Ever Virgin

[psalms 91]

..... Bill, most of us are HERE because that site doesn't care about truth (or open discussion).... but, I apologize, I didn't mean my post to be bashing of a site, I used that as an example of the difficulty of the discussion and to contrast with THIS site, which I almost daily find reason to praise. The great majority of regulars here (and I include you in this, Bill) are able to RESPECTFULLY express themselves and discuss with others - without the things we've all experienced elsewhere. Bill, you and I have disagreed several times here but I never felt attacked or disrespected by you (and I hope that's mutual), I never felt that you were working to get me banned or silenced or pushed out. Just disagreed with, sometimes.... which is something I firmly defend.


A side point (so forgive me), but jsut FYI, there are many things where conservative/traditional Lutherans, Anglicans (and often Orthodox) find ourselves on the sidelines of denominational WARS at sites like this. This WAR rages at a lot of interdenominational websites (I don't think it does here - typically) and it does tend to get personal and nasty. SO, Staff (in time) tends to get DRAGGED into this - as mediators, often with the sole goal of preventing folks from leaving rather than with the goal of providing for MEANINGFUL open, honest discussions (truth getting trashed in the process...... institutional preservation becoming the issue)..... or WORSE devolving into "Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood" where truth is replaced with relativism, feel-good-ism and a sort of kindergarten "let's play nice" and "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all" mentality (and then rules to enforce that). VERY sad. And yes, Bill - truth is the victim. Discussion is terminated. And the site dies or becomes one big "kumbyah" camp fire of meaningless nothingism. I've witnessed this at many sites. For Lutherans, much of this WAR is...... unfortunate. Much of this WAR is not as simple as it seems. A wise staffer at the-website-that-shall-not-be-named (Kevin, ksen) told me YEARS ago.... the worse place to be in any war is in the no man's land..... you'll get shot by both sides and defended by neither. I've often seen the wisdom in that observation..... Sorry for the diversion.


Back to the discussion .....




- Josiah




.

Really good post

 

[MoreCoffee]

The gospels only say that she was a virgin and that she gave birth to Jesus.

While the scriptures are silent on the matter of her having sex again, there are several references that point to the idea that she would've had sex with Joseph, her husband, and that she did have other children. Now, again, my church doesn't have a doctrine on this, because it's irrelevant to salvation, so I got the easy part of this discussion.

Your facts that Mary was an ever virgin are not facts, they are opinions, just as mine are. Stop trying to give them more weight just because a pope decreed it. Remember, I don't answer to your pope.

Show us the alleged references that teach that the Blessed Virgin Mary had sex with saint Joseph - it is somewhat shocking how ready some folk are to claim things about the Blessed Virgin Mary without any real evidence or proof to back up their claims.

 

[MoreCoffee]

However it is factual, if the early christians considered her as such or wanted her on a footing with nthe SDaviour dont you think that Paul would have mentioned htat

I know that saint Luke mentions it and the early church fathers record it but you appear to rely on fiction invented more than 1,500 years after the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven.

 

[Josiah]

I know that saint Luke mentions it

No. You can't know that because Luke never mentions Mary being a PERPETUAL virgin..... he in fact says NOTHING about Mary at the moment of her death (or undeath - depending on what Catholic teacher you are docilicly submitting to); good reason: his Gospel Book was likely penned before Mary died (or didn't). Friend, honestly, if you have a verse in Luke that stated Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, you would have quoted it. We all know that. Come on, my friend.....

Yes, EVENTUALLY..... years too late for anyone to get this normally very, very, very private, personal tidbit of marriage bed info from Mary or Joseph..... YES, some CLAIMED (with nothing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to show it as true) that Mary DID or she did NOT have sex after Jesus was born... both speculations were voiced. And yes, you are right my friend, EVENTUALLY - centuries later than Mary could have confirmed or denied such or given her permission to to go on so about this normally very private, personal matter - there came to be a consensus that She remained a virgin. Yup. But that's unrelated to what Scripture says or does not say..... unrelated to early tradition (which was silence)..... even unrelated as to whether it's true. Your apologetic would be accurate if you said, "In the SEVENTH CENTURY, an Ecumenical Council used the TITLE "Ever Virgin." That would be correct, and for many of us - important. The rest of what you are posting is incredibly weak and embarrassingly bad apologetics. No offense intended, my friend, but...... this kind of HORRIBLE, LAUGHABLE apologetics is why a lot of Protestants think so little of Catholicism (you are making matters worse, my friend).


