perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[aidanbradypop]

Or…Well…never mind.

 

[PRmerger]

By what means did I hear the good news?

I dunno.

For your “I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!” to work, you would have had to hear the good news some other way except through hearing the written Good News.

How is it that you would be able to tell what’s Scripture and what’s not?

 

[Protestor]

But the CC obviously doesn’t agree that a bunch of guys were sitting around and saying let’s come up with some new “stuff”. There have been numerous posters who have given scriptural background for PV.

There are 600+ posts on this thread I am not going to go through all of them to prove your point for you. I am willing to go to a webpage or point me to the appropriate post number and I will look at it. I still have not been given this even though I have now asked 3 times. By the way I refuse to look at wiki as a source at least find something for me on stay catholic or something credible.

If you are having trouble finding some I think that at least Jerome has stated that Mary was ever-virgin.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s about Mary, all this Marian dogma, Mary. Christ is not defined by “Marian dogma”. Pv or non is miniscule to Christ’s divinty.

Every dogma/doctrine/teaching on Mary only serves to enhance and highlight our understanding of Christ.

Just like the book of Joshua isn’t all about this ancient Israelite named Joshua, but rather serves to prepare the way for our understanding of Jeshua.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure I can claim things that are not in the bible. I am not aloud to subsequently say that what I said was absolutely true or infallible.

So that means that you’re not sure about what you are professing here? You may be wrong that “Mary was not necessary for our salvation”?

With all due respect, if you think that what you are stating could be wrong, then why should I believe you?

It’s like I’m looking at contractors to build a bridge and a contractor says, “Well, I don’t know if I did my math right, but please go with me! In my opinion, the bridge should be sturdy. Probably.”

Why in the world would I choose a contractor who presents himself like that???

 

[stewstew03]

…
I am saying that it is a man made doctrine put in place because bunch of people who were theologians agreed on it being correct or it was something that enhanced the virtue of virginity or both or neither. In case you were wondering.

You could say the same thing about the table of contents in your bible.

:bible1:

 

[PRmerger]

Conception is one thing, “raising” is another. For Jesus to become flesh is a special circumstance requiring a one time event. Being raised in flesh and spirit is part of normal humanity, which Christ became part of.

Sure. And Mary and Joseph need never have marital relations, not even once, for Jesus to be part of normal humanity.

I guarantee you that I went through my entire childhood without ever knowing whether my parents engaged in the conjugal act, and I have turned out quite well.

Whether Joseph and Mary engaged in the marital act would have no effect at all on Jesus’ normal Jewish upbringing. The idea that they had to engage in the conjugal act in order for Jesus to be normal is, frankly, the most absurd thing you’ve ever said to me, poco.

You said Mary remained virgin to fully devote herself to raising Jesus ( paraphrased), because Jesus is "special’ , which H ise

Nope. I said that Mary remained ever virgin because her womb was set apart for Him Who Could Not Be Contained, and for it to carry anything else would diminish any apologia for His Divinity. After all, if the Ark of the Covenant carried the Word, but then also carried some pretty pebbles, how special could that Word be?

 

[PRmerger]

Not believing anothers evidence is one thing, denying it has been put forth is disingenuous, and hopefully you don’t mean the latter. If so it requires a photovideo.

Scripture verse that says, “These are Mary’s children” please.

 

[Protestor]

I dunno.

For your “I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!” to work, you would have had to hear the good news some other way except through hearing the written Good News.

How is it that you would be able to tell what’s Scripture and what’s not?

I was a christian long(2years) before I started reading the bible on my own. I heard the good news from God through a few friends. I think they heard it from other sources. I am not sure I know anyone who just read the bible and afterward said “I think this is God’s word” and became a christian from the reading of scripture, I am not saying you couldn’t.

“How is it that you would be able to tell what’s Scripture and what’s not?” :newidea: God. I mean have you read the gospel of thomas? When you were reading it did you need the church to tell you that it was not canonical. I read it with as much of an open mind as I could muster, but I found that it couldn’t cut the mustard(idioms in italics… I am cheesy).

 

[PRmerger]

I was a christian long(2years) before I started reading the bible on my own. I heard the good news from God through a few friends.

Right. But are you saying that they heard it from some other source than what was written in the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

“How is it that you would be able to tell what’s Scripture and what’s not?” :newidea: God. I mean have you read the gospel of thomas? When you were reading it did you need the church to tell you that it was not canonical. I read it with as much of an open mind as I could muster, but I found that it couldn’t cut the mustard(idioms in italics… I am cheesy).

Ah, so it appears, then, that you (that is, the early Christians) already knew the good news…from some source OTHER than the written word?

That way they could know that the Gospel of Thomas was not Scripture.

What was that source?

 

[PRmerger]

“How is it that you would be able to tell what’s Scripture and what’s not?” :newidea: God. I mean have you read the gospel of thomas? When you were reading it did you need the church to tell you that it was not canonical. I read it with as much of an open mind as I could muster, but I found that it couldn’t cut the mustard(idioms in italics… I am cheesy).

Incidentally, you can’t say, “I don’t believe it’s part of the Bible because it’s not part of the Bible”, right?

That’s circular.

That’s like saying, “One of the gospels talks about Jesus walking on water. Clearly, he couldn’t have done that, therefore that gospel doesn’t belong in the NT.”

