perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[aidanbradypop]

That understanding should then carry forward. She gave birth to God. Let that sink in for a while. She gave birth to God. She gave birth…to God.

Indeed she did!

It’s not always good to sit on the fence.

I agree! On this issue I will gladly do so.

Yup. But not understanding Mary can lead to ramifications concerning the understanding of Jesus. You, as a non-practicing Catholic, should know this already.

Lochias I still disagree. I am sure the Blessed Mother tries to bring us closer to her Son as do all the saints. I am a practicing Catholic. Just not in the Roman Church.

Our understanding of Christ should not hinge on our understanding of Mary.

That’s unfortunate indeed. Remember to ponder: She gave birth to God.

We do not disagree on her being the Mother of God.

No, and I really don’t think you think I do. Let’s not play games, here. And remember that God willed that Mary give birth to Jesus, so if you’re going to indulge in pointless nitpicking, remember that God COULD have simply willed Jesus into existence without Mary at all. But He didn’t. Ponder that, too. God Bless.

It might have been they way you phrased it. Sorry to assume.

I do not disagree with you here.

 

[Lochias]

So long as you understand that non-pvers do have scriptural reference as does the CC for pv.

Except that the Catholic Scripture references aren’t taken out of context like the Protestant ones are. We don’t need to perform mental acrobatics to arrive at a very sensible conclusion.

Proof is also illusive to both sides

.

Wrong.

As others have said, there are evidences,scriptural and otherwise.

Only for the PV of Mary. Not against.

Understand. CC authority and infallibility is still not “proof”

Only if you lack faith in Jesus and the Church that he started. Choosing not to follow something is not proof against it.

… I have opinionated this before, this PV and much Marian doctrine is where the cart (popular proclivity) led the horse, and still does (towards co-redemptrix and more).

Unsubstantiated, and wrong.

 

[chero23]

So long as you understand that non-pvers do have scriptural reference as does the CC for pv. Proof is also illusive to both sides. As others have said, there are evidences,scriptural and otherwise.
Understand. CC authority and infallibility is still not “proof”… I have opinionated this before, this PV and much Marian doctrine is where the cart (popular proclivity) led the horse, and still does (towards co-redemptrix and more).

If you say both sides have proof to their points then God lied. Because the Bible tells us that God is a God of truth not of confusion. How can you say he told me that this is it, and I say no he told me the opposite. How can you argue one thing and say im right, and I use the same resource (the Bible) and say no, your not right.

Your story does not add up. You have the same mentality of only Bible. look how good that turned out, 33,000 denominations saying the bible Only yet be so divided.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I disagree. Mary’s PV is not one element of the fullness of our salvation. The fullness of our salvation is Christ.

By that logic, neither is the Creation saga, nor the story of Moses and the Exodus, etc., etc., etc.

But Catholics believe that all of salvation history, including Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, is important.

 

[chero23]

Indeed she did!

I agree! On this issue I will gladly do so.

Lochias I still disagree. I am sure the Blessed Mother tries to bring us closer to her Son as do all the saints. I am a practicing Catholic. Just not in the Roman Church.

Our understanding of Christ should not hinge on our understanding of Mary.

But the bible says that God doesn’t’ like it when were in the middle.

We do not disagree on her being the Mother of God.

It might have been they way you phrased it. Sorry to assume.

I do not disagree with you here.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Lack of full understanding concerning the nature of Christ is the risk you run by denying the absolute truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Always remember that. And lack of understanding of Christ has already led you away from the Church. Remember that, too.

Once again we disagree but that is ok. Understanding Christ had nothing to do with my leaving the Catholic Church, but I guess that is for a PM or other thread.

And thank you for answering the question.

 

[eddie_too]

without Mary’s free consent to her role in our salvation, we would not be saved.

seems quite obdurate to continually profess that Mary is unnecessary for our salvation.

Jesus honors Mary above all others in His creation.

Jesus submitted His will to Mary’s wishes and commands.

Mary cannot be separated from the gift of salvation almighty God gave us through His Incarnation because there is no Incarnation without Mary’s freely given consent.

 

[aidanbradypop]

By that logic, neither is the Creation saga, nor the story of Moses and the Exodus, etc., etc., etc.

But Catholics believe that all of salvation history, including Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, is important.

I take no issue with Catholics believing such.

 

[pocohombre]

a) The argument proffered for the reason for Jesus to hand over his mother to the care of John instead is because of the siblings unbelief. That reasoning is not stated in the NT so you can not stand on it.

John 7:5" For neither did His brethren believe in Him".
.

Would you just leave your Mum with his “lunatic” eldest brother’s friends after his demise? Wouldn’t you claim her back? Or all these 6 (minimum) children were all prodigals??

Yes, sin is ugly isn’t it ? Hey, St. Peter not only denied the Lord, but vehemently and thrice. After three years of “closely walking” with the creator of the universe all the Apostles scattered (except John). So that his miffed brethren did also is no surprise.

c) Since, the word adelphoi is confirmed to cover more than blood-siblings and therefore rendered inconclusive, then shouldn’t we drop this approach to attack/support that Mary had other children? Or you are going to stand your ground and insist till you are blue in the face that blood brothers is the one and only possible correct explanation?

To some it is conclusive, in it’s context and the number of times adelhoi are present. Further that Elizabeth was not adelphoi but “cousin”. We are convinced but not “blue in the face” enough to hold others to the belief or anathemize.

d) The NT is a product of the Catholic Church. The Church decided which OT/NT books were to be in the collection. For thousands of years TILL now, the Church has held that Mary is Ever Virgin. Why would one, 2000 years later, take someone else’s compilation (and letting the printers drop a few books along the way and keeping very mum about it), read it for themselves and think the Church is wrong for 2000 years and that they are right?

