Ever Virgin

[psalms 91]

One poster says "respectful silence" was maintained by the apostles. Apostolic tradition tells us that Blessed Mary is ever virgin.

Show me scripture, show me how that would not violate the marriage vows

 

[MoreCoffee]

Show me scripture, show me how that would not violate the marriage vows

Apostolic Tradition is a super-set which includes all of the holy scriptures and all of the teaching about Blessed Mary ever virgin and more. The faithful are not constrained to believe only what is written in the 73 books of canonical holy scripture.

 

[onlyme]

Show me scripture, show me how that would not violate the marriage vows

1 Cor. 7 speaks of the due benevolence, almost a euphemism, but clearly a duty that is integral to marriage.

 

[Lamb]

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-marys-perpetual-virginity

 

[onlyme]

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-marys-perpetual-virginity

In the case of Joseph and Mary, it says clearly in Matthew 1.18, 'before they came together'.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the case of Joseph and Mary, it says clearly in Matthew 1.18, 'before they came together'.

How does before they came together translate into any affirmation that Blessed Mary is the mother of any child apart from Christ?

 

[onlyme]

It all revolves also around the Lord Jesus as the sole and perfect Substitute (Peter says He died once for all the just for the unjust - 1 Peter 3.18). No one else could be the substitute; but sometimes the idea of the perpetual virginity is used to encroach on this.

But back to Mary, there is no suggestion apart from tradition that Joseph and Mary's betrothal did not take its course as the Angel Gabriel instructed Joseph, when he at wanted to put Mary away.

The other thing is that when on the one hand ppl go to Scripture alone, and on the other, ppl go to Scripture plus tradition, then there is unlikely to be agreement; so it can go round in circles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It all revolves also around the Lord Jesus as the sole and perfect Substitute (Peter says He died once for all the just for the unjust - 1 Peter 3.18). No one else could be the substitute; but sometimes the idea of the perpetual virginity is used to encroach on this.

But back to Mary, there is no suggestion apart from tradition that Joseph and Mary's betrothal did not take its course as the Angel Gabriel instructed Joseph, when he at wanted to put Mary away.

The other thing is that when on the one hand ppl go to Scripture alone, and on the other, ppl go to Scripture plus tradition, then there is unlikely to be agreement; so it can go round in circles.

Believing that Blessed Mary is ever virgin does not encroach on the glorious work of the Lord Jesus Christ in saving his people from their sins.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For those interested here is a short video on the subject under discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVA9uy0mg7E

 

[MoreCoffee]

For those who are willing to watch 53 minutes of lecture/teaching then here is a presentation by a Catholic lay person named Michael Voris (a rather conservative chap both religiously and politically) on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9JNO8nB3VY

 

[psalms 91]

It all revolves also around the Lord Jesus as the sole and perfect Substitute (Peter says He died once for all the just for the unjust - 1 Peter 3.18). No one else could be the substitute; but sometimes the idea of the perpetual virginity is used to encroach on this.

But back to Mary, there is no suggestion apart from tradition that Joseph and Mary's betrothal did not take its course as the Angel Gabriel instructed Joseph, when he at wanted to put Mary away.

The other thing is that when on the one hand ppl go to Scripture alone, and on the other, ppl go to Scripture plus tradition, then there is unlikely to be agreement; so it can go round in circles.

I agree and by accepting one untruth it leads to many others

 

[Pedrito]

I thank MoreCoffee for the information he provided in Post #219 on Page 22:

@Pedrito, Origin is not a Church Father. He is an early Church writer.

However, I deemed it more appropriate to follow the lead of the publications dedicated to presenting the writings of the early church fathers and which number Origen’s writings among them – more appropriate than to adopt classifications developed by the church faction that became politically dominant some time after Origen’s death.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thank MoreCoffee for the information he provided in Post #219 on Page 22:

However, I deemed it more appropriate to follow the lead of the publications dedicated to presenting the writings of the early church fathers and which number Origen’s writings among them – more appropriate than to adopt classifications developed by the church faction that became politically dominant some time after Origen’s death.

To be a Church Father one must be fully orthodox in doctrine (as it was defined at the time in which the Father lived) as well as recognised by the Church as a Father of the Church. Origin has not been recognised as a Father of the Church. So he is an early Church writer.

 

[Pedrito]

Post 181 on Page 19, MoreCoffee stated [emphasis added]:

The passages are in Luke chapter one and in Matthew chapter one and two. What you're seeking is not what the holy scriptures say. You're looking for reasons to deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary is who she is. It suits the theology of denial that's become so prevalent in denominations today to deny Blessed Mary and it is a little step from that denial to the denial of the Virgin Birth and eventually the Resurrection of the Lord. That's the pathway trodden by some who are reviled as "liberal theologians" though many of them have - upon careful reconsideration - reversed their denials and come closer to acknowledging Jesus as born of the Virgin Mary and understanding the meaning of the church's teaching that Mary is ever virgin.

1. Note the twist – "Blessed Mary" – not "the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary". The Bible says Mary was blessed – blessed because she was chosen to be the mother of the promised Messiah. To imply that anyone who points out the unscripturality of the "perpetual virgin" idea is actually denying Mary's God-given blessing, may be seen by some as less than honest.

2. A little step it may be, but only when God’s Holy Revelation takes second or lower place.

The Holy Bible (we can confine ourselves to the unquestioned 66 books if MoreCoffe’s statement that the apocryphal books do not disagree with those 66, is true) – The Holy Bible establishes the truth that is undeniable (truth such as the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection), and dispenses with the extraneous (such as the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary).

