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

[Stranger]

That is a disgraceful statement which accuses Catholics of blasphemy.

Was Mary a sinner?

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

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

If scripture says Mary had other children you could quote chapter and verse. But it doesn't

 

[Mungo]

Then answer the question. Why is it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin.

Stranger

As I have already stated I have not said it was necessary. Indeed whether it was necessary or important or fitting is not the real issue.

The issue is was she a perpetual virgin or not? Truth is truth. It does not have to be necessary or important or fitting.

As I said in post #6
Mary's perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.
Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

A Catholic website put it:
"Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man."

"It is also further affirmation of the holiness and Deity of Jesus. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been)."

And the point that kepha has already made (post #23) - and which you have ignored:
"As the ancient ark of the covenant was consecrated for sacred use, so the New Ark could not be defiled by common usage."

 

[Mungo]

Was Mary a sinner?

Stranger

Trying to divert from your very serious accusation (against forum rules imo).

You claimed "Mary's perpetual virginity is for the Romanist to be able to worship Mary as we worship Christ."
You made no attempt even to provide evidence for this disgraceful attack on Catholics.

I have reported it and I hope the mods take some note.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

How so? How does this show that they are Mary's children?
Why couldn't they be Joseph's children from a previous marriage , as the 2nd Century historian Hegiseppus claimed?

Why does EVERY Early Church Father disagree with your point of view?
What did they have to gain from lying about this?

 

[FHII]

How so? How does this show that they are Mary's children?
Why couldn't they be Joseph's children from a previous marriage , as the 2nd Century historian Hegiseppus claimed?
Why does EVERY Early Church Father disagree with your point of view?
What did they have to gain from lying about this?

I could write alot about this, but I will be as brief as possible. Given that Hegiseppus' work has for the most part has been lost and that there are several questions about the accuracy and validity of his work, it is hard to consider it a serious theory. Eusebius quoted him and everyone quoted Eusebius. There isn't much of an original paper trail there... Especially when Hegesippus himself wasn't a prime source. He wasn't alive when it happened nor was anyone he may have interviewed alive when it happened.

In short, i don't believe something just because Jerome, Eusabius or anyone says it. Do I think they are lying? I think they are going on no credible evidence. When they propose a theory, I compare it to the Bible.

I have verses that say Jesus had brothers and sisters. They weren't mere countrymen. I don't think they were cousins because the Bible actually names a 2nd cousin of Jesus and so it would've been cleared up (or at least there was opportunity to clear it up).

Step brothers? Ok. What Biblical evidence is there? The answer is none. But I have Biblical evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. That is Mat 1:25.

This is not a surprising verse. Its been discussed quite a bit. The context and wording absolutely suggests that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus. I can entertain theories but I don't blindly follow them without further reasoning. Given that the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.... I have to go with the most reasonable theory until hard evidence says otherwise.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I could write alot about this, but I will be as brief as possible. Given that Hegiseppus' work has for the most part has been lost and that there are several questions about the accuracy and validity of his work, it is hard to consider it a serious theory. Eusebius quoted him and everyone quoted Eusebius. There isn't much of an original paper trail there... Especially when Hegesippus himself wasn't a prime source. He wasn't alive when it happened nor was anyone he may have interviewed alive when it happened.

In short, i don't believe something just because Jerome, Eusabius or anyone says it. Do I think they are lying? I think they are going on no credible evidence. When they propose a theory, I compare it to the Bible.

I have verses that say Jesus had brothers and sisters. They weren't mere countrymen. I don't think they were cousins because the Bible actually names a 2nd cousin of Jesus and so it would've been cleared up (or at least there was opportunity to clear it up).

Step brothers? Ok. What Biblical evidence is there? The answer is none. But I have Biblical evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. That is Mat 1:25.

This is not a surprising verse. Its been discussed quite a bit. The context and wording absolutely suggests that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus. I can entertain theories but I don't blindly follow them without further reasoning. Given that the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.... I have to go with the most reasonable theory until hard evidence says otherwise.

Hegiseppus was born at the early part of the 2nd Century. We know that Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle. Polycarp was a student of Ignatius and was a contemporary of Hegiseppus. I don't think it's far-fetched at ALL to think that Hegiseppus learned from Polycarp about Mary's perpetual virginity. Why didn't Polycarp write a rebuttal to Hegiseppus's claim?

None of this is carved-in-stone truth - but neither is the idea that Mary had other children.

