This heretical teaching is disproven.

[Soulx3]

Luke 1:34 does NOT say that Mary was a perpetual virgin!

There's more than one way to say something. The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point. Therefore, if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

 

[Josiah]

Again, I offered Lk. 1:34 for why Mary is a perpetual virgin

@Soulx3

Here's Luke 1:34, "Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Those are the words she said. I checked the original Greek, and that's accurate. She said "I AM a virgin." It's in the present tense, and checking the grammar, that tense applies to the present. It states and implies NOTHING about the future. Sorry, sister, but according to the Holy Spirit, that's what She said. And I believe the Holy Spirit was correct.

So, the verse states that on the day of the Annunciation and Incarnation (traditionally March 25), on that day, She was a virgin. It says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about March 26.

She did not state, "I will always be a virgin."
She did not state, "I am a virgin until I don't die."
She did not state, "I am a perpetual virgin."

For this text to support the formal, official, de fide DOGMA of your church, you need to change the verb tense. You need to DELETE what the Holy Spirit put there (declaring it wrong) and substitute an entirely different word. Sister, anyone can substantiate ANY view if they delete what the Bible states and substitute a different word.

Sola Scriptura?

I think you have no idea what Sola Scriptura is.

No church known to me has a formal, official, de fide DOGMA of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex." IF, IF, IF one did, you could point out that this dogma is exactly the same as the Catholic Church with it's dogma of "Mary Never Had Sex" - exactly the same, a dogma lacking biblical substantiation.

"Pot calling kettle black"



.

 

[Soulx3]

Here's Luke 1:34, "Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Those are the words she said. I checked the original Greek, and that's accurate. She said "I AM a virgin." It's in the present tense, and checking the grammar, that tense applies only, exclusively, solely to the present.

So, the verse states that on the day of the Annunciation and Incarnation (traditionally March 25), on that day, She was a virgin. It says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about March 26.

She did not state, "I will always be a virgin."
She did not state, "I am a virgin until I don't die."
She did not state, "I am a perpetual virgin."

For this text to support the formal, official, de fide DOGMA of your church, you need to change the verb tense. You need to DELETE what the Holy Spirit put there (declaring it wrong) and substitute an entirely different word. Sister, anyone can substantiate ANY view if they delete what the Bible states and substitute a different word.

I didn't change anything and there's more than one way to say something. The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

I think you have no idea what Sola Scriptura is.

No church known to me has a formal, official, de fide DOGMA of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex." IF, IF, IF one did, you could point out that this dogma is exactly the same as the Catholic Church with it's dogma of "Mary Never Had Sex" - exactly the same, a dogma lacking biblical substantiation.

"Pot calling kettle black"

There is scriptural evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity, you and others just reject it. And, are you saying that Christians don't have to have scriptural evidence to teach/believe that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, unless it's a dogma?

 

[Josiah]

I didn't change anything.

Your view mandates changing the verb tense of what Mary said (according to the Holy Spirit). I know that, you know that. What She said was in the PRESENT tense, applying to that day, that moment. The tense mandates NOTHING about the future, it doens't even imply that. Sorry, sister. Unless the Holy Spirit was wrong, She just didn't say what your church dogma requires.

unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

Where in this verse (or any verse in the Bible) does it state, "Mary made a vow of perpetual chastity?" Sister, anyone can indicate their view has biblical substantiation IF they just delete what the Bible actually states (just delete the word), put in some different word, and then claim that elsewhere the Bible states something - but not in words anyone can see, but invisible words only they can see.


@Soulx3

Friend, your whole point in this thread is to rebuke a few, modern, American Evangelicals for a personal opinion that Mary had other children.... you go to length to say that technically, just going by words in the text and their meaning in original koine Greek, this new personal opinion (doctrine NOWHERE), it just doesn't have biblical support. Okay. I would not argue the point (indeed, I agree with you - the vast majority of Protestants do). But here's the absurdity. You try to support the official, formal, de fide DOGMA of your church that Mary was a perpetual virgin but revealing you have nothing better than they do (indeed, even weaker), just going by the words of Scripture (as you insist): no assumptions, no theorizing, just the words - you show the Catholic Church is no better, probably worse. Pot calling kettle black. Frankly, some Catholics do this a lot. A LOT.


Blessings, sister.


- Josiah




.

 

[Soulx3]

Your view mandates changing the verb tense of what Mary said (according to the Holy Spirit). I know that, you know that. What She said was in the PRESENT tense, applying to that day, that moment. The tense mandates NOTHING about the future, it doens't even imply that. Sorry, sister. Unless the Holy Spirit was wrong, She just didn't say what your church dogma requires.

Where in this verse (or any verse in the Bible) does it state, "Mary made a vow of perpetual chastity?" Sister, anyone can indicate their view has biblical substantiation IF they just delete what the Bible actually states (just delete the word), put in some different word, and then claim that elsewhere the Bible states something - but not in words anyone can see, but invisible words only they can see.

Again, I didn't change anything, and there's more than one way to say something. The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

 

[Soulx3]

.

