Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

[Mungo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

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, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, 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." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"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." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

 

[Mungo]

So either Sola Scriptura is true or God is lying.

Sola Scriptura is false and God is not lying and you cannot prove otherwise.

 

[Mungo]

jaybo
I'm leaving this now until you prove Sola Scriptura from scripture.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo
I'm leaving this now until you prove Sola Scriptura from scripture.

Good bye!!!

 

[GodsGrace]

I wrote "It doesn't matter if you have a problem accepting that Mary was conceived without original sin or not. What does matter is what the Bible says. Where in the Bible does it say that Mary was conceived without original sin?"

And you replied with "Was Jesus human or divine". I don't see the connection.

However, to answer your question, Jesus was both human and divine.

Where in the NT does it state this explicitly?
Do you know that the early Christians did not have this down completely as we understand it today?
Jesus could have been a human sent by God.
God Himself.
I'm sure you've heard of arianism.

It took some time to develop the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
I believe that while the Apostles were alive they lived for Jesus and wrote only about Him.
Later on it began to be discussed how Mary could have been born with sin if she was to be the Mother of God.
And this from the beginning of time...

 

[GodsGrace]

So either Sola Scriptura is true or God is lying.

Where in the NT does it say to follow only scripture?
It does state to also follow Tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The traditions TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES...
And note that some were only by the spoken word.

 

[jaybo]

Where in the NT does it state this explicitly?
Do you know that the early Christians did not have this down completely as we understand it today?
Jesus could have been a human sent by God.
God Himself.
I'm sure you've heard of arianism.

It took some time to develop the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
I believe that while the Apostles were alive they lived for Jesus and wrote only about Him.
Later on it began to be discussed how Mary could have been born with sin if she was to be the Mother of God.
And this from the beginning of time...

Where is it stated in the Bible explicitly? It is the main teaching of the entire New Testament!

The teaching of Mary being "ever virgin" and sinless was developed after the Bible "books" were written. In fact, a great deal of the doctrine of the Catholic denomination (which isn't mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible) was developed by men.

I believe God's word not the teachings of fallible men.

Just today I was reading how Queen Mary executed many Protestants in the 1500s because they didn't adhere to the official doctrine of the Catholic church. Not to mention the crusades, the inquisitions, excommunications, slaughter of native Americans, etc. I would never associate myself with a denomination who practiced their "religion" in such a godless manner!

 

[GodsGrace]

Where is it stated in the Bible explicitly? It is the main teaching of the entire New Testament!

The teaching of Mary being "ever virgin" and sinless was developed after the Bible "books" were written. In fact, a great deal of the doctrine of the Catholic denomination (which isn't mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible) was developed by men.

I believe God's word not the teachings of fallible men.

Just today I was reading how Queen Mary executed many Protestants in the 1500s because they didn't adhere to the official doctrine of the Catholic church. Not to mention the crusades, the inquisitions, excommunications, slaughter of native Americans, etc. I would never associate myself with a denomination who practiced their "religion" in such a godless manner!

We all believe God's word Jaybo.
The above is not a really good answer to what I posted to you.

If you don't like what MEN come up with,
then I sure hope you're not OSAS...
I sure hope you believe that baptism saves since that's what is taught in the bible...
I sure hope you think Jesus' body is in a host or bread because He said we must EAT HIM.

All of the 3 above doctrine were created BY MEN in the Protestant revolution.
There is NO NOTION of these doctrine prior to that.

 

[jaybo]

I am not OSAS, as the Bible clearly says we can lose our salvation. John 15:1-2, " “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear] fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. NET

Baptism does not save. It is a statement of one's old man being buried and then resurrected as a new man. Romans 6:4, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life." NET

Jesus' body is symbolically in the bread. Matthew 26:26, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” NET Common sense tells you that Jesus, while sitting at the table, gave them the bread, therefore it's obvious that they were not eating Him! He was not and is not the bread! So eating it was and is symbolic. The same principle applies to the wine, which was not and is not His literal blood.

 

[Mungo]

I am not OSAS, as the Bible clearly says we can lose our salvation. John 15:1-2, " “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear] fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. NET

Baptism does not save. It is a statement of one's old man being buried and then resurrected as a new man. Romans 6:4, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life." NET

Jesus' body is symbolically in the bread. Matthew 26:26, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” NET Common sense tells you that Jesus, while sitting at the table, gave them the bread, therefore it's obvious that they were not eating Him! He was not and is not the bread! So eating it was and is symbolic. The same principle applies to the wine, which was not and is not His literal blood.

