Ever Virgin

[MoreCoffee]

Because you are pushing a faulty fact as actual fact, it promotes flsehood

But if the sixty six books in your bible say nothing on the matter then teaching that Blessed Mary is ever virgin is not provable falsehood and your testimony is no more than opinion being pushed as if it were fact. Take out that old dusty mirror and take a look at what is in it.

 

[psalms 91]

except I did not start a thread promoting it and I didnt claim it as fact, you did

 

[MoreCoffee]

except I did not start a thread promoting it and I didnt claim it as fact, you did

I didn't start this thread

 

[Josiah]

But if the sixty six books in your bible say nothing on the matter then teaching that Blessed Mary is ever virgin is not provable falsehood and your testimony is no more than opinion being pushed as if it were fact. Take out that old dusty mirror and take a look at what is in it.

But obviously, as you so persistently prove, there is ALSO nothing in the books of the unique, modern RC Bible that states Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.... nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever. And nothing from Mary. Or Joseph. Or Jesus. Or any of the Apostles. Or anyone who ever even so much as theoretically COULD have met Mary (the only one who would know this supremely private, personal, intimate marital information and the only one who could give permission to make it so very public - nothing, nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, absolutely nothing. So you have nothing that says some other personal speculation about such marital intimacies is false or fact. Take out that old dusty mirror and take a look at what it is. . Late, BASELESS, irrelevant, baseless speculation about a matter you'd consider supremely RUDE, disgusting and offensive if made about your mother or wife or sister.... perhaps nothing more than profoundly rude gossip - turned into de fide DOGMA by your denomination - a matter if highest importance and necessity possible. With NOTHING, nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, absolutely nothing to show it's true. Even more disturbing, without any concern or interest in whether it's true or not - perhaps indicating truth is irrelevant in the singular case of Mary, gossip is permissible in the singular case of Mary, you just don't care if it's true or not since this is just about Mary (not someone significant)..... all raised to the very, very highest level of importance possible in RCC theology: DE FIDE DOGMA. Look in that old dusty mirror and take a honest look at what is in it.



I'm back.



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

Hey Josiah! It got boring here without you lol.

 

[Josiah]

:smile:


I had a sort of business trip..... Glad to be back.

 

[psalms 91]

But obviously, as you so persistently prove, there is ALSO nothing in the books of the unique, modern RC Bible that states Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.... nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever. And nothing from Mary. Or Joseph. Or Jesus. Or any of the Apostles. Or anyone who ever even so much as theoretically COULD have met Mary (the only one who would know this supremely private, personal, intimate marital information and the only one who could give permission to make it so very public - nothing, nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, absolutely nothing. So you have nothing that says some other personal speculation about such marital intimacies is false or fact. Take out that old dusty mirror and take a look at what it is. . Late, BASELESS, irrelevant, baseless speculation about a matter you'd consider supremely RUDE, disgusting and offensive if made about your mother or wife or sister.... perhaps nothing more than profoundly rude gossip - turned into de fide DOGMA by your denomination - a matter if highest importance and necessity possible. With NOTHING, nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, absolutely nothing to show it's true. Even more disturbing, without any concern or interest in whether it's true or not - perhaps indicating truth is irrelevant in the singular case of Mary, gossip is permissible in the singular case of Mary, you just don't care if it's true or not since this is just about Mary (not someone significant)..... all raised to the very, very highest level of importance possible in RCC theology: DE FIDE DOGMA. Look in that old dusty mirror and take a honest look at what is in it.



I'm back.



- Josiah

Glad to see you Josiah and you are right, it is just shameless promotion such as we have constantly had

 

[Rens]

Come on kids, lets not fight over Mary.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's a secret book that says it all

 

[Josiah]

IMHO.....


We should love and respect Mary - for her great faith and for her role as the mother of our Lord. IMO, that (in and of itself) suggests to ME that we should not proclaim as dogmatic, uber-essential, important, necessary fact what is not shown to be true; in other words, truth should matter BECAUSE we love and esteem Mary AND because gossip is a violation of The Big Ten and generally bad policy (and of course, unloving and disrespectful). It amazes me and greatly disturbs me how some seem to be completely unconcerned as to whether what they shout about her is true or not, much less appropriate, much less documented to the level claimed (a matter of greatest importance and necessity possible). I know this is a very, very controversial stance (it has gotten me in GREAT trouble at a couple of websites..... indeed, I'm here in part because one website - one most of us were once VERY active act - issued me a ban of sorts because of this view). I just believe that truth SHOULD matter - even when we are shouting about Mary (no less than any other person; probably MORE than any other person!).... and especially when the issue is something ALL agree is normally a supremely private, intimate, personal issue that is RUDE to discuss in public (especially without CLEAR permission from the people involved)..... LOVE and RESPECT suggest that to ME (although I seem completely alone in that feeling).


