perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[stewstew03]

How do you reconcile

…scripture comes from God.

with

We can all look into it and see if we agree with the canon.

?

Is this a comment on free will, in general, or are you saying you disagree with parts of Scripture that God has given to the Church?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Kliska
…scripture comes from God.

Yes and He used humans as His instruments to write it. See…no different with the Church He founded and its bishops who defined and ratified core doctrines.

 

[Kliska]

How do you reconcile

Because the RCC itself says that it recognized (not produced) scripture.

 

[David_Zampino]

Because the RCC itself says that it recognized (not produced) scripture.

That, my friend, it a WHOLE other thread . . . we could have some fun . . .

The development, acceptance, and promulgation of the NT Canon is an academic specialty of mine (while I was still at the Episcopalian seminary).

 

[Nicea325]

Because the RCC itself says that it recognized (not produced) scripture.

Yeah and the first Christian NT writers were part of a universal church founded by Christ. So they obviously the Church did more than recognize scripture.

 

[Kliska]

That, my friend, it a WHOLE other thread . . . we could have some fun . . .

The development, acceptance, and promulgation of the NT Canon is an academic specialty of mine (while I was still at the Episcopalian seminary).

I’ve been down this road already in my short tenure here. Needless to say, no one’s mind got changed.

Yeah and the first Christian NT writers were part of a universal church founded by Christ. So they obviously the Church did more than recognize scripture.

We agree! What we won’t agree on is the exact nature of that universal church and who represents her and is a member of her today. But we also won’t agree the Church didn’t recognize scripture as that is what is taught by the RCC itself.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve been down this road already in my short tenure here. Needless to say, no one’s mind got changed.

We agree! What we won’t agree on is the exact nature of that universal church and who represents her and is a member of her today. But we also won’t agree the Church didn’t recognize scripture as that is what is taught by the RCC itself.

The exact nature? My sister in Christ, Christ founded One church and its members were from all walks of life,language,culture,etc. Christ wants all of us under one fold…not thousands. Think of Heaven…all ONE…not thousands.

 

[Kliska]

The exact nature? My sister in Christ, Christ founded One church and its members were from all walks of life,language,culture,etc. Christ wants all of us under one fold…not thousands. Think of Heaven…all ONE…not thousands.

We, you and I, are under one Shepherd, and hence one fold. We are both sheep following an ultimate leader; Jesus Christ Himself. The unity that we are to see in His disciples is love for one another, He didn’t say we had to espouse all the detailed things exactly the same. You and I can stand side by side and recite the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, we can each talk of our baptism and faith in Christ.

 

[stewstew03]

Because the RCC itself says that it recognized (not produced) scripture.

Okay, but what good is God’s Word if everyone espouses a thousand different truths based on “looking into it and seeing if we agree”?

 

[Kliska]

Okay, but what good is God’s Word if everyone espouses a thousand different truths based on “looking into it and seeing if we agree”?

I’m sorry, and I know the RCC’s position on this, but I don’t see Christians actually espousing “a thousand different truths” based on the word of God. I’ve pointed this out in another thread; you and I agree on who Christ was, we agree enough on other points to stand side by side and recite the Apostle’s and Nicene creed together. We each point to Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life and profess that there is no other name by which we must be saved. So, I see all Christians espousing One Truth and that Truth is Jesus Christ. If they don’t espouse Jesus, God the Son, Second Person of the Holy Trinity; fully God and Fully Man, then they “ain’t” Christians.

 

[Lochias]

Or not. The Greek language was the perfect language to communicate what God was communicating in the NT. Each language is different, and apparently He wanted the NT in Greek.

…that makes no sense, because the idea that Jesus had siblings wasn’t looked with any seriousness until way after the Greek translation. It was translated into Greek, and for many hundreds of years after that, people affirmed the fact that Jesus had no siblings.

I don’t care for the authority of man, but the authority of God.

So God has never give man any authority to speak in His name?

One of the ways to check to see if man is right is to compare what man says to the word of God.

The word of God that was written down by man.

In this case, I will go with the word of God. Further, I’m not “bent” on it; a boardmember asked for our opinions and I’m giving them.

In the face of much evidence to the contrary, it becomes a “bent.” You literally have to bend the truth to reach the conclusions that you’re reaching, knowingly or otherwise.

From you position, of course you see it that way.

