It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

  • 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!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
I didn't suggest it was necessary.

You didn't ask if it was necessary.

You asked "why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?"

Typically you try and switch the terms in the middle of the discussion.




You can know your personal (and presumable fallible) interpretation of what God has revealed to us.

But unless you consider yourself infallible you cannot be sure.
Well, just substitute the word 'necessary' to 'important'. As you agree that perpetual virginity was not necessary for the salvation Christ accomplished, then you should be able to see the unimportance of it.

As I said, I can know the mind of God to the extent that I understand the Revelation He has given.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Born_Again said:
Regardless of my standpoint, this made me chuckle!!! LOL

I guess the same question could be asked the other way... Why is it important that she not be a virgin after Christs birth? What troubles me about a lot of these debates is it seems more time is taken to disprove each other than time spent following what Christ commanded us to do. I have recently be convicted in my circumstance of what my priorities are. I may start a thread to elaborate and ask a question or two of the forum. Carry on!!
It is important the Mary not be a perpetual virgin because Scripture doesn't say she was. And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it.

That is what debates are for. To prove and disprove is all part of it. It affects what people will believe.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
There are certain common Jewish and Christian beliefs about sanctity. Objectors have lost the sense of the sacred, which I can only describe as spirits or threads of the Manichee, Bogomil and Cathari heresies ( false dualisms; nothing on this earth can be sacred)infecting Modernist Protestantism. . The idea that Mary loses her acquired temple sanctity once Jesus is delivered is odd, for in Judaism and Christianity holy things do not revert to common use once they’re taken out of sacred service. It may not be strictly necessary that the Virgin Mary remain the Perpetual Virgin Mary, but it is certainly fitting. (Theology often does best when it operates less according to the logic of strict necessity and more according to the logic of propriety, thus avoiding every deracinating reductionism.)

Why fitting? Because St. Matthew’s Gospel teaches that Mary has been a holy vessel. Having had “Emmanuel,” God incarnate, in her womb, could it be returned to common use? Unlikely. If the Ark of the Old Testament were recovered today, would anyone of any piety dare use it (say) as a trunk or footlocker? Neither is it likely that Joseph would have treated the New Ark of the Covenant in a common way. Or ask contemporary Orthodox Jews about the Wailing Wall. Though the Temple in Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans almost two thousand years ago in 70 C.E., Jews still gather there to pray at this one wall remaining; the site retains its sanctity.

This is why Modernist Protestants are forced to deny the numerous foreshadows of the Old Ark with the New Ark. "The Ark of the New Covenant is not in the Bible!!!" So the mantra goes. It's theological brain damage.

There is this claim:

“Temples are holy only when the Holy One inhabits them. Once Yahweh abandoned the temple, it was an empty shell for demolition and burning.

On this basis the claim suggests by parallel that Mary loses her special status once Jesus is delivered. The parallel fails because in the world of St. Matthew’s Gospel the destruction of the temple is punishment for the murder of God’s Son; Jesus dies, and God flees the Holy of Holies through the rendered temple veil. Thus the Romans advance on Jerusalem a generation later, leveling the city and razing the temple. But Mary has done nothing deserving that sort of abandonment. Even if the Son departs her womb, she’s no “empty shell.”

Like the site of the temple for Jews, Christian vessels retain their sanctity: It simply would not be fitting for Catholics, or Orthodox, or (for that matter) Lutherans who have a high view of Holy Communion to (say) sell a worn-out chalice that has held the Blood of Christ at a parish rummage sale and have someone then use it to sip Cabernet while binge-watching the latest series on Netflix. Even after vessels, vestments, and sacramentals wear out, they retain their sanctity, and so require especial treatment and disposition. Mary’s womb having held God, then, it is simply not fitting that she and Joseph would have copulated in the normal way. Like temples and vessels, she retains her special sanctity.

Like the site of the temple for Jews, Christian vessels retain their sanctity: It simply would not be fitting for Catholics, or Orthodox, or (for that matter) Lutherans who have a high view of Holy Communion to (say) sell a worn-out chalice that has held the Blood of Christ at a parish rummage sale and have someone then use it to sip Cabernet while binge-watching the latest series on Netflix. Even after vessels, vestments, and sacramentals wear out, they retain their sanctity, and so require especial treatment and disposition. It would not be fitting to bulldoze the spot where Jesus died and erect a drug store. Mary’s womb having held God, then, it is simply not fitting that she and Joseph would have copulated in the normal way. Like temples and vessels, she retains her special sanctity.

