This heretical teaching is disproven.

[Soulx3]

Now suddenly the OP has introduced something from outside of Scripture that allegedly supports their case, but it remains unclear why it's so important whether or not Mary ever had sex.

The four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life, which means there's true details about them that isn't going to be found in Scripture, but rather elsewhere. Are you going to automatically assume that details about them found elsewhere are false? I hope not, just as you shouldn't automatically assume they are true, but the fact remains that there are true details, and they aren't going to be found in Scripture.

And, who I introduced "outside of Scripture" in post #115 is a woman who was Jesus's spokesperson in modern times. Jesus Himself explains why Mary needed to be and was so Holy, Pure, and Perfect in Body and Spirit as to be Second only to God. This knowledge is a gift from God.

Modern thinking aside, how can a man produce an heir if his wife is pledged to remain forever celibate?

I answered this in post #115. The High Priest of the Temple appointed Joseph to be Mary's Spouse, and She told Joseph of Her vow to remain chaste for God, and Joseph, who was a Nazirite (Num. 6), decided to remain chaste for God within their marriage as well.

 

[Josiah]

"The pot calling the kettle black”​

The core meaning of this proverbial saying refers to someone calling out a flaw or fault of someone else that they possess themselves.


According to the definition, if I accused or criticized someone for a fault or flaw that I have myself, then I would be guilty of being the pot calling the kettle black

@Soulx3

And you do that, from the opening post and following. Many have pointed this out to you, you just evade it.

You rebuke a few, modern, American "Evangelicals" for ignoring the actual words of the text - while you do the very same thing (only worse).
You rebuke a few, modern, American "Evangelicals" for imposing their speculation - while you do the very same thing (only worse)

Their apologetic depends on ignoring the actual words of the text and changing it to ("by Mary") words not in the text. You rebuke that, you call this a flaw in their apologetic. Your apologetic depends on changing the verb tense from the present tense (consisting the tense used, not future or perfect) and substituting the word "brother" and "sister" with "cousins." Same/same.

Their apologetic depends on inserting their speculation that Mary and Joseph as a married couple would naturally have sex. And that "brothers" and "sisters" are by Mary. You rebuke that, you indicate it's a flaw in their apologetic. Your apologetic depends on imposing your speculation about some mysterious vow you believe she made. Same/same.

You do what you rebuke. Only worse, much worse. And not with an informal, personal opinion (dogma nowhere) as in the case of those evangelicals, but formal, official, de fide DOGMA.




.

 

[Josiah]

the OP has been arguing that the belief that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin is some kind of heresy, and basing it on nothing more than speculation and tense-twisting.

Yup.

She considers it heresy for one to hold a personal opinion (dogma nowhere) when it's based on speculation and tense-twisting. Then she supports her view as infallible, de fide DOGMA when it's based on nothing more than speculation and tense-twisting.


COULD She have been a perpetual virgin? Sure, nothing in Scripture indicates that's wrong, but also nothing in Scripture states that's right. Thus, Lutherans and Anglicans (and some others) indicate this is a valid personal opinion but far from dogma... and it's denial is welcomed, too.

COULD the named brothers of Jesus and unnamed sisters actually been half-siblings or even cousins or even just good friends or neighbors? Sure, the Greek words here certainly allow for all those views (and more). Then again, they equally may be interpreted as full siblings via Mary. Both are equally possible according to the actual words of the text.

COULD be true does no equal IS true.


Blessings


.

 

[Soulx3]

And you do that, from the opening post and following. Many have pointed this out to you, you just evade it.

"The pot calling the kettle black”​

The core meaning of this proverbial saying refers to someone calling out a flaw or fault of someone else that they possess themselves. It is rooted in the hypocrisy and irony of the accusation or criticism, as this reflects a characteristic of the accuser themselves.

According to the definition, if I accused or criticized someone for a fault or flaw (characteristic) that I have myself, then I would be guilty of being the pot calling the kettle black. For example, if I accused or criticized someone of being lazy while being lazy myself, then I would be the pot calling the kettle black. This proverb/idiom has to do with a person accusing or criticizing another of a personal characteristic that they themselves have. I haven't done that in this thread, and thus this doesn't apply to me.

