Ever Virgin

[meluckycharms]

Welcome to CH, I hope you enjoy it here. Threads like this might get heated, but we're a good bunch.

Thank you. Don't worry, after spending 12 years in the Marine Corps and 2 years on atheist forums I like to think I have thick skin. I realize that any attack on a post is not an attack on the person posting.

I will mention this in order to put some Catholics at ease. I do not necessarily believe in "Sola Scriptura" (if it is not specifically written in the bible it isn't true). Rather I am a firm believer in using scripture as a standard to determine my theology. If a doctrine perfectly complements scripture i have no reason not to believe it. However, if a doctrine contradicts the scripture in any way no matter how small, I must reject it.

Take for example the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, nowhere in Scripture does it specifically mention the Trinity. However, the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly complements scripture. Thus, I have no reason to believe it isn't true. Now you take something like the "immaculate conception"....well, we'll save that discussion for another thread.

 

[Josiah]

I will concede that there is nothing that specifically denies the PVM. I also will agree with your statement that nothing specifically confirms the PVM.

... then we are in agreement.

However, when reading the scriptures (which were cannonized by the same people who favored the PVM), the only possible conclusion that anyone can assume is that Mary had other children. If anyone simply read the bible, it would be impossible to conclude otherwise.

If we ASSUME Mary did have sex after Jesus was born..... if we ASSUME she did not..... we can easily accept all that Scripture says about that (which we both agree is... nothing, lol) - Scripture will not contradict our ASSUMPTION (or even make it problematic). Happens a lot, actually.

I do find it rather strange that the ecumenical council would declare the PVM to be true

Actually, I'd have to review my notes. Maybe George or MoreCoffee has this on the tip of their fingers. IF I'm recalling correctly (and I may well NOT be), what the Council did (and I forget which - but one of the 7 most accept), was simply refer to her as ALWAYS VIRGIN (or something to that extend). Just giving her that TITLE. But I woudn't wiggle too much on that point, I DO accept that it was universally accepted (and for a long time!) as an affirmation of that (it's exact status from there is another issue). There are Lutherans (including my pastor) who accepts the PVM because it comes from a Council, has such strong ecumenical and historic affirmation, and (in his view) is equally possible in terms of Scripture (I, however, take a neutral stand) BUT he does NOT hold it to be dogmatic.

and not canonized any scripture

Actually, Scripture has never been officially canonized by an Ecumenical Council...... It's all a matter of Tradition, consensus, custom. ALL agree on the 27 NT books (now). There are 39 OT books with universal consensus - and several in various levels of dispute. All issues WAY beyond the issue of this thread. But yeah, it's interesting (historically) that an issue pretty big (what IS Scripture?) has never actually been officially addressed. Some individual denominations (the RCC in 1551 for example) have done so just for itself, but nothing ecumenical. Happens a lot, actually.


Pax Christi


- Josiah (a fellow former Catholic, now LCMS Lutheran)



.

 

[meluckycharms]

Also, those in my family who are not Catholic are Lutheran.

 

[George]

it comes from a Council, has such strong ecumenical and historic affirmation

Yep, the Ecumenical Councils are always held in regard I'd say.

 

[Josiah]

Yep, the Ecumenical Councils are always held in regard I'd say.

I disagree. Among some, they are entirely unknown.... among others, they are held in not much regard at all.

My Lutheran pastor often mentions his lament that too many pastors in various churches are taught very little Christian history and he rejoices in all the courses he had in history, the Councils, the Fathers. He mentioned that too often, he hears some really blatant proclaimation of some heresy by some (no doubt sincere) "preacher" who things he's the first one to read a verse or think of a spin, a "preacher" entirely ignorant that what he is preaching is nothing new but down-right heresy, condemned long, long ago and universally rejected for very sound reasons. That preacher isn't purposely teaching heresy, he sincerely THINKS he is being biblical, he is just.... ignorant. These 2 year Bible colleges or online "seminaries" sadly produce a lot of ignorant ministers who MEAN well but just don't know theology, the history of such, the history of the church.... they don't seem aware that the Bible is a very old book and they are not the first or only to read it. Now..... Romans, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans - they may all equally KNOW all that and still disagree, but at least THEY know where their veiws "fit" with history, the Fathers, the Councils, the Creeds and often have an awareness of the views of the others.


I rejoice that I could share MY view on the DOGMA of the PVM without getting a series of warnings, infractions and fsb's as I did at CF. I like this site. I appreciate the staff here a lot. Thank you.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[TurtleHare]

I disagree. Among some, they are entirely unknown.... among others, they are held in not much regard at all.

