perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Randy_Carson]

if it were so important to the Christian religion as a whole, you would think the apostles would have mentioned it in the scriptures.

Perhaps you are referring to sola scriptura? or sola fide?

 

[cath4alltime]

True, it is from the ancient Church and does not matter if it is in the Bible or not. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not the Bible and not everything must be in Bible that is a protestant notion

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Sorry my friend, but the apostles did mention these concepts.

For Sola Scriptura: **

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

**As mentioned here by Paul, scripture makes us whole. Scripture equips us for EVERY good work. Not just for some good works.

I could go on…**

You could…but it would be pointless. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach sola scriptura…it merely says that scripture is profitable, etc. It does not say “only scripture”. Further those who cite this one verse (and this is really the only one around which a defense is seriously attempted) always seem to forget 2 Timothy 3:14-15.

So, let’s put the passage together with a little commentary by yours truly:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.) 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

[cath4alltime]

Amen!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Welcome Andy.Yes it has been discussed and you your point is a good one. .here is my response from previous post…"I understand your point that.Jesus, being all knowing, could have foreseen James wonderful conversion, and said to Mary, “Mary, go live with James, though he can not console you know for his unbelief, he will eventually convert and be a solace to you”. Not too catchy or consoling to me. .Blood is not thicker than spirit . If I had young children and were going to die I would give them to a good friend who was a christian brother/sister more than to a blood brother who was not only not christian, but quite “anti-christian”. Faith demands this for Jesus said whoever does God’s will is my brother /mother etc. I am sorry, but Mary being given unto John and not faithless siblings is perfect, for the two hearts loved Jesus more than any two human beings on earth and were "kindred spirit’ about the mission ahead, beyond Calvary. Furthermore, we are all aware of sin and it’s consequences.Though you may be forgiven, sometimes the consequence may hurt (think David and Bathsheba forgiveness yet with consequence of his children would rail against him for years)… You are correct that Mary, by tradition, should have been given to siblings.That it was not was a wake up call to their unbelief. I believe James may have been miffed at the beginning, but when he got saved he was quite humbled and understood it perfectly, and “being passed up’ made the siblings stronger. A bit like Peter’s denial yet his gracious triumphant “rebound”. He would never forget his depravity when in the flesh ,and how gracious it is to be in the spirit, to be set right, to be forgiven. No wonder James rebounded as much as Peter, for we believe he eventually became bishop in Jerusalem and even wrote scripture. Can you imagine being Jesus’s brother and not just totally missing “it”, but being against it. So close to the creator of the universe yet so lost…Quite a story …may it grip you to the heart as it does me.”

Yes, that is quite a story, alright.

Do you have a verse or a quote from an Early Church Father in support of this novelty?

THE WORD OF GOD, however, says that Jesus knew what was in a man’s heart (ex. Judas Iscariot), so he knew full well that James would eventually become a believer. Therefore, there was no need to offend him by commending Mary to John.

However, if a Catholic were to put together an extra-biblical tale like this, your howls of protest would be heard through out computer monitors.

 

[eddie_too]

it is still puzzling to me to that some people give an inanimate object authority over themselves. for me, such a belief borders on superstition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh my dear friend!!!

The Bereans and the Virgin Mary

When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, scripture records that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). It can be argued that the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura as did the Thessalonians who actually rejected the gospel, but for the purposes of this discussion, the point will be conceded.

The Bereans searched the scriptures, but they would have searched forever without finding the name of Jesus of Nazareth connected in any way with the messiah whose advent was foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. In order to help the Bereans understand his gospel message, Paul referenced and interpreted the Old Testament passages which supported his teaching and made the necessary connection between the prophecies and the actual events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s authoritative interpretation of the scriptures was required in order for the Bereans to correctly understand that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

In light of this, is it really so different when the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she is the Queen of Heaven? Like the Bereans, we can search in vain for explicit references to these things, and yet the Church, by virtue of its Apostolic Authority, has infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption by interpreting scripture. The verse, of course, is Revelation 12:1 which reads: “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Here, the Church finds a clear reference to Mary, her bodily Assumption and her position as Queen of Heaven.

It is the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of the Catholic Church which helps us to see the truths in scripture that we, like the Bereans, may not find if left to our own devices.

 

[JonNC]

[SIGN]Major Fail[/SIGN]

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

From Luther:

All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man. The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

th

that fact of no contention for 1,600 years

Innacurate. There was contention by at least 3 church leaders2-3rd century ,close to that

 

[pocohombre]

This does not teach “Bible Alone,” but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture, and, as mentioned, this only refers to the OT.

Quoting from Not by Scripture Alone:

James 1:4 says: “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

Hmmm … steadfastness perfects and complets us for EVERYTHING, … right?