As I pointed out earlier - the names of the "Adelphoi" of Jesus are said to be the children of the "other" Mary at the foot of the cross, who was standing with Mary, mother of Jesus. She is said to be the "Adelphe" of the mother of Jesus. This would mean they they were his cousins.

As for Matt. 1:25 - you are convinced by the word "until" that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
This is yet another blind leap because this is an ambiguous term in scripture at best. Consider the following:
Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

Regarding the burial of Moses - Deut. 34:6 says the following:
He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
The SAME Hebrew word for "until" is used here that s used in 2 Sam. 6:23. Are we to deduce from this that they finally discovered where Moses was buried??

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?

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 rule after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that nay-sayers attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

AGAIN, you have to ask yourself: Why isn't there ONE single minor tradition or Early Church writing about Mary having "other" children?? Why did they UNANIMOUSLY agree that she was a perpetual virgin?? WHAT did they have to gain from lying about this??

There are FAR more things written about the life of Jesus in the Early Church than in the New Testament.
WHY no mention of "siblings"??

 

[FHII]

Hegiseppus was born at the early part of the 2nd Century. We know that Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle. Polycarp was a student of Ignatius and was a contemporary of Hegiseppus. I don't think it's far-fetched at ALL to think that Hegiseppus learned from Polycarp about Mary's perpetual virginity. Why didn't Polycarp write a rebuttal to Hegiseppus's claim?

None of this is carved-in-stone truth - but neither is the idea that Mary had other children.

As I pointed out earlier - the names of the "Adelphoi" of Jesus are said to be the children of the "other" Mary at the foot of the cross, who was standing with Mary, mother of Jesus. She is said to be the "Adelphe" of the mother of Jesus. This would mean they they were his cousins.

As for Matt. 1:25 - you are convinced by the word "until" that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
This is yet another blind leap because this is an ambiguous term in scripture at best. Consider the following:
Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

Regarding the burial of Moses - Deut. 34:6 says the following:
He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
The SAME Hebrew word for "until" is used here that s used in 2 Sam. 6:23. Are we to deduce from this that they finally discovered where Moses was buried??

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?

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 rule after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that nay-sayers attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

AGAIN, you have to ask yourself: Why isn't there ONE single minor tradition or Early Church writing about Mary having "other" children?? Why did they UNANIMOUSLY agree that she was a perpetual virgin?? WHAT did they have to gain from lying about this??

There are FAR more things written about the life of Jesus in the Early Church than in the New Testament.
WHY no mention of "siblings"??

I have read many writings of Church fathers. I have read some of Ignatius'. I am unaware if he wrote a rebuttal or an endorsement of Hegiseppus. If you have proof that he learned from Polycarp, by all means please present it. I am schooled in the early churh writers but by all means haven't read everything.

In any sense, al you have done is shown that I was right in saying it was 3rd generation knowledge. Had you said And proved that Hegiseppus learned from John... I would take a closer look. But can you even prove he talked to Polycarp? I don't know... I am asking!

I will check into this whole "aldephie" thing... But I am not confident the will be anything to find.

I am indeed absolutely convinced that Mat 1:25 means they had sexual relations. The dry dreading suggests such and the verses that say Jesus had brothers and sisters support it. The abnormality is to suggedt otherwise.

When the word "until" is used (or "till") it talks about something that happened prior to a change in circumstances. Your Moses' burial place is a poor example. It only means up to the point (amd even today) we don't know.

David and Michael didn't have children. But it was possible for them to have children. UNTIL a change. Michael died. It was no lomger possible. I mean... Give me a break... Its not hard to comprehend!


Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool. Its WAY beyond the scope of this convesation to talk about this. The simple meaning is that once his enemies are his footstool, he"s gonna do something!

The "minor" teaching not being suoported by scripture supporting it? You are dismissing the very verses we are discussing. Or at least you are dismissing the most likely meaning they suggested.

I have more to say... But I am babysitting tonight.... Gotta go.

 

[epostle1]

I have read many writings of Church fathers. I have read some of Ignatius'. I am unaware if he wrote a rebuttal or an endorsement of Hegiseppus. If you have proof that he learned from Polycarp, by all means please present it. I am schooled in the early churh writers but by all means haven't read everything.

In any sense, al you have done is shown that I was right in saying it was 3rd generation knowledge. Had you said And proved that Hegiseppus learned from John... I would take a closer look. But can you even prove he talked to Polycarp? I don't know... I am asking!

I will check into this whole "aldephie" thing... But I am not confident the will be anything to find.