Their apologetic depends on ignoring the actual words of the text and changing it to ("by Mary") words not in the text. You rebuke that, you call this a flaw in their apologetic. Your apologetic depends on changing the verb tense from the present tense (consisting the tense used, not future or perfect) and substituting the word "brother" and "sister" with "cousins." Same/same.

Again, I never said that Mary wasn't speaking in the present tense when She stated She's a virgin. How do you tell someone what your current state/condition is without using the present-tense?

Again, I never said that Mary's statement She's a virgin is the sole proof that She had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.

Again, I never substituted the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός''(adelphoi/brothers) with the word "cousins." Again, in the opening post, I said (I) the context of Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 indicates that the definition "a kinsmen, or relative" of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός applies to Jesus's four brothers, and (II) it's the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies that collectively prove Jesus's four brothers (kinsmen/relatives) were the sons of Joseph's brother and his wife, and thus His cousins.

Their apologetic depends on inserting their speculation that Mary and Joseph as a married couple would naturally have sex. And that "brothers" and "sisters" are by Mary. You rebuke that, you indicate it's a flaw in their apologetic. Your apologetic depends on imposing your speculation about some mysterious vow you believe she made. Same/same.

I've given scriptural evidence that I believe indicates Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, just as others in this thread have given scriptural evidence that they believe indicates Mary had sexual intercourse. These beliefs can't both be right and that's why we're pointing out what we currently believe to be flaws in each other's arguments. Recently, I also provided evidence given by Jesus Himself in modern times that directly confirms and describes the following: Mary's Immaculate Conception, Mary's perpetual vow of virginity, Joseph's accepting the Virgin as his wife, Joseph's vow of virginity, the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the Annunciation. Refer back to post #115.

 

[Lamb]

Precisely! God made sure the ark that would carry His written Word be made with the best and purest materials, why would He put less Thought and care into the ark that would carry His Word made flesh: Himself: the Most Pure, Holy, and Perfect One, by Incarnating Himself in an impure woman? God, the Most Pure, Holy and Perfect One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second only to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him. Would God not also want a Spouse and Father of Holiness and Purity for such a Woman as Mary and Her Son (God Incarnate), rather than an average impure male? Could God not bring two holy and pure people together in order to be each other's Spouses and the parents of God Incarnate?

According to Jesus's spokesperson, Maria Valtorta, God Ab Aeterno Thought of creating the soul that was to be the soul of the Mother of God. He preserved Mary's soul from becoming subject to the law of the first parents (inheriting the original sin of disobedience), thus remaining an immaculate soul capable of possessing the fullness of His Grace, and then infused it into the embryo at the moment of Her conception. These factors, coupled with Mary being conceived by and born of two Just human parents, having a natural good will, and vowing to remain a life-long Virgin for God, resulted in Her being so Pure in Body and Spirit as to be Second only to God, and thus a worthy dwelling place for God Incarnate, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the most Pure, Holy and Perfect One to take form in and have as His Mother, and a Mother for all mankind. Therefore, Mary saying "God My Savior' (Lk. 1:47) is true, because He did save Her, before She was even conceived.

I don't believe that Mary was sinless, and it sounds like your post was leading in that direction.

 

[Soulx3]

I don't believe that Mary was sinless...

That may be, but what you said was correct. Way to use your God-given reason! If you take what you said a bit further, would Mary not have had to be not only be so pure in body, but in spirit as well, and thus be without sin, so as to be Second only to God, in order to be a heaven on Earth for God, Who came down from Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and Who is Pure and without sin Himself?

 

[Josiah]

@Lamb

Sometimes Catholic DOGMA is made by The Catholic Church asking a question of it itself, then it itself speculating and eventually coming up with an answer to itself for the question it asked it - then declaring that official, formal, de fide DOGMA. IMO, this is a very bad way to do theology.

Recently, I also provided evidence given by Jesus Himself in modern times that directly confirms and describes the following: Mary's Immaculate Conception, Mary's perpetual vow of virginity, Joseph's accepting the Virgin as his wife, Joseph's vow of virginity, the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the Annunciation. Refer back to post #115.

