This heretical teaching is disproven.

[tango]

Josiah deliberately misquoted me in such a way as to make it appear as though I made a claim without having any scriptural evidence for it. And, you deliberately misquoted a question of mine earlier. The fact that you two have had to resort to that says a lot.

Nobody is misquoting you. You are making a claim backed by precisely nothing while demanding that every single detail from anyone else's post be backed by something that meets an impossible standard.

Then you keep repeating the same question over and over, ignoring answers because they don't meet what you want them to say, while ignoring the likelihood that other texts in Scripture answer the question you keep asking.

No soup for you.

 

[Albion]

While 'tango' did touch on the point, the discussion about Mary having taken a vow of perpetual virginity--or not--misses the fact that the Roman Catholic Church's teaching about Mary as "Ever Virgin" doesn't depend solely on whether or not she ever had sexual relations with a man.

It is based at least in part on the Church's claim that, while she did give birth to Jesus and may have had relations with Joseph thereafter, she retained a BIOLOGICAL virginity forever, including during and after Jesus' birth. There certainly is nothing in Scripture to substantiate that miracle.

 

[Soulx3]

It's already been answered, but the most likely reason, and a very logical one, is that she naturally thought such a blunt, point-blank announcement as this special messenger brought to her concerned something that was to happen soon rather than at some unspecified time years or decades later.

It hasn't already been answered. This is you, for the first time, giving your explanation to the question I asked you without changing what I asked. Regarding your answer, so you're saying the most likely reason Mary asked Gabriel, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" was because Her conceiving the Messiah was to happen soon? Here are the problems with that reason:

I. Gabriel gave no indication of when the conception would occur.

II. Mary knowing or not knowing when She would conceive is irrelevant, because Her question to Gabriel has to do with the idea of conceiving with a man (See III).

III. 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. And again, Her question couldn't have been about when it would happen for two reasons: (I) Gabriel gave no indication of when conception would occur, and (II) She didn't ask, "When will this happen, seeing as I am virgin?"

1. I did not misquote you - deliberately or otherwise.

I said, "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?" You only quoted the part "Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity," deliberately leaving out the rest of the quote where I gave scriptural evidence for why, then said, "You are just INSERTING your ASSUMPTION."

I did not say that's why...

I didn't say that you did. In fact, it was Albion who said the most likely reason Mary asked Gabriel, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" was because Her conceiving the Messiah was to happen soon, and so that's who I quoted and replied to. Way to pay attention.

...She said "I AM a virgin" and "I KNOW not a man." Both in the PRESENT tense, applying to that MOMENT, with no implication about the future. My point is the text states that at that moment, on that day, She was a virgin. A point you just keep evading because your view requires a change in the text, so that She says, "I will always be a virgin" "I will never know a man" "I am a perpetual virgin."

I haven't changed anything. Mary asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" She's not just stating that She's a virgin, but also asking how She will conceive the Messiah with a man, not how it will happen with a man in that moment on that day, because Gabriel gave no indication of when it would occur. 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. And again, Her question couldn't have been about when it would happen for two reasons: (I) Gabriel gave no indication of when conception would occur, and (II) She didn't ask, "When will this happen, seeing as I am virgin?" So, 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?

I never mentioned the word "until."

Again, I didn't say that you did. In fact, it was tango who was referring to Matt. 1:25 and the word "until" in it, so that's who I quoted and replied to. Way to pay attention.

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"

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?

Again, I agree, there is this very new, very rare view of some "Evangelical" type Protestants hold (not dogma anywhere) that Jesus had full biological siblings from Mary...

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).

I never said the belief that Mary had other children is a "very new, very rare belief among some Protestants," so I don't know why you're saying that I did. In fact, the belief that Mary had other children is as old as the Christian (Catholic) Church that Jesus founded, over two-thousand years. Early Christian Church fathers were writing letters calling it "heresy." And, over the past decade to present-day, I've been arguing with Protestants where most claim it's "clearly stated in Scripture" that Jesus's four brothers in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings, so it's a far more common doctrine in Protestantism than you realize. This is why the opening post is so important, because it disproves a common teaching/belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Mary's sons, a heresy not only because it's contrary to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but also because it's an opinion/doctrine contrary to the truth, and to what's generally believed and accepted.

