perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[PRmerger]

If you want to show me that go ahead, even though that is not what I asked.

I can’t.

Jesus and his apostles NEVER EVER said that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired.

We know that because…

the Church said it was inspired.

For some reason, though, you don’t have a problem with that here.

Why isn’t it a problem for you?

 

[wmscott]

I did not say early church writings are not significant. You are accusing me of that. They are not inspired like the Word of God, but I never said it was not significant.

But saying “Mary’s suffering at the foot of the cross contributes to Christ suffering” is a teaching from Christ based on a sentence by Ireneaus about Mary being a second Eve does not change the fact that the Co-Redemptrix did not appear until the 15th century.

Irenaeus was trying to make an argument himself about Eve based on what Paul said about Christ being the second Adam. He used what was passed on to him by Paul, to create his own argument. The Eve teaching was not passed down from Christ.

Nonetheless, Mary’s sinlessness and Co-Redemptrix are much more developed teachings that did not originate from Jesus or the apostles.

Question, how do you know that God did not create the Blessed Mother as being sinless. do you think this is the first time this capability has been recorded?

 

[stewstew03]

…

This is just saying that the unbelieving spouse in seeing the believing spouse live the gospel might lead the unbeliever to believe in Jesus. Therefore, the believing spouse should not divorce because it might be part of God’s plan, and the unbelieving spouse might believe later. Upon believing, the precious blood of Christ redeems her, and His Death pays her fine.

It says “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In other words, the unbeliever participates in a Divine institution through the mediation of the believer. If it were not a Divine institution, then the believing spouse would have cause for divorce – as the union would lead the believing spouse to sin.

This has nothing to do with some ritual in a church, that is not even mentioned.

I’m not sure what your background is, but in Christian tradition, we enter the institution of marriage by exchanging vows and rings at the altar in a Church. The priest or pastor serves as a “mediator.”

Sanctification is to be “to be set apart.” , or made holy. The presence of a believer in a home should bring in Christ’s teaching into the home and reduce sin more than a home that has no believers.

Good work - you’re on your way to understanding Christianity rbarcia.

But the unbelieving spouse is not saved until they repent and believe themselves.

Correct - nice work, again.

This is not relevant to Mary’s suffering under the cross being some kind of a conduit to Christ’s suffering.

Sure it is. The believing spouse “mediates” for the unbelieving spouse - making it a holy union rather than an unholy one, by God’s grace, of course. The believing spouse is called to prayer, holiness, and evangelism – this is all part of cooperating with God for the salvation of an unbeliever’s soul. In the same way, Mary cooperated with God for the salvation of the world.

Is there any way for unbelievers to experience the presence of God (and His grace) except through believers…?

 

[stewstew03]

I did not say early church writings are not significant. You are accusing me of that. They are not inspired like the Word of God, but I never said it was not significant.

But saying “Mary’s suffering at the foot of the cross contributes to Christ suffering” is a teaching from Christ based on a sentence by Ireneaus about Mary being a second Eve does not change the fact that the Co-Redemptrix did not appear until the 15th century.
…

Just to be clear, you DON’T believe in praying for others…?

 

[rbarcia]

Question, how do you know that God did not create the Blessed Mother as being sinless. do you think this is the first time this capability has been recorded?

I know you will get into Adam and Eve here, and try to draw a path. Sin entered the world through Adam when Adam sinned. He was made capable of sinning like Eve, cause they both did.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Though Adam’s sin was the deliberate one, having received the command directly from God.

Gen 2
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Eve was deceived and fell into it

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam just ate:

Gen 3

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

But Adam was capable of sin, as are we. And we have a sin nature (we want to sin). It is not some stain that needs to be washed.

But again, just because God is capable of something, does not mean he did it.

Jesus was without sin:

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

He was not capable because of He being God in the flesh.

The notion of Mary’s sinlessness or immaculate conception are by no means necessary for Christ to have been born without sin Himself. His genealogy had many sinful people including prostitutes (Rahab). Jesus came and touched sinners with His hands to heal them. Nothing could stain Him

 

[rbarcia]

Just to be clear, you DON’T believe in praying for others…?

I pray for others all the time. Paul encourages us to pray for others (focus on me caring about others). I should care for other people, that my faith might increase in seeing others blessed by God.

It is not the same as asking someone who has passed into glory to pray for me because they are closer.

You are jumping to conclusions. There is not one time where a living person asked a person who died to pray for them in the Biblical record.