A position of paying attention to all the facts and context? Quite correct.

Funny, I thought is was God, as even the RCC teaches.

So God reached out from a cloud and ratified the books we know as the Bible with a giant hand?

Simple history is that there has never been one canon.

Until ratified by the Catholic Church, the same canon you use now (minus some books, perhaps, that individuals took out on their own and with no traceable authority).

Simple history underscores in all churches that scripture comes from God.

Again, did God reach out a giant hand from the clouds and write it with a golden pen, or did the Catholic Church put together the collection of books that you know as the Bible?

We can all look into it and see if we agree with the canon.

Indeed. The WBC is great at that.

It always seems that the RCC clings to the idea that they gave the world the Bible; it didn’t. Certainly not the OT, and the NT was organically compiled save for several contended books.

God gave the world the Bible as we know it through the Catholic Church, yes.

You make the claim that RCC tradition doesn’t clash with scripture. Well, that’s why you are RC.

That’s one of many reasons why I’m RC, not the only one.

I’m protestant because I see it clashing in several key ways, including on matters of salvational importance. I understand your view, I just don’t agree with it.

So what makes you an authority on the subject that I should take seriously? Please, answer this question.

Sorry, but I don’t see any disconnect in believing that Mary and Joseph had other children; what a blessing God must have bestowed on them, and why would He withhold the blessing of children to the couple of couples?

He didn’t…He gave them Jesus. Why are you so sure that what you think is normal should be good enough for the Holy Family? I’m sorry, but that is arrogance in the extreme. It’s reducing Jesus to our level.

I’ve already connected the dots that I see in scripture from the OT Psalm, to the NT fact of James leading the church, to His disbelieving family, to John’s role in the church and Mary’s relationship to him.

Right. You’ve made assumptions based on 4 verses in Scripture, ignored the rest, ignored history, ignored what the Christians before you believed for thousands of years, and expect to be taken seriously in your opinion?

Nope.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m sorry, and I know the RCC’s position on this, but I don’t see Christians actually espousing “a thousand different truths” based on the word of God. I’ve pointed this out in another thread; you and I agree on who Christ was, we agree enough on other points to stand side by side and recite the Apostle’s and Nicene creed together. We each point to Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life and profess that there is no other name by which we must be saved. So, I see all Christians espousing One Truth and that Truth is Jesus Christ. If they don’t espouse Jesus, God the Son, Second Person of the Holy Trinity; fully God and Fully Man, then they “ain’t” Christians.

The creeds come to us by way of the Catholic Church. Where we would disagree is that you seem to think that each Christian is entitled to proclaim Truth because, as you said, “we can all look into it and see if we agree with the [the Word of God].” Yours is a very curious paradigm…

 

[Lochias]

I’m sorry, and I know the RCC’s position on this, but I don’t see Christians actually espousing “a thousand different truths” based on the word of God. I’ve pointed this out in another thread; you and I agree on who Christ was, we agree enough on other points to stand side by side and recite the Apostle’s and Nicene creed together. We each point to Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life and profess that there is no other name by which we must be saved. So, I see all Christians espousing One Truth and that Truth is Jesus Christ. If they don’t espouse Jesus, God the Son, Second Person of the Holy Trinity; fully God and Fully Man, then they “ain’t” Christians.

If even one other church that claims to be Christian teaches differently from another ,then you are wrong.

I submit three words: Westboro Baptist Church.

They use the exact same arguments that you do…EXACTLY the same.

Who’s right…you, or them? Or are you both right, somehow?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh I wish it were true that as the father and mother’s faith go , there go the children. I wish there were no prodigals, Absoloms, Cains etc etc. I wish Jesus did not foretell of division amongst brother and sister (cousins ?), mother father over Himself… And as for Elizabeth’s son, the greatest ever born of a woman per the words of Jesus, in a weak moment, even after baptizing and professing the Messiah correctly, had to ask, “Are you the one ?”… I love and am drawn to superior saints that were imperfect, like myself.

Oh, I wish it were true that my wife was a saint. How she must wish that I were, also. How we wish that our eldest son could be divine, blah, blah, blah.

Seriously?

This was no ordinary family…

 

[Kliska]

So God has never give man any authority to speak in His name?

Only so long as it lines up with what He has actually proclaimed. And the arbiter that we have to insure it is the Holy Spirit.