And as psalms 91 offered in Post #251 on Page 26:

...by accepting one untruth it leads to many others

Such is the way of extraneous (read post-apostolic) doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

Which Tradition?

That of the Apostles - which is respectful SILENCE?

That of everyone who ever even could have spoken with Mary and thus theoretically at least (but EXTREMELY unlikely) would have been told this supremely private, personal matter of marriage intimacy - which is respectful SILENCE?

That of the Second Century - lost past the time when anyone could have known this tidbit of marriage bed info and permission from Mary to make it public - which is SILENCE?

Or are you talking about the personal speculations that developed in the 4th and 5th century - some speculated that She DID have sex, some individuals speculating that She did NOT have sex?




- Josiah


.

One poster says "respectful silence" was maintained by the apostles. Apostolic tradition tells us that Blessed Mary is ever virgin.

Quote any Apostle even speculating that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. Just verbatim quote Andrew , Bartholomew or Nathanael, James ben Zebedee, James the Lesser, John, Judas, Jude or Thaddeus, Matthew or Levi, Peter or Simon Peter, Philip, Simon the Zealot and/or Thomas. Can't? Can't find even one of them speculating about this normally surpremely private, personal, intimate detail of marital intimacy - thus proving yourself wrong? All you can find is respectful SILENCE - thus proving my point?



See posts 130, 132, 154, 157, 164, 166, 206. All you've evaded.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saint James the apostle says (in the Protoevangelium of James) that Blessed Mary is ever virgin by asserting that Blessed Mary never knew saint Joseph and remained a virgin after the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ [SUP](see Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought By Luigi Gambero, Thomas Buffer)[/SUP]. The canonical gospels also testify to this by observing that Holy Mary is a virgin - the virgin predicted in Isaiah's prophecy which says a virgin shall conceive and give birth thus indicating that the virgin remained a virgin after giving birth.

 

[Josiah]

Quote any Apostle even speculating that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. Just verbatim quote Andrew , Bartholomew or Nathanael, James ben Zebedee, James the Lesser, John, Judas, Jude or Thaddeus, Matthew or Levi, Peter or Simon Peter, Philip, Simon the Zealot and/or Thomas. Can't? Can't find even one of them speculating about this normally surpremely private, personal, intimate detail of marital intimacy - thus proving yourself wrong? All you can find is respectful SILENCE - thus proving my point?



See posts 130, 132, 154, 157, 164, 166, 206. All you've evaded.



- Josiah


.

Saint James the apostle says (in the Protoevangelium of James) that Blessed Mary is ever virgin

WRONG on both counts.


NO ONE - not even your individual denomination - believes that either James wrote that REJECTED, NONCANONICAL, NONINSPIRED, FALSE book. And as you yourself earlier proved, that false rejected book NOWHERE states that Mary was a perpetual virgin.


So, you can't find one Apostle ever even remotely speculating about this normally supremely private, personal matter of martial intimacy - proving yourself wrong.


You speak of "Tradition" since you've had to abandon your point that LUKE states so. But what Tradition?Which Tradition? That of the Apostles - which is respectful SILENCE? That of everyone who ever even could have spoken with Mary and thus theoretically at least (but EXTREMELY unlikely) would have been told this supremely private, personal matter of marriage intimacy - which is respectful SILENCE? That of the Second Century - lost past the time when anyone could have known this tidbit of marriage bed info and permission from Mary to make it public - which is SILENCE? Or are you talking about the personal speculations that developed in the 4th and 5th century - some speculated that She DID have sex, some individuals speculating that She did NOT have sex, none having ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to remotely indicate their personal speculations were true or that they had permission from Mary to spread it around?



See posts 130, 132, 154, 157, 164, 166, 206. All you've evaded.



- Josiah




.

 

[PezGirl73]

Why are some so keen to say Blessed Mary has many children?

I haven't seen anyone "keen" on her having many children.

Because holy tradition does give the answer. Blessed Mary is ever virgin.

Why do you think holy tradition is so keen on her being an ever virgin?

How does before they came together translate into any affirmation that Blessed Mary is the mother of any child apart from Christ?

It doesn't. It means, though, that she and her husband did have sex as far as I'm concerned. And good for them, I say!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I haven't seen anyone "keen" on her having many children.

Then why is the evidence presented in arguments against Blessed Mary being ever virgin a set of claims that this verse or that means Blessed Mary had intercourse with saint Joseph and had numerous children by him.

Why do you think holy tradition is so keen on her being an ever virgin?

Holy tradition preserves apostolic teaching (in word and deed) so when the apostles teach that Blessed Mary is ever virgin it is worthy of belief.

It doesn't. It means, though, that she and her husband did have sex as far as I'm concerned. And good for them, I say!

It is interesting that you started by asserting that no one was "keen" on Blessed Mary having many children and here you are asserting that Blessed Mary had sexual intercourse with saint Joseph even after you previously said speculation is the only evidence for such a claim.

 

[psalms 91]

Then why is the evidence presented in arguments against Blessed Mary being ever virgin a set of claims that this verse or that means Blessed Mary had intercourse with saint Joseph and had numerous children by him.



Holy tradition preserves apostolic teaching (in word and deed) so when the apostles teach that Blessed Mary is ever virgin it is worthy of belief.



It is interesting that you started by asserting that no one was "keen" on Blessed Mary having many children and here you are asserting that Blessed Mary had sexual intercourse with saint Joseph even after you previously said speculation is the only evidence for such a claim.

Hey whats good for one is also good for another. Evidence none either way so either accept that ort we can keep going with supposition