Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this line of thinking is Sola Scriptura. In Catholicism there is much more than Sola Scriptura. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and if the Church says Mary remain a Virgin that is valid.
Protestants do not have to believe this. This concept is only for Catholics.
If the Pope says Mary was a Virgin then she is. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. As a Protestant you are free to believe otherwise.
Are you then acknowledging that the Bible says that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus was born but that you simply do not believe the Bible?
And are you then saying that if a pope disagrees with what the apostle Matthew wrote, that Matthew WHO WAS AN APOSTLE was wrong?
Are you saying that the apostle Matthew who was guided into all the truth by the Holy Spirit was wrong?
John 16:13 [Jesus speaking to the apostles] ''But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
And are you saying that the apostle Matthew who knew Mary and certainly knew whether or not Mary gave birth to other children after giving birth to Jesus was wrong?
And if you should say that it was not the apostle Matthew who wrote the gospel of Matthew, are you saying that church tradition is wrong?
And if you should say that Matthew 1:25 was altered at a later time, then let us refer to Luke 2:7 in which Luke states that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son which implies that she gave birth to other children after Jesus was born. And let's refer to Tatian's Diatessaron which is a harmony of the four gospel accounts and was written around 170-175 A.D. which means that Tatian copied from existing manuscripts which were even earlier, and states that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.
Section II
9 And in those days there went forth a decree from Augustus Caesar that all the people of his dominion should be enrolled. This first enrolment was while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And every man went to be enrolled in his city. And Joseph went up also from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, to Judaea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem (for he was of the house of David and of his tribe), with Arabic. Mary his betrothed, she being with child, to be enrolled there. And while she was there the days for her being delivered were accomplished. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them where they were staying. Diatessaron. The Diatessaron (translation Roberts-Donaldson).
Are you saying that Matthew and Luke who wrote their respective gospel accounts were wrong?
The problem with this line of thinking is Sola Scriptura. In Catholicism there is much more than Sola Scriptura. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and if the Church says Mary remain a Virgin that is valid.
Protestants do not have to believe this. This concept is only for Catholics.
If the Pope says Mary was a Virgin then she is. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. As a Protestant you are free to believe otherwise.
To suggest the Catholic Church alone is exclusively guided by the Holy Spirit is silly. Mary's perpetual virginity lies largely in the hands of the Protoevangelium of James, though not implicitly stated, but necessary to fulfill the proposed celibacy vow taken by Mary.
Why would you state "this concept is only for Catholics" when others hold that view, including some Protestants? What's the point in that?
The problem with this line of thinking is Sola Scriptura. In Catholicism there is much more than Sola Scriptura. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and if the Church says Mary remain a Virgin that is valid.
Protestants do not have to believe this. This concept is only for Catholics.
If the Pope says Mary was a Virgin then she is. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. As a Protestant you are free to believe otherwise.
QUESTION:
How do you know that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it because you were taught that as a child and never really investigated the claim yourself?
When did the Pope become the "Vicar of Christ"? Who was the first pope to claim this and when?
How do you know that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it because you were taught that as a child and never really investigated the claim yourself?
When did the Pope become the "Vicar of Christ"? Who was the first pope to claim this and when?
BTW. I'm Catholic, but not gullible.
Dude:
It is religion and in religion anything goes.
The Apostle Peter walked on water and raised people from the dead. It is religion and there is no need to verify whether it is true or not.
In the Catholic tradition the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That is part of Catholicism and you are not obligated to accept that.
We are told jesus resurrected. How do we know that?
We don't! We choose to believe or not believe.
What's even more far fetched is that for 1,600 years for all Christians (Protestants too), including many who knew Mary personally, to affirmed her perpetual Virgnity, but people come along 1,600 years later and think they know better.
Is there a chapter and verse in the Bible stating this outright? No. Neither is there a chapter and verse for the Trinity. Or for sola scriptura. In fact, on the latter, there is actually chapter and verse stating the opposite.
I see your point, but my point is strictly what does the bible say about who Mary is. And no where in Scripture does it say, teach, or allow us to infer that Mary remained a virgin. As far as the word Trinity, it's not in the bible either, so it goes down to how you wanna interpret John 1:1. I let that verse stand on its own merit.
Name six individuals who affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity. Not even the writers of the Gospels, Epistles, or letters did that.
Okay.
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin." (Athanasius of Alexandria)
“You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born." (St. Jerome)
“The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained." (Leo I)
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Martin Luther -- yes, that Martin Luther)
"When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (Martin Luther again)
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Ulrich Zwingli)
You've also got Epiphanius, Augustine, Cyril, and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
And how exactly did people born 100 years after Mary know anything about her perpetual virginity?
The same way people today know things about William the Conqueror, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, or Harry Truman.
Folks this is religion and in religion anything goes. We accept Jesus and Peter walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. Many choose to believe that. Others also believe in the power of Satan and demons. In religion anything goes. Some think Joseph Smith was the MAN/ No big deal, that is what religion is all about.
So what is wrong with accepting that Mary was a Virgin? That is much less far fetched than many other biblical miracles.
Careful there. Telling people they are "free to believe" is a pretty revolutionary thing on this board.
Some Protestants in in the early day did not celebrate Christmas because it was considered a Pagan Catholic Holiday. Some still feel this way whereas others have come around to Christmas. People are free to choose what to believe or practice.
And my religion is no better than theirs.
No harm done by believing Mary was always a Virgin.
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin." (Athanasius of Alexandria)
“You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born." (St. Jerome)
“The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained." (Leo I)
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Martin Luther -- yes, that Martin Luther)
"When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (Martin Luther again)
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Ulrich Zwingli)
You've also got Epiphanius, Augustine, Cyril, and others.
The same way people today know things about William the Conqueror, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, or Harry Truman.
RESPONSE:
Question #1 Were any of these writings about Mary written within 300 years of Jesus birth?
Question # 2 How long after the their births were writings about:William the Conqueror, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, or Harry Truman written?
Do you see the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
