perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Protestor said:
I do not feel that I have to accept “catholic” authority on matters that are not important for salvation
Click to expand...
Can you give a list of what matters are “important for salvation”?

And where do you get this list? From the Bible?

If so, can you list the verses that state that this particular issue is “important for salvation”?

(Please note: I do not want a list of verses which support your particular view that something is "important for salvation’. I need the verse that says it’s a matter that’s “important for salvation”.

For example, if you believe that monotheism is a matter “important for salvation” please give a verse to support that belief in One God is a matter “important for salvation”. NOT the verse which states that there is indeed only One God.)
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Did you expect that the issue would go away just by ignoring it? 😉
Click to expand...
Not ignoring it, just bored by it hence the yawn emoticon.

Maybe this will be easier for you, I never talk to agnostics or atheist about the totality of the scripture. Which is to say that I do not fight with them over the acceptance of the whole bible. I tell that about the gospels because there has never been dispute about them. The other books I use to explain our thoughts on things. I do not think that it is to far of a stretch to apply Jn10:27 to obtain the divinity of certain scripture.
 
Protestor said:
Not ignoring it, just bored by it hence the yawn emoticon.

Maybe this will be easier for you, I never talk to agnostics or atheist about the totality of the scripture. Which is to say that I do not fight with them over the acceptance of the whole bible. I tell that about the gospels because there has never been dispute about them. The other books I use to explain our thoughts on things.
Click to expand...
The above is a non-sequitur, Protestor.
I do not think that it is to far of a stretch to apply Jn10:27 to obtain the divinity of certain scripture.
Click to expand...
How does John 10:27 apply to the Epistle to the Hebrews? :confused:

[BIBLEDRB]John 10:27[/BIBLEDRB]
 
PRmerger said:
Can you give a list of what matters are “important for salvation”?
Click to expand...
Back to the OP Mary’s perpetual virginity is not important to my salvation or anyones. If it is true at all it was a personal choice. She wanted to remain a virgin for whatever reasons I do not care
 
Protestor said:
Back to the OP Mary’s perpetual virginity is not important to my salvation or anyones. If it is true at all it was a personal choice. She wanted to remain a virgin for whatever reasons I do not care
Click to expand...
Again, how do you know what’s “important to” your salvation? :confused:
 
“Since the time the Devil used Scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert, doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of Bible verses. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep’s clothing but, underneath, they are ravenous wolves.” Error comes packaged under the wrapping paper of Bible verses. The Arians did it. The Albigensians did it. The Mormons do it.”

Patrick Madrid
Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? Debate with James White
 
Protestor said:
I do not think that it is to far of a stretch to apply Jn10:27 to obtain the divinity of certain scripture.
Click to expand...
As you made an assertion, it’s polite for you to back it up.

How does John 10:27 apply to the Epistle to the Hebrews and let you know that it is divine in origin?
 
PRmerger said:
The above is a non-sequitur, Protestor.

How does John 10:27 apply to the Epistle to the Hebrews? :confused:

[BIBLEDRB]John 10:27[/BIBLEDRB]
Click to expand...
I can be sequitur tomorrow. we know his voice which i will soon be finding out why “his voice” is not the scripture
 
Protestor said:
I can be sequitur tomorrow.
Click to expand...
😃
we know his voice
Click to expand...
That sounds suspiciously like…Sacred Tradition.

That is, we (the early Christians) knew the oral teaching first. And then when they read the Scriptures which conformed to His Voice, they said, “Yep, this is divinely inspired!”

So your verse does seem to provide some more apologia for your submission to the Church’s authority and Sacred Tradition.
which i will soon be finding out why “his voice” is not the scripture
Click to expand...
Huh?

Are you saying that we read the Scriptures to know His Voice and then we know what’s Scripture because it speaks His Voice?

That’s sounds rather circular to me!
 