The word of God that was written down by man.

God-breathed and totally inspired.

In the face of much evidence to the contrary, it becomes a “bent.” You literally have to bend the truth to reach the conclusions that you’re reaching, knowingly or otherwise.

It would indeed appear that way to you.

So God reached out from a cloud and ratified the books we know as the Bible with a giant hand?

Wow. Make sure you don’t venture into speaking against the power of the Lord via the Holy Spirit, just because you don’t agree with what I’m saying. Did God give us scripture or not? God inspired it and man wrote it. Men then recognized that.

Until ratified by the Catholic Church, the same canon you use now (minus some books, perhaps, that individuals took out on their own and with no traceable authority).

No matter how it is spun; there is no one canon. Never has been.

God gave the world the Bible as we know it through the Catholic Church, yes.

No, He gave it to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit, including strengthening those who lost their lives to translate it and disseminate it to the world.

So what makes you an authority on the subject that I should take seriously? Please, answer this question.

Don’t take me as an authority, never claimed to be one. Take the Holy Spirit as an authority. He inspired the Bible, preserved it and made sure it was available to you and me.

He didn’t…He gave them Jesus. Why are you so sure that what you think is normal should be good enough for the Holy Family? I’m sorry, but that is arrogance in the extreme. It’s reducing Jesus to our level.

This is about Mary and Joseph. Blessed they were and 100% human. I’m certain that God had their best interest in heart in His grace.

Right. You’ve made assumptions based on 4 verses in Scripture, ignored the rest, ignored history, ignored what the Christians before you believed for thousands of years, and expect to be taken seriously in your opinion?

Nope.

I’ve never said anyone needs to change their mind, I was asked kindly for my opinion and I’ve given it with scripture to back it. I don’t ignore history nor tradition. You may insult me and/or my opinion if you like. We are chasing the topic in circles, so with that I say,

Grace and Peace.

 

[Kliska]

The creeds come to us by way of the Catholic Church. Where we would disagree is that you seem to think that each Christian is entitled to proclaim Truth because, as you said, “we can all look into it and see if we agree with the [the Word of God].” Yours is a very curious paradigm…

Are not all Christians commanded to proclaim Truth? Is not Jesus Truth? Do you and I proclaim the same Christ?

 

[Kliska]

If even one other church that claims to be Christian teaches differently from another ,then you are wrong.

I submit three words: Westboro Baptist Church.

They use the exact same arguments that you do…EXACTLY the same.

Who’s right…you, or them? Or are you both right, somehow?

Wow, you do understand they aren’t actually a Baptist church, right? And that Baptists are highly offended by their use of the term? You were treating me with a level of respect that has just flown out the window if you are using such a Rhetorical and insulting analogy. Look at their fruit and you tell me if they are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks. read psalm 69 ?

We have…ALL of it…not just a proof-text or two. You want to apply Psalm 69 to Jesus (and Mary)? Fine. Then deal with this:

5 You, God, know my folly;
my guilt is not hidden from you.

Do you think that Jesus was guilty of anything? If so, please tell us what that might be. And what was His folly? I’m quite curious about this.

In the meantime, Here are some thoughts on the mis-use of Psalm 69 posted here:

It’s a clever argument, but there are at least three alternatives to bear in mind. First, the Psalms are distinct from traditional prophesy (like Isaiah or Ezekiel, e.g.). The present concerns of the Psalmists are blended with foreshadowing of Christ. Psalm 69 is no exception. On one level, this Psalm is about someone who was falsely accused of theft (Psalm 69:4). Plenty of things in Psalm 69 foreshadow Christ, but that doesn’t mean every element is true of Him. For example, Psalm 69:5 says, “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.” And Christ is sinless, of course. So the first option is simply that v. 8 isn’t strictly Christological.

Second, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, the “mother” may not be Mary – it may mean Israel. The full sentence (v.8-9), taken as a whole, says, “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons; for zeal for Your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” That is, the image is of mother Israel, and her sons, the Jewish people, in their home, the house of the Lord, the Temple of Jerusalem.

Third, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says that the Mother of Christ’s children are “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”

So the three options are that v. 8 refers to (1) something exclusive to the Psalmist, (2) Israel, and (3) Christians. Of the three, I think (2) is the strongest, but any are possible. In any case, none of this strikes me as a compelling reason to declare the Church wrong (from the early Christians onward) about the perpetual Virginity of Mary.