Frankly, I don't KNOW whether Our Lady did or did not have private, intimate, marital relations after Jesus was born. God chose not to tell us that normally very, very private matter in His Scriptures to us..... it seems Mary chose not to tell us, Joseph chose not to tell us, Jesus chose not to tell us, all the Apostles chose not to tell us, no one who even could have met Mary chose to tell us - even if any of them know (except Mary, obviously). Maybe we don't NEED to know????????? Maybe it's NOT a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity of affirming possible as one denomination claims that it is?????????


I AM aware historically that the earliest Tradition was silence. Respectful, understandable, biblical, Apostolic silence. I AM aware, historically, that some men who had NO WAY TO KNOW this typically very, very private, personal matter eventually came to speculate on this matter. None of them seem to indicate why it mattered or seemed to care if it was true - but a few did speculate. Some that She did have sex.... some that she did not. This - for a FEW - came to replace the biblical, apostolic, original Tradition of respectful silence. And I AM aware that centuries after anyone could have gotten this bedroom tidbit from Mary and permission to make it public, there can to be a consensus that She did not ever have sex, although none of them seemed to care if that actually was true or why it mattered, but it did become the common speculation. Centuries later still, the TITLE "ever virgin" was used at an ecumenical council (around 7 centuries later) although the doctrine itself was never proclaimed or the status thereof - just a TITLE was used. Again, with no definition or with no indication of the status of this ("MOST important POSSIBLE" "MOST necessary to affirm possible") and with no indication (or concern) as to whether this actually was true or not.


I have NEVER (not once) indicated the speculation if false. Or true. My position is: I DON'T KNOW. I don't condemn ANY position - only that positions should be defending to the level claimed in a way that is suggested for others (a level playing field). For this stance, I have been flamed, berated, condemned, accused of hatred for Mary, accused of being "Anti-Catholic", accused of being "hateful," even banned by websites. I can't tell you the HORRIBLE private messages I've gotten over the years from Catholics (and one Orthodox) person for my stance.


And I have stated that ..... ONE of my deep concerns...... BECAUSE I love Mary..... is that Her heart breaks over this obsession some seem to have over something we all agree is supremely private and personal. This is the only website where I have stated that because I'm sure I would be permanently banned from any other if I posted that.



I'm back



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

IMHO.....


We should love and respect Mary - for her great faith and for her role as the mother of our Lord. IMO, that (in and of itself) suggests to ME that we should not proclaim as dogmatic, uber-essential, important, necessary fact what is not shown to be true; in other words, truth should matter BECAUSE we love and esteem Mary AND because gossip is a violation of The Big Ten and generally bad policy (and of course, unloving and disrespectful).


It amazes me and greatly disturbs me how some seem to be completely unconcerned as to whether what they shout about her is true or not, much less appropriate, much less documented to the level claimed (a matter of greatest importance and necessity possible). I know mine is a very, very controversial stance (it has gotten me in GREAT trouble at a couple of websites..... indeed, I'm here in part because one website - one most of us were once VERY active act - issued me a ban of sorts because of this view). I just believe that truth SHOULD matter - even when we are shouting about Mary (no less than any other person; probably MORE than any other person!).... and especially when the issue is something ALL agree is normally a supremely private, intimate, personal issue that is RUDE to discuss in public (especially without CLEAR permission from the people involved)..... LOVE and RESPECT suggest that to ME (although I seem completely alone in that feeling).



Frankly, I don't KNOW whether Our Lady did or did not have private, intimate, loving marital relations after Jesus was born. God chose not to tell us that normally very, very private matter in His Scriptures to us..... it seems Mary chose not to tell us, Joseph chose not to tell us, Jesus chose not to tell us, all the Apostles chose not to tell us, no one who even could have met Mary chose to tell us - even if any of them know (except Mary, obviously). Maybe we don't NEED to know????????? Maybe it's NOT a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity of affirming possible as one denomination claims that it is?????????