My Lutheran pastor often mentions his lament that too many pastors in various churches are taught very little Christian history and he rejoices in all the courses he had in history, the Councils, the Fathers. He mentioned that too often, he hears some really blatant proclaimation of some heresy by some (no doubt sincere) "preacher" who things he's the first one to read a verse or think of a spin, a "preacher" entirely ignorant that what he is preaching is nothing new but down-right heresy, condemned long, long ago and universally rejected for very sound reasons. That preacher isn't purposely teaching heresy, he sincerely THINKS he is being biblical, he is just.... ignorant. These 2 year Bible colleges or online "seminaries" sadly produce a lot of ignorant ministers who MEAN well but just don't know theology, the history of such, the history of the church.... they don't seem aware that the Bible is a very old book and they are not the first or only to read it. Now..... Romans, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans - they may all equally KNOW all that and still disagree, but at least THEY know where their veiws "fit" with history, the Fathers, the Councils, the Creeds and often have an awareness of the views of the others.


I rejoice that I could share MY view on the DOGMA of the PVM without getting a series of warnings, infractions and fsb's as I did at CF. I like this site. I appreciate the staff here a lot. Thank you.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

Hehehe it's because these members weren't there to refute at the time about what was going on in history so it doesn't count because the spirit is only leading them and how could it ever have led men before them to be guided into full truth? groan :blush2:

Now onto the topic I would like to bring up this part even though it relies soley on some word out mouth tradtion but it's about Joseph being an older man and well, ahem, who is to say that the spirit didn't make him impotent? Older men get that way all the time and I don't know how old Joseph and not sure it's listed in our bibles is it?

 

[Rens]

No? Sex doesn't constitute a marriage lol. If so, then all these people who are having sex are therefore married regardless of them being engaged/united, etc.

And Joseph was older than Mary. All the mention of Christ's brothers are implied to have been Joseph's children.

It was the consummation of a wedding. Ah but David was married too with those women to keep him warm when he was old. I thought maybe it wasn't even possible.

 

[Rens]

There is no verse that states she had other children. There's no verse that says she did not. There is no verse that says she had sex. There's no verse that says she did not. Both "sides" on this in terms of "dogma" are in the same situation - with nothing in Scripture to clearly support their view. And Tradition doesn't help much either - while the "no sex ever" view DID eventually gain traction and become universally embraced, that was preceded for centuries by an older Tradition that was SILENT on this issue and by some lively debate before the "PVM" view took hold.


Again, I'm okay with those holding AS PIOUS OPINION that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. I think there are WEAK HINTS both ways and there is Tradition both ways. Personally, I can't see why it matters all that much.... and I can't see why any should be so interested in such normally private marital matters. But I'm okay with the view - EITHER WAY and don't debate it EITHER WAY. My "issue" is simply with holding to such dogmatically - as a divisive, mandated point of highest importance (dogma)


I was partially banned at CF for holding to my position that we don't KNOW. And it probably doesn't matter and maybe isn't even any of our business. That view of mine got me several warnings and a partial ban. It seems CF doesn't allow people to note what Scripture does NOT say and to be neutral on this - not dogmatically holding that she was or was not a perpetual virgin. REALLY got the Admins there upset, REALLY mad at me. To the point of circumventing all there OWN rules, protocol, etc. to issue me a ban that actually didn't exist. Still scratching my head over that one (too) .... just one of the many, many, many odd injustices for which that site is notorious.



- Josiah




.

Lol wut?
Gimme a break. Who cares? They're in heaven. If people really want to know they can run to them when they go to heaven and ask. They might say: none of your business.

 

[Lamb]

I thought we would come to all knowledge when we get to "heaven"? God will clear all things up for us

 

[psalms 91]

I thought the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth?

 

[George]

I thought the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth?

What?

 

[psalms 91]

The Holy Spirit, does iot not say that he will lead us into all truth?

 

[George]

The Holy Spirit, does iot not say that he will lead us into all truth?

Sorry, didn't see you posted this. Go on.

 

[psalms 91]

If He will lead us then all we have to do is listen and ask.

 

[Josiah]

IMO (very off topic, sorry) .... YES, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would LEAD US..... The problem, as I see it, is that people delete the word "LEAD" and replace it with "make an infallible follower of" and then delete "US" and replace it with.... "me." Same problem with the next clause of the promise about TEACHING..... US.

Years ago, when I was quite obsessed with the LDS (and it's spin off groups) and several American "cults" - I came to realize this is one of the common denominators in these groups. This promise is re-written to, "The Holy Spirit will make the __________ the singular, unaccountable FOLLOWER of God, the one singular, unaccountable STUDENT of God." Rude, egotistical, errant - but serves their needs and thus they change the promise.


Truth is, I'm not US. This was never an individualistic promise, it was made to US - the whole corpus of Christians, spread out over all the centuries and continents. Jesus ain't speaking just to ME (check that ego at the door). And truth is - the promise is to teach and lead, not..... NOT....... that anyone or anyones would be perfect, infallible, unaccountable STUDENTS or FOLLOWERS. It's not even true in a perfect, sinless world! Adam and Eve were taught and lead by God and BOTH blew it, NEITHER were perfect (or even good!) students or followers. And THAT was in a perfect, sinless, unfallen world!