Nobody is misquoting you.

Josiah misquoted me in such a way as to make it appear as though I made a claim without having any scriptural evidence for it. Albion misquoted a question I asked him in such a way that changed it, then claimed to have "answered" what I asked.

Then you keep repeating the same question over and over, ignoring answers because they don't meet what you want them to say...

Albion gave an answer which I replied to, so I'm not ignoring it. You and Josiah haven't given an explanation to the following question yet, so how can I ignore what hasn't been given by you both? So, 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]

It hasn't already been answered. This is you, for the first time, giving your explanation to the question I asked you without changing what I asked.

I know it won't make any difference, but I did indeed answer it earlier.

Regarding your answer, so you're saying the most likely reason Mary asked Gabriel, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" was because Her conceiving the Messiah was to happen soon? Here are the problems with that reason:

I. Gabriel gave no indication of when the conception would occur.

II. Mary knowing or not knowing when She would conceive is irrelevant, because Her question to Gabriel has to do with the idea of conceiving with a man (See III).

III. 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. And again, Her question couldn't have been about when it would happen for two reasons: (I) Gabriel gave no indication of when conception would occur, and (II) She didn't ask, "When will this happen, seeing as I am virgin?"

No, when such a revelation as she received from Garbriel happens, the normal and logical reaction is to think it is imminent or very soon, not years in the future.

If, for instance, you received a phone call from the White House telling you that your husband is going to be arrested, you are verrrry unlikely to conclude that it'll take place way off in the future.

Your scenario, repeated here many times, is possible but not at all probable, yet you've taken your stand on the notion that Mary didn't think this enormously significant, historically unique event that required an angel to present it to her...was a "but there's no hurry" kind of development. .

I said, "Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity....

Which is just your own supposition, nothing more. There's no Scriptural evidence behind it or even a good reason to think that Mary would have done such a thing.

 

[tango]

Albion gave an answer which I replied to, so I'm not ignoring it. You and Josiah haven't given an explanation to the following question yet, so how can I ignore what hasn't been given by you both? So, 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?

If your theory backed from silence is accurate I wonder why Mary didn't think to say something more like "how can this be, since I am pledged to never know a man".

As has been said at least once already, telling a young woman that they will have a child at some point over the course of their life is hardly ground breaking. I don't imagine if an angel appeared to be and told me something improbable would happen that I'd interpret the information to relate to some time way down the line - if an angel is showing up and telling me something my natural assumption would be that it would relate to the fairly immediate future.

The fact remains your entire theory rests on an interpretation of text that requires twisting of tenses and filling a lot of gaps with speculation.

 

[Josiah]

The fact remains your entire theory rests on an interpretation of text that requires twisting of tenses and filling a lot of gaps with speculation.

.... while she ridicules and rebukes some "evangelical" for their theory that requires changing the tenses in the text and imposing their speculations.



.

 

[Josiah]

@Soulx3

On a personal note...

I'm very glad you are here at CH. We all appreciate new voices and views, and personally I lament the lack of active, informed, articulate Catholics. So your being Catholic is especially appreciated.

This topic, that you started, seems to be your sole interest. I hope that's not true and that you'll start other threads on other issues... and jump into other discussions.