The one time someone (King Saul) asked a witch to raise Samuel, he was scolded my Samuel and he died later that day.

I dare not invoke intercession from a dead person after that.

 

[stewstew03]

I pray for others all the time. Paul encourages us to pray for others (focus on me caring about others). I should care for other people, that my faith might increase in seeing others blessed by God.

It is not the same as asking someone who has passed into glory to pray for me because they are closer.

You are jumping to conclusions. There is not one time where a living person asked a person who died to pray for them in the Biblical record.

The one time someone (King Saul) asked a witch to raise Samuel, he was scolded my Samuel and he died later that day.

I dare not invoke intercession from a dead person after that.

And just to be clear, those who have “passed into glory” are “dead” (in your opinion)?

 

[stewstew03]

I pray for others all the time.
…

And why are you praying for others anyway? You can’t do anything for them, can you?

 

[PRmerger]

I pray for others all the time. Paul encourages us to pray for others (focus on me caring about others). I should care for other people, that my faith might increase in seeing others blessed by God.

It is not the same as asking someone who has passed into glory to pray for me because they are closer.

You are jumping to conclusions. There is not one time where a living person asked a person who died to pray for them in the Biblical record.

The one time someone (King Saul) asked a witch to raise Samuel, he was scolded my Samuel and he died later that day.

I dare not invoke intercession from a dead person after that.

The objection always always always is first posed as, “Why do you pray to saints?”

And then it always always always segues to, “Well, yes, there’s nothing wrong with asking someone to pray for us. But the point is (now): dead people can’t hear your prayers!”

My response to that is: where does the Bible say that dead people can’t hear our prayers?

(Answer: nowhere).

 

[rbarcia]

I’m not sure what your background is, but in Christian tradition, we enter the institution of marriage by exchanging vows and rings at the altar in a Church. The priest or pastor serves as a “mediator.”

Ok

Good work - you’re on your way to understanding Christianity rbarcia.

Correct - nice work, again.

thanks

Sure it is. The believing spouse “mediates” for the unbelieving spouse - making it a holy union rather than an unholy one, by God’s grace, of course. The believing spouse is called to prayer, holiness, and evangelism – this is all part of cooperating with God for the salvation of an unbeliever’s soul.

Cooperation or just plain obedience to God. Conducting a wedding ceremony and mediate I think are slightly different. The marriage bed is undefiled.

.

In the same way, Mary cooperated with God for the salvation of the world

That is quite a leap. The unbelieving spouse lives with the believing one and sees them daily, and directly experiences it.

Is there any way for unbelievers to experience the presence of God (and His grace) except through believers…?

well, unbeliever also have creation, their conscience, his blessings., etc…

Matt 5
45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Romans 1
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

 

[rbarcia]

The objection always always always is first posed as, “Why do you pray to saints?”

And then it always always always segues to, “Well, yes, there’s nothing wrong with asking someone to pray for us. But the point is (now): dead people can’t hear your prayers!”

My response to that is: where does the Bible say that dead people can’t hear our prayers?

(Answer: nowhere).

I did not say dead people cannot hear our prayers.

But we should only Pray to God, He does not need help or need a hearing aid.

God is omnipresent—everywhere at once—and is capable of hearing every prayer in the world.

Duet 18 forbids Israel from doing such things and God calls it detestable

11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For** all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord**, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

But again, just because God is able to do something, does not mean He does it. No where do people in the Bible pray to the dead, only God.

 

[stewstew03]

…

Cooperation or just plain obedience to God.

Distinction without a difference

Conducting a wedding ceremony and mediate I think are slightly different.

?

The marriage bed is undefiled.

Now you understand Paul’s point in 1 Cor 7

That is quite a leap. The unbelieving spouse lives with the believing one and sees them daily, and directly experiences it.

Mary wasn’t the First Evangelist?

well, unbeliever also have creation, their conscience, his blessings., etc…

Oh. So much for evangelism, then, eh?

Matt 5
45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Romans 1
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Just so you know - prooftexting is a serious offense and can lead to you getting banned from CAF. This is your first warning…:tsktsk:

(just kidding - but seriously you shouldn’t prooftext)

 

[stewstew03]

…

Duet 18 forbids Israel from doing such things and God calls it detestable

11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For** all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord**, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

This is just… what? I mean… I’m sorry, I thought we were having a conversation with a reasonable person.