It's good and right for me to dismiss all this stuff from this "person." IF I accept that this lady is an infallible, authoritative, spokesperson of Divine Revelation from God ( a Prophet in that sense), that her words are authoritative and normative for doctrine, then I'd have to do the same for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, and probably also Muhammad and Buddha. As an orthodox Christian, I tend to accept that revelation of that nature ceased long, long ago. So no, I'm not going to consider that material you present ... or engage in any conversation of it. And, as a former Catholic myself, I find your doing so is not Catholic, The Church has always been VERY, VERY reluctant to embrace such as direct revelations of doctrine - it embraces the faith and piety of such people and perhaps praise if ALL THEY ARE DOING is restating Catholic Dogma (adding nothing to it) but they are not authoritative, not normative, and cannot be used apologetically as you are want to do.




.

 

[Soulx3]

.

 

[Soulx3]

Sometimes Catholic DOGMA is made by The Catholic Church asking a question of it itself, then it itself speculating and eventually coming up with an answer to itself for the question it asked it - then declaring that official, formal, de fide DOGMA. IMO, this is a very bad way to do theology.

It's unfortunate how uninformed, or misinformed, many Christians, even ex-Catholics, are, especially in the United States, about Catholicism. However, it's not as though that can't be remedied.

It's good and right for me to dismiss all this stuff from this "person." IF I accept that this lady is an infallible, authoritative, spokesperson of Divine Revelation from God ( a Prophet in that sense), that her words are authoritative and normative for doctrine, then I'd have to do the same for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, and probably also Muhammad and Buddha.

Why on God's green Earth do you think accepting that Maria Valtorta was Jesus's spokesperson would mean you'd have to do the same for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, Muhammad, and Buddha??

As an Orthodox Christian, I tend to accept that revelation of that nature ceased long, long ago.

Why is that?

And, as a formal Catholic myself, I find your doing so is not Catholic, The Church has always been VERY, VERY reluctant to embrace such as direct revelations of doctrine - it embraces the faith and piety of such people and perhaps praise if ALL THEY ARE DOING is restating Catholic Dogma (adding nothing to it) but they are not authoritative, not normative, and cannot be used apologetically as you are want to do.

I can provide information regarding the Catholic Church and Maria Valtorta. Interested in reading it?

 

[Josiah]

It's unfortunate how uninformed, or misinformed, many Christians are in the United States about Catholicism. However, it's not as though they can't be remedied.

You are certainly reinforcing that "misunderstanding" here. Your apologetic is based on a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of questions, imposing a LOT of speculations and theories you have (and I mean a LOT of them, often not very credible speculations), then you "connecting the dots" of your own creation. And then using who YOU claim are somehow modern-day Authoritative Prophets as norms for your views. Frankly, most "Christians in the United States" are going to see this identical to what we see in the LDS, the JW, etc. I think you may well be severely hurting your case, shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak.

As former Catholic myself, I know that what you are doing here is by no means Catholic, it does not reveal Catholic epistemology and apologetics. Indeed, those "many uniformed Christians in the United States" would likely read what you've posted (especially 115 and follow) and immediately think of the LDS or JW's... NOT because the RCC is anything like them BUT because you mimic them in your apologetics and epistemology. Unfortunate, because while I think Catholic epistemology is quite flawed (it's one of the reasons I left that church) it's NOWHERE as bad as what you are doing as a Catholic.



.

 

[Soulx3]

You are certainly reinforcing that "misunderstanding" here. Your apologetic is based on a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of questions, imposing a LOT of speculations and theories you have (and I mean a LOT of them, often not very credible speculations), then you "connecting the dots" of your own creation. And then using who YOU claim are somehow modern-day Authoritative Prophets as norms for your views. Frankly, most "Christians in the United States" are going to see this identical to what we see in the LDS, the JW, etc. I think you may well be severely hurting your case, shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak.

As former Catholic myself, I know that what you are doing here is by no means Catholic, it does not reveal Catholic epistemology and apologetics. Indeed, those "many uniformed Christians in the United States" would likely read what you've posted (especially 115 and follow) and immediately think of the LDS or JW's... NOT because the RCC is anything like them BUT because you mimic them in your apologetics and epistemology. Unfortunate, because while I think Catholic epistemology is quite flawed (it's one of the reasons I left that church) it's NOWHERE as bad as what you are doing as a Catholic.

