Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

[Josiah]

Okay, I'll bite. What in the world does Acts 2:42 have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers

Because Mark holds that the actual words of Acts 2:42 are "And Mary remained a virgin all her life." It's just that your Protestant Bible has mistranslated it.

It IS amazing how Mark goes to such great lengths to undeniably PROVE that his claim is false, wrong, a lie. The Bible does NOT state that Mary remained a virgin. He himself is obsessed with PROVING himself wrong, shooting himself in the foot, showing he is a false teacher. Sure, his denomination teaches that (we all already knew that) and clearly he believes this (and IMO, that's fine) but his claim is clearly false, wrong, a lie. WHY he feels so compelled to prove this - over and over and over and over - is a mystery. In all my years at sites like this, I've never before met a poster SO obsessed with proving himself wrong.


A blessed Christmas to all


- Josiah



.

 

[tango]

Okay, I'll bite. What in the world does Acts 2:42 have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers

I think you're missing the point of the thread. A verse doesn't have to have anything to do with the topic to get dragged into the discussion as though it did. If you quote enough Scripture, even if it's not relevant to the discussion, you can wear people down to the point they disengage and then you can claim you won the argument because nobody could refute you. Never mind the reality that the people who "couldn't refute you" simply couldn't be bothered reasoning any more, if you're the last one standing you win, right?

 

[Josiah]

Look.... here we see Catholicism in practice



Fundamentalist Catholics (they call themselves true Catholics) simply swallow whole WHATEVER their denomination tells them (at least officially and as required)... they do so because their church tells them that IT itself (solely, singularly, individually) IS the "teaching authority," it itself IS the Voice of God on Earth, it IS the Body of Christ... and Christ don't lie. Thus, they "docilicly" swallow whatever it itself (individually) says (conditionally). Our friend Mark is simply doing what Catholics are told to do.



This is how the Catholic Catechism puts it:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Now, perhaps 90% of Catholics don't take this so seriously BUT some do. My Deacon called only them "Catholics".



If this seems downright cultic to you (and it usually does to Protestants) consider how Protestants submit to Scripture. Difference (perhaps)? Scripture does not demand submission to itself, Christians call for ALL OF US to submit to such. It's not self directing all to self. Perhaps thus the difference between a cultic epistemology and a more traditional one?



Now, when speaking with PROTESTANTS, some Catholic apologists will TRY to show that the distinctive, unique dogmas of that singular denomination are "biblical." Ironic, because in Catholicism, something is true because the RCC teaches it, not because Scripture does (although the Bible MUST agree with Catholicism since it too is correct, but it may only be correct by implication and by interpretation of the RCC itself). Often what happens is what Mark reveals: Nope, Scripture does not teach such.

What I learned in my Catholic days.... and still appreciate... is the role of TRADITION. Now, we define that differently: In Catholicism, "Tradition" is whatever the RCC itself alone currently says it is and means whatever it itself currently says it means, it's just it itself speaking today. Other Christians see Tradition as the ECUMENICAL and HISTORIC faith of believers (especially in the interpretation of Scripture). Here, I think Catholicism at times has a strong argument... but Catholics hesitate to mention this because modern "Evangelicals" have a distain for Tradition - thus Mark never mentions it. IF he did, he could build a case for the PVM (albeit one that would not win the day for Evangelicals) but instead, he's echoing an approach that backfires - proving the Bible does not support it. I have found that better Catholic approaches is to simply convey WHAT they believe.... note the Tradition and perhaps that Scripture does not show it wrong. Perhaps then how this belief blesses them.



I explored this issue of authority a bit here: Christianity, Authority and Individualism




A blessed Christmas Season to all...


- Josiah



.

 

[Lanman87]

The doctrine of the apostles!

I don't believe for a minute that the apostles believed or taught what later became Catholic views on Mary. They didn't record it in their writings and it didn't become part of Tradition until a couple of hundred years after the death of the last Apostle. No, Mary, as viewed by the Roman church, is a Tradition of men and not apostolic teaching.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Isa 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.

a virgin not a girl who is waiting for marriage to have sex! But a real virgin! Consecrated to God forever!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

I don't believe for a minute that the apostles believed or taught what later became Catholic views on Mary. They didn't record it in their writings and it didn't become part of Tradition until a couple of hundred years after the death of the last Apostle. No, Mary, as viewed by the Roman church, is a Tradition of men and not apostolic teaching.

All Christian doctrine requires both that it be revealed by Christ and taught by his holy church! Not the false doctrine of the “Bible alone”!

Thier writings? What did Andrew or Nathaniel write?

the church existed before the New Testament
The church exercised the authority of Christ before the New Testament
The church wrote the New Testament
The church alone has authority from christ
The church alone can authorize an interpretation of scripture

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Matt 28:19 Lk 1:4 Jn 1:16-17 Jn 20:21-23 acts 8:31 eph 4:5 Jude 1:3

 

[Bluezone777]

Isa 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.

a virgin not a girl who is waiting for marriage to have sex! But a real virgin! Consecrated to God forever!

All that says is that the woman in question was to be a virgin when the child was conceived and says nothing of her status after the child is born. If you would quit letting your theology speak for the Bible then you would understand it the way it was written but you refuse to do so hence why you can't.

The only qualifications needed for being a virgin is you are unmarried and have not had sexual relations with another person. That's it.

