Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The twelve sons of Jacob are all true brothers but they had four different mothers
So these may be the brothers of Christ but that does not make them the children of mary
Brothers and sisters of Jesus?

They are not the children of Mary!

Is 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son!
(One son, singular)

James is the son of zebedee, and the other James is the son of Alpheus not Joseph!
Matt 10:2-3

In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew.

Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They had 4 mother’s, These may be brothers but they are simply not the children of One mother and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Jose’s, Simon Salome are children of another Mary!

Mk 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Is Mary the mother of James?
If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).


Regarding Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, two of the four "brethren" are James and Judas of Alphaeus (cf. Mat. 10:2-3, Lk. 6:15-16, Act. 1:13). The third, Joseph, is identified in Mk. 15:40 as the brother of James of Alphaeus. The fourth, Simon, is identified in Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 as the brother of Joseph, James, and Judas of Alphaeus. Therefore, all four are were the sons of Alphaeus, not St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When Jesus was twelve they went up to Jerusalem, the holy family, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Where are the brothers and sisters?

Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother? Perhaps the law of Moses requires a mother to be given to the next oldest son? Because he was an only Son!
Only begotten of the Father, only begotten of the Mother.

Only God can be born of a Virgin-mother!

Not trying to shoehorn it is scripture!
With the authority of Christ Matt 16:18 & 18:18 bound on earth bound in heaven and by a council too
Your just repeating yourself. I've already answered all of those objections. Instead of repeating yourself from what looks like a cut a paste why don't you try writing something yourself answering my objections one by one.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Your just repeating yourself. I've already answered all of those objections. Instead of repeating yourself from what looks like a cut a paste why don't you try writing something yourself answering my objections one by one.
I did in my note and I will copy and paste
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I guess sarcasm doesn't always work on the internet...
Generally speaking, it only works if it's worded in such a way as to suggest that it IS sarcasm. We cannot see facial expressions or the like.

Maybe an emoticon would help, too. LOL
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Differences in Lk 1

Lk 1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Lk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Mary is the Queen of the Angels!

The angel is greeting his sovereign mistress and no introduction is needed with Mary, like verse 19 cos Mary knows Gabriel, Mary from the first moment of her creation by God is immaculate! (And sees the beatific vision of God always before her eyes, even in her mothers womb, my opinion) so she knows Gabriel who stands on the presence of God!

Matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Has the use of reason even in her mothers womb, Mary at age three was consecrated to God in the temple and made a VOW of perpetual virginity to God, practicing faith, hope, and charity! Lk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord!
A good tree!

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The fruit of the tree of Mary is our salvation! Matt 1:21 Lk 2:30 Jesus is our salvation! This reflects the immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus!
Lk 1:30 Mary found our salvation!
Lk 1:38 consented to our salvation!

A good tree (immaculate conception) Lk 1:49 God has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes!

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

A sinner would be an evil tree with evil fruit, but the fruit of Mary is salvation!

Mary brings in the good fruits of our redemption and salvation!

Only a queen can bear a king!

More Scripture dumping with nothing to show how, or even whether, your endless copy-and-paste jobs are relevant to the discussion. If you're going to jump from Scripture to an unrelated conclusion with nothing in the middle and respond to questions with more Scripture dumping and no actual answers, there's little point continuing to engage with you.

On that basis it looks like there's nothing to be gained from continuing in the thread.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just going with scripture


You've already proven that Scripture does NOT teach what you claim. You proved it

Your claim is that SCRIPTURE "clearly" states the Mary died a virgin.... but for some (entirely mysterious) reason, you have gone to some length to prove your claim is entirely baseless, that you are flat-out and undeniably WRONG.




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
More Scripture dumping with nothing to show how, or even whether, your endless copy-and-paste jobs are relevant to the discussion. If you're going to jump from Scripture to an unrelated conclusion with nothing in the middle and respond to questions with more Scripture dumping and no actual answers, there's little point continuing to engage with you.

On that basis it looks like there's nothing to be gained from continuing in the thread.
You can ask me anything
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
More Scripture dumping with nothing to show how, or even whether, your endless copy-and-paste jobs are relevant to the discussion. If you're going to jump from Scripture to an unrelated conclusion with nothing in the middle and respond to questions with more Scripture dumping and no actual answers, there's little point continuing to engage with you.

On that basis it looks like there's nothing to be gained from continuing in the thread.
Is there a law against copy and paste?
I can’t remember everything that’s why there is a note pad app
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is there a law against copy and paste?
I can’t remember everything that’s why there is a note pad app

Why not try actually addressing the question?

Nobody is saying you're not allowed to copy and paste. But, you know, anyone can take a passage from Scripture that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion and paste it into a response. It doesn't make the response any more valid - you don't get bonus points for quoting lots of Scripture. Otherwise you might as well just copy and paste the entire Bible in every post.