Two or 3 have jumped on your apologetic - a bit hard. Don't take it personally! And don't conclude that the disagreement is so much about the Catholic Dogma of PVM, the posts to you have mostly been directed to the apologetic you used, not the doctrine itself and certainly not the Catholic Church. What bothered some here is not your church or your doctrine but the "double standard" the "pot calling kettle black" as you did this all in the context of blasting a few "Evangelicals" for their apologetics.... then copying that apologetic verbatim in your apologetic. Understand: few (if any) here at CH are mean or personal, but they will point out weak or bad or wrong arguments. The only active, long-time Catholic here (MoreCoffee) is consistent in sharing the Catholic position (often very accurately) without any attempt to prove it true using Protestant epistemology or ridiculing Protestant views. That can be helpful. I'm not saying you should do the same, but be aware, your view may be disagreed with (shouldn't shock you) and there's no malice intended in that.... and that blatantly illogical or bad apologetics WILL be pointed out.

Personally, I have no issues with the PVM. I'm actually completely neutral on it. Lutherans generally taught it until very recently (beginning in the 1930's) and many still hold to it today (although as "pious opinion" not dogma). I think the Catholic Churches' defense of it is weak.... I think the "Evangelical" rebuke of it is equally weak. I probably come down close to what Tango said: Scripture is clearly silent here and I'm not sure it matters or is any of our business. Still, if it's true - it's true.

Stay around! Discuss other things. You are among friends.... friends who may not always agree with you (no surprise, most here are Protestants) and will point out bad apologetics (just as you did in the opening post). But you are embraced and welcomed. And your perspective will enrich our community.


Blessings!

- Josiah



@Lamb

.

 

[Lamb]

The Bible Study forum wasn't meant for debates and that's what this thread has progressed into. I'll leave it here for now, but if it keeps up, I'll move it to a more appropriate area where debate is allowed.

 

[Soulx3]

...I did indeed answer it earlier.

Initially, you misquoted my question which changed it, and then you claimed to have "answered" it. After I pointed that out, you finally answered what I asked without changing the question, and that answer is what we're discussing below.

No, when such a revelation as she received from Garbriel happens, the normal and logical reaction is to think it is imminent or very soon, not years in the future.

If, for instance, you received a phone call from the White House telling you that your husband is going to be arrested, you are verrrry unlikely to conclude that it'll take place way off in the future.

Your scenario, repeated here many times, is possible but not at all probable, yet you've taken your stand on the notion that Mary didn't think this enormously significant, historically unique event that required an angel to present it to her...was a "but there's no hurry" kind of development. .

There's a big difference between the time scales of earthly matters and those of heavenly matters. The prophets would not be given a new prophecy from the Lord and expect it to happen in the upcoming days. In other words, there were plenty of prophecies that didn't happen in the prophets lifetime, and may have even taken hundreds of years after the prophets lifetime. And, I never said that Mary's fulfillment of the prophecy would not happen soon. I don't appreciate the misrepresentation. To reiterate what I was saying, Gabriel himself made no mention of a time frame when telling Mary She will conceive the Messiah. Though it did happen soon, and we might all understand that it makes sense for it to have happened soon, that is only because we know the fulfillment of the prophecy itself is not likely to be announced years ahead of time, Mary knew that as well. So, Gabriel neither had to mention time, nor did Mary have to respond to or about a timeline. This is purely about the conception.

Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive 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. This is why Her question was a rhetorical one indicating She had no intention of ever having sexual intercourse.

If your theory backed from silence is accurate I wonder why Mary didn't think to say something more like "how can this be, since I am pledged to never know a man".

There's more than one way to say something.

As has been said at least once already, telling a young woman that they will have a child at some point over the course of their life is hardly ground breaking. I don't imagine if an angel appeared to be and told me something improbable would happen that I'd interpret the information to relate to some time way down the line - if an angel is showing up and telling me something my natural assumption would be that it would relate to the fairly immediate future.

The fact remains your entire theory rests on an interpretation of text that requires twisting of tenses and filling a lot of gaps with speculation.

