perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Kliska]

Yep. Isn’t it funny, lying to Peter was equated to lying to the Holy Spirit!

Actually, lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to the Holy Spirit and that is what they did… apparently on purpose. To add anything in is to read into the text.

 

[eddie_too]

reading in to the text is also called interpreting the text.

choosing to interpret the text literally is one choice.

it may or may not be the correct choice.

 

[stewstew03]

Actually, lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to the Holy Spirit and that is what they did… apparently on purpose. To add anything in is to read into the text.

I can probably agree with that - but curious as to what you think Peter’s role is here in the story.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to the Holy Spirit and that is what they did… apparently on purpose. To add anything in is to read into the text.

No, they were TALKING to St. Peter. Literally.
It was St. Peter that asked them the questions. Literally.

This act (lying to St. Peter) was interpreted by scripture AND the Holy Spirit as lying to the Holy Spirit.

To ignore that is to purposefully ignore what scriptures says.

 

[zz912]

Verses?

Well large sections of Galatians, 2 Peter, 1 Timothy just off the top of my head. People who were teaching incorrect doctrine were to be avoided and ignored.

Here I’m assuming you are referring to coming to the knowledge of the Truth; which is biblically the gospel of Christ, it didn’t have to do with organizational church membership. If you have specific verses about the church, do list them.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And we shall do this, if only God permits. 4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and **tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit **5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt. 7 Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned.

This is describing those who have received Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, and who have gone back to the Old Covenant. They are rejecting the teaching of the Church in favor of adding on the rules and requirements of the Old Covenant. And as such, Hebrews says they have no hope of salvation because they are obstinately and persistently rejecting the Church authority to teach. Unless and until they do so, their hope of salvation is gone.

 

[stewstew03]

No, they were TALKING to St. Peter. Literally.
It was St. Peter that asked them the questions. Literally.

This act (lying to St. Peter) was interpreted by scripture AND the Holy Spirit as lying to the Holy Spirit.

To ignore that is to purposefully ignore what scriptures says.

(Yep – which is the point I’m trying to get to).

 

[AbideWithMe]

If the WBC didn’t use the EXACT same arguments for their position as some other Protestants on this thread are using for theirs, I would agree with you.

But they are. That can’t be denied. The POV that the aforementioned Protestants are espousing here is the SAME POV that led to the formation of the WBC.

Prove me wrong.

Lochias—There’s no way I can go into this discussion without derailing the thread by the time you and I go back and forth on this subject. Please respect what I said earlier, that I consider this a topic for another thread.

It might be a worthy subject to start a thread for, but I have too many other concerns and responsibilities to give it my time and attention. Among other things, a friend is in a coma after sliding her car into oncoming traffic on black ice Monday night. Needless to say, prayers for her (Kelly) would be much appreciated.

 

[pocohombre]

What does the Bible say we are to do when the Bible is ambiguous about something?

Don’t tempt God and go further than the light he has given you.

 

[pocohombre]

Very well, I stand corrected.

I do think “fitting” doesn’t underscore correctly just HOW fitting the PV is. When I say “necessary”, I mean “necessary” in the sense that, because God chose this way to bring Christ into the world, a human mother who had been intimate with other males would not have done.

It’s Jesus, after all.

Why, is having other children defiling ? Is sex dirty? You know some fathers thought so ?

 

[PRmerger]

You clearly do not understand my point. I am not saying that as soon as I first heard scripture I said to myself “yup this is scripture”. I have spent a significant amount of time in the scripture. I have read things from around the same time period. You are not accepting my premise that I can know God’s voice, which I am interpreting to mean scripture, when I hear it.

My question has always been to you, Protestor: how do you know what Scripture is?

Answer: you take someone else’s word for it.

At first you seem to counter that by saying, “No. I listen and discern for myself that something is the Word of God”.

And then when I say, "That sounds like you’re saying, ‘I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!’ "

And then you counter with, “No, that’s not what I’m saying.”

So let me get back to my original question: how do you know what Scripture is, if you don’t take the word of the CC on it.

Specifically, what tells you that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is theopneustos?

And…
How is it that you know that the Epistle to the Hebews is theopneustos, but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not?

If you could just please sum up in a few sentences how you know, without anyone else telling you, that the Epistle of Hebrews is inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, I can espouse all the exact same beliefs about the person of Christ, that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, His life, death and resurrection, I can recite the Apostle’s creed, etc… but if I disagree on the Assumption of Mary, I can’t be a member in good standing of the RCC/ECC, as I understand it.

And yet none of those are decreed in Scripture as being necessary to salvation.

