Perpetual virginity of Mary!

[Spurgeon's Girl]

what is your point?

It should be obvious. Angels say things and people say things. No person should be saying "Hail Mary". And... since Mary is dead (she is dead, no matter what your church says) you shouldn't be praying to a dead person. The Bible says there is ONE mediator between us and Him,

1 Timothy 2:5-6
English Standard Version

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Prayers to dead people are wasted when you can pray for other living people.

 

[Michael1985]

I don't believe Mary as a perpetual virgin is Biblical.

Matthew 1:24-25
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

I see no reason to place a time condition on the lack of sex if they were never intimate at any point in their marriage.

 

[farouk]

I don't believe Mary as a perpetual virgin is Biblical.

Matthew 1:24-25
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

I see no reason to place a time condition on the lack of sex if they had never been intimate at any point in their marriage.

@Michael1985 Mary had other sons also.

 

[Marymog]

I'm not to continue to repeat myself. Baptism per your church cannot be found in the Holy Scriptures. PERIOD.

I would hate for you to repeat a lie sooooo please DON’T repeat yourself.


BTW....It isn’t per MY Church since MANY Protestant denominations have the same beliefs on baptism and historically Christian writings show that the earliest Christians who lived closest to the time of Christ practiced baptism per MY Church sooooooo you are fighting a headwind with your theory.....Good Luck.....Mary

 

[Renniks]

To understand Peter as earthly head of the Church - you need to understand OT TYPE and NT FULFILLMENT.

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom - or vice versa, really.. We can see this from the references to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-22 vs. when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

First, let's look at what God said about Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, regarding the House of David:

Isaiah 22:20–22
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


NOW, lets see what God (Jesus) said to Peter about the Kingdom of Heaven:
Matt. 16:18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Only a spiritually-BLIND person or someone living in abject denial doesn't see the type and fulfillment here.

In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers.

By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time.

Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline.

When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan.

 

[Renniks]

GLAD you asked.
This takes more Scriptural understanding . . .

Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was blessed inside and out, purified and not to be handle by man.
Mary was "Kecharitomene", according to Luke 1:28. this Greek term is defined as "one having been completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace." It indicates a past event with a permanent result.

That's just the beginning of the Scriptural similarities . . .

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

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)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

Oh boy, the secret code Bible! This is as silly as the Devinci code. Mary was a women, not an ark.

 

[Renniks]

Miriam is Holy….purity and goodness is not defined by virginity…. mommies are still good people. It wasn’t but a few years back that sons were told by their father’s to only marry a virgin! Now that I have ticked off the Protestants and Catholics you can go and look these things up. Or go on living a lie.

For the Catholic religion it became a systematic thing, marital intercourse became regulated as expressed in the flowchart below.

*************************Flowchart for marital intercourse******************

View attachment 10890

Lol, that chart is pretty funny.

 

[Renniks]

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.

Lol, and it just gets sillier. You want me to believe that Mary, who was engaged to be married and at this point didn't really understand yet what was going on with the angel, had already decided previously that she was never going to have sex with this man who she was marrying? What? Just look at the scriptural and mental gymnastics one has to put themselves through to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary..and why? Because there' something inherently wrong with sex? Um, no, God created sex. He meant it to be enjoyed within marriage. Mary having a normal relationship with her husband does not make her less pure! That's just silly Catholic teaching that started with Augustine.

 

[Grailhunter]

Lol, that chart is pretty funny.

Glad you liked it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers.

By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time.

Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline.

When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan.

ALL true. However, Peter was singled out like NO OTHER Apostle.
Let's review . . .

If Peter is NOT the leader of the Apostles . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.
b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if He did not put him in charge.
c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.
d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??
e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??
f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??
g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??
h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??
i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??
j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??
k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??
l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??
m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than ALL the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

YOUR turn . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lol, and it just gets sillier. You want me to believe that Mary, who was engaged to be married and at this point didn't really understand yet what was going on with the angel, had already decided previously that she was never going to have sex with this man who she was marrying? What? Just look at the scriptural and mental gymnastics one has to put themselves through to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary..and why? Because there' something inherently wrong with sex? Um, no, God created sex. He meant it to be enjoyed within marriage. Mary having a normal relationship with her husband does not make her less pure! That's just silly Catholic teaching that started with Augustine.

Scriptural and mental gymnastics??
The fact that Mary says, "I DO NOT KNOW man" as opposed to, "I HAVE NOT KNOWN a man" speaks volumes.

