For the record, having studied Catholicism for many many years, I find vast vast majority of Catholics do not share the extreme of theefaith's mindset at all. I my sampling, Catholicism is a much richer / greater (and very real Christian) faith than, versus what he portrays it to be.Well said!
Perpetual virginity of Mary!
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
first you deny the perpetual virginity of Mary!
Then the Virgin birth!
What’s next the divinity of Christ?
Is 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
virgin conceiving
Virgin in giving birth
Virgin forever
Matt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Spiritual marriage by consent and not a normal carnal marriage
everything about it was spiritual supernatural and miraculous
Things only God can do!
Lk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Perpetual Virginity of Mary!
Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (apostolic Council of the Lateran, 649)
Perpetual Virginity of Mary!
The Bible never says anyone is a biological child of Mary accept for Jesus Christ!
And the Bible says Her child is holy! And Her child is God!
Is 7:14 God provides a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son! (Singular, one son)
Ezekiel 44:2 “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”
Song of Solomon 4:12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
(Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?)
Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(The Bible says only the Holy Ghost conceived in Mary)
Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(A son singular) (does James save his people?)
Lk 1:28 Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee!
Blessed art thou amongst all women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
(The fruit of Her womb is blessed and holy)
Lk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
(A son, singular)
Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(This verse imply’s a vow of perpetual virginity, She refuses even the exalted dignity of mother of God and mother of our savior if it means violating Her vow of perpetual virginity)
Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
(Her son is God)
Matt 1:25 He knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Until only states that they had no relation up to that point, the Bible does not say they had sex ever, before or after that point!
First born does not imply a second born. An only child is still first born!
Brothers and sisters of Jesus?
They are not the children of Mary!
Is 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son!
(One son, singular)
James is the son of zebedee, and the other James is the son of Alpheus not Joseph!
Matt 10:2-3
In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew.
Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..
Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.
The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They may be brothers and sisters but they are simply not the children of Blessed Mary ever Virgin mother of God!
Jose’s, Simon Salome are children of another Mary!
Mk 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (ancient writer)
Martin Luther
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
John Calvin
(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)
Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])
John Wesley
‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).
St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):
"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.
Advertising
For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."
The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!
if you followed Christ you would obey those sent to teach The Who world
Teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors in the church founded in the one true founded by Jesus Christ!
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, (eph 5:23) the body of Christ,
(col 1:18) the new and eternal covenant, (pre-figured Jer 31:31) (Heb 8:8) new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant, (Heb 8:13) Christ replaces David as king, (Lk 1:32-33) Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, (1 Tim 2:5 & Heb 12:24) but a mediator remains on earth mediating between God and His people, but Christ ascended to heaven, (acts 1) before He did He founded His church, on Peter, and the apostles, and their successors!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20
We must be taught by Peter, the apostles, and their successors! Matt 28:19 Jn 21:17
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
————————-
The obedience of faith!
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name.
Taught the one true faith revealed by Christ to His apostles! Eph 4:5 Jude 1:3
No, you ultimately follow Christ: a Christian is a disciple of Christ.
Somebody who just follows Apostles is not a Christian, nor saved. An Apostle is a flawed sinner - in desperate need of a Savior themselves. Yes, God can & does work wonders through these flawed servants, but that's because He's great, not the flawed servant. Don't mistake that flawed servant for the almighty.
theefaith, I invite you to follow Christ first and foremost. Have that change of heart & let that light shine!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
It is not me that denys it....it is the Bible. The false beliefs produced by men can do harm.....this one harmed millions and killed millions.
They had made procreation, dirty nasty and sinful....linked to Satan...so to get around that for Christ's mother they had to make her a perpetual virgin. The process....conceived in virginity....pregnant virgin....child birthing virgin and married virgin....is not described in the Bible, completely man-made belief.
Because they insinuated that it was her virginity that defined her holiness and goodness, it made any other mother, dirty, nasty and sinful.....the whole evil carnal knowledge thing. The idea that your genitals define your spiritual state or condition, is Pagan. What does that concept make our mothers? Marriages are carnal knowledge...a sin. Our mothers are dirty, nasty, and sinful. Marriage is dirty, nasty, and sinful! The doctrine of Original Sin defines conception as sinful. Our babies are born with sin....an absolutely absurd idea.