Refer to my response to Albion above in this post. And, I haven't twisted tenses, nor filled gaps with speculation. In fact, I said that Mary was speaking in the present-tense when She called Herself a virgin, but She also asked a question that wouldn't apply to a virgin who intended to, or thought She would have to have sexual intercourse. And, what gaps have I filled with speculation? Are you referring to me pointing out the fact that Mary's question was asked before She knew Her conception would occur by the Holy Spirit, and thus had no reason at that moment to think it wouldn't be by a man? If so, was that not actually common sense? Or, should She have known She would conceive by God and give the birth to the Messiah Who was God Incarnate? If not, please point out these "gaps filled with speculation."

.... while she ridicules and rebukes some "evangelical" for their theory that requires changing the tenses in the text and imposing their speculations.

I haven't ridiculed, nor rebuked Protestants in this thread. What I have done is say that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and children must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true?

And, I haven't twisted tenses, nor filled gaps with speculation. In fact, I said that Mary was speaking in the present-tense when She called Herself a virgin, but She also asked a question that wouldn't apply to a virgin who intended to, or thought She would have to have sexual intercourse, at any point. And, what gaps have I filled with speculation? Are you referring to me pointing out the fact that Mary's question was asked before She knew Her conception would occur by the Holy Spirit, and thus had no reason at that moment to think it wouldn't be by a man? If so, was that not actually common sense? Or, Should She have known She would conceive by God and give the birth to the Messiah Who was God Incarnate? If not, please point out these "speculations."

Mary asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" She's not just stating that She's a virgin, but also asking how She will conceive with a man, not how it will happen with a man in that moment on that day, or any other specific time, because Gabriel gave no indication of specifically when it would occur. Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive 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. So, 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?

 

[Soulx3]

@Soulx3

On a personal note...

I'm very glad you are here at CH. We all appreciate new voices and views, and personally I lament the lack of active, informed, articulate Catholics. So your being Catholic is especially appreciated.

This topic, that you started, seems to be your sole interest. I hope that's not true and that you'll start other threads on other issues... and jump into other discussions.

Two or 3 have jumped on your apologetic - a bit hard. Don't take it personally! And don't conclude that the disagreement is so much about the Catholic Dogma of PVM, the posts to you have mostly been directed to the apologetic you used, not the doctrine itself and certainly not the Catholic Church. What bothered some here is not your church or your doctrine but the "double standard" the "pot calling kettle black" as you did this all in the context of blasting a few "Evangelicals" for their apologetics.... then copying that apologetic verbatim in your apologetic. Understand: few (if any) here at CH are mean or personal, but they will point out weak or bad or wrong arguments. The only active, long-time Catholic here (MoreCoffee) is consistent in sharing the Catholic position (often very accurately) without any attempt to prove it true using Protestant epistemology or ridiculing Protestant views. That can be helpful. I'm not saying you should do the same, but be aware, your view may be disagreed with (shouldn't shock you) and there's no malice intended in that.... and that blatantly illogical or bad apologetics WILL be pointed out.

Personally, I have no issues with the PVM. I'm actually completely neutral on it. Lutherans generally taught it until very recently (beginning in the 1930's) and many still hold to it today (although as "pious opinion" not dogma). I think the Catholic Churches' defense of it is weak.... I think the "Evangelical" rebuke of it is equally weak. I probably come down close to what Tango said: Scripture is clearly silent here and I'm not sure it matters or is any of our business. Still, if it's true - it's true.

Yes, three non-Catholic members jumped on this thread, but I'm not finding it to be a bit hard to deal with, because I've familiarized myself with the topic and the opposing side's arguments for over a decade. I don't take any automatic resistance to arguments I present personally, but most often see it coming from a general place of anti-Catholic sentiment, and a personal aversion to acknowledging Mary's role in the salvation of mankind beyond being an incubator for the Messiah.

Now, I do take issue with your applying the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" to me for two reasons:

(I) I've given scriptural evidence that I believe supports the arguments I've presented.
(II) I haven't accused others of not giving scriptural evidence that they believe supports the arguments they've presented.