I think this point IS related to this question in THIS sense. Of the many Marian views of the 21st. Century RC Denomination (many it has recently and uniquely made DOGMAS), there are two that have been affirmed by an ECUMENICAL Council. One really isn't a doctrine so much as it is a TITLE that affirms the two inseparable natures of Christ, that title being Theotokos or Matre Dei (Mary - Mother of God). The other (really also just a title) being the Ever Virgin Mary. For THAT reason ALONE, Luther, Calvin and virtually ALL the Reformation Fathers accepted that teaching - NOT as dogma (since it's not affirmed by Scripture) but as an embraced teaching of the whole church. My own Lutheran pastor follows in that train. For classical Lutherans and Reformed, the "disagreement" is primarly one of status. These the WHOLE CHURCH embraced. I think there's a different issue with things like the Immaculate Conception, the Co-Redemptrix, etc. but I digress an even more detrail.



Back to the issue of the thread.....



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Our walk is personal, very personal or else you are not walking with Christ. The Holy Spirit is available to all who can hear and listen so the promise is to all or us if you prefer but the leading and teaching while the same to all is very individual. Most today claim they do not hear God, they are not led of God and are blind to spiritual things yet still insist that they are right. How do they know if not hearing from God? How are they led and stay in obedience to God if not led by God? No denoms are not always right and in may cases we have been led astray by them because of traditions of man rather than scripture. It is individual whether you like it or not.

 

[Josiah]

the promise is to all

I snipped that, but THAT'S what I think is the promise. It's not a promised that is individual but corporate. There's no promise that ONLY Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever or Me will be the one lead and taught.

The Holy Spirit is available to all who can hear and listen

Well, the GOSPEL promise..... but I'm not sure we can individualize every promise, especially with some sense it's UNIQUELY to me or ESPECIALLY to me.... or that I'M the singular, individual, infallible ONE that is The Student, The Follower.




Again, PART of the problem is insisting God is ONLY speaking to ME (or especially so or uniquely so) - denouncing the church, and PART of the problem is confusing "teaching" with "learning" (they are NOT the same thing - as any teacher will tell you, lol) and confusing "leading" with "following" (as any parent of teens or owner of cats will tell you, lol).




.

 

[Lamb]

God has promised that He speaks to us through His Word so any other little "speakings" that people claim I really suspect to be little more than imagination. Especially when people go against what scripture explicitly states.

 

[psalms 91]

I snipped that, but THAT'S what I think is the promise. It's not a promised that is individual but corporate. There's no promise that ONLY Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever or Me will be the one lead and taught.





Well, the GOSPEL promise..... but I'm not sure we can individualize every promise, especially with some sense it's UNIQUELY to me or ESPECIALLY to me.... or that I'M the singular, individual, infallible ONE that is The Student, The Follower.




Again, PART of the problem is insisting God is ONLY speaking to ME (or especially so or uniquely so) - denouncing the church, and PART of the problem is confusing "teaching" with "learning" (they are NOT the same thing - as any teacher will tell you, lol) and confusing "leading" with "following" (as any parent of teens or owner of cats will tell you, lol).




.

God is no respector of persons and will speak to all who listen, all who dont crowd out God with things of thsi world and all who dont say it isnt for today. It is individsual, if you dont have that personal relationship with Christ then you have veruy little. It is the personal relationship that Christ longs to have with each of us

 

[Josiah]

Bill - which is the individual whom God leads (and that one - uniquely - is the infallible follower), which is the individual whom God teaches (and that one uniquely is the infallible student)?

Now, if it's NOT uniquely Jim Jones or Brigham Young or you or me or the Man in the Moon..... then God is speaking to US. True - some may not listen..... some may misunderstand..... some may edit the message to fit their own thoughts..... but it's still God speaking and leading US.

I don't deny a "personal relationship with God" I just deny one alone has such a relationship, one alone is lead by God, one alone is taught by God, one alone is the infallible student, one alone is the infallible follower, one alone knows what God thinks and wants and says, one alone is taught and lead, one alone hears and obeys (and it just happens to be ME).


To the point, sure - ONE may say, "I heard God tell just ME - just little ole very, very, very special and wonderful and holy ME - that there are purple people living on Jupiter and we'll become one when we die." I wouldn't even deny their sincerity. But I do disagree with that rubric, that attitude, that insistence. I don't deny such on very, very, very, very rare occasions HAS happened (God speaking to Moses in the burning bush, for example) but it's not a principle all can or should apply to self, to all individuals today. Especially with some condemnation that if they don't hear such voices, ergo they don't have a relationship with God or aren't Christian or just aren't as pure, as holy, as wonderful as SELF. I hope you understand.


Theologically, I reject the uber-individualism of the Enlightenment that (IMO, tragically) has overtaken much of modern Christianity. I still embrace community, family, the PEOPLE of God.



Thank you. And forgive me for the diversions. Back to the issue of the thread....



- Josiah