I AM aware historically that the earliest Tradition was silence. Respectful, understandable, biblical, Apostolic silence. I AM aware, historically, that some men who had NO WAY TO KNOW this typically very, very private, personal matter eventually came to speculate on this matter. None of them seem to indicate why it mattered or seemed to care if it was true - but a few did speculate. Some that She did have sex.... some that she did not. This - for a FEW - came to replace the biblical, apostolic, original Tradition of respectful silence. And I AM aware that centuries after anyone could have gotten this bedroom tidbit from Mary and permission to make it public, there can to be a consensus that She did not ever have sex, although none of them seemed to care if that actually was true or why it mattered, but it did become the common speculation. Centuries later still, the TITLE "ever virgin" was used at an ecumenical council (around 7 centuries later) although the doctrine itself was never proclaimed or the status thereof - just a TITLE was used. Again, with no definition or with no indication of the status of this ("MOST important POSSIBLE" "MOST necessary to affirm possible") and with no indication (or concern) as to whether this actually was true or not.


I have NEVER (not once) indicated the speculation is true or false. My position is: I DON'T KNOW. I don't condemn ANY position - only that positions should be defending to the level claimed in a way that is suggested for others (a level playing field). For this stance, I have been flamed, berated, condemned, accused of hatred for Mary, accused of being "Anti-Catholic", accused of being "hateful," even banned by websites. I can't tell you the HORRIBLE private messages I've gotten over the years from Catholics (and one Orthodox) person for my stance.


And I have stated that ..... ONE of my deep concerns...... BECAUSE I love Mary..... is that Her heart breaks over this obsession some seem to have over something we all agree is supremely private and personal. This is the only website where I have stated that because I'm sure I would be permanently banned from any other if I posted that.




.

shameless bump




.

 

[Rens]

God just threw everyone's sex life and filthy sins in the Bible. It does say that Joseph had no sex with her at least til she delivered the Child. So I guess God is not so concerned with privateness about it as we are. Ruth and Boaz, all those others, it just mentions they had sex and that David didn't when he was old. They just kept him warm. So I don't think it's bad to speculate and saying she stayed virgin is not gossip at all and just what someone believes. Although I don't really care, I do think Jesus had a wonderful gentleman of a stepdad. They went on a trip together and he just left her alone. Amazing. Not weird that people think it was always. Could be, wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Josiah]

It does say that Joseph had no sex with her at least til she delivered the Child.

For reasons no one knows, the Messiah was to be BORN to one who had never had sex. It was a prophecy and was a point stressed in the intertestamental period. Thus, the point that Mary had had no sex (and was not married!) when Jesus was conceived mainly supports prophecy concerning the Christ - a BIG point in the NT. It of course makes another affirmation that Mary - not married - was faithful to marriage.

But of course, the Bible affirms the early, original Tradition regarding the private, personal, intimate marriage issue of sex AFTER Jesus was born. That Tradition was silence. Just as we see in the Bible - silence on that. Just a we see from Mary on that - silence. Just as we see from Jospeh on that - silence. Just as we see from JEsus on that - silence. Just as we see from all the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition) - silence. Just as we see from everyone in the First Century, anyone who even theoretically could have been told this from Mary - silence. Not "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and necessity possible that Mary and Joseph had NO SEX EVER"

Although I don't really care,

I DO think that's relevant issue. Why did a few men - centuries after the fact - seem to CARE so very, very, very, very much about THAT? Why did the RC Denomination - many centuries after Mary died (or didn't) come to embrace this late speculation of some as a matter of HIGHEST importance and necessity possible, de fide dogma, a teaching of the very highly level possible, a teaching of highest necessity to affirm, a teaching of greatest importance there is. How often couples do or do not have sex? WHAT is the reason for this status?


IMO, we see Catholics not only ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, COMPLETELY neglecting any concern for whether the speculation is true or not (honestly - it doesn't seem to matter whether what they SHOUT about Her is actually TRUE or not), but also, they completely dodge the issue of the status, the importance given to this. In debate, a position is to be defended TO THE LEVEL OF THE CLAIM. It's true in all epistemology. Not only will they present anything that shows the speculation to be true at all..... but entirely dodge the issue of it's STATUS as a matter of de fide dogma, a matter of highest importance and necessity of embrace that is POSSIBLE.