The reason Marys PV is an issue is the reason that the inviolability of the Ark of the Covenant is an issue. Not Mary’s holiness, but God’s.

Really ? Does God get the cooties from us ? I prefer PR’s statement that that might be fitting(IC PV) but not neccessary-God can do anything. You have the same problem not accepting Psalm 69 as fully messianic because of foolishness and sin upon the Lord (vs5) and yet what is Calvary all about ? He became sin. Contact with “fallen”(after Eve) carbon atoms did not defile Him, whether in Mary’s womb or suckling,etc etc but our sins did. I like the OT idea however and God’s holiness not mixing with sin and His approachability narrow and even His untouchability (the Ark) etc. Yet that is that magnificence of God becoming flesh, His willingness to mix, to be approached and even "touched’ like never before. I feel the IC,PV detract from this, and is a bit OT. Just my thoughts thank you. Thank you for yours, I understand them

 

[eddie_too]

it is not surprising that those whose only authority is that which they give themselves reject the doctrine of the perpetual virginity.

such people cannot prove from history or scripture that mary lost her virginity after Jesus’ birth. they cannot refute that mary remained a virgin until her physical death (and no, my use of the word until is not meant to imply that she lost her virginity after her death).

for people who see themselves as the only existing authority, anything can be held forth by them to be believed.

a wise person, when determining what to believe, believes what the preponderance of the evidence indicates.

from its inception, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, the christian community believed mary remained a virgin throughout here mortal life here on earth.

were there those who did not believe this? well, the exceptions prove the rule.

 

[Protestor]

This question of wether you accept or deny wether Mary was a perpetual virgin is really a subject of either tradition or authority. If you deny that Mary was an ever virgin you cannot prove it unless you can time travel and comeback after preforming whatever test is done to verify virginity. Same for you people who believe that she always was a virgin.

I skipped to the last page of this discussion to see what it was all about so correct if I am wrong. Has someone proven this yet?

Side note what do the ECF have to say? Also my coffee shop has been closed down for 2 weeks I’m fiending for espresso

 

[PRmerger]

This question of wether you accept or deny wether Mary was a perpetual virgin is really a subject of either tradition or authority.

As are all things dealing with Christianity.

You cannot prove, at all, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, is theopneustos.

You just accept the authority of the CC on that one.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Really ? Does God get the cooties from us ?

No, but He thought it was important enough to have Uzzah die anyway.
Didn’t think you were that much into second-guessing the Almighty .

I prefer PR’s statement that that might be fitting(IC PV) but not neccessary-God can do anything. You have the same problem not accepting Psalm 69 as fully messianic because of foolishness and sin upon the Lord (vs5) and yet what is Calvary all about ?

Where is the Ark mentioned in Psalm 69 again?

He became sin. Contact with “fallen”(after Eve) carbon atoms did not defile Him, whether in Mary’s womb or suckling,etc etc but our sins did.

Our sins defiled God?
Really?
I don’t THINK so.

God is NOT defiled. No matter what we do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From Luther:

All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man. The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Jon

:nunchuk:

 

[Protestor]

As are all things dealing with Christianity.

You cannot prove, at all, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, is theopneustos.

You just accept the authority of the CC on that one.

Really are we back on theopneustos again. :yawn:

I probably missed this but quick recap. What is the significance of the doctrine? Is it dogma?

 

[PRmerger]

Really are we back on theopneustos again. :yawn:

It’s always, always, always a question of authority, Protestor.

And, the “back on theopneustos” is because it’s a point that can not be refuted. Ever.

I probably missed this but quick recap. What is the significance of the doctrine? Is it dogma?

It is a doctrine.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Really are we back on theopneustos again. :yawn:

Did you expect that the issue would go away just by ignoring it?

 

[Protestor]

It’s always, always, always a question of authority

Ever.

It is a doctrine.

I do not feel that I have to accept “catholic” authority on matters that are not important for salvation. Ever is a long time; you are more than welcome to find me in heaven and tell me I was wrong. Is doctrine a small t or a big T (tradition)? I still do not have a grip on that concept. I thought big T was dogma and small t doctrine (like catechizes)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not feel that I have to accept “catholic” authority on matters that are not important for salvation.

I think the point being made is that you DO accept the authoritative decisions of the Catholic Church (in the case of the canon of the NT) without actually realizing it.

Ever is a long time; you are more than welcome to find me in heaven and tell me I was wrong.

Maybe, God willing, you will be finding us and apologizing for not believing us.

Is doctrine a small t or a big T (tradition)? I still do not have a grip on that concept. I thought big T was dogma and small t doctrine (like catechizes)

Big T is like baptism of infants and the canon of scripture. Dogma and Doctrine are both Big T.

Small t is like bingo and fish on Fridays during Lent. Disciplines and Devotions are small t.