So, once again, the verse PROVES nothing. There is a reasonable alternative to your interpretation.

For a more lengthy refutation of this Psalm 69 argument, try author Steve Ray’s paper here:

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/MarysOtherSons2.pdf

 

[Lochias]

Only so long as it lines up with what He has actually proclaimed. And the arbiter that we have to insure it is the Holy Spirit.

Well, the WBC says that they are spirit-led to wish that soldiers die and burn in hell. are they right?

God-breathed and totally inspired.

…through the people of the Catholic Church. You can’t run away or ignore history.

It would indeed appear that way to you.

Because that’s what’s happening, yes.

Wow. Make sure you don’t venture into speaking against the power of the Lord via the Holy Spirit, just because you don’t agree with what I’m saying.

Did God give us scripture or not? God inspired it and man wrote it. Men then recognized that.

God gave us a Church before He gave us the Bible that we have today. And He gave us that Bible through the Catholic Church.

No matter how it is spun; there is no one canon. Never has been.

Then it’s curious that you only stick to one now. I smell a double-standard.

No, He gave it to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit, including strengthening those who lost their lives to translate it and disseminate it to the world.

…“those” being members of the Catholic Church, correct. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, through the Church that Jesus started.

Don’t take me as an authority, never claimed to be one. Take the Holy Spirit as an authority. He inspired the Bible, preserved it and made sure it was available to you and me.

…inspired it through the Catholic Church, yes indeed. I’m right at the source, don’t worry about me; it’s you who are out in left field, picking and choose what to believe and what not to.

This is about Mary and Joseph. Blessed they were and 100% human. I’m certain that God had their best interest in heart in His grace.

None of that addresses my point. She was the vessel through which Jesus came into the world in the flesh. She was 100% human, but she was anything but typical.

I’ve never said anyone needs to change their mind, I was asked kindly for my opinion and I’ve given it with scripture to back it.

4 verses do not an airtight argument make. Your POV has been roundly shot down, again and again and again.

I don’t ignore history nor tradition.

Yes, yes you do. You have completely, utterly ignored every last reference to Christian history and tradition that has been given to you on this thread.

You may insult me and/or my opinion if you like.

Pointing out the logical flaws in your opinions is not an insult. Similarly, I have already said that I think you are kind and sincere. Adopting the attitude of a martyr now would be disingenuous.

We are chasing the topic in circles, so with that I say,

There’s no chase to be had when one party buries their head in the sand.

Grace and Peace.

You, too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

More from Steve Ray on Psalm 69:

One must understand the Psalms and how to properly interpret them. Portions of this Psalm are prophetic, but that does not prove that all the Psalms, or all verses in a Messianic Psalm all refer explicitly to Christ.

But what if we focus in on verse 5 in Psalm 69? Do we ever see this verse on the lips of Jesus or quoted in Gospels? It reads, “O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee.” The Hebrew word for “wrongs” means transgressions, sins, guilt.

If one claims that this whole Psalm uniquely and explicitly applies to Christ, then we must also conclude that Jesus was a sinner since the Psalmist appears to be saying that Jesus had committed wrongs and transgressions which were not hidden from God.

A Protestant manual written for translators of the Bible instructs translators concerning this verse:

The psalmist confesses his wrongs, convinced that they are the cause of his misfortune, which is seen as God’s just punishment. The folly he confesses is his disregard of God’s laws….Today’s English Version (TEV) has reversed the two lines for greater ease of understanding. Thou knowest my folly is sometimes rendered idiomatically as “you know I have had a twisted heart” or “you know that my heart has led me on a bad path.” In some languages it is not possible or at least not natural to say that one’s sins are not hidden from thee. In such cases it will be necessary to switch to an active expression.
However, the sense is that God knows fully the sins of the writer, and therefore one may translate “You know full well all my sins, O God” (Bratcher, R. G., & Reyburn, W. D (1991). A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms. Helps for translators (595). New York: United Bible Societies).​

How is this relevant to the discussion of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? Well, if not all verses of Psalm 69 can be applied literally to Jesus, then there is no air-tight argument that Jesus had brothers based upon v. 9.

Once again, Protestants have NO proof from scripture that Mary had other children.