perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is right and the proof is in the pudding. The more I really study the lesser we (Mary) become(s) and the more Jeshua becomes. Jesus often encountered the Patriarchs being put on a pedestal for improper motive of barrier to the deeper Light.
 
Protestor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing says these are the children of Mary.

Do you have any verse that says that Mary had other children?

Otherwise, it appears that you have fallen for a man-made tradition.
 
I think we should halt this conversation, just briefly, to ask most (if not all) of the protestants who have posted today this question: Are you assuming that we Catholics have, as an official teaching, that our salvation is dependent on Mary’s “Be it done unto me according to your word”? Because I’m not exactly sure what the status of that teaching is (it’s not a dogma, although that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t an official teaching).
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of my doctor saying not to worry about inoculations/vaccinations that contain mercury cause after all we turned out OK. The problem is there is no control test, that is how do you know we all would have been just a little bit smarter without the mercury? Not knowing has no bearing on what there actions were or were not.
Whether Joseph and Mary engaged in the marital act would have no effect at all on Jesus’ normal Jewish upbringing.
Click to expand...
Really ? You are the one saying it was “fitting” that they did not.
he 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.
Click to expand...
No more than saying they had to obstain for Jesus to have a more
“fitting” upbringing. …Besides it is much more than “conjugating” or not. It is saying brotherless or not, Immaculate or not, sinless or not.
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?
Click to expand...
Pure iconicizing. Like a baby bottle or silverware or a bay chair made for young Jesus could NOT be used by no one else later because they would be diminished. The Ark always contained the articles inside and always represented God’s presence. Mary was an Ark for 9 months. After that, she was Mary again, nor more Ark, the contents now out and alive. Truly Jesus, not Mary, not the Ark, represent “Emanuel” -God with us… The only apologia needed for His divinity was her virginity before His glorious birth, at least if you want to stick to prophetic scripture. Such an event would never happen again. God would never avail himself of that door again, of a holy fleshly womb.
 
pocohombre said:
Reminds me of my doctor not to worry about inoculations/vaccinations that contain mercury cause after all we turned out OK. The problem is there is no control test, that is how do you know we all would have been just a little bit smarter without the mercury? Not knowing has no bearing on what there actions were or were not.
Click to expand...
Could you please not nest your responses, poco?

I hope you’re not saying that you wouldn’t immunize your children.

 
Protestor said:
Probably why I did not say that
Click to expand...
Well, if you’re saying that you know Scripture when you hear it, based on what you’ve read (or heard) that’s been preached to you…from Scripture…then you really are saying that.

That’s exactly my point. That’s exactly why the saying, “I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!” is so circular.
 
PRmerger said:
Nothing says these are the children of Mary.

Do you have any verse that says that Mary had other children?

Otherwise, it appears that you have fallen for a man-made tradition.
Click to expand...
Choosing in-between man maid traditions can be so tough. Which explanation do you like?Why do you like it? I do not need verses saying it explicitly. Just as you do not need verses saying she was a PV. You and I both do not have the right to say that we are 100% sure. I still have yet to see one reference that supports your opinion. I thought you knew me. I do not just take your word(or anyone else’s) or your churches word(or any other’s) on the subject. I need the whys I can see that having to know may be a flaw, but it keeps me from being tossed around like a ship in a tempest. I attend a PCA church, a Vine fellowship church, a non-demon church and the RCC every once in a while. You have to do better than calling what I believe a man made tradition. That is exactly what I am saying your thoughts are.

Peter J welcome, You would have to ask someone else. I just thought it was Tradition. It is definitely a doctrine I have learned that much. This is what I pulled from the second Nicean council. I also bleive that it was stated in Ineffabilus Deus.