More errors and nothing to do with the topic.

 

[jaybo]

More errors and nothing to do with the topic.

wondering wrote...
If you don't like what MEN come up with,
then I sure hope you're not OSAS...
I sure hope you believe that baptism saves since that's what is taught in the bible...
I sure hope you think Jesus' body is in a host or bread because He said we must EAT HIM.

And I responded appropriately. What is your problem??? Are you now dictating what others say?

 

[Mungo]

wondering wrote...
If you don't like what MEN come up with,
then I sure hope you're not OSAS...
I sure hope you believe that baptism saves since that's what is taught in the bible...
I sure hope you think Jesus' body is in a host or bread because He said we must EAT HIM.

And I responded appropriately. What is your problem??? Are you now dictating what others say?

The topic is supposed to be Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin.

 

[jaybo]

The topic is supposed to be Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin.

Is that directed at me or "wondering"? Why are you such a control freak?

BTW, Mary is not "ever virgin". She was once a virgin (as are all females) but she clearly had intercourse with Joseph, since Jesus had brothers. Of course, you can't believe that because you have a need to believe otherwise. I pity you!

Sola scriptura!

 

[Mungo]

Is that directed at me or "wondering"? Why are you such a control freak?

BTW, Mary is not "ever virgin". She was once a virgin (as are all females) but she clearly had intercourse with Joseph, since Jesus had brothers. Of course, you can't believe that because you have a need to believe otherwise. I pity you!

Sola scriptura!

On the contrary Mary had no other childre, remained a virgin.

 

[jaybo]

On the contrary Mary had no other childre, remained a virgin.

So you're saying that the Bible is untrue?

"While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers came and stood outside, asking to speak to him." Matthew 12:46

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" Matthew 13:55

"Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him." Mark 3:31

"Now Jesus’ mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not get near him because of the crowd." Luke 8:19

"After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days." John 2:12

"All these continued together in prayer with one mind, together with the women, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers." Acts 1:14

Scripture said He had Brothers, Mary's children, in six different places. You can deny it and/or rationalize it but that is what God's word -- the Bible -- clearly says.

Should I believe you or God?

 

[Mungo]

So you're saying that the Bible is untrue?

"While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers came and stood outside, asking to speak to him." Matthew 12:46

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" Matthew 13:55

"Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him." Mark 3:31

"Now Jesus’ mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not get near him because of the crowd." Luke 8:19

"After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days." John 2:12

"All these continued together in prayer with one mind, together with the women, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers." Acts 1:14

Scripture said He had Brothers, Mary's children, in six different places. You can deny it and/or rationalize it but that is what God's word -- the Bible -- clearly says.

Should I believe you or God?

jaybo,
We have been though all this several times.
Why do you want to keep repeating the same failed claims.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,
We have been though all this several times.
Why do you want to keep repeating the same failed claims.

Because I believe the very words of God, not your words. God or you? It's that simple!

 

[Mungo]

Because I believe the very words of God, not your words. God or you? It's that simple!

No you don't, you just believe your own personal interpretations. It's that simple.

 

[jaybo]

No you don't, you just believe your own personal interpretations. It's that simple.

Simple to you for obvious reasons. I believe God and what He says through the authors of the Bible. Your propaganda is irrelevant.

 

[jaybo]

"Once more, in case you are listening this time, none of us think that Mary originated God. Nor that Mary originated the eternal Son of the Father. " Posted by a Catholic in another forum.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not OSAS, as the Bible clearly says we can lose our salvation. John 15:1-2, " “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear] fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. NET

Baptism does not save. It is a statement of one's old man being buried and then resurrected as a new man. Romans 6:4, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life." NET

Jesus' body is symbolically in the bread. Matthew 26:26, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” NET Common sense tells you that Jesus, while sitting at the table, gave them the bread, therefore it's obvious that they were not eating Him! He was not and is not the bread! So eating it was and is symbolic. The same principle applies to the wine, which was not and is not His literal blood.

Read the verse you posted again:

Romans 6:4
Romans 6:4, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life." NET

It takes baptism to be buried with Him...it says that this is done THROUGH baptism.
In order that we may rise again and have a new life.

I've always found
Mark 16:16 very interesting too...
16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

I think the OP doesn't care to go off-topic,,so this should end here.