You may not currently agree that the scriptural verses I've provided thus far actually support my arguments, but you can't deny that I've provided Scripture that I believe support my arguments, nor accused you or others in this thread of not doing the same.

Regarding your accusations that I've "ridiculed" and "rebuked" Protestants, it's not a rebuke to point out where I believe a Protestant is wrong. That's just the nature of debate. Nor, am I ridiculing Protestants by pointing out flaws as I see them in their arguments. Perhaps if I were adding ad-hominem attacks against Protestants and making fun of them in ways that have nothing to do with the scriptural topics at hand.

As for the supposed "bad apologetics," either you don't have an accurate read on what my arguments actually are, or you do, but you can't directly counter them, considering how you've deliberately misquoted me, and argued against things I've never actually claimed.

Stay around! Discuss other things. You are among friends.... friends who may not always agree with you (no surprise, most here are Protestants) and will point out bad apologetics (just as you did in the opening post). But you are embraced and welcomed. And your perspective will enrich our community.


Blessings!

Lastly, I just joined this forum last week, and this topic is one I'm passionate about, though not solely interested in. Rest assured, I'll be creating and participating in other threads. Thank you for the kind welcome. Peace be with you.

 

[Albion]

There's a big difference between the time scales of earthly matters and those of heavenly matters.

Basically, a person can float almost any theory using the cover of it being a "heavenly matter."

The prophets would not be given a new prophecy from the Lord and expect it to happen in the upcoming days.

This wasn't about a Mary being a prophet.

Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive 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.

She didn't ask how the conception would happen. Her reply simply showed confusion about how that which the angel announced to her could possibly be, considering that she was a virgin.

This is why Her question was a rhetorical one indicating She had no intention of ever having sexual intercourse.

That would be your theory then, but there is no Scriptural evidence to support it.

 

[Albion]

Yes, three non-Catholic members jumped on this thread, but I'm not finding it to be a bit hard to deal with, because I've familiarized myself with the topic and the opposing side's arguments for over a decade. I don't take any automatic resistance to arguments I present personally, but most often see it coming from a general place of anti-Catholic sentiment, and a personal aversion to acknowledging Mary's role in the salvation of mankind beyond being an incubator for the Messiah.

Now, I do take issue with your applying the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" to me for two reasons

Then perhaps the rest of us should take issue with your use of a term like "non-Catholic."

I don't recall anyone on this thread calling you a "non-Lutheran" or non-Anglican" for promoting what your own denomination has decreed.

 

[Castle Church]

but most often see it coming from a general place of anti-Catholic sentiment, and a personal aversion to acknowledging Mary's role in the salvation of mankind beyond being an incubator for the Messiah.

To be completely honest, there are very few anti-Catholics on this forum and less still that don't hold Mary in high regard. There are several (myself included) lapsed Catholics here that look back on our time in the RCC with great respect for the Church. But there are also several very informed members that will push back with valid arguments, as have been presented here. So it would be a mistake to frame the discussion as coming from any anti-Catholic sentiment.

 

[Soulx3]

Basically, a person can float almost any theory using the cover of it being a "heavenly matter."

I was talking about time scale differences between non-heavenly matters and heavenly matters.

This wasn't about a Mary being a prophet.

I didn't say this is about Mary being a prophet.

Her reply simply showed confusion about how that which the angel announced to her could possibly be, considering that she was a virgin.

Again, Gabriel himself made no mention of a time frame when telling Mary She will conceive the Messiah. Though it did happen soon, and we might all understand that it makes sense for it to have happened soon, that is only because we know the fulfillment of the prophecy itself is not likely to be announced years ahead of time, Mary knew that as well. So, Gabriel neither had to mention time, nor did Mary have to respond to or about a timeline. This is purely about the conception.

Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive 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 with a man. This is why Her question was a rhetorical one indicating She had no intention of ever having sexual intercourse.

Then perhaps the rest of us should take issue with your use of a term like "non-Catholic."