Isaiah 7:14 is Hebrew and Matthew 1:23 is referencing Isaiah 7:14 and the lady the scripture is talking about, is Isaiah's wife....read the storyline. lol How many people have this mixed up! Isaiah's wife ends up giving birth to a child named Ma'her-shalal-hash-baz....it is a curse. The child could have been named Emmanuel if the king had faith. lol Matthew 1:23 mentions the name Emmanuel but no one actually calls Christ Emmanuel....He was named Yeshua.
Virgin....This is an age old debate. You are thinking clinical virginity. This Hebrew word used here for Virgin means young maiden, the definition of the word is pretty broad because it can include a married woman that has not had a child yet. Which was the case with Isaiah's wife. Miriam replies that she has not known a man...which only makes so much sense because the angel is talking about an event that has not happened yet. God knew that she was engaged and Miriam may have been referring to the fact that Joseph and her had not joined yet. She gave birth to God's Son...giving birth to a God is spectacular enough! The focus on the virgin thing was not necessary. The term virgin was never intended to encompass being impregnated by God because she could have spent 10 nights with God and still not know "a man."
Their insistence in connecting Christ's conception with a story in the Old Testament that has no similarities was an act of desperation. The Apostles were dealing with a very serious controversy. God had impregnated a lady that was betrothed. The Mosaic Law calls that adultery, and her Jewish community was not going to buy the whole, God impregnated me thing. So it was a problem. Then the Early Church Fathers developed beliefs that defined sex as dirty, nasty, and sinful, even between married couples. They had developed quite the theological paradox there, so they had to compensate for that with Christ's mother being a forever virgin. Then of course you have to explain away Christ's brothers and sisters.
And again and agian....the term "spiritual marriage" does not appear anywhere in the Bible....Hebrew marriages could not be confirmed without a sexual union. Without that, Christ was an illegitimate child.
Last edited:
It doesn't say they had sex after Jesus was born.
Read the posts I indicated. They explain it all.
If you can't be bothered to do tht then then I can't be bothered to go through it all again.
so we can this as you have no reproof?.....
PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
Take it anyway you like.
I'm wasting no more time with your nonesense.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No he said that he was waiting for Yeshua to be born....and Whala Alakazam! He has brothers and sisters. Imagine that.
Well if I read a book that says: "They didn't have dessert until they finished the main course." I'm sure going to figure they had dessert. Not much interested in Catholic distortions of what is plainly written.
Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20
the apostles represent Christ and act in the person and name of Christ
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And that's a lie, as I already showed you.
I have given you TWO exaltations from Scripture:
One from Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) - and one from GOD Himself, who called her, "Kecharitomene". This words is defined as "one having been completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace." It indicates a PAST event with a PERMANENT condition.
And here's the kicker: NOBODY else in ALL of Scripture is honored with this title.
Now THAT'S what I call exaltation . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Because that's NOT what Mary asked.
You keep dancing around the issue because iit is an inconvenient truth.
As I have educated you several times now - IF Mary was planning on having marital relations - she wouldn't have been puzzled about becoming pregnant. She would have just figured, "Well, I'll probably get pregnant birth AFTER I move in with Joseph."
After all - the Angel never said, "You will become pregnant TODAY."
HOWEVER - Mary WAS puzzled because she could not figure out HOW she would become pregnant if she was NOT planning on having marital relations. As I stated earlier (if you were reading) - this actually supports the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, which said Mary was consecrated a Temple virgin by her parents – much like the prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36-38). She was to marry the older Joseph, a widower, who was to be her protector.
If you want to hold the idea that Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires will save you... well, you do have the right to believe whatever. But it's not a positon I can consider to be remotely Christian and urge you to instead look toward Jesus of Nazareth, the only Begotten Son of God.