That's funny, considering I've lost count of how many times I said to you, 'I never said or did that...," so a lot of what you've been arguing against are things I never said or did.

As former Catholic myself, I know...

Saying that you're a former Catholic and therefore know this or that to be true doesn't automatically mean that it is. There are plenty of Catholics who say they know this or that is true and it actually isn't.

 

[Albion]

That may be, but what you said was correct. Way to use your God-given reason! If you take what you said a bit further, would Mary not have had to be not only pure in body, but pure in spirit as well by being without sin, in order to be a heaven on Earth for God, Who came down from Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and Who is Pure and without sin Himself?

No.

For God to be willing to become one of us humans except for knowing sin himself, he had already addressed that concern of yours.

You said "If you take what you said a bit further...," but there's nothing that calls for us to take the matter further and speculate as you did.

 

[Soulx3]

No.

For God to be willing to become one of us humans except for knowing sin himself, he had already addressed that concern of yours.

So, you think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, Who is without sin, chose to leave Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and chose to Incarnate Himself in a woman not so pure in body and spirit as to be Second only to Him, when He could have done so? Why would He do that knowing His characteristics and being from Heaven?

And, do you think then that humans can be impure and sinful while dwelling in Heaven with God?

 

[Albion]

So, you think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, Who is without sin, chose to leave Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and chose to Incarnate Himself in a woman not so pure in body and spirit as to be Second only to Him, when He could have done so?

Yes. And that is a standard view of Christians, that God so loved the world, despite our fallen nature, that he deigned to lower himself by becoming one of his creatures, be falsely charged and arrested, and then give himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Had he instead done something like you are outlining, he could just have willed our redemption, and it would have been done.

As for why he would be incarnated and crucified, etc., it was done in order to accomplish that which had been previously been revealed to the Hebrews as the moral code which they were expected to adhere to but, unfortunately, were not able to do.

Consequently, men then and now are made aware of the price God paid on our behalf, how it was done, then witness his glorious ascension and, additionally, realize how it is that we, believing in him as our savior, are to live our own lives now. None of that would follow if all that God had to do was make some heavenly decision apart from us.

And, do you think then that humans can be impure and sinful while dwelling in Heaven with God?

No.

 

[Albion]

The four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life, which means there's true details about them that isn't going to be found in Scripture, but rather elsewhere.

Not so.

We are aware that not everything we might want to know about heaven and hell, eternity, and so on is covered somewhere in Holy Scripture. We are given what God intended for us to have in this life in order to accomplish his objectives. The rest will be made known to the believer in the next life.

Are you going to automatically assume that details about them found elsewhere are false?

No, but neither am I going to believe details announced by every cultist, self-appointed prophet, swami, and/or overly imaginative person who gives forth with something new. It's all supposed to be from God, of course, whether it's the Book of Mormon or Swedenborg's writings, or less famous people who claim to have spoken directly to God or found lost testaments that supposedly complete gaps left by the Bible.

I hope not, just as you shouldn't automatically assume they are true, but the fact remains that there are true details, and they aren't going to be found in Scripture.

That's not a fact. It's just your choice to believe it so.

 

[Lamb]

That may be, but what you said was correct. Way to use your God-given reason! If you take what you said a bit further, would Mary not have had to be not only be so pure in body, but in spirit as well, and thus be without sin, so as to be Second only to God, in order to be a heaven on Earth for God, Who came down from Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and Who is Pure and without sin Himself?

Well, we eat His body and drink His blood in Holy Communion and yet we still have sin.

 

[Soulx3]

Yes. And that is a standard view of Christians, that God so loved the world, despite our fallen nature, that he deigned to lower himself by becoming one of his creatures, be falsely charged and arrested, and then give himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Had he instead done something like you are outlining, he could just have willed our redemption, and it would have been done.

As for why he would be incarnated and crucified, etc., it was done in order to accomplish that which had been previously been revealed to the Hebrews as the moral code which they were expected to adhere to but, unfortunately, were not able to do.

