A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I suspect as beliefs went further away from Scripture and Tradition and started to focus more on Scripture, they felt that the PV of Mary was not needed for the path of salvation.
- Status
B
batman1973
Guest
Sure, he did. And, he’s allowed that. Just as I am allowed to believe Mary had other kids. Now,this is my personal view, as I am not an offical spokesman for the LCMS. But, I do believe it is a"Scripture says" issue, since the Bible is my final authority. Mary demonstrated that she was a Torah observant Jew, so, as such, she would have followed one of God’s earliest commands of “Be fruitful and multiply”.
D
dzheremi
Guest
As written in his book St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept, Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty clarifies that the virginity of the Theotokos is not a matter of her personal life, but rather in conformity with the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah and the portion of Ezekiel about the gate that the Lord entered that shall remain closed to all. This is the view of the Orthodox Church, and is reflected in our hymns and praises from all traditions since time immemorial. It was affirmed before even the councils, such as in the Creed of St. Hippolytus (c.215 AD), which made belief in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Virgin Mary a required tenet of Christian belief with the question “Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary?” It is also attested to as the universal belief of the Orthodox Church in other early writings, such as those of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ephrem the Syrian, and St. Basil. Put simply, the belief that the Theotokos was not always virgin was not acceptable to the apostolic church, and continues to not be acceptable to the apostolic church, and will always be not acceptable to the apostolic church, regardless of which particular communion you think fits that description. That should tell you something, seeing how many other things Catholic, Orthodox, and traditionalist Protestants argue about regarding the history and belief of the Church.
Again, it is really missing much of the significance of St. Mary’s virginity to only look at things in light of the use of one word in an English translation of the New Testament, since (at least for Orthodox) it is really connected to so many of the prophetic settings and symbology found in the OT that speaks of the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. See, for instance, this Coptic hymn that makes clear the connection between the patriarch Moses and the Theotokos and the virginal birth of Jesus Christ: “The burning bush” (sung in English, with English subtitles for some reason)
Again, it is really missing much of the significance of St. Mary’s virginity to only look at things in light of the use of one word in an English translation of the New Testament, since (at least for Orthodox) it is really connected to so many of the prophetic settings and symbology found in the OT that speaks of the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. See, for instance, this Coptic hymn that makes clear the connection between the patriarch Moses and the Theotokos and the virginal birth of Jesus Christ: “The burning bush” (sung in English, with English subtitles for some reason)
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Don’t forget that the Missouri Synod fully participated in the Dialogue on Mary. Lutherans and Catholics assert
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Very nicely stated. Thank you
L
Lochias
Guest
There is no Scriptural support for Jesus having had actual brothers and sisters, none at all. See here.
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord
C
cjforJesus
Guest
The Church teaches that Mary was ever virgin,that she was a vigin before, during ,and after the birth of Jesus.
Anyone who disputes it should practice the first 5 Saturday devotions and I guarantee you God will enlighten your hearts.
Anyone who disputes it should practice the first 5 Saturday devotions and I guarantee you God will enlighten your hearts.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Thank you Cj
C
ClearWater
Guest
Perpetual Virginity of Mary. True.
And He said to me,
“This gate shall remain shut;
it shall not be opened,
and no man shall enter by it;
for the Lord, the God of Israel,
has entered by it;
therefore it shall remain shut. Ezekiel 44:2.
And He said to me,
“This gate shall remain shut;
it shall not be opened,
and no man shall enter by it;
for the Lord, the God of Israel,
has entered by it;
therefore it shall remain shut. Ezekiel 44:2.
Y
YADA
Guest
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.