We have post biblical writings indicating the Jewish custom of vows of perpetual virginity, the Protoevangelium of James, and John the Theologian but they are no good because it's not in the Bible. Well...it is, and Protestants are too quick to dismiss every historical document as "uninspired", therefore meaningless. This is historical brain damage.
Vows for virginity, temporary or permanent (unheard of in our sex crazed culture, but common in the ancient world) are found in Numbers 30. <this site explains it well.

What gets me is an atheist university professor can remain celibate in order to devote all his time to his work, and is considered a valuable contributor to society, while the mother of Jesus gets thrown under the bus.


ww2.jpg
Western Wall in Jerusalem.​
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Stranger said:
Well, just substitute the word 'necessary' to 'important'. As you agree that perpetual virginity was not necessary for the salvation Christ accomplished, then you should be able to see the unimportance of it.
I have not agreed that perpetual virginity was not necessary for the salvation Christ accomplished. You have the same laxity towards what people say on this forum as you have with scripture.

Stranger said:
As I said, I can know the mind of God to the extent that I understand the Revelation He has given.

Stranger
You may think you understand the mind of God to the extent that your personal and fallible interpretation of scripture comprehends it.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Stranger said:
It is important the Mary not be a perpetual virgin because Scripture doesn't say she was.
So because scripture doesn't say 'X' happened then 'X' must not have happened.

Crazy logic


Stranger said:
.And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it.
Something you have not proved.

Incidentally the Orthodox believe that Mary was ever-Virgin..
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
God never said Mary was to be a perpetual virgin.

Stranger
Sooooo - THAT'S your response to the over 300 verses I presented??
That's ALL you have to say??

God never said that Trump would be President..
Does that mean it's not true??

The only indisputable fact that remains in this conversation is the following:
Scripture NEVER says that Mary had children other than Jesus.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
Well, just substitute the word 'necessary' to 'important'. As you agree that perpetual virginity was not necessary for the salvation Christ accomplished, then you should be able to see the unimportance of it.

As I said, I can know the mind of God to the extent that I understand the Revelation He has given.

Stranger
I prefer "fitting".

Stranger said:
It is important the Mary not be a perpetual virgin because Scripture doesn't say she was. And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it.
The accumulated evidence, with the use of reason, says Mary was a perpetual virgin. Scripture gives sufficient inferences for a sound biblical conclusion. So do Jewish customs. Vows of perpetual virginity are found in Numbers 30. There is the general consensus of the ECF that you don't like because you have no part of them. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the "Roman church" to create any doctrine, this is profound ignorance of what a doctrine is.

That is what debates are for. To prove and disprove is all part of it. It affects what people will believe.
You need to discard your created 19th century falsehoods.


An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many. (it is not official Church teaching)

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
The full text can be found at New Advent Encyclopedia, this is a good summary
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Mungo

Do you then see God as an abuser of women? Someone who took a wife from her husband for his own purposes and then handed her back after he had finished with her?
When a man sleeps with another mans wife, does it not make him an adulterer and her an adulteress. Good thing they where not married at the time. But than when we become christians we receive His seed, teh Holy Spirit, yet I dont feel raped.....

Mary being a perpetual virgin has nothing to do with christianity, just mens fables.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
Jer 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.
Jer 44:27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Mary being a perpetual virgin has nothing to do with christianity, just mens fables.
And you've been shown repeatedly that the Bible disagrees with this statement.It's no longer a matter of choosing to remain "ignorant."
It's a blatant refusal of the word of God.

Luke writes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary's intention was to remain a virgin.
Luke 1:34
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?


Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?
She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

Being the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - she was not to be handled by man.

Ezekiel 44:2
The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

The idea that Mary had other children or did not remain a virgin is a relatively NEW man made invention, historically speaking.
The so-called "Reformers" rejected this idea - as did 1600 years of Christianity before them.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is true that sometimes the Bible uses the term "brother" to mean a family member, countrymen or spiritual relation. We know this is true because the Bible also clarifies the relationship somewhere else. Lot and Abraham for example. One berse says they were brothers but also clarifies that Abraham was his uncle.

There are also times when the word "brother" means they had the same mother. We can look at all the examples, crunch numbers, boast percentages, but its all meaningless: the only example is the one we are dealing with right now.

So when we look at Mat 13:55-56 we see evidence of a nuclear family. They call him the son of a Carpenter (Joseph), Mary his mother, of course the alledged brothers and it also mentions sisters. Sure, "sisters" a few times means female church members, but more often than not it means siblings.

Everything here suggests a nuclear family. Furthermore they were suggesting Jesus was just a normal man... Not something special.