Consequently, men then and now are made aware of the price God paid on our behalf, how it was done, then witness his glorious ascension and, additionally, realize how it is that we, believing in him as our savior, are to live our own lives now. None of that would follow if all that God had to do was make some heavenly decision apart from us.

I thought you understood what I asked, but this reply tells me you actually didn't.

No.

So, you don't think humans can be impure and sinful while dwelling in Heaven with God, yet you think it makes sense for God Himself, the Most Pure and Holy One, to choose to Incarnate Himself within a human woman who is impure and sinful?

Not so.

The four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life, which means there's true details about them that isn't going to be found in Scripture. How is that "not so?"

Does God Himself not know every detail about the lives of Joseph and Mary, and can reveal details about them not found in Scripture to whomever whenever He chooses?

No, but neither am I going to believe details announced by every cultist, self-appointed prophet, swami, and/or overly imaginative person who gives forth with something new. It's all supposed to be from God, of course, whether it's the Book of Mormon or Swedenborg's writings, or less famous people who claim to have spoken directly to God or found lost testaments that supposedly complete gaps left by the Bible.

As I said, you shouldn't automatically disbelieve or believe. That's where discernment comes in, because there are falsehoods and truths. And, if you were to recognize that Maria Valtorta was a spokesperson of Jesus, it doesn't mean you have to say every person who claims to be is. You discern each case. I doubt you've heard of Maria Valtorta before I brought her up, and since then up until now I doubt you've looked into her yet, but you should before you form an opinion about her.

 

[Soulx3]

Well, we eat His body and drink His blood in Holy Communion and yet we still have sin.

Indeed, and Jesus talked to Maria Valtorta about that. I believe He told her its more humiliating than dying on the cross, etc., but He's not saying that we shouldn't. I'll find the quote and show it to you. And, that's just it, Jesus had to touch men, and be touched in return, and all the while He was being contaminated by our impurity and sin, but He endured it out of love for us, and sill does in the Eucharist.

Regarding Mary, Her womb was the first world within a world that He entered. And, before She was even conceived, He Thought of creating Her soul, the soul to be the Mother of God. He preserved it from inheriting the stain of original sin (disobedience), thus remaining an immaculate soul capable of possessing the fullness of His Grace, and then infused it into the embryo at the moment of Her conception. These factors, coupled with Mary being conceived by and born of two Just human parents, having a natural good will, and vowing to remain a life-long Virgin for God, resulted in Her being so Pure in Body and Spirit as to be Second only to God, and thus a worthy dwelling place for God Incarnate, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the most Pure, Holy and Perfect One to take form in and have as His Mother, and a Mother for all mankind. Therefore, Mary saying "God My Savior' (Lk. 1:47) is true, because He did save Her, before She was even conceived.

 

[Albion]

So, you don't think humans can be impure and sinful while dwelling in Heaven with God, yet you think it makes sense for God Himself, the Most Pure and Holy One, to choose to Incarnate Himself within a human woman who is impure and sinful?

Yes. This world and this life are not identical to the ones to come after physical death. I should have thought that it wouldn't be necessary to point that out.

The four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life, which means there's true details about them that isn't going to be found in Scripture. How is that "not so?"

It's so, just as I said. The point, however, is that there is no reason to suppose that Scripture is defective simply because we have questions that the Bible doesn't answer. At the same time, it doesn't mean that we are at liberty to add to God's word in order to make revelation be something other than what God intended.

Does God Himself not know every detail about the lives of Joseph and Mary

He does.

Indeed, and Jesus talked to Maria Valtorta about that. I believe He told her its more humiliating than dying on the cross, etc., but He's not saying that we shouldn't. I'll find the quote and show it to you.

No thanks.

You probably could start a different thread on one of the other forums here if you want to pursue the Maria Valtorta question, though.

 

[tango]

So, you think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, Who is without sin, chose to leave Heaven, a place without impurity and sin, and chose to Incarnate Himself in a woman not so pure in body and spirit as to be Second only to Him, when He could have done so? Why would He do that knowing His characteristics and being from Heaven?

And, do you think then that humans can be impure and sinful while dwelling in Heaven with God?

Presumably your reasoning would require that once Jesus left that womb of the utterly sinless woman he entered into a world that was also utterly without impurity and sin? In which case there was no need for him to come at all.