As I stated in my position (see post 331), I don't claim that She was or was not deprived of normal, loving, personal, private marital intimacies after Jesus was born. I don't know. No one until CENTURIES AFTER Mary did seemed to know or speculate or care. I tend to hold to the earliest Tradition, the biblical Tradition, the Apostolic Tradition: Silence. All I hold is that if one is going to displace that Tradition and invent new speculations - presented as DOGMATIC FACT that divides Christians, they should defend/document it TO THE LEVEL CLAIMED. Rather than so amazingly RUN from the issue of truth and status. It is MY view that what is said about Mary SHOULD matter...... truth about her SHOULD matter..... when it is insisted that this new speculation displacing Biblical and Apostolic and Marian Tradition is a FACT of the highest level of certainty possible, of the greatest importance in Christian theology, of greatest necessity of embrace in Christianity - it should be documented as such. If they can't do that - maybe, just maybe - it's NOT so certain or important. Maybe the original, biblical, Apostolic, Marian Tradition (SILENCE - neither affirming or denying late speculations of men..... neither affirming or denying any aspect of the private, personal, loving, marital intimaces of this couple ) is a worthy position?




.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #244 on Page 25, Lämmchen provided a few scriptures with attendant questions.

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?)

Some might deem that a silly question. Because death precluded any further activity, it has no bearing on the subject under discussion – the possibility or otherwise of defined action after Jesus’ birth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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?)

Indeed it does. The pupil was to continue the activities delegated to him during Paul’s absence. When the master returned, that master would take over that responsibility. That did not preclude Timothy’s resuming his delegated role once Paul moved on again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.")

A quick look at 1 Corinthians 15:24 gives the context of 1 Corinthians 15:25:

24 Then will come the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power.
25 For he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.

Does not the context appear to be Christ’s millennial reign?

With respect to Luke 1:33, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.":

I don’t know which branch of Lutheranism Lämmchen, Josiah, etc. belong to. But the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod hold to “replacement theology” (roughly stated, all promises etc. made to physical Israel have now been transferred to the church).

If replacement theology is true, Luke 1:33 is referring to Christ’s being forever head of the church.

If If replacement theology is not true, Luke 1:33 refers to Christ’s reign over the Jewish nation starting with the Millennium (in which I understand Lutheranism does not believe, but that then begs the question: over whom is Christ reigning in 1 Corinthians 15:24,25?).

In either case, we see that the two reigns mentioned are totally different kettles of fish, and that lumping them together was a confusing invalidity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like Matthew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” (emphasis added), actually means what it says.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's interesting to see where this thread is going. It is off topic I think. And I wonder if brother [MENTION=33]George[/MENTION] has enough of an answer to his question to satisfy him now?

 

[Pedrito]

After MoreCoffee’s Post #335, I thought I’d better post a few last few thoughts I had saved up for progressive, intermittent posting later.


In Post #179 on Page 18, PezGirl73 said:

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.

In Post #183 on Page 19, Rens, in reply to PezGirl73’s Post, stated (quite illogically, I suggest):

Lol I know. But Mary is part of the Bride of Christ so she's a virgin. Case closed.

I would take a stab in the dark and guess that Rens knows full well that as a member of the Bride of Christ, Mary is a virgin in exactly the same way as every other member of that particular group.

Is membership of the Bride of Christ confined to only people who are physical virgins?

If so, I would suggest that the vast majority of RCC adherents will end up unexpectedly disappointed.

Therefore, I declare with confidence: Prematurely Closed Case now reopened.

------------------------------------------------------------------

And shouldn’t Readers wonder why the need was felt for such an illogical statement to be made in the first place?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #321 on Page 33, MoreCoffee stated:

But if the sixty six books in your bible say nothing on the matter then teaching that Blessed Mary is ever virgin is not provable falsehood and your testimony is no more than opinion being pushed as if it were fact. Take out that old dusty mirror and take a look at what is in it.

Without meaning to tread on Josiah’s toes or steal his thunder, may I suggest that MoreCoffee look in his own old dusty mirror, with his organisation in the background behind him.

