood siblings in the manner you wish him to have.
 
👍
Lochias said:
Jesus IS her first-born son. You don’t need other siblings to be first-born. The distinction is important in historical, Jewish tradition, regardless of any sibling that may or may not exist, and is mentioned as such; but you probably didn’t think of that in your eagerness to side with a preconceived agenda, did you? 🤷
Click to expand...
worth repeating 🙂
 
Kliska said:
Already answered. Jesus taught explicitly that those who do the will of the Father are His brothers. James was not a believer at the time of the crucifixion, so He would never have let His Mother to the care of an unbeliever.
Click to expand...
and this is just your opinion and interpretation - not a fact …so …no this has not already been answered
 
Nicea325 said:
Weak argument. You are also my sister in Christ,hence are we blood related? Sorry,but your argument holds no water against what orthodox Jews practiced.
Click to expand...
We would be just as close as a blood relative, and if none of your blood relatives are believers, we’d be closer. You are leaving out the part where the Lord’s family thought Him unhinged, crazy, nuts. He would not leave His Mother with someone that not only denied Him, but thought Him insane.
 
Kliska said:
We would be just as close as a blood relative, and if none of your blood relatives are believers, we’d be closer. You are leaving out the part where the Lord’s family thought Him unhinged, crazy, nuts. He would not leave His Mother with someone that not only denied Him, but thought Him insane.
Click to expand...
You’re still assuming that Scripture supports your view of blood siblings, when it does not and never has.
 
So the rise of Christianity was a unique event in all of human history …

If Mary had these four or six other sons and several daughters … one of which became the head of the Jerusalem Christian community … where is the record of their offspring … where are they found - historically after this …

Did no one seek them out to ask about the life of Jesus before his public ministry?

Why does tradition have Mary remaining with John - in his home - if James finally came to the faith - would Mary not have then returned to her own child’s home?

How, when and where did James have this epiphany of faith - and so completely adn fast that he rose to the See of Jerusalem and not one [the one named James perhaps :rolleyes:] the other apostles who were followers of Christ frome the beginning …

One would think there would be some record of these things …

In time [within the first few generations] you would think someone would have came forward claiming to be a blood relative to our Lord - sibling by blood [and even a step?] brother, sister, or a nephew, niece, second cousin once removed :rolleyes:… however, there is none - not one … the historical record [archaeological and / or writings] is silent on this …

No - your argument really comes down to this -

Some 1800 years later - suddenly the Christian community read and understood the scriptures in an entirely new and unique manner - discovering that all of Christendom had it wrong because we are smarter now, more intellectually astute :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top