 

[Josiah]

Again, I didn't change anything

@Soulx3


Then according to the text, your view is baseless. It does NOT remotely have biblical substantiation. The words of Scripture do NOT say what your church says.

Undeniable, obviously, as all who can read know, what She said is "I AM a virgin." Not "I will always be a virgin." To affirm simply what Scripture states (which is what you require of those few modern American Evangelicals) you either need to delete the word the Holy Spirit put in the text (declaring the HS isn't being truthful) to say "I will be a virgin forever" or insert a word the Holy Spirit never did, the word "perpetual." By your rubric (just go by the words on the page), your view is baseless.

You are also mandating changing the text by inserting a LOT of assumptions, guessing, (rare) possibilities and inserting things from other texts that are not Bible. Stuff the Bible does not stare. Then rebuking some "Evangelicals" for doing the same thing - only far less so, and NOT as apologetic for a formal, official, de fide DOGMA but just an opinion some of them now have. Pot calling kettle black. BIG TIME. Radically.

There is scriptural evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity

Not by the words of Scripture. It's POSSIBLE given the words on the page of Scripture - but then so is the view of those few modern American "Evangelicals" that you rebuke. The words do NOT say what you do. We all know that. You've proven that - over and over again.

Of course, you can ADD words not there. "I am a perpetual virgin." Or "these are brothers by Mary." But ANY view can claim to state what the Bible does if you ADD words not there. Which is what your DOGMA and their personal, private opinion require. What you both do.

Of course, you can ASSUME a whole bunch of things, even really rare or weird assumptions, and claim those are IMPLIED by the text (and thus what the Bible says) by saying "Mary was wrong about the timing of this and thus used the wrong verb" OR "Mary and Joseph would have had sex after they were married, 99% of wedding couples do." Okay, but that's a teaching based on ASSUMPTIONS, not - NOT - on what the Bible actually states. You may say that's okay to do, but then you can't ALSO say, it's not okay. You can't insist, "the Catholic Church can do that but no other church can." That's just absurd. That's just pot calling kettle black. It's stilly. It's laughable. It's really, really, really bad apologetics.

, you and others just reject it.

The stunning reality is that YOU reject it. You reject changing the words of the Bible - yet your whole dogma REQUIRES doing that. You rebuke inserting assumptions and theories into the text - yet your whole apologetic REQUIRES it. You go on and on rebuking the very thing you do. That's the point. That's what everyone is so obviously seeing except for you. We're trying to help you see that, but.....


Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Soulx3]

Then according to the text, your view is baseless. It does NOT remotely have biblical substantiation. The words of Scripture do NOT say what your church says.

Undeniable, obviously, as all who can read know, what She said is "I AM a virgin." Not "I will always be a virgin." To affirm simply what Scripture states (which is what you require of those few modern American Evangelicals) you either need to delete the word the Holy Spirit put in the text (declaring the HS isn't being truthful) to say "I will be a virgin forever" or insert a word the Holy Spirit never did, the word "perpetual." By your rubric (just go by the words on the page), your view is baseless.

You are also mandating changing the text by inserting a LOT of assumptions, guessing, (rare) possibilities and inserting things from other texts that are not Bible. Stuff the Bible does not stare. Then rebuking some "Evangelicals" for doing the same thing - only far less so, and NOT as apologetic for a formal, official, de fide DOGMA but just an opinion some of them now have. Pot calling kettle black. BIG TIME. Radically.

Not by the words of Scripture. It's POSSIBLE given the words on the page of Scripture - but then so is the view of those few modern American "Evangelicals" that you rebuke. The words do NOT say what you do. We all know that. You've proven that - over and over again.

Of course, you can ADD words not there. "I am a perpetual virgin." Or "these are brothers by Mary." But ANY view can claim to state what the Bible does if you ADD words not there. Which is what your DOGMA and their personal, private opinion require. What you both do.

Of course, you can ASSUME a whole bunch of things, even really rare or weird assumptions, and claim those are IMPLIED by the text (and thus what the Bible says) by saying "Mary was wrong about the timing of this and thus used the wrong verb" OR "Mary and Joseph would have had sex after they were married, 99% of wedding couples do." Okay, but that's a teaching based on ASSUMPTIONS, not - NOT - on what the Bible actually states. You may say that's okay to do, but then you can't ALSO say, it's not okay. You can't insist, "the Catholic Church can do that but no other church can." That's just absurd. That's just pot calling kettle black. It's stilly. It's laughable. It's really, really, really bad apologetics.

Again, I haven't assumed/changed anything. Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity is the reason why She asked what She did in reply to Gabriel's announcement, because her question followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

The stunning reality is that YOU reject it. You reject changing the words of the Bible - yet your whole dogma REQUIRES doing that. You rebuke inserting assumptions and theories into the text - yet your whole apologetic REQUIRES it. You go on and on rebuking the very thing you do. That's the point. That's what everyone is so obviously seeing except for you. We're trying to help you see that, but.....

All you're doing is what I'm doing, which is pointing out what the other person rejects, and is trying to help them see what they believe is wrong.