On the pretext of the sixty six books in psalms 91’s Bible saying nothing (supposedly) about Mary’s having natural marital relations with Joseph after Jesus’ birth, he accuses psalms 91 of pushing an opinion as though it were fact. (I.e. that Mary did have natural and God-directed marital relations with Joseph after Jesus’ birth.)

Yet MoreCoffe and the organisation he takes the responsibility of representing in this forum, state as a fact, the mere supposition that Mary did not ever have natural marital relations with Joseph.


Could the shoe in fact be on the other foot?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #333 on Page 34, Josiah stated:

For reasons no one knows, the Messiah was to be BORN to one who had never had sex.

I suggest that Josiah not be so hasty.

If one looks at God’s Inspired Revelation to us carefully, four reasons readily present themselves:
1. Jesus had to be a man in whom the taint of (what is called) original sin did not reside (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Peter 3:18);
2. God prophesied that a virgin would give birth (Isaiah 7:4);
3. Jesus is called the second Adam; both Adams existed via a direct act of God (1 Corinthians 15:45-47);
4. The Messiah (the annointed one, the Christ) was prophesied to be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7; John 1:18; John 3:16; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:1-5; Hebrews 5:5; 1 John 4:9).

Had Jesus been Joseph’s physical son, even though Joseph was of the royal line, Jesus could not have inherited His Messiahship from him. Why? Because according to both the active Jewish and Roman laws of the day, an inheritor inherited all the good and all the bad. In Jesus case, that would have meant inheriting the curse laid on Joseph’s ancestor by God in Jeremiah 22:28-30.

Can anybody inform us, from Scripture, of the way in which Jesus actually did inherit His Messiahship? If so, over to you (thee, you, y’all, youse, all of yuzz, etc.).


If no-one can inform us, I’ll be happy to do so. I just wanted to give someone else a chance first.


Also, what does the virgin birth have to do with Point 1 above? Anyone?


And does any of the above indicate in any way that Mary would be, or that she became, a perpetual virgin?


(By the way, I float the thought that the Catholic idea of “the Immaculate Conception” is both unscriptural, and a typical result of the paganised church expunging the Divine wisdom and knowledge that God gave to the Jews.)

 

[Josiah]

And does any of the above indicate in any way that Mary would be, or that she became, a perpetual virgin?

Obviously, no.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #333 on Page 34, Josiah stated:

I suggest that Josiah not be so hasty.

If one looks at God’s Inspired Revelation to us carefully, four reasons readily present themselves:
1. Jesus had to be a man in whom the taint of (what is called) original sin did not reside (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Peter 3:18);
2. God prophesied that a virgin would give birth (Isaiah 7:4);
3. Jesus is called the second Adam; both Adams existed via a direct act of God (1 Corinthians 15:45-47);
4. The Messiah (the annointed one, the Christ) was prophesied to be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7; John 1:18; John 3:16; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:1-5; Hebrews 5:5; 1 John 4:9).

Had Jesus been Joseph’s physical son, even though Joseph was of the royal line, Jesus could not have inherited His Messiahship from him. Why? Because according to both the active Jewish and Roman laws of the day, an inheritor inherited all the good and all the bad. In Jesus case, that would have meant inheriting the curse laid on Joseph’s ancestor by God in Jeremiah 22:28-30.

Can anybody inform us, from Scripture, of the way in which Jesus actually did inherit His Messiahship? If so, over to you (thee, you, y’all, youse, all of yuzz, etc.).


If no-one can inform us, I’ll be happy to do so. I just wanted to give someone else a chance first.


Also, what does the virgin birth have to do with Point 1 above? Anyone?


And does any of the above indicate in any way that Mary would be, or that she became, a perpetual virgin?


(By the way, I float the thought that the Catholic idea of “the Immaculate Conception” is both unscriptural, and a typical result of the paganised church expunging the Divine wisdom and knowledge that God gave to the Jews.)

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION], by the time the letters and books you've quoted from were written Blessed Mary would be in her older years or departed this world and by the time those books were listed as part of the canonical holy scriptures Blessed Mary had long since departed this world. The question you ask And does any of the above indicate in any way that Mary would be, or that she became, a perpetual virgin? was answered before the canonical scriptures were listed by the church with the words "Blessed Mary is ever virgin" and the church bases these words on the teaching of the apostles handed down in apostolic traditions within the church.