There's also little point trying to discuss with you when you seem to do little more than post the same thing over and over and over again. As Josiah said, you've gone from saying Scripture clearly says Mary died a virgin to concluding that Scripture is anything but clear. You haven't posted a single verse that clearly states Mary remained a virgin her entire life. You've done a lot of copying and pasting of irrelevant stuff, you've drawn all sorts of conclusions from Scripture without any indication at all as to how you drew the conclusion from the Scripture you quoted, and you've repeated yourself to the point there's nothing to be gained by continuing.

So with that said, I'm done with the thread. It hasn't had anything particularly useful in it for some posts now.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is there a law against copy and paste?
I can’t remember everything that’s why there is a note pad app
These forums are much better when it is a conversation with back and forth questions and answers. Copy and Pasting the same thing over and over again doesn't move the conversation forward. Anyone can copy and past be it from their own notes or from some apologist site. That may show the what you believe but it doesn't address specific questions or challenges.

For instance: I said:

Matthew 1:25

In this context, the word "Until" is conditional on a change in action/status/event. That is not always the case, sometimes "until" just designates a time frame. (1 Corinthians 15:25, Phil 1:10, 1 Tim 6:14). However, most of the time the word Until is predicated by a change in action/status/event. (Acts 20:11, Acts 23:12, Rev 7:3, Gen 8:7, Matt 2:9, Matt 2:15 Matt 17:9, Matt 24:38, Matt 26:29 and many many more versus).

That natural usage of Matthew 1:25 is (like most of the examples) predicated on a time frame that shows a change of action/status/event.


Instead of responding to my specific argument you just cut and pasted what you had already posted.

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong then convince me by making addressing my specific comments and showing me why my comments are wrong.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why not try actually addressing the question?

Nobody is saying you're not allowed to copy and paste. But, you know, anyone can take a passage from Scripture that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion and paste it into a response. It doesn't make the response any more valid - you don't get bonus points for quoting lots of Scripture. Otherwise you might as well just copy and paste the entire Bible in every post.

There's also little point trying to discuss with you when you seem to do little more than post the same thing over and over and over again. As Josiah said, you've gone from saying Scripture clearly says Mary died a virgin to concluding that Scripture is anything but clear. You haven't posted a single verse that clearly states Mary remained a virgin her entire life. You've done a lot of copying and pasting of irrelevant stuff, you've drawn all sorts of conclusions from Scripture without any indication at all as to how you drew the conclusion from the Scripture you quoted, and you've repeated yourself to the point there's nothing to be gained by continuing.

So with that said, I'm done with the thread. It hasn't had anything particularly useful in it for some posts now.

Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man!
 

Castle Church

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
427
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man!
Literally no one here is saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They are not questioning her virginal motherhood.

And exactly how does having relations after Jesus was born affect the "truth that he was both fully God and fully man"?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man!


Mark,

You have already PROVEN that the Bible does not state what you do. YOU YOURSELF chose to undeniably PROVE that. Now you aren't quoting Scripture at all (just posting reference) because you've already proven these Scripture do not state that Mary died a virgin. It's just silly to keep repeating a point you've already proven isn't true. And by doing this, you are just causing others to exit the discussion.

We all already know that your church teaches this... you had no need to so inform anyone here of that, all of us already knew it (and again, several here are former Catholics so we know it first-hand). But lots of churches teach lots of things, that (per se) does not mean ergo it's true and unaccountable. If you won't accept what a Mormon says BECAUSE his church says it, then (well, you get the point).

AGAIN, my brother, you are WELCOME (even encouraged) to share your faith (kind of what this site is about) - you have no need to defend it or "prove it." BUT be prepared for questions... and if you choose to address those questions, you may share your apologetics (although again, there's no requirement to do so). There is Catholic apologetics and you are welcome to share that (many of us well know those arguments). BUT simply insisting "My church itself claims that it itself alone can't be wrong so it can't be wrong when it says Mary died as a virgin" is not apologetics, it's just a pure circular argument with one (and only one) purpose: to evade accountability and replace the issue of truth with a claim of self for self of unaccountable authority. It subsfantiates NOTHING and (as you perhaps have learned in this thread) simply derails all discussion.

I'm GLAD you are here.... we NEED more of a Catholic presence and perspective. But brother, this is not a site exclusively for docilic Catholics, it's an ECUMENICAL forum. Your "just accept because our church says to" apologetic won't work here.... and when you claim things that you yourself have proven wrong and use pure circular reasoning, you'll not only very likely loose us (we'll just exit the discussion) but frankly, you loose credibility and a hearing - and that would be very disappointing - an ecumenical forum NEEDS to hear that Catholic perspective. And.... as a former Catholic myself, I can tell you - wherever you are getting your apologetics, it's bad. The stuff you are presenting here (marital sex desecrates the wife) is an apologetic Catholics completely abandoned 50 years ago... you need to find a MUCH better source for Catholic explanations.