Protestor said:
I can be sequitur tomorrow. we know his voice which i will soon be finding out why “his voice” is not the scripture
Click to expand...
Sounds awfully like the Mormon argument to me.
Are you saying you feel a “burning in your bosom?”
 
eddie_too said:
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.
Click to expand...
You go from “our” need for proof to your “evidence” only, cause no one has proof. Yes, you have much evidence and many are willing to be under the authority of such tradition. Doesn’t mean any of it is right. It’s inception is what 2/3rd century ? Not the first even second century. No I don’t trust some of those later fathers who helped promulgate the Marion doctrines Some arguments are weak, some are based on poor view of sexuality. It has an appealing almost female mythological bent to it, found in many cultures religions. Finally the fruit may be telling, with extreme Marion dogma in my opinion,all based on this (PV). As far as reformers, well it was perhaps too much to debunk for them, and really not worth it , compared to the bigger apples they had to fry. It is not surprising that as it took time to develop, it took time to pull away from from this doctrine…So for all to be charitable, it would be nice if we all recognize the realities of both positions, understanding they both have “evidences” , logic, some history, scripture and appeal. I would prefer it not to be a required article of faith.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
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 :eek:.
Click to expand...
But why ,cause we need to know and fear his holiness compared to our sinfullness ? Was God protecting himself ? No, it was to show us the “divide”.
Our sins defiled God?
Really? :eek:
I don’t THINK so.
God is NOT defiled. No matter what we do.
Click to expand...
Right, so IC PV not neccessary. And Yes Jesus did take on our sins and He died on a cross (is that defiled enough ?).
 
pocohombre said:
Right, so IC PV not neccessary. And Yes Jesus did take on our sins and He died on a cross (is that defiled enough ?).
Click to expand...
IC not necessary. ** But definitely fitting.**

Just like it wasn’t necessary that God gave us the Bible, right?
 
Protestor said:
I probably missed this but quick recap. What is the significance of the doctrine? Is it dogma?
Click to expand...
Good question.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Mark Miravalle, but he claims that there are exactly four Marian dogmas:

"It has been noted that there are already four dogmas about Mary. They are that she is (1) the Mother of God (Theotokos); (2) ever-virgin; that she was (3) immaculately conceived and (4) assumed body and soul into heaven.”

However, it is argued here (rather convincingly, in my opinion) that if PV is counted as a “dogma”, then several other Marian teachings would have to be counted as “dogma” as well.
 
pocohombre said:
Thank you for at least being amongst the few who find it not necessary (but fitting).
Click to expand...
I don’t know what Catholics you’ve been hanging out with, but the assertion made by MANY, not few here, is that it is fitting but not necessary for Mary to be Immaculately Conceived.
The"fitting" is like saying relations in a marriage is not as holy or divine as virginity in a marriage.
Click to expand...
That is not the Catholic paradigm. The One Flesh Union in a marriage is talked about as being sublime, magnificent, holy, and an icon for the Beatific Vision we will receive in heaven.

So I don’t know what you’re describing above, but it is NOT the Catholic view on relations in a marriage.
No PR, apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it was necessary that God gaive us a Bible?

What verse in Scripture says that?
 
Peter_J said:
Good question.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Mark Miravalle, but he claims that there are exactly four Marian dogmas:

"It has been noted that there are already four dogmas about Mary. They are that she is (1) the Mother of God (Theotokos); (2) ever-virgin; that she was (3) immaculately conceived and (4) assumed body and soul into heaven.”

However, it is argued here (rather convincingly, in my opinion) that if PV is counted as a “dogma”, then several other Marian teachings would have to be counted as “dogma” as well.
Click to expand...
I would agree they are interconnected, and for that reason partly am not drawn to PV for it is the foundation of the other three, and even more, co-redemptrix, and seated at the right hand of Christ etc . Thank you for recapping though, and bringing possible additions to Marion dogma. This is something earlier fathers, even reformers did not have to contend with(proclamation of IC 1854, and Assumption 1950’s ?), to some extent…Again, all part of the mythologizing of Mary, in my opinion.
 
 
pocohombre said:
I This is something earlier fathers, even reformers did not have to contend with(proclamation of IC 1854, and Assumption 1950’s ?),
Click to expand...
That’s because no one questioned it during the time of the ECFs as well as the reformers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top