As I educated you in my last post - for which you had ZERO response - Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, which was not to be handled by man.
Why no Scriptural refutation of the list of comparisons I gave you, hmmmmm?

And what happened to the challenge I issued?? Where are all of the extrabiblical works from the Early Church condemning the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary??
Where are the dissenters??

If this teaching started in the FOURTH century - as YOU claim - surely there were dissenters.
And, by the way - the Protoevangelium is from the SECOND century . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh boy, the secret code Bible! This is as silly as the Devinci code. Mary was a women, not an ark.

And THAT is your response??
God is not a Rock - but Paul tells us that Christ WAS the Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4).

Either you are being purposely ignorant - or you are seriously devoid of Scriptural knowledge. An OT TYPE and an NT FULFILLMENT don't have to be the same. As I showed you - from Scripture - Mary is indeed the fulfillment of the Ark.

If you TRULY disagree - then give me a SCRPTURAL refutation of the list of comparisons I gave YOU because a thousand snarky comments don't equal ONE SHRED of evidence . . .

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

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)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

YOUR turn . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lol, that chart is pretty funny.

Glad you liked it.

Uh huh.
Too bad neither of you can refute it . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Uh huh.
Too bad neither of you can refute it . . .

Good day BOL, How have you and yours been?
Refute what?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't believe Mary as a perpetual virgin is Biblical.

Matthew 1:24-25
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

I see no reason to place a time condition on the lack of sex if they were never intimate at any point in their marriage.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does not support this idea.
Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

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 the attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good day BOL, How have you and yours been?
Refute what?

The list of comparisons that you and @Renniks think is so funny.
I reposted it in post #752 . . .

By the way - my family and I are fine.
I hope you and yours are doing well.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why do you pray for Mary to help you pray, when there's no Biblical indication anywhere that you should do so?

Can you tell me when Mary and the other saints in Heaven were kicked OUT of the Body of Christ?

 

[Grailhunter]

The list of comparisons that you and @Renniks think is so funny.
I reposted it in post #752 . . .

By the way - my family and I are fine.
I hope you and yours are doing well.

Don't swing that sword so broad. I did't say anything about your comparisons. He was talking about the flowchart.

 

[Renniks]

ALL true. However, Peter was singled out like NO OTHER Apostle.
Let's review . . .

If Peter is NOT the leader of the Apostles . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.
b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if He did not put him in charge.
c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.
d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??
e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??
f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??
g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??
h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??
i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??
j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??
k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??
l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??
m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than ALL the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

YOUR turn . . .

In my understanding the church didn't have leaders per say in the early days. They had teachers but no one leader.
Peter could not be the first pope, because:
Peter was married
According to the Catholic church the clergy should be celibate:

“Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.” Catechism of the Cahtolic Church No. 277

And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.” Matt 8:14

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (the apostle Paul) withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:11-14

Sure doesn't sound like a pope to me.

Would Paul oppose the Pope?

And THAT is your response??
God is not a Rock - but Paul tells us that Christ WAS the Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4).

Either you are being purposely ignorant - or you are seriously devoid of Scriptural knowledge. An OT TYPE and an NT FULFILLMENT don't have to be the same. As I showed you - from Scripture - Mary is indeed the fulfillment of the Ark.

If you TRULY disagree - then give me a SCRPTURAL refutation of the list of comparisons I gave YOU because a thousand snarky comments don't equal ONE SHRED of evidence . . .

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

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)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

YOUR turn . . .

Like I said, secret codes.... that's not how scripture works. You are looking for matching numbers, lol. I can play that game and make scripture say all kinds of silly stuff.
The Bible never says that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant.” If we’re going to follow this Catholic pattern, then who is now the “New Brazen Altar” or the “New Brazen Laver”? Or why is no one recognized as the “New Veil”? Who is the “New Table of Showbread”? These types are ALL fulfilled in Jesus, and not anyone else. They point to Him as their final fulfillment (Hebrews 9:1-11). Why would we think that one of those items (the most important one, no less) should be attributed to Mary? Was God saving the most important piece of furniture, the holiest one, to represent and honor HER above even her Son? Does anyone really think that this was God’s intent? If anyone is the “Ark of the New Covenant,” it is Jesus, Himself.

 

[Renniks]

Scriptural and mental gymnastics??
The fact that Mary says, "I DO NOT KNOW man" as opposed to, "I HAVE NOT KNOWN a man" speaks volumes.

So if I say: "I do not know George." does it mean I never intend to meet George? No, it just means I currently don't know George. Your logic escapes me here...