I don't recall anyone on this thread calling you a "non-Lutheran" or non-Anglican" for promoting what your own denomination has decreed.

A "non-Catholic" is someone who isn't a Catholic. So, unless the three members I was referring to are actually Catholics, I don't see what there's to take issue with. And, I'm a Catholic, and thus a non-Lutheran, non-Anglican, non-Methodist, etc. So, I take no offense to any of the latter terms.

 

[Soulx3]

To be completely honest, there are very few anti-Catholics on this forum and less still that don't hold Mary in high regard. There are several (myself included) lapsed Catholics here that look back on our time in the RCC with great respect for the Church. But there are also several very informed members that will push back with valid arguments, as have been presented here. So it would be a mistake to frame the discussion as coming from any anti-Catholic sentiment.

I've been on every Christian forum on the internet. Like the other forums, the majority of the members here are Protestant, and if there's little to no automatic resistance to Catholic arguments from a general place of anti-Catholic sentiment, then it would be the first, in my experience.

As I mentioned, I just joined this forum last week, and in my brief time here I've mainly been participating in this thread thus far. My interactions with you, Josiah, Albion, and tango have been mostly positive. Only here and there have I been misrepresented, and have seen someone argue against things I never claimed.

 

[Josiah]

Now, I do take issue with your applying the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" to me for two reasons:

(I) I've given scriptural evidence that I believe supports the arguments I've presented.
(II) I haven't accused others of not giving scriptural evidence that they believe supports the arguments they've presented.

Not so.

You want those Evangelicals to show that SCRIPTURE states what they do (Jesus had siblings, Mary had sex) while you do not supply Scripture that states, "Jesus had no siblings via Mary" and "Mary was a perpetual virgin." You reject their view since Scripture doesn't state that (unless we impose invisible speculation and/or change the tenses in the verses). While you do EXACTLY the same thing, only worse.

you can't deny that I've provided Scripture

Sure you have. Just none that remotely support your view. Indeed, they make your view extremely unlikely.

You avoid this by imposing your speculation and then imposing it into the text and by suggesting the verb tense She uses is, well, not accurate.




.

 

[Josiah]

To be completely honest, there are very few anti-Catholics on this forum and less still that don't hold Mary in high regard. There are several (myself included) lapsed Catholics here that look back on our time in the RCC with great respect for the Church. But there are also several very informed members that will push back with valid arguments, as have been presented here. So it would be a mistake to frame the discussion as coming from any anti-Catholic sentiment.

The 'push back" has not been really about Mary or the Catholic Church at all. It's been about the (really bad and not really Catholic) apologetic that our full sister in Christ is presenting here. Made worse because the opening post rebukes a few modern "Evangelicals" for doing exactly what she's doing (only she's doing it much worse, and concerning a de fide DOGMA, not just personal opinions).

IF she simply wanted to present the CC dogma here.... IF she simply wanted a discussion about it.... she would very likely find a lot of kindness, a lot of respect and devotion for Mary, and an appreciation that this IS an ancient and wide spread belief of Christians. BUT she'd also find that most (including a lot of Catholics!) would note that it's not really taught in Scripture. Scripture is actually silent on whether Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin and whether those named siblings were via Mary. IMO, that's just being honest. MY Catholic teachers taught us that this view comes from Tradition... Tradition that is possible via Scripture but not specifically taught there. I find that honest. Our sister here rebukes a few Evangelicals by showing their view is NOT specifically taught in Scripture (and she's right about that) while insisting that her position IS taught in Scripture (she's obviously wrong about that).




.




.

 

[Castle Church]

I've been on every Christian forum on the internet. Like the other forums, the majority of the members here are Protestant, and if there's little to no automatic resistance to Catholic arguments from a general place of anti-Catholic sentiment, then it would be the first, in my experience. I

As I mentioned, I just joined this forum last week, and in my brief time here I've mainly been participating in this thread thus far. My interactions with you, Josiah, Albion, and tango have been mostly positive. Only here and there have I been misrepresented, and have seen someone argue against things I never claimed.