That is what **you **have decided is necessary.

So if someone says that he is a Christian but decides that he does not believe in the Trinity, you, too, would say that he is outside the realms of being a Christian "in good standing’.

Again, you reserve for yourself what you deny the CC the right to do.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t tempt God and go further than the light he has given you.

I don’t know what this means.

What does the Bible say we’re supposed to do when things are ambiguous?

 

[pocohombre]

Sorry. St. Jude reiterates this event, warning that the sin of Korah is very much present in the Messianic age:
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

Well, I guess St. Jude shows yet again another error in your theology.

Good point but not really .You put St Peter and Paul at odds with Jude ,with your interpretation. St Jude does not say the Levitical priesthood stands now thru apostloic succession .The rebellion was specific to OT but can be applied to NT generally, as not going against established authority, as going against the apostles, which is what the gnostics were doing. So the question still remains what is the new authority in NT ? And you must balance it out with the scriptures that say the OT priest is bye-bye and we are all priests, unlike OT. Jude was addressing those not going against “priests” but those going against apostles , some still alive, and the gospel itself, the known authorities.

 

[Kliska]

I can probably agree with that - but curious as to what you think Peter’s role is here in the story.

Don’t faint on me; here he was representing the church and handling church business. They had to physically talk to someone and that someone was Peter.

 

[Kliska]

Among other things, a friend is in a coma after sliding her car into oncoming traffic on black ice Monday night. Needless to say, prayers for her (Kelly) would be much appreciated.

 

[YADA]

And yet none of those are decreed in Scripture as being necessary to salvation.

That is what **you **have decided is necessary.

So if someone says that he is a Christian but decides that he does not believe in the Trinity, you, too, would say that he is outside the realms of being a Christian "in good standing’.

Again, you reserve for yourself what you deny the CC the right to do.

True … the only Christians allowed to be their own judge of what is necessary for salvation and what defines being a Christian and what does not, … the ability to interpret scripture … to fully know Christ and also know what is worthy of belief and what is not - are non-Catholics …

In fact, it is the 19th century and new Christians who have the inside track on Christ …don’t you see?

Yet not one has been able to tell me how they “Know with certainty” that the James, the brother of the Lord, is none other then the son of Mary and Joseph the Carpenter. That this same James - who once thought his bother was a lunatic and a heretic later had an Epiphany -**and ** who then became such a firm follower of Jesus that he was entrusted with leading the Christian Community in Jerusalem … This leader of the Jerusalem Church named James is neither of the other two followers of Jesus - both also named James - and whose parentage we know is not Mary and Joseph …

NOPE …We are to trust their superior understanding of the Scriptures and what is necessary for Salvation - if its not in the Bible and clearly understood by them … its not necessary …

And yet … other then the reference to James being a “brother of the Lord” - a term rightly applied to both of the other two James’ - there is nothing - not in the scriptures nor in the writings of the early Christians about this fantastic story regarding James Epiphany and rise to authority over the Christians in Jerusalem.

And there are no early writings that tell us where and what all these supposed relatives of Jesus were, thought, did, lived, died - which is rather odd and totally in opposition to human practice …

The story makes sense to them though - so it must be true

Can anyone tell me how you know that the James - head of the community in Jerusalem is not one of the other James - whose parentage we know is not Mary and Joseph? - What passage of scripture tells you that?

 

[YADA]

Don’t faint on me; here he was representing the church and handling church business. They had to physically talk to someone and that someone was Peter.

Amazing … Imagine Peter … in the role of Abba - just like in Isaiah … representing the King of Kings here on earth in His absence …

But today - we Christians don’t need that physical representation anymore … that was only for those first Christians … you know those who actually had the opportunity to hear Jesus in person - or someone like Peter - who had actually heard Jesus in person … those Christians needed the physical representative who spoke authoritatively for the Church and who conducted the business of the Church …

And I guess the Church also need that leadership too … but not now … no - now each Christian gets to decide what is necessary and what is not … each Christian is the head of their Church - their faith … the Church is answerable to those individual persons …

because all that is necessary is Christ - He is the Truth … well and the Bible - so you know what the Truth is … and well - my interpretation of the necessary Truth … that is all that is required

 

[pocohombre]

t says nothing about because of the unbelief Mary is to be handed over to outsiders. Jewish customs would not have allowed that anyway.

And Jesus obeyed all Jewish customs right ? Never got in trouble for going against them, as David did a few times also? Post #218 addresses the properness of John and not unbelieveing “brethren” taking care of Mary.