Understand. Not easy to see how after such service and steadfastness to truth that she could err. But, I do not hold to ORAR-once right always right.

e) The NT says if there is a dispute, take it to the Church. There was only 1 church 2000 yrs ago and historical records say that Church is the current Catholic Church. So why don’t you do what the Bible tells you, take it to the Catholic Church? If you think your church is the same church mentioned 2000 years ago, please show your apostolic history of your church. You can’t because you have no history to talk about. Most likely, your pastor graduated from some theological university, found work in a church and started preaching. Some pastors job-hopped church-hopped.

Please don’t show contempt for other ministers, as some try not to revile the “factory” method of entering the seminary and you are on your way to being a rightful minister.

So are you claiming that YOUR church is THAT pillar and foundation of truth and therefore all the other churches are not?

Hope not. Some do. Does yours ?

e) The Early Church Fathers and Reformer Fathers believe in the Ever Virgin Mary. Why do you think they are wrong? Why do you think you are correct? In the Reformed Church history, since the Reformed Fathers believe in the Ever Virgin Mary, at some point, someone at some period, think that the Reformed Fathers were wrong on this. Who is that person(s) and the basis for his/her/their conclusion? If these people, think that their historical founders were wrong on this matter, why do you/they think you/they could be preserved from error yourself/themselves?

So do you agree with ST.Aquinas that Mary would have been desecrated, not as divine, had she other children ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, but no.

Grace and Peace to you Randy.

Fine. It will become obvious enough as you choose which threads you participate in. :yup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Prove this statement. This is not true. You do not have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching.

• Queen of heaven

Jesus didn’t have to say anything about Mary being the Queen of Heaven; it was understood from the context of Jewish History.

But because of your weakness (sola scriptura), I will explain:

The Establishment of Jesus’ Kingdom and Royal Court

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom. We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:

Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.

+++

Jesus is the King.
Mary is His Queen.
Peter is His Royal Steward.

 

[eddie_too]

heaven is a kingdom.

it should not surprise anyone that a kingdom has a queen to honor and from whom to request royal favors.

 

[eddie_too]

we do not have a record of any of the oral teachings of Jesus or His apostles.

we have a written record, some of which was partially created from the memories of the apostles, and some of which originated from the thoughts and understandings of the apostles and their successors.

the scripture is very clear that it does NOT contain all that Jesus taught and did. in fact, scripture tells us that it is not possible to write down all that Jesus taught and did.

it is puzzling that people hold fast to the idea that only what is in scripture is important to following Jesus Christ.

i do not understand why what the christian community taught before the scriptures were written and canonized is unimportant to our salvation, as some assert. afterall, it was nearly four hundred years before the christian community decided what constituted sacred scripture.

i do not understand why people do not understand that it was not possible for the entire faith to be included in the sacred scripture, i.e. the inherent limitations of written communications.

 

[PRmerger]

Fine. It will become obvious enough as you choose which threads you participate in. :yup:

And which ones Kliska abruptly leaves.

 

[eddie_too]

if the Church had the power to define sacred scripture in the fourth century A.D., why would it lose that power in the following centuries?

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

I came across with a Evangelic publication where they stated:

On the Bible we never read that Jesus Say: “Mother” we always Read : “women” Why? Mother is the word that will bring joy to the heart of Mary. what will be feel a Mother next to his son who is dying, if He told Her Women? Her heart will be destroy.

I was thinking on that and I ask Myself, According this theory Jesus saw Mary like a any other Women, Just a Believer, So why He dying in the cross worry about her, According some others Evangelicals, Mary was rejected from her own family so that is Why Jesus need to ask Jon to take her to His house… Why they don’t Include the theory that Jesus was giving us His Mother to Us ?

 

[Protestor]

Huh? That’s sounds rather circular to me!

I was trying to say catholics must not think God’s voice represents the scriptures. I thought that you would be telling me why. It was an attempt at humor through crassness.

 

[Protestor]

Sounds awfully like the Mormon argument to me.
Are you saying you feel a “burning in your bosom?”

I have no idea what “burning in your bosom” means. Is it a mormon thing? Is it in the bible(I don’t remember reading it)?

Is an argument wrong because it sounds like a mormon argument or are you just saying that it sounds like a mormon argument? Thanks I guess

 

[PRmerger]

I have no idea what “burning in your bosom” means. Is it a mormon thing? Is it in the bible(I don’t remember reading it)?

Is an argument wrong because it sounds like a mormon argument or are you just saying that it sounds like a mormon argument? Thanks I guess

It’s wrong because what you seem to be saying is, “I’ll know Scripture when I see it!”

 

[Protestor]

without Mary’s free consent to her role in our salvation, we would not be saved.

seems quite obdurate to continually profess that Mary is unnecessary for our salvation.

Jesus honors Mary above all others in His creation.

Jesus submitted His will to Mary’s wishes and commands.

Mary cannot be separated from the gift of salvation almighty God gave us through His Incarnation because there is no Incarnation without Mary’s freely given consent.

You understand that we just look at this from another perspective right. If Mary would not have given consent what do you think God would have done? Your perspective seems to be centered on what Mary did. Protestant’s perspective in general center on what God was doing.

Mary was not necessary for our salvation. You are IMO either saying to much or to little. I agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus in that respect she was important, but she was no more important than her other ancestors. “Honored above all other creatures” is pretty subjective as well. I think you may be confusing honor and favor. She is not the only one Jesus submits to so I am not really sure what your point is there. I am assuming that you are referring to Christ’s first miracle, are you?