So, it's exaltation to call yourself privileged to meet the Mother of Jesus? I think you are stretching Elizabeth's greeting so say something it doesn't say. It was the Jewish custom to compliment one's guests. It doesn't mean they are anything but finite, ordinary people.
Jesus had actual sisters and brothers, so, no Mary did not remain a Virgin.
The Virgin promoters say they were just cousins of course.
Why didn’t the writers use the Greek term for cousins (anepsios)? The Greek word did exist and was used in Scripture (Colossians 4:10). If they were more distant relatives, then why not use a Greek word that meant relatives (suggenes), such as the one describing Mary and Elizabeth’s relational status in Luke 1:36? Why did Matthew and Mark use the words most commonly translated as brothers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphe)? In any other context no one would have questioned this meaning.
The first chapter of Acts tells how the disciples met to select a replacement for Judas. Luke specifically singled out Mary and the brothers of Jesus.
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. (Acts 1:12–14)
“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS” (Matthew 1:24–25,
You can twist scripture all around if you like, but I will continue to believe is's plain meaning.
Mary is the only person in scripture that an angel says hail to, as you his queen and sovereign mistress
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ummmm, talk about completely disregarding the Word of God . . .
As I showed you earlier - Elizabeth's greeting of Mary echoed David's reaction at the arrival of the Ark of the Covenant:
OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)
You can play your denial games all you want - but you cannot argue with Scripture.
And you CANNOT discount GOD's exaltation of Mary through the Angel, who called her "Kecharitomene".
Do I need to educate you again on the implications of this title - o did you read them the first time?
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Why wasn't the term "anepsios" used?
Maybe it's because these "brethren" weren't cousins. WHO said they were cousins, anyway?
As I told you earlier, according to the Protoevangelium - they were step-siblings, children of Joseph from a former marriage.
As for your blunder about Acts 1 - Lke indeed uses the term "Adelphos" (brothers). He uses it a COUPLE of times:
Acts 1:14
All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Acts 1:15
In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said
Now - were ALL of the 120 persons mention "uterine" siblings? We know that NOT all of the Apostles were siblings, so there goes your theory about the use of the term "Adelphoi" of Jesus. Here's a little Bible lesson for you . . .
Adelphos is applied to brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, cousin, step-sibling, kinsfolk, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.
These are the statistics of the use of Adelphois(oi) in all of its variations in the New Testament:
There are 244 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave after this??
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
The problem here is that the you anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.
Game
SET.
MATCH.
PREFIX κε—
Means the verb is a perfect passive participle tense verb: "having been" root-verb'd; "having had" root-verb happen/done to [you]; being [now a result of being] root-verb'd
e.g.
verb slay —> past participle slain (soldier).
verb burn —> past participle burnt (wood).
(different from an adjective which is usually identical, but which does not imply the perfected sense that a past participle does—slain, and remains dead—no resurrection yet; burnt, and there is no restoring it—and it remains in that burnt state to the present)
ROOT χαριτόω
From the root noun χάρις charis—grace or loosely favor—more specifically the verb form of this, χαριτόω charitoó—I (divinely or not) (en-)grace/bestow grace/show favor)
(dictionary form of Greek words are in the present tense first person singular)
The only other use of this verb in the New Testament is in Ephesians 1:6:
Ephesians 1:5-7
5 He predestined us for our being divinely adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 unto the praise of His glorious grace with which *He graced [ἐχαρίτωσεν echaritōsen]* us in [His] Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood: the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
SUFFIX —μένη
This means the object (Mary) of the action (being engraced) being done by the subject (God) is the passive recipient of the result (being endued/filled with grace) of the action, not actively responsible for it.
The sense in which Mary was graced (not "full of all possible grace," and the word for "full" is not used, as it is for Stephen and Christ) is not because of she possessed surpassing personal virtue, which is nowhere referred to - though no doubt she was a virtuous young women - but contextually it was because the Lord highly favored her, was with her, and graced her above women to be the mother of the Messiah, and which meaning of being graced is shown by her words in the Magnificat, and not because of anything she herself possessed.
"All possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".
2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (
3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way.
- Status
Similar threads