 

[Lanman87]

All Christian doctrine requires both that it be revealed by Christ

It is up to you to show that the Mariology as taught by the Roman Catholic Church was revealed by Christ and taught by the Apostles. If you can't do that, then your claim is a spurious claim. It is a doctrine made up by theologians and bishops in later Centuries. Therefore it is not apostolic teaching and is a doctrine of men.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

All that says is that the woman in question was to be a virgin when the child was conceived and says nothing of her status after the child is born. If you would quit letting your theology speak for the Bible then you would understand it the way it was written but you refuse to do so hence why you can't.

The only qualifications needed for being a virgin is you are unmarried and have not had sexual relations with another person. That's it.

Not so!
The virtue of virginity required that it be offered to God in sacrifice and it must be a perpetual offering

this is not an unsexed girl, or undefined, but a virgin a true virgin and a sign from God!
The Christian church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always taught this doctrine!
Doctrine must be revealed by Christ (Jude 1:3) and proposed (Matt 28:19-20) by holy mother church! (Gal 4:26)

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

It is up to you to show that the Mariology as taught by the Roman Catholic Church was revealed by Christ and taught by the Apostles. If you can't do that, then your claim is a spurious claim. It is a doctrine made up by theologians and bishops in later Centuries. Therefore it is not apostolic teaching and is a doctrine of men.

The apostles and their teaching according to the authority of Christ have always taught the reveled doctrine of Christ alone and continue to do so till he returns! Matt 28:19-20

 

[Lanman87]

The apostles and their teaching according to the authority of Christ have always taught the reveled doctrine of Christ alone and continue to do so till he returns!

The church can't just make stuff up. It has to hold to the Gospel of Christ. The church (Catholic or Protestant) doesn't have the authority to invent doctrine, which is teaching a different gospel.

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [y the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Gal 1:6-9

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

The church can't just make stuff up. It has to hold to the Gospel of Christ. The church (Catholic or Protestant) doesn't have the authority to invent doctrine, which is teaching a different gospel.

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [y the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Gal 1:6-9

I never said they did!
I said it must be in the deposit of faith from Christ to his church! Jude 1:3 and taught or proposed for belief by holy mother church!
matt 28:19-20

 

[Lanman87]

The Christian church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always taught this doctrine!

No it hasn't. It didn't start teaching this doctrine until at least the 3rd or 4th Century and it didn't become dogmatic teaching until many centuries later.

 

[Lanman87]

I said it must be in the deposit of faith from Christ to his church!

And Catholic Mariology wasn't in the deposit of faith. It came later and was invented by theologians and Bishops.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

No it hasn't. It didn't start teaching this doctrine until at least the 3rd or 4th Century and it didn't become dogmatic teaching until many centuries later.

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) with the jurisdictional authority of Peter and the apostles in holy council! Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20 bound on earth bound in heaven!

So it was taught by the holy apostles in council by the authority of Christ and is part of the deposit of faith

 

[Lanman87]

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) with the jurisdictional authority of Peter and the apostles in holy council! Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20 bound on earth bound in heaven!

So it was taught by the holy apostles in council by the authority of Christ and is part of the deposit of faith

Thank you for proving my point. The Lateran council was in the 7th Century. There were no holy apostles at the Lateran Council. The last apostle died in the first century. Everyone who came after that is bound to teach the Gospel message that was delivered by Christ and the Apostles. Unfortunately, the church didn't heed the warnings of the Apostles and starting creating new teachings that weren't part of the deposit of faith left by the apostles. Mariology is one of those teachings.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Thank you for proving my point. The Lateran council was in the 7th Century. There were no holy apostles at the Lateran Council. The last apostle died in the first century. Everyone who came after that is bound to teach the Gospel message that was delivered by Christ and the Apostles. Unfortunately, the church didn't heed the warnings of the Apostles and starting creating new teachings that weren't part of the deposit of faith left by the apostles. Mariology is one of those teachings.

The apostles and the authority of Christ in his church are still with us till he returns!
Matt 28:19-20 behold I am with you (the apostles) till the end!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

The apostles have authority to make more apostles until Christ returns Jn 20:21-23 acts 1:26

 

[Lanman87]

The apostles and the authority of Christ in his church are still with us till he returns!
Matt 28:19-20 behold I am with you (the apostles) till the end!

After the first century the Apostles didn't create more Apostles. Nobody on earth met the requirements for Apostleship. To be an Apostle you had to have been with Jesus and sat under His teaching. (Acts 1:21-25)

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to [w]occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Matthias met this requirement. Nobody at the Lateran council met the requirement for Apostleship.

In two of his Epistles, Paul identifies the office of apostle as the first that Jesus appointed to serve His churches (1 Corinthians 12:27–30; Ephesians 4:11). Clearly, the work of apostleship was to lay the foundation of the Church in a sense secondary only to that of Christ Himself (Ephesians 2:19–20), thus requiring eyewitness authority behind their preaching. After the apostles laid the foundation, the Church could be built.

After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

Those offices were called, in various places, Elder, Bishop, or even President. Their roll was to carry on the teaching of the original apostles but they themselves weren't apostles and had no special revelations directly from Christ.

The Apostles didn't pass on the authority of Apostleship, they passed on the responsibility to lead the church in the truth of the Gospel that they preached.

So, no, there were no apostles at any of the councils. All the men at those councils were bound by the gospel of Christ that was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Their job was to be faithful to the teachings that were handed to them by the Apostles. Unfortunately, they weren't faithful to the Gospel and the teachings that were given them and instead affirmed new teachings that had crept into the church.