As far as I am concerned, this is talking about Mary's other children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid and bbyrd009

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
I have not agreed that perpetual virginity was not necessary for the salvation Christ accomplished. You have the same laxity towards what people say on this forum as you have with scripture.


You may think you understand the mind of God to the extent that your personal and fallible interpretation of scripture comprehends it.
Oh. I thought you did agree.

So, why is it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
So because scripture doesn't say 'X' happened then 'X' must not have happened.

Crazy logic



Something you have not proved.

Incidentally the Orthodox believe that Mary was ever-Virgin..
No, Scripture says Mary had other children. Thus Mary is no perpetual virgin. What is crazy is your belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin despite Scripture.

Big deal. The Orthodox don't tell me what the Bible says. I read it for my own. You and the 'Orthodox' are to used to having others tell you what you believe. You can't think for yourself.

Stranger
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
BOL

And you've been shown repeatedly that the Bible disagrees with this statement.It's no longer a matter of choosing to remain "ignorant."
It's a blatant refusal of the word of God.

Luke writes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary's intention was to remain a virgin.
Luke 1:34
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?
Oh you so funny.... I dont have to agree with teh bible. Just God as for the text you quoted, it says that Mary was a virgin beofre She conceived Jesus, does not say he was a virgin after His birth, twisting things you are so good at it. And what does it matter, changes nothing, She is not God nor is she Jesus and what she did after has no bearing on teh salvation of mankind. I shall have no othe rGods before me. remeber that bit.

Ezekiel 44:2
The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.
what has that got to do with Mary?? nothing.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Sooooo - THAT'S your response to the over 300 verses I presented??
That's ALL you have to say??

God never said that Trump would be President..
Does that mean it's not true??

The only indisputable fact that remains in this conversation is the following:
Scripture NEVER says that Mary had children other than Jesus.
Yeah, I know, you google your numbers of verses regularly. I dont' believe you or your supposed 300 verses.

So, your basing your belief on the perpetual virginity of Mary on something not said in Scripture? That speaks volumes. Make up what ever you like. Just know, it's made up.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
And you've been shown repeatedly that the Bible disagrees with this statement.It's no longer a matter of choosing to remain "ignorant."
It's a blatant refusal of the word of God.

Luke writes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary's intention was to remain a virgin.
Luke 1:34
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?


Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?
She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

Being the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - she was not to be handled by man.

Ezekiel 44:2
The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.

The idea that Mary had other children or did not remain a virgin is a relatively NEW man made invention, historically speaking.
The so-called "Reformers" rejected this idea - as did 1600 years of Christianity before them.
[removed] Mary's response that she had not known a man indicates she was a virgin. There is nothing there to indicate she would always be a virgin. There is nothing there to indicate she wanted to remain a virgin. There is no need for Mary to remain a virgin. She accomplished what the Lord wanted at the time. Now she can continue with her life. Which she did. Mary's perpetual virginity is for the Romanist to be able to worship Mary as we worship Christ.

Was Mary a sinner?

Is sex sin?

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Stranger said:
No, Scripture says Mary had other children. Thus Mary is no perpetual virgin. What is crazy is your belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin despite Scripture.
Nowhere does scripture say Mary had other children.

You believe she did have other children despite Scripture..


Stranger said:
Big deal. The Orthodox don't tell me what the Bible says. I read it for my own. You and the 'Orthodox' are to used to having others tell you what you believe. Y
You said: ."And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it."
I just pointed out that the Orthodox believe in it also - as did the founders of Protestantism.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Stranger said:
Oh. I thought you did agree.

So, why is it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin?
I didn't agree or disagree. I just pointed out that you were switching terms.

As kepha said - "fitting" is perhaps a better term.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Stranger said:
Mary's perpetual virginity is for the Romanist to be able to worship Mary as we worship Christ.
That is a disgraceful statement which accuses Catholics of blasphemy.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Nowhere does scripture say Mary had other children.

You believe she did have other children despite Scripture..



You said: ."And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it."
I just pointed out that the Orthodox believe in it also - as did the founders of Protestantism.
Yes it does. Go back and read the other thread by this same title. Then explain why it was not proved that Mary did not remain a virgin and did have children. You can still read it, you just can't post on it anymore.

First of all, not all Reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is why eventually they ceased believing it all together. Scripture was their guide, not the church.

Again, I pointed out that it doesn't matter if the Orthodox believe it. They are just as wrong as are any others who hold to it.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
I didn't agree or disagree. I just pointed out that you were switching terms.

As kepha said - "fitting" is perhaps a better term.
Then answer the question. Why is it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin.

Stranger