Well, this is a pretty small forum, as far as they go, so perhaps this is the first

I don't hold any anti-Catholic sentiment, I do hold views in opposition to some of the teachings of the RCC, but that does not make me or expressing those views as anti-Catholic in a manner as to imply I dislike or hold derision for the RCC or it's teachings - they would only be "anti-Catholic" in as much as they are in opposition to the teachings of the RCC.

I look back on my years in the RCC with great fondness and with immense respect for the men that I knew as priests. I hold no malice for the church or people that are a part of it, it just does not fit my understanding any longer.

 

[Soulx3]

You want those Evangelicals to show that SCRIPTURE states what they do (Jesus had siblings, Mary had sex) while you do not supply Scripture that states, "Jesus had no siblings via Mary" and "Mary was a perpetual virgin." You reject their view since Scripture doesn't state that (unless we impose invisible speculation and/or change the tenses in the verses). While you do EXACTLY the same thing, only worse.

The proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" refers to a situation where someone accuses another of a flaw or fault which the accuser has themselves. It calls out hypocrisy and psychological projection. I haven't accused anyone in this thread of a flaw or fault that I have myself.

What I've done is provide scriptural evidence that I believe shows Jesus's four brothers weren't His half-siblings, and that Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity, as well as speak generally about how anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should provide scriptural evidence they believe shows that.

Now, obviously, those who argue that Mary didn't have sexual intercourse nor other children, and those who argue that Mary did have sexual intercourse and other children, can't both be right. However, people from both sides believe that they are right, which is why, throughout this thread, there are members pointing out flaws as they see them in another's arguments.

That's just the nature of debate.

 

[Josiah]

The proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" refers to a situation where someone accuses another of a flaw or fault which the accuser has themselves. It calls out hypocrisy and psychological projection. I haven't accused anyone in this thread of a flaw or fault that I have myself.

@Soulx3

Because you don't acknowledge it in yourself. Everyone else sees it. It's obvious;.

What I've done is provide scriptural evidence that I believe shows Jesus's four brothers weren't His half-siblings, and that Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity,

1. No. You quoted nothing in Scripture that shows the four brothers were not children of Mary. What you showed is that the TEXT doesn't specifically state whether they are children of Mary or not - I simply doesn't say, either way. The TEXT doesn't support the view of those few modern American "Evangelicals" but equally it doesn't support the official, de fide DOGMA of the RCC either. Same/same.

2. No, you've providing NOTHING from Scripture about Mary ever taking any vow for anything. You are just speculating, theorizing, guessing about something that IF TRUE would give a bit of credence to your view. But you never proved that your guess is true or that it is stated in Scripture. You are speculating. You rebuke those "Evangelcals" for doing that while you do it (only worse).

3. You rebuke a few, modern American "Evangelicals" for their GUESS, their THEORY, their SPECULATION that Mary and Joseph had sex because that's what married couples naturally do (St Paul even seems to command it). Okay. That's their SPECULATION but you (correctly) note the Bible never says that. You GUESS, your THEORIZE, you SPECULATE that Mary made some mysterious vow of perpetual virginity but prove the Bible never says that. You rebuke them for the same thing you do.

4. So.... you note that the Bible doesn't actually state that these 4 men where children of Mary. Right. It also doesn't state they weren't. You rebuke the personal opinion of a few who speculate that Mary and Joseph naturally had sex because the Bible never states that they did. Right. It also never remotely states that they did not have sex. You simply rebuke them for errors you make, the same thing you do.

That's the definition of "pot calling kettle black." And it shows the terrible apologetics that some here have noted. They aren't really rejecting your doctrine (or church) but your apologetics. Yours is no better (indeed worse) than that of those "Evangelicals" you reject.

anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should provide scriptural evidence they believe shows that.

Correct. But you don't do that. You just change the verb tense in the text and impose your speculations into the text.




.