Best of luck rbarcia! The key take away here is to ONLY say the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus said pray like this…

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:9-13[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, and this is VERY IMPORTANT, be sure to pray this in Aramaic! After all, NOWHERE in the bible does it say that we can pray in English. I’ve looked, the Bible doesn’t say God understands English. Here is a link to my research efforts on this matter.

 

[rbarcia]

Distinction without a difference

?

Now you understand Paul’s point in 1 Cor 7

Mary wasn’t the First Evangelist?

no

Oh. So much for evangelism, then, eh?

why? evangelism is necesarry to tell people Christ died and rose from the dead. repent and believe and have eternal life

Just so you know - prooftexting is a serious offense and can lead to you getting banned from CAF. This is your first warning…:tsktsk:

(just kidding - but seriously you shouldn’t prooftext)

what is prooftexting? quoting the Bible? not sure what you mean? why is that offensive?

 

[YADA]

Mary being a PV does not point the the divinity of Christ. The virgin birth does but not the PV.

The PV makes sense as I stated before but she did not have to be an ever virgin in order for Christ to be Christ. If she had other children, would that change the way you look at our Lord?

And so you say …

A rational consideration of this might lead one to consider otherwise … If Mary and Joseph had other children - why would anyone believe Jesus was not the son of Joseph? … After all - Mary and Joseph were betrothed - where is the ‘proof’ that this miracle of conception took place … the Gospels [if one chooses to believe them] came years after the Resurrection and offer no real proof of the Virgin Birth … so the existence of other children can in fact reflect and inform ones thinking on the divinity of Christ …and Episcopal Bishop Spong and the writings of many contemporary Christian writers - divorced from the contact teachings of the Church from its origins to this day are perfect - though ignored by you and others - examples of what happens when individuals are left to determine their own set of “Truths”

Also - the existence of these other children would suggest that some attempt to claim advantage would have happened - human nature [like Mary and Joseph not being able to be chaste together ] - based upon their relationship to the divinity of Christ - the absence of that record speaks volumes … How come - no one - anywhere - failed to claim some beneficial advantage based upon being related to the God Man, the Second Person of the Trinity? Yet history fails to supply that evidence …

And yet - some here have claimed that James - the leader of the Jerusalem Church - is the blood brother of Jesus who once thought he was a lunatic - had some great conversion after which they received the leadership … none of which is recorded any where … the scriptures name two apostles named James - neither of which are children of Mary nor blood brothers with Jesus - and yet the leader of the Jerusalem Church is neither of them … … so even though there is no record of any of this - some believe it and have argued heartily for it

If this James could think his brother was a lunatic at some point - while there is no evidence that of a sibling, not one niece, not one nephew ever is recorded as trying to gain some financial gain nor power position nor any advantage - not once - not ever - based upon their relationship with God … … sorry - I am just not believing it …

I do not see real evidence in the scriptures for children of Mary - in spite of references to brothers and sisters … in fact - for blood children of Mary - children of her womb - I see zero evidence …

You may still be clinging to some aspects of Mary that still point to the divinity of Jesus while denying others … however many of your brethren have taken the liberties allowed by the theology you espouse to take them beyond believing not only the perpetual virginity of Mary but to denying the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the very divinity of Christ. -

 

[wmscott]

I know you will get into Adam and Eve here, and try to draw a path. Sin entered the world through Adam when Adam sinned. He was made capable of sinning like Eve, cause they both did.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Though Adam’s sin was the deliberate one, having received the command directly from God.

Gen 2
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Eve was deceived and fell into it

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam just ate:

Gen 3

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

But Adam was capable of sin, as are we. And we have a sin nature (we want to sin). It is not some stain that needs to be washed.

But again, just because God is capable of something, does not mean he did it.

Jesus was without sin:

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

He was not capable because of He being God in the flesh.

The notion of Mary’s sinlessness or immaculate conception are by no means necessary for Christ to have been born without sin Himself. His genealogy had many sinful people including prostitutes (Rahab). Jesus came and touched sinners with His hands to heal them. Nothing could stain Him

So as with the Blessed Mother, this is not the first time God created a being without sin. Funny how so many will try and box God in to perpetuate their own flawed theology. The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless.

 

[Peter_J]

I pray for others all the time. Paul encourages us to pray for others (focus on me caring about others). I should care for other people, that my faith might increase in seeing others blessed by God.

It is not the same as asking someone who has passed into glory to pray for me because they are closer.