I am indeed absolutely convinced that Mat 1:25 means they had sexual relations. The dry dreading suggests such and the verses that say Jesus had brothers and sisters support it. The abnormality is to suggedt otherwise.

When the word "until" is used (or "till") it talks about something that happened prior to a change in circumstances. Your Moses' burial place is a poor example. It only means up to the point (amd even today) we don't know.

David and Michael didn't have children. But it was possible for them to have children. UNTIL a change. Michael died. It was no lomger possible. I mean... Give me a break... Its not hard to comprehend!


Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool. Its WAY beyond the scope of this convesation to talk about this. The simple meaning is that once his enemies are his footstool, he"s gonna do something!

The "minor" teaching not being suoported by scripture supporting it? You are dismissing the very verses we are discussing. Or at least you are dismissing the most likely meaning they suggested.

I have more to say... But I am babysitting tonight.... Gotta go.

Well poo poo on "third generation knowledge" How many generations are in 4 centuries to finalize the canon of Scripture??
You are absolutely convinced of 19th century inventions.

 

[epostle1]

Avoiding the same 'ol same 'ol Protestant arguments that have been refuted all over the 'net:

Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House
Numbers 30:3-5

Vows Taken by a Married Woman
Numbers 30:6-8

Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman
Numbers 30:9-15

All right: so what does all of this mean? The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman's vows to "afflict herself," which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and/or refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse
(see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15).

Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussing three kinds of vows:
1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependent on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it.

In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.
Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman--say, Mary, in this instance--took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband--in our case, Joseph--heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it.

This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind "and makes them null and void after he has heard of them," the sin will be upon him: "he shall bear her iniquity" (Num 30:15).

One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew's Gospel tells us: Joseph was a "righteous man" (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence--and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)--and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin, and Joseph would not be righteous and the Bible would contradict itself, which we know can't happen.

 

[mjrhealth]

then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin, and Joseph would not be righteous and the Bible would contradict itself, which we know can't happen.

And so God has just laid a stumbling block befor Joseph, I wll impregnate your wife, but woe forbid you marry her and sleep with her afterwards. What God do you serve. It has no bearing on anything wether she was a virgin after or not, DOES IT, so why do you fight over it so much, is it because you need cause to "worship" her as another idol or is because you need to uphold your churches doctrines.??

 

[Mungo]

And so God has just laid a stumbling block befor Joseph, I wll impregnate your wife, but woe forbid you marry her and sleep with her afterwards. What God do you serve. It has no bearing on anything wether she was a virgin after or not, DOES IT, so why do you fight over it so much, is it because you need cause to "worship" her as another idol or is because you need to uphold your churches doctrines.??

What God do YOU serve?
I asked you before:
"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?"

It seems that you do, because now you state that God impregnated Mary and then when he was done with her just handed her back to Joseph to impregnate in his turn.

Do you not realise the marital significance of the Holy Spirit coming upon her and overshadowing her? Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit.. Indeed who whole episode of Gabriel's appearances to Mary (Lk :26-35) and Joseph (Mt 18:21) only makes coherent sense in the following scenario:
Mary is a virgin who has consecrated her life to God as a virgin.
For a reason we do not know she agrees to marry Joseph but remain faithful to her vow - to which Joseph agrees. But this is all part of God's plan. Joseph will provide a home and protection for Mary and God's Son.
They complete the first stage of marriage (kiddushin) and Mary is legally Joseph's wife.
The is no intention to complete the second stage of marriage and enter into marital relations.
Then God intervenes and she consents to his plan, conceives and bears God's Son.
As she is has now entered fully into a marital relationship with God she is now forbidden to Joseph. But that was the plan anyway.

I think the problem is that you, and many modern protestants, come to this you your own, sex oriented, cultural assumptions and pre-bias against teachings about Mary (and hatred of the Catholic Church).

 

[bbyrd009]

nice. Frankly i'm not sure how it could possibly be construed any other way, what with Jesus' explanation of who His mothers and sisters and brothers were, spiritually speaking, anyway. I mean wadr have Catholics just changed or removed

21But He replied to them, “My mother and My brothers are those who hear and do the word of God.”
50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother.”
35Whoever does the will of Godck is My brother and sister and mother.”

? Or does all this yack about brothers maybe being cousins or whatever extend to "mothers?" http://biblehub.com/greek/3384.htm
no, it does not. Scripture has dedicated words for both "aunt" and "grandmother."