 

[Albion]

If She had any intention, at any time, of having sexual intercourse with him, there would've been no need to respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?," unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

Again with the assumptions that are not based upon the Scripture!

Although you want to believe that you know what Mary was thinking at that moment, her actual response to the archangel is what almost any young woman in her situation would have said or thought--"I'm going to have a baby?? But I'm a virgin, so how could that be??"

The "perpetual virgin" notion has nothing to do with it.

The impression you're creating is that you're starting with your denomination's doctrine and then moving to find a way of making that appear to be in harmony with the Scripture instead of some version of Tradition alone.

There is scriptural evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity, you and others just reject it.

Then let's have it. The Bible passage that you've been pinning your hopes on doesn't work.

 

[Soulx3]

Again with the assumptions that are not based upon the Scripture!

Although you want to believe that you know what Mary was thinking at that moment, her actual response to the archangel is what almost any young woman in her situation would have said or thought--"I'm going to have a baby?? But I'm a virgin, so how could that be??"

The "perpetual virgin" notion has nothing to do with it.

The impression you're creating is that you're starting with your denomination's doctrine and then moving to find a way of making that appear to be in harmony with the Scripture instead of some version of Tradition alone.



Then let's have it. The Bible passage that you've been pinning your hopes on doesn't work.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

 

[Albion]

Up until Mary learned She would conceive the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, She thought conception would happen through sexual intercourse with Joseph. If She had any intention, at any time, of having sexual intercourse with him, there would've been no need to respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?," unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

You said that before, but it's still not so.

You insist that "there would've been no need to respond to Gabriel's announcement" as Mary did, but you also stipulate that she said what she did for an unusual reason of your own choosing. What she did say is perfectly normal and logical as it stands.

Your guesswork about what she might have had in the back of her mind, etc. is just that--speculation. And your speculation certainly does not flow naturally from what we read in the Gospel account. For one thing, it plays with the time frame. Mary replied to a stunning revelation by thinking of the near future, which is what anyone in her situation could have done. But you insist that Mary had in mind a very uncommon plan for the rest of her life.

 

[Soulx3]

You insist that "there would've been no need to respond to Gabriel's announcement" as Mary did, but you also stipulate that she said what she did for an unusual reason of your own choosing.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

 

[Albion]

Mary was told She was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, and up until She learned She would conceive Him by the Holy Spirit, She had no reason to think it wouldn't be by man. If She had any intention, at any time, of having sexual intercourse with Joseph, or any man, there would've been no need to respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?," unless She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't hold up.

It is entirely sensible and not at all peculiar for her to have said what she did and not been thinking at the same time of any "perpetual virginity." And that's not to mention the claim of Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, which you included in your scenario.

 

[Soulx3]

You keep saying this, but it doesn't hold up.

You keep saying that, but without showing why. So, if you want to show why, what's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man?

It is entirely sensible and not at all peculiar for her to have said what she did and not been thinking at the same time of any "perpetual virginity." And that's not to mention the claim of Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, which you included in your scenario.

It's not sensible. The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

 

[Albion]

You keep saying that, but without showing why.

Again, it is up to YOU to give us some solid reason for accepting your thesis, considering that it's not indicated by the words of the Scripture.

So far, all you've done is insist that a most unlikely line of thought was part of Mary's response to the archangel, but without you having identified any real evidence in support of that theory.

Since we are not getting anywhere with this discussion, I suggest we move on to something else.

 

[Soulx3]

Again, it is up to YOU to give us some solid reason for accepting your thesis, considering that it's not indicated by the words of the Scripture.

So far, all you've done is insist that a most unlikely line of thought was part of Mary's response to the archangel, but without you having identified any real evidence in support of that theory.

The scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen.

You repeatedly say that my explanation for why Mary asked that question doesn't hold up, but without showing why. If it doesn't hold up, then you should be able to answer the following: What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

 

[Albion]

You repeatedly say that my explanation for why Mary asked that question doesn't hold up, but without showing why.

It's because you haven't produced anything to support your explanation. Nothing other than a scenario that is without any evidence or even probability.

 

[Soulx3]

It's because you haven't produced anything to support your explanation. Nothing other than a scenario that is without any evidence or even probability.

Not only is that false, but also rich, considering you've repeatedly refused to even give your explanation for why Mary asked Gabriel the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She had no reason to think Her conception of the Messiah wouldn't happen through sexual intercourse with a man?" And, that's generously assuming you have one. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who answered it.

 

[Albion]

Not only is that false, but also rich, considering you've repeatedly refused to even give your explanation for why Mary asked Gabriel the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?,

On the contrary, I DID give my explanation. She couldn't immediately appreciate how a non-virgin was going to give birth! That's something almost any young virgin might think immediately if put in the same situation. But then it was resolved right away when the archangel replied as he did.

 

[Soulx3]

On the contrary, I DID give my explanation. She couldn't immediately appreciate how a non-virgin was going to give birth! That's something almost any young virgin might think immediately if put in the same situation.

Once again, when you quoted my question you left part of it out which changes the question, and thus your answer isn't an answer to what I asked. So, try again, and don't leave any part of the following out:

Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?