Hi rbarcia. If you don’t mind my jumping into the conversation I’d like to ask: Does the fact that we (Catholics) call it “praying to the saints” have any influence on your evaluation of asking them to pray for us?

If it does, then may I point out that the custom of calling it “praying to the saints” did not start immediately – in fact, it wasn’t called that until we had already been doing it for many centuries.

Edit: I see that one of your later posts (possibly) answers my question:

I did not say dead people cannot hear our prayers.

But we should only Pray to God, He does not need help or need a hearing aid.

 

[aidanbradypop]

And so you say …
A rational consideration of this might lead one to consider otherwise … If Mary and Joseph had other children - why would anyone believe Jesus was not the son of Joseph? … After all - Mary and Joseph were betrothed - where is the ‘proof’ that this miracle of conception took place … the Gospels [if one chooses to believe them] came years after the Resurrection and offer no real proof of the Virgin Birth … so the existence of other children can in fact reflect and inform ones thinking on the divinity of Christ …and Episcopal Bishop Spong and the writings of many contemporary Christian writers - divorced from the contact teachings of the Church from its origins to this day are perfect - though ignored by you and others - examples of what happens when individuals are left to determine their own set of “Truths”

Are you a Spong groupie? You seem to be unable to get away from him lol. What about Fr. Malachi Martin?

Also - the existence of these other children would suggest that some attempt to claim advantage would have happened - human nature [like Mary and Joseph not being able to be chaste together ] - based upon their relationship to the divinity of Christ - the absence of that record speaks volumes … How come - no one - anywhere - failed to claim some beneficial advantage based upon being related to the God Man, the Second Person of the Trinity? Yet history fails to supply that evidence

…

And this makes Jesus somehow less than the Son of God?

And yet - some here have claimed that James - the leader of the Jerusalem Church - is the blood brother of Jesus who once thought he was a lunatic - had some great conversion after which they received the leadership … none of which is recorded any where … the scriptures name two apostles named James - neither of which are children of Mary nor blood brothers with Jesus - and yet the leader of the Jerusalem Church is neither of them … … so even though there is no record of any of this - some believe it and have argued heartily for it

If this James could think his brother was a lunatic at some point - while there is no evidence that of a sibling, not one niece, not one nephew ever is recorded as trying to gain some financial gain nor power position nor any advantage - not once - not ever - based upon their relationship with God … … sorry - I am just not believing it …

I do not see real evidence in the scriptures for children of Mary - in spite of references to brothers and sisters … in fact - for blood children of Mary - children of her womb - I see zero evidence …

I see as much evidence in Scripture for siblings as I do of the PV.

You may still be clinging to some aspects of Mary that still point to the divinity of Jesus while denying others … however many of your brethren have taken the liberties allowed by the theology you espouse to take them beyond believing not only the perpetual virginity of Mary but to denying the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the very divinity of Christ. -

Yeah it is sad when people deny the virgin birth of our Lord. I know a Catholic gentleman that stated it was all a hoax.

People will believe what they wish to believe. It does not matter what side of the Tiber they are standing on. I have no issue with you, or anyone, believing in the PV. I believe she may have been, yet it is not a required belief because whether or not she was a virging forever plays no role in salvation Yada.

 

[PRmerger]

This is just… what? I mean… I’m sorry, I thought we were having a conversation with a reasonable person.

Best of luck rbarcia! The key take away here is to ONLY say the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus said pray like this…

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:9-13[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, and this is VERY IMPORTANT, be sure to pray this in Aramaic! After all, NOWHERE in the bible does it say that we can pray in English. I’ve looked, the Bible doesn’t say God understands English. Here is a link to my research efforts on this matter.

Yep.

And I’ve heard it said here by another person who believes that the Bible is all we need that Matthew tells us that we must pray our intercessory prayers ONLY alone (as in, not with our congregation) but not ONLY in a closet (although closet can be loosely translated to mean: in a small closet-like room).

That’s what happens when we read the Bible with our own lens, rather than the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible–we pick and choose arbitrarily what parts we view as imperative, and what parts we view as suggestions.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not say dead people cannot hear our prayers.

But we should only Pray to God,

We should worship ONLY God.

But all prayer is not worship.

He does not need help or need a hearing aid.

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

God is omnipresent—everywhere at once—and is capable of hearing every prayer in the world.

Again, very Catholic.

No where do people in the Bible pray to the dead, only God.

So is your paradigm: if it’s not found in the Bible, then we can’t do it?