N.C."we also confess our Lady, the holy Mary, to be really and truly the God-bearer, because she gave birth in the flesh to Christ, one of the Trinity, our God, just as the first synod at {3}Ephesus decreed; it also expelled from the church Nestorius and those with him, because they were introducing a duality of persons. Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, "

I.D."All these things our illustrious predecessor, Alexander VII, summed up in these words: “We have in mind the fact that the Holy Roman Church solemnly celebrated the Feast of the Conception of the undefiled and ever-Virgin Mary, and has long ago appointed for this a special and proper Office according to the pious, devout, and laudable instruction which was given by our predecessor, Sixtus IV”
 
Protestor said:
I do not have to believe anything. Scripture is theopneustos right?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

But the question is, how do you know what is Scripture?

You can’t go by your original premise, which is, “I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!” because that presupposes that there’s already a Bible that’s been codified for you, preached to you, and then you use that to determine whether what someone tells you is the Word of God.

You have to take one step back and ask, how did there get to be a Bible, where someone knew what belonged in there and what didn’t.

Is it because they “knew Scripture when they heard it”?

That can’t be. Because there wasn’t a Bible for them to know that yet.

So how did they know what was theopneustos? How did God tell them that Hebrews was inspired and the Gospel of Thomas was not?

Because it wasn’t in the Bible?

That can’t be. That would be…circular, right?
 
Protestor said:
Choosing in-between man maid traditions can be so tough. Which explanation do you like?Why do you like it?** I do not need verses saying it explicitly**.
Click to expand...
Excellent. I am quite happy to hear you say that. 🙂

I suppose you will allow Catholics this same paradigm when we profess Purgatory, the IC and the Assumption of Mary, yes?

We don’t need verses saying it explicitly, right?
 
Lochias said:
Well, apparently not, or you’d see how Mary’s PV is right, proper and necessary due to the very nature of Jesus himself. 🤷
Click to expand...
Oh oh. Don’t let PR see the underlined.That should be "fitting’ and not “neccessary”
 
PRmerger said:
Well, make up your mind (again!), poco.

If Scripture is silent, are we permitted to believe it, or not?

What’s your pastor’s view on this now?
Click to expand...
Keep it in context for I then said there is ambiguity , which is not silence, and keep digging.
 
pocohombre said:
Oh oh. Don’t let PR see the underlined.That should be "fitting’ and not “neccessary”
Click to expand...
Yep. 😃

Friend Lochias, the IC was not necessary, but fitting for the Majestic King to be conceived in a pure and undefiled womb.
 
Peter_J said:
I think we should halt this conversation, just briefly, to ask most (if not all) of the protestants who have posted today this question: Are you assuming that we Catholics have, as an official teaching, that our salvation is dependent on Mary’s “Be it done unto me according to your word”? Because I’m not exactly sure what the status of that teaching is (it’s not a dogma, although that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t an official teaching).
Click to expand...
Are you speaking about the PV of Mary?
 
Peter_J said:
I think we should halt this conversation, just briefly, to ask most (if not all) of the protestants who have posted today this question: Are you assuming that we Catholics have, as an official teaching, that our salvation is dependent on Mary’s “Be it done unto me according to your word”? Because I’m not exactly sure what the status of that teaching is (it’s not a dogma, although that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t an official teaching).
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe that is an “official” teaching of the RCC/ECC. But, I do have to say that one of the “problems” some of us protestants see is that the RCC/ECC has made Mary, and doctrines about Mary, a hinge of salvation. In other words there are now some things that one MUST believe about Mary in order to become a part of the RCC/ECC which is supposedly where all truth is.

Do you see my point? I can espouse all the same beliefs about Jesus Christ as the RCC/ECC teaches, but if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing. So, in effect, now beliefs about Mary have become mandatory. As a “good” protestant I do have to say that I don’t see that in scripture at all. When the gospel is clearly laid out, and someone asks “what must I do to be saved” the answer is always about Christ, to be baptized one must accept truth about Jesus and to faithe on Jesus.

The RCC/ECC has now made that “not enough.” CS Lewis is one of my favorite writers and he put it like this “You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert:we see in Rome the faith smothered in a jungle.” Biblical Christianity shouldn’t be that way, IMO. What does this have to do with the thread? It is just an example of the focus on Marian doctrine. And IF the Marian doctrines are truly to teach about Jesus, then it should be possible to agree on Jesus directly even if we disagree slightly about Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top