There is so much wrong in what this person told you - not one iota of which has anything to do with Christian Catholic ‘needs’. doctrines, teachings or practice … “People” can and do say whatever they want, need or believe - none of which makes it a “Truth”
Is it important to our salvation whether Mary remained Ever Virgin
… pretty sure that has never been an argument of the Church … What matters is Truth - Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light … what matters is the Truth …You said in an earlier post that
and
Jesus was twelve when he was found in the temple - and there is no mention of any younger siblings - let alone six … if Mary and Joseph had all this younger siblings - you would think that Jesus would have been helping to care for them - and they would have traveled back with Mary and Joseph to search for Jesus, questioned [all that is mentioned is a search among rather generic kinsmen] … and that is the last mention of Joseph - so between 12 and 33 - Joseph has died … so it seems improbably that they would not have children for twelve years and then have six more … there is no mention of other children when they return from Egypt either …
In Aramaic - there is not word for cousin really … and even though the NT was written in Greek many of the idiomatic words from the Jewish languages are kept … some of which are actually explained by the writers - some are not … so the fact that the greek word for cousin is not used and brother is means little … Lot was Abraham’s nephew but is called his brother … their are 200 brothers of Jesus referred to in scripture - no one argues that they are blood relatives to Jesus … and the passage that refers to Jesus 4 brothers and his sisters also calls Jesus the son of the Carpenter - which of course you don’t use to deny the Virgin Birth :banghead:
As for needing a Virgin to make Peter a the Pope … come on … really - all we need is the words of Christ himself - and for back up the prophet Isaiah … and for even more back up the early Church / early Christians - as evidenced by their writings and actions …
And Mary - Ever Virgin - plenty of prophetic passages tell that truth - Mary’s own words - Elisabeth … and again for even more back up the early Church / early Christians - as evidenced by their writings and actions …
including the original Protestant Reformers and the first 300 + years of Protestant Christians too …
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Lutherans have fallen away from Martin Luther
J
JRKH
Guest
I actually find the PV to be easy to accept. All I need do is look at who Joesph was and what he knew when he took Mary into his house (as recorded in the Gospels). Being who he was (a righteous man) and knowing what he knew (Mary carried the son of the living God in her womb), I cannot fathom that he would have sexual relations with her.
I know I wouldn’t…
Maybe not the most profound theological argument - but it sure works for me…
Peace
James
I know I wouldn’t…
Maybe not the most profound theological argument - but it sure works for me…
Peace
James
Y
YADA
Guest
Of course you are allowed to believe that
- even promote it
You [or whomever your current pastor - spiritual Guru is] are your own Pope -
This makes you answerable only to you - and any like minded Christians in your community -
That is - until of course you disagree - then one of you can move along - :doh2: finding other like minded Christians
or - finding none - :newidea: start your own Church …
Because - Scripture - and my interpretation is all I need
to know all the Truth necessary 
D
dee_burk
Guest
Many protestant denominations take the scripture literally (at face value) only when they want, yet deny the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist which is also depicted clearly in scripture.
Personally, i have no problems believing that Mary was ever virgin. as i tried to explain to a baptist who was intent on arguing this issue…if a man believed that his wife did indeed fulfill prophecy as conceiving a child as a virgin that was the Son of God AND then our held our Lord in his arms, would the thought of defiling the holy womb of God come into his mind? i think the awe of holding the Savior of mankind, the Son of God, would have left Joseph without the thought of intercourse in his mind.
K
Kliska
Guest
Actually that is explained in scripture. His family rejected what He was teaching until after the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus taught blatantly that only those who were doing the will of His Father were brother, sister, mother. He would not have given her over to James because James was not a believer at the time, and hence not one that Jesus considered brother even though related.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Mary as the Ark of the new Covenant;
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Matthew records,
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Now, a good question is, why doesn’t Joseph have relations with a woman who he has just taken as his wife? She is pregnant? She is newly pregnant and I do not believe that married couples commonly abstain from sexual relations for the entire duration of pregnancy. So why does it say that Joseph knew her not? Hmm…
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Now, a good question is, why doesn’t Joseph have relations with a woman who he has just taken as his wife? She is pregnant? She is newly pregnant and I do not believe that married couples commonly abstain from sexual relations for the entire duration of pregnancy. So why does it say that Joseph knew her not? Hmm…
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Again, problematic. Jesus, making a point to His audience is hardly rejecting family. And the oldest surviving son would be responsible for Mary regardless.
Also – the “brothers” stated in the passage you reference could not have been blood relations, because a younger sibling would NEVER rebuke an older sibling – especially an eldest son – in public.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
My question remains – and this is of true interest to me; I’m not trying to pick at a sore.
It is a given that the three major streams of Reformation theology: Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism, all originally accepted this doctrine without question – even enthusiastically endorsing it.
When did this stop and why?
It is a given that the three major streams of Reformation theology: Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism, all originally accepted this doctrine without question – even enthusiastically endorsing it.
When did this stop and why?
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
That is what I am trying to figure out.
As I stated earlier, I am not for or against such belief in the PV. I can see logic on both sides. Maybe more on the side of the PV.
- Status