So wadr it strikes me that Christ has disowned Mary 3 times, for emphasis, fully witnessed, and i don't see how anyone can even suggest that Mary worship or iconization is anything other than extra-Biblical.
Now if you have been raised with this, and find it impossible to overcome for some reason, i'm willing to believe you might be forgiven for this, but i think answering (or rather not answering) the question, "why does Mary have to be a perpetual virgin?" tells you all you need to know.

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.

ezackly.

 

[bbyrd009]

That is a disgraceful statement which accuses Catholics of blasphemy.

if the shoe fits...

 

[Mungo]

wadr

Meanings of the abbreviation wadr

West Africa Democracy Radio
Waste Acid Detoxification and Reclamation
Weighted Average Deposit Rate
Wideband Acoustic Data Relay
Walsall and District Ramblers

Just thought people might like to know that.

 

[Mungo]

if the shoe fits...

...a protestant will find a reason why it's wrong.

 

[bbyrd009]

...a protestant will find a reason why it's wrong.

k well i notice you aren't addressing Jesus disowning Mary of course, and this is after all at least posing as a Christian site, and not a Papist one, With All Due Respect.

 

[epostle1]

What God do YOU serve?
I asked you before:
"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?"

It seems that you do, because now you state that God impregnated Mary and then when he was done with her just handed her back to Joseph to impregnate in his turn.

Do you not realise the marital significance of the Holy Spirit coming upon her and overshadowing her? Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit.. Indeed who whole episode of Gabriel's appearances to Mary (Lk :26-35) and Joseph (Mt 18:21) only makes coherent sense in the following scenario:
Mary is a virgin who has consecrated her life to God as a virgin.
For a reason we do not know she agrees to marry Joseph but remain faithful to her vow - to which Joseph agrees. But this is all part of God's plan. Joseph will provide a home and protection for Mary and God's Son.
They complete the first stage of marriage (kiddushin) and Mary is legally Joseph's wife.
The is no intention to complete the second stage of marriage and enter into marital relations.
Then God intervenes and she consents to his plan, conceives and bears God's Son.
As she is has now entered fully into a marital relationship with God she is now forbidden to Joseph. But that was the plan anyway.

I think the problem is that you, and many modern protestants, come to this you your own, sex oriented, cultural assumptions and pre-bias against teachings about Mary (and hatred of the Catholic Church).

Good point. Very convicting. This will be avoided the same as my post. It is the very nature of Modernist Protestants to rebel against their founding reformers, and their excuses don't hold water. What we are up against is Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies.

nice. Frankly i'm not sure how it could possibly be construed any other way, what with Jesus' explanation of who His mothers and sisters and brothers were, spiritually speaking, anyway. I mean wadr have Catholics just changed or removed

21But He replied to them, “My mother and My brothers are those who hear and do the word of God.”
50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother.”
35Whoever does the will of Godck is My brother and sister and mother.”

? Or does all this yack about brothers maybe being cousins or whatever extend to "mothers?" http://biblehub.com/greek/3384.htm
no, it does not. Scripture has dedicated words for both "aunt" and "grandmother."

So wadr it strikes me that Christ has disowned Mary 3 times, for emphasis, fully witnessed, and i don't see how anyone can even suggest that Mary worship or iconization is anything other than extra-Biblical.
Now if you have been raised with this, and find it impossible to overcome for some reason, i'm willing to believe you might be forgiven for this, but i think answering (or rather not answering) the question, "why does Mary have to be a perpetual virgin?" tells you all you need to know.

ezackly.

Your abuse of scripture has been refuted about 100 times. Jesus makes a unity with those who do the will of God with His mother and brothers. Mary does the will of God perfectly, or Jesus would not have been born. They are models of faith, to raise us up to do the will of God, which is what Mary is for. You make a false distinction, having Jesus denigrate His mother and violating the 4th Commandment. (honor your parents). It's not the "gotcha" verse Protestants think it is.

if the shoe fits...

OK, so you agree with hate speech, lies and flaming. It's against the rules but as long as it is against Catholics it's OK.

​

 

[bbyrd009]

and "if the shoe fits, a Protestant will find a reason why it's wrong" does not even make any sense, at least to me. I recognize that you guys are necessarily dependent upon ad hominem attacks, being as that is your best weapon and all, but you know you could just open your eyes lol.

 

[Mungo]

With All Due Respect.

With All Due Respect? Why don't you show some?

Or is Zero the amount of respect you think Catholics are due?