Your answer is that all 6 or more children are all bad kids? You may abandon your eldest brother, but your mother? You are punishing your mother because the eldest son is a lunatic??? You are talking family and not by 21st century standard. Honoring the parents is so high on the list of sacred duty. If they were Mary’s blood children, they would be heavily involved in the mourning process which is a sacred duty e.g. Shiva 7-day intensive mourning period. If your point is that if Mary their mother has gone bad and that all the children are miffed at her, I would have given you that as a possibility.
I failed to see how your St Peter defense has any bearing here. Everyone sin.

So now you want a normal family, where some of the 6 kids believe? I thought you say normalcy is out the window when it comes to Jesus and his family. Jesus said division would follow him. But you are right, our belief is that some “brethren” did come around to faith, but I can’t help that scripture says they did not before the crucifixion.

How could it be conclusive (a) if there are disputes on the context and (b)frequency of usage of adelphoi for other than blood children would have introduced sufficient doubt. It is conclusive only if you cherry-pick.

I said conclusive to some,and not enough to anathemize over it.Cherry pick ? Let’s see 700 plus posts and I think we have all squared off genuinely on all.

You have not proven your case that She is guilty. I also don’t subscribe to ORAR.

But you do, but thank you for trying not to.

If you can prove the Church has taught untruths, then you have proven Jesus is a liar and not almighty.

This is only within the CC that this a problem .We do not see Orthodoxy or Protestantism as “taking down” the CC or making Jesus a liar. On the contrary, we see it as an affirmation to the good in CC foundation, and God’s providential care and correction.

All I am saying that for Joseph to have marital relationship with Mary after being informed that the Holy Spirit is the spouse is an impossibility.

Spouse ? This was a one night magnificent event. The Holy Spirit was about for all mankind including Joseph and Mary. I would not attach any earthly ways or sentiment than what is stated - “He will come upon you and miraculously create a child in you”. Scripture does not say the HS will espouse you .On the contrary, Joseph was to espouse.

In the OT, you would read that Moses and other elders would abstain from sex for 3 days just to prepare to commune with God.

Exactly. Even St. Paul addresses such fasting, for a time but not forever. In Fact St. Paul criticizes the Corinthians for leaving spouses for celibacy reasons, to be more spiritual. It was false piety.

And I quote Br. Anthony Opisso’s “Perpetual Virginity of Mary” "so that a woman who had know contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3, re ibid. 16:21-22; Book of Jubilees 33:6-9; Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Biblical Talmud, p.51). The deuteronomic code teaches that a woman who is divorced by her husband and thereafter marries another man likewise cannot return to her former husband (Dt 24:1-4).

Not apples to apples. The HS came upon her once, for one purpose, the miraculous implanting. Joseph was to do the rest, hence the Lord said, “take her”. You also forget that under Jewish law a husband can go into an in law (when “departed”) for procreation reasons. So a woman was not always “untouchable” after certain circumstances. Mary was never touched by flesh before Joseph( Is not His word enough to create ?). Joseph would not have sinned by knowing her.

This is not 21st century sexual revolution here

Yes, we have heard this before, that we are a sex crazed world and just can’t imagine sexual piety. Totally disagree. There is nothing new under the sun. Things were pretty bad then also .There were pious people then and now. Pious people today go both ways, PV and non. Further, it can be shown that some early fathers (around time Marion doctrine was developing) did not have "healthy " view of sex that we teach today. So it is not a sexual context problem on non-pver’s part.

 

[pocohombre]

Amazing … Imagine Peter … in the role of Abba - just like in Isaiah … representing the King of Kings here on earth in His absence …

But today - we Christians don’t need that physical representation anymore … that was only for those first Christians … you know those who actually had the opportunity to hear Jesus in person - or someone like Peter - who had actually heard Jesus in person … those Christians needed the physical representative who spoke authoritatively for the Church and who conducted the business of the Church …

And I guess the Church also need that leadership too … but not now … no - now each Christian gets to decide what is necessary and what is not … each Christian is the head of their Church - their faith … the Church is answerable to those individual persons …

because all that is necessary is Christ - He is the Truth … well and the Bible - so you know what the Truth is … and well - my interpretation of the necessary Truth … that is all that is required

Pure hyperbole. Give my bible and let me roll up in a ball, and that’s it !..? ? We have leadership, and we have the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ. .In my opinion it is insulting to Him to say we are “orphaned” (without a pope). Sorry, St Augustine says we are spoken to, as sure as Jesus spoke to Peter. “He speaks to us. He teaches us”. And this was not predicated on believe in a pope or not.

 

[pocohombre]

Needless to say, prayers for her (Kelly) would be much appreciated.

Sorry.Amen.