See posts 130, 132, 137 and 154



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Through the centuries following the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Mary ever Virgin is mentioned time and time again because the apostles taught their successors that Blessed Mary remains ever virgin both on Earth while completing her Earthly life course and in Heaven because there she is the Blessed Virgin Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and mother of his body, the Church.

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).​

These words are written by saint Athanasius who fought bravely (and to his own great cost) against the Arian heresy of his time.

 

[Josiah]

No. You can't know that because Luke never mentions Mary being a PERPETUAL virgin..... he in fact says NOTHING about Mary at the moment of her death (or undeath - depending on what Catholic teacher you are docilicly submitting to); good reason: his Gospel Book was likely penned before Mary died (or didn't). Friend, honestly, if you have a verse in Luke that stated Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, you would have quoted it. We all know that. Come on, my friend.....

Yes, EVENTUALLY..... years too late for anyone to get this normally very, very, very private, personal tidbit of marriage bed info from Mary or Joseph..... YES, some CLAIMED (with nothing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to show it as true) that Mary DID or she did NOT have sex after Jesus was born... both speculations were voiced. And yes, you are right my friend, EVENTUALLY - centuries later than Mary could have confirmed or denied such or given her permission to to go on so about this normally very private, personal matter - there came to be a consensus that She remained a virgin. Yup. But that's unrelated to what Scripture says or does not say..... unrelated to early tradition (which was silence)..... even unrelated as to whether it's true. Your apologetic would be accurate if you said, "In the SEVENTH CENTURY, an Ecumenical Council used the TITLE "Ever Virgin." That would be correct, and for many of us - important. The rest of what you are posting is incredibly weak and embarrassingly bad apologetics. No offense intended, my friend, but...... this kind of HORRIBLE, LAUGHABLE apologetics is why a lot of Protestants think so little of Catholicism (you are making matters worse, my friend).



.

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 A.D. 360).

READ posts 130, 132, 137, 154 and 157.


Yes, in the year 360 AD (that's perhaps TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY YEARS after the death/undeath of Mary - perhaps 340 after the death of Joseph), a man - Athanansius - used a TITLE to refer to Mary. With nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing at all to indicate that some view flowing from that title was true.... or how he learned this normally surpremely private, personal bit of bedroom info from Mary (or Joseph). But friend, your quote is NOT from the Gospel of St. Luke as you claimed stated what you claim - to the level claimed. And of course, you only help show that for at least 300 hundred years.... THREE HUNDRED years..... 3 CENTURIES.... there was a Tradition: Silence. Respectful, understandable, biblical SILENCE.

No one denies that CENTURIES after anyone could have received this normally very, very private, personal, intimate tidbit of bedroom info from Mary or Joseph (or permission to spread it)..... this came to be a generally embraced view. Yup. That's not the discussion. The discussion is where is your apologetic that it is TRUE - as a matter of highest importance, certainty and necessity possible? You keep throwing stuff out there - and keep documenting your entirely empty hand. See posts 154 and 157.




- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

I know that saint Luke mentions it and the early church fathers record it but you appear to rely on fiction invented more than 1,500 years after the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven.

Personally I thought that was your thing, Josiah is more versed with the RCC and he also thinks this is a wortk of fiction or perhaps misdirection

 

[psalms 91]

Through the centuries following the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Mary ever Virgin is mentioned time and time again because the apostles taught their successors that Blessed Mary remains ever virgin both on Earth while completing her Earthly life course and in Heaven because there she is the Blessed Virgin Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and mother of his body, the Church.

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).​

These words are written by saint Athanasius who fought bravely (and to his own great cost) against the Arian heresy of his time.

Show me one verse in the bible that states she is a perpetual virgin, and failing that lets lay aside this foolishness

 

[MoreCoffee]

Personally I thought that was your thing, Josiah is more versed with the RCC and he also thinks this is a wortk of fiction or perhaps misdirection

I enjoy the good fortune of not being bound by Josiah's opinions and theology. I prefer the truth presented in and by the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

 

[psalms 91]

I enjoy the good fortune of not being bound by Josiah's opinions and theology. I prefer the truth presented in and by the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Church above the bible, that explains a lot. Again show me one verse that proves this conclusively

 

[MoreCoffee]

Church above the bible, that explains a lot. Again show me one verse that proves this conclusively

The Catholic Church existed before there was a completed bible. It's a fact of history. The holy scriptures themselves testify to it. Your assumption appears to be that accounting the body of Christ as more important than a book means that the book is diminished or disregarded - that is not true even if it pleases some to say it.