If it’s in the NT, then, I guess, you have to believe it, right?

 

[Protestor]

Scripture verse that says, “These are Mary’s children” please.

Mt12:46,13:55, Mark6:3, Jn7:5 . There are thee valid interpretations as far as I know. One that these brothers and sisters were really Jesus’s cousins(from Mary who was married to Zebedy(can’t spell)). Next that they were his half bros and sisters that joseph had from another wife. Lastly that they were Jesus half bros and sisters because Jesus was not made from the union of Joseph and Mary only Mary and the Holy Spirit. In the last case it would not be correct to call them his full brother which is shown by the greek that does not specifically mean direct brother of the same mother and father.

Surely James(supplantor), Joseph(May Yahweh add), Jude(let God be praised), Simon(hearing) were popular names. If you don’t like the name meanings take it up with my fathers bible.

 

[jediliz]

Please read The Bible verses where Mary is visited by the Angel. She questions how she would become pregnant. She obviously knew how a baby was made, but was confused about how a future conception would take place. She obviously was a consecrated virgin (yes, those DID exist) and Joseph was chosen to protect her Virginity, not take it. That and Jesus would need a legal father. If you were chosen to raise THE MESSIAH, I think you would put all your energy into that.

Mary was forever a Virgin.

 

[MartinJordan]

I do believe there is scripture to support the idea of Mary having children after Jesus. I don’t see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe she didn’t. I believe she and Joseph were actually married, and as such would have had relations after the birth of Jesus. In fact, that was a defining feature in Jewish culture, or so I’ve found in research.

I also think that helps explain James as the head of the organized church in Jerusalem.

Acts 1: 14- 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women** and Mary the mother of Jesus**, and with his brothers.

If James was Jesus’ brother then it would have been mentioned Mary the mother of Jesus and James, and with his brothers"

Later on Peter says “brothers”. Does that mean Peter had more than one brother?

MJ

 

[Protestor]

Incidentally, you can’t say, “I don’t believe it’s part of the Bible because it’s not part of the Bible”, right?That’s circular.

Probably why I did not say that

PRmerger:

That’s like saying, “One of the gospels talks about Jesus walking on water. Clearly, he couldn’t have done that, therefore that gospel doesn’t belong in the NT.” If it’s in the NT, then, I guess, you have to believe it, right?

I do not have to believe anything. Scripture is theopneustos right? I think that this gives it an edge on all other writings. Let me explain this to you. No one has convinced me that scripture is theopneustos for only God can reveal this truth. Believing that something is theopneustos because it says so or someone else says a preposterous suggestion as far as I am concerned. If I remember correctly didn’t Martin Luther at one time believe that James was not inspired, but later the Spirit convinced him otherwise.

If tomorrow I told you to read the book of mormon would you read it and say it was theopneustos? Did you need the church to tell you so or is the Spirit sufficient to guide you on this one?

PRmerger:

What was that source?

God working through Christians I could have sworn I said this before. I think you want me to say the church, but since the church is really just a bunch of christians I am not sure what you are trying to get out of me saying the church. What word do you want disciples or maybe apostles, I know a lot of words. I hope you notice that I will always say God’s name first working through others. Actually I would even say that God could work through non-christians to bring you into the fold.

 

[pocohombre]

Why? Because people wanted to buck the Authority that Jesus bestowed?
They were jealous and wanted to arrogate it to themselves, ala Korah (see Numbers 16)?

You are a testament too late . That was old, when there were separate priests and we needed propitiaition, intercesssion, and could not enter the holy of holies and only a Levite could approach…We have the flip side of Korah now, where some still hold to the old and insist we need Levite intermediaries. But we are all of the tribe of Judah, even a kingdom of priests, per St. Peter and Paul’s words. Thru Christ our Lord all can enter thru to the holy of holies.

 

[Protestor]

You are a testament too late . That was old, when there were separate priests and we needed propitiaition, intercesssion, and could not enter the holy of holies and only a Levite could approach…We have the flip side of Korah now, where some still hold to the old and insist we need Levite intermediaries. But we are all of the tribe of Judah, even a kingdom of priests, per St. Peter and Paul’s words. Thru Christ our Lord all can enter thru to the holy of holies.

:harp: to my ears

 

[pocohombre]

Imagine that we are in a discussion on someone’s patio. We are enjoying ourselves as we discuss different issues–some of great import, some not so much. As we drink our cocktails and eat something deliciously unhealthy, we parlay back and forth. You pose a question to me and I pose questions to you. At one point, you ask me a question and I abruptly stand up and say, “Buh-bye!”

What would be the point of that, except to signal to everyone, “That is a question that makes me squirm and one that I cannot refute!”.

Just sayin’…

How do you know they didn’t all of a sudden had a splitting migraine, or had to throw up or a few other things. I have seen that literally happen. It is partly a skill and for sure a gracious act to converse civilly. You know sometimes the well may run dry. It is all by His grace is it not ? And we go another way if not for it, daily.

 

[pocohombre]

Scripture verse that says, “These are Mary’s children” please.

Silence proves nothing I am often told. The apparent ambiguity makes one dig deeper for the truth, and also not go where one shouldn’t, and lastly for sure gives opportunity for “pacifying those that contend” per Didache admonition.