Blessings, my brother


Josiah




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Literally no one here is saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They are not questioning her virginal motherhood.

And exactly how does having relations after Jesus was born affect the "truth that he was both fully God and fully man"?
Hope this helps
Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).


St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Mark,

You have already PROVEN that the Bible does not state what you do. YOU YOURSELF chose to undeniably PROVE that. Now you aren't quoting Scripture at all (just posting reference) because you've already proven these Scripture do not state that Mary died a virgin. It's just silly to keep repeating a point you've already proven isn't true. And by doing this, you are just causing others to exit the discussion.

We all already know that your church teaches this... you had no need to so inform anyone here of that, all of us already knew it (and again, several here are former Catholics so we know it first-hand). But lots of churches teach lots of things, that (per se) does not mean ergo it's true and unaccountable. If you won't accept what a Mormon says BECAUSE his church says it, then (well, you get the point).

AGAIN, my brother, you are WELCOME (even encouraged) to share your faith (kind of what this site is about) - you have no need to defend it or "prove it." BUT be prepared for questions... and if you choose to address those questions, you may share your apologetics (although again, there's no requirement to do so). There is Catholic apologetics and you are welcome to share that (many of us well know those arguments). BUT simply insisting "My church itself claims that it itself alone can't be wrong so it can't be wrong when it says Mary died as a virgin" is not apologetics, it's just a pure circular argument with one (and only one) purpose: to evade accountability and replace the issue of truth with a claim of self for self of unaccountable authority. It subsfantiates NOTHING and (as you perhaps have learned in this thread) simply derails all discussion.

I'm GLAD you are here.... we NEED more of a Catholic presence and perspective. But brother, this is not a site exclusively for docilic Catholics, it's an ECUMENICAL forum. Your "just accept because our church says to" apologetic won't work here.... and when you claim things that you yourself have proven wrong and use pure circular reasoning, you'll not only very likely loose us (we'll just exit the discussion) but frankly, you loose credibility and a hearing - and that would be very disappointing - an ecumenical forum NEEDS to hear that Catholic perspective. And.... as a former Catholic myself, I can tell you - wherever you are getting your apologetics, it's bad. The stuff you are presenting here (marital sex desecrates the wife) is an apologetic Catholics completely abandoned 50 years ago... you need to find a MUCH better source for Catholic explanations.


Blessings, my brother


Josiah




.
I NEVER SAID HOLY MARRIAGE DESECRATES THE WIFE, and the church never taught such a thing, why did you reject Christ?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I NEVER SAID HOLY MARRIAGE DESECRATES THE WIFE, and the church never taught such a thing, why did you reject Christ?

Then you need to read your own posts.... your post about being the Ark... your point about sex.... your point about how Joseph would never do that to Her... how She was consecrated and thus could not have sex.



.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hope this helps
Martin Luther


Again, yet again, still one more time.....

YES, as we all know, Luther (and Protestants in general) held that Mary remained a virgin. BUT they did NOT claim (like you) that Scripture clearly teaches this AND they did not claim this as dogma. They held this as PIOUS OPINION, something we MAY believe but NEED NOT believe (we can even reject it). PIOUS OPINION is a view that is NOT taught OR denied in Scripture but has very ancient and ecumenical embrace: it is an ancient Christian BELIEF but not doctrine.

Sorry, but you cannot quote Luther supporting any of your claims... that "Scripture clearly states Mary died a virgin" and that it's de fide dogma. Nope.

I gave you the Lutheran position and how it flows from Tradition. You ignored it.




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Then you need to read your own posts.... your post about being the Ark... your point about sex.... your point about how Joseph would never do that to Her... how She was consecrated and thus could not have sex.



.
Yes but not that normal sexual relations of married man and woman are unholy
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Question
Why did you deny and reject Christ?
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again, yet again, still one more time.....

YES, as we all know, Luther (and Protestants in general) held that Mary remained a virgin. BUT they did NOT claim (like you) that Scripture clearly teaches this AND they did not claim this as dogma. They held this as PIOUS OPINION, something we MAY believe but NEED NOT believe (we can even reject it). PIOUS OPINION is a view that is NOT taught OR denied in Scripture but has very ancient and ecumenical embrace: it is an ancient Christian BELIEF but not doctrine.

Sorry, but you cannot quote Luther supporting any of your claims... that "Scripture clearly states Mary died a virgin" and that it's de fide dogma. Nope.

I gave you the Lutheran position and how it flows from Tradition. You ignored it.




.
Dogma referring to mary
102. Mary is truly the Mother of God.
103. Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin.
104. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man.
105. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
106. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.
107. Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.
108. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And the Bible says Her child is holy! And Her child is God!

Is 7:14 God provides a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son! (Singular, one son)
 
Top Bottom