 

[psalms 91]

No institution is above or equal to the bible and never will be no matter how much you want it to be. There is absolutely nothing to prove your point therefore it is a non starter. Say it all you want but it is not true. As for the Cathiolic church being in existance before the bible, really? Do you really want to travel that road again, it was shown they were not before and it can be done again

 

[Josiah]

Personally I thought that was your thing, Josiah is more versed with the RCC and he also thinks this is a wortk of fiction or perhaps misdirection

To be fair, Bill, I'm NEUTRAL. Like Scripture, I'm SILENT.

I think BOTH "sides" of this debate are on very, very, very weak ground. I hold to the original tradition: Silence. More than that, I tend to lean toward two additional things: it doesn't matter, it's none of our business.

And more than anything, more than who should or should not "win" this debate, I fear that Mary gets lost in the dust. I'm going to post something I've NEVER posted before (because I never felt the website would permit it)...... I FEAR, in my inmost heart, I fear this whole debate makes Mary weep.... and thus Her Son. I know how my mother, my sister, my wife would feel if all this stuff was being posted - on both sides - about them. It just makes me sad. See post # 157. But it's rarely Protestants who start these threads..... it's NO Protestant denomination that has ANY dogma about this at all .... Again, I know - deep in my heart - NO disrespect is meant by ANY on ANY side of this "no win" debate. But....

I've felt this way since I was maybe 12 or 13 and first saw this debate.... And my feelings on this have gotten me into a LOT of trouble at interdenominational websites (as some here know)...


Sorry.


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No institution is above or equal to the bible and never will be no matter how much you want it to be. There is absolutely nothing to prove your point therefore it is a non starter. Say it all you want but it is not true. As for the Cathiolic church being in existance before the bible, really? Do you really want to travel that road again, it was shown they were not before and it can be done again

Your claim is incorrect. The body of Christ is more than an institution but it is also most certainly also an institution of the faithful in Christ who labour to spread the gospel, do good, help the poor and sick, and most importantly being about the coming of the Kingdom of God in all of its rich fullness. No book can do these things nor was a book ever intended to do them. Christians do not worship a book but the faithful do worship Christ whose body the Church is.

 

[psalms 91]

Your claim is incorrect. The body of Christ is more than an institution but it is also most certainly also an institution of the faithful in Christ who labour to spread the gospel, do good, help the poor and sick, and most importantly being about the coming of the Kingdom of God in all of its rich fullness. No book can do these things nor was a book ever intended to do them. Christians do not worship a book but the faithful do worship Christ whose body the Church is.

Again fallable man is not equal to the infallable bible, never will be. I worship Cjrist, not an institution, not anything else. He is unequaled and stands alone. Anything thta comes against that is definitely not of God

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again fallable man is not equal to the infallable bible, never will be. I worship Cjrist, not an institution, not anything else. He is unequaled and stands alone. Anything thta comes against that is definitely not of God

Jesus Christ was a man and so were all of the prophets and apostles psalmists and chroniclers who wrote the holy scriptures. It is a common error to disregard God speaking in and through men in an effort to elevate a book above the men and their God who gave it. Your post repeats that error. The post needs to be reassessed.

 

[Rens]

Mary is a virgin. I found a proof text. Case closed.

Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me.*2*For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present*you as*a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus Christ was a man and so were all of the prophets and apostles psalmists and chroniclers who wrote the holy scriptures. It is a common error to disregard God speaking in and through men in an effort to elevate a book above the men and their God who gave it. Your post repeats that error. The post needs to be reassessed.

Again.... NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever that documents this normally very, very, very private, personal, intimate tidbit of marriage bed info..... certainly not proving it to be a matter of highest importance, greatest certainty, most necessary possible. Just dodging, evasion, hiding. While accusing others of being wrong - with NOTHING to show your claim is right.


See posts 130, 132, 137, 154, 157, 164, 166. ALL evaded.




.

 

[PezGirl73]

Mary is a virgin. I found a proof text. Case closed.

Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me.*2*For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present*you as*a chaste virgin to Christ.

That's from a letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians and it has nothing to do with Mary. He's referring to Jesus as the bridegroom and the church as the bride. And it has nothing to do with sex.

 

[PezGirl73]

Again.... NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever that documents this normally very, very, very private, personal, intimate tidbit of marriage bed info..... certainly not proving it to be a matter of highest importance, greatest certainty, most necessary possible. Just dodging, evasion, hiding. While accusing others of being wrong - with NOTHING to show your claim is right.


See posts 130, 132, 137, 154, 157, 164, 166. ALL evaded.




.

Well, of course he can't produce an actual scripture. We all know there is none.