What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who made God?

OzSpen said:
You say 'it's the historic teaching of the church'. That doesn't make it right. In fact, it's committing a genetic fallacy. We have to deal with the actual evidence.
Click to expand...
Then much of Christianity is based on genetic fallacy.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2Th 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

The evidence is that the Church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, (1 Tim 3:15) has maintained the teaching of her perpetual virginity and has never taught that she ceased to be a virgin.

The evidence is teaching of the multitude of 2000 years of witnesses.
Deu 19:15b "...by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

There is no "actual evidence" to the contrary.

To impose a 21st century, western, juridical, understanding on an ancient, middle eastern, non-juridical witness and, thereupon rejecting the witness, is a genetic fallacy.


I don't understand the Protestant obsession with the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God With Us.

Why is it important to anyone that she had sexual relations?
 
Last edited:
OzSpen said:
It is too late to convince me of the authenticity of the Infancy Gospel of James, based on my research.
Click to expand...
Does you research include any documentation contemporary to the Protoevangelium which gives evidence to the contrary concerning her perpetual virginity?

From: https://aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/

Regarding the … common Protestant argument from Matthew 1.24-25, Calvin thought "that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ" and that "[w]hat took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers."


Calvin was not alone among the Protestant Reformers in defending the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother.


Martin Luther wrote:


"When Matthew 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." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)


"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. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)


Huldrych Zwingli wrote:


"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, v. 1, p. 424)


Even John Wesley, in 1749, wrote:


"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)


Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley were simply maintaining the long-standing traditional belief on the matter. Here are just a few witnesses:


St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Generation of Christ, 5 (4th century):


"For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature?"


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


“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?”


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."




 
Jim Parker said:
Does you research include any documentation contemporary to the Protoevangelium which gives evidence to the contrary concerning her perpetual virginity?

From: https://aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity
[/QUOTE

Jim,
You have not defined tradition in your response to me. Quoting these authors is no guarantee they were biblically accurate. It's an Appeal to Popularity fallacy because it doesn't deal with rhe evidence, only those who support it. It is expected that Luther, Calvin, Zwingle and Wesley would have some tag along doctrines from their RCC background. It took me a long while to get rid of my cessationist baggage.

I've provided adequate info in my article to show the Protoevangelium of James was a fake promoting doctrines contrary to Scripture.

In the article I've presented counter evidence to your view regarding perpetual virginity.

Oz
Click to expand...
 
OzSpen said:
Jim,
You have not defined tradition in your response to me. Quoting these authors is no guarantee they were biblically accurate. It's an Appeal to Popularity fallacy because it doesn't deal with rhe evidence, only those who support it. It is expected that Luther, Calvin, Zwingle and Wesley would have some tag along doctrines from their RCC background. It took me a long while to get rid of my M.

I've provided adequate info in my article to show the Protoevangelium of James was a fake promoting doctrines contrary to Scripture.

In the article I've presented counter evidence to your view regarding perpetual virginity.

Oz
Click to expand...
You have not provided any reason for me (or anyone) to reject the historic teaching of the Church.

In fact, it's a pretty standard bit of AME literature and it represents the oral tradition that was already widely received much earlier than its writing. Similar to the literature of Genesis, prior to the introduction of Abraham, that reflects different traditions which are wonderfully and skillfully woven together, this story simply records what was already accepted. For you to call it a "fake document", cessationist baggage" and a relic of those (apparently heretical in all aspects) Roman Catholics is very disappointing. It is certainly not scholarly.

The alleged "scriptural proofs" are no proof at all as, even to this day, the word "brother" refers to any member of a clan. John the Baptist would have been properly called Jesus' "brother" in that culture. So the references to contemporaries referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters does not come near to meeting the standard of "proof" that you demand for her virginity.

I have not found anyone who had an objection to Mary's perpetual virginity who has presented anything near to a convincing argument. And it is curious to find people who have no problem accepting the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as actual, historic, plants which God Himself planted in His garden but they can't accept Mary as a perpetual virgin in spite of the fact that there are multiple tens of thousands of such women alive today!

You, and others, seem to have some need to have the Mother of our Lord engaging in a "normal sex life" because you can't find a notarized document with the names of witnesses attesting to her perpetual virginity.

But I do continue to wonder why people feel they must attack this ancient teaching of the Church unless it is simply an indirect manner of expressing one's distaste for anything that seems "too Catholic."

iakov the fool
 
What exactly does the perpetual virginity of Mary mean for us, if we were to accept it or not?

Maybe I've missed something in prior posts?
 
Jim Parker said:
Then much of Christianity is based on genetic fallacy.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2Th 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

The evidence is that the Church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, (1 Tim 3:15) has maintained the teaching of her perpetual virginity and has never taught that she ceased to be a virgin.

The evidence is teaching of the multitude of 2000 years of witnesses.
Deu 19:15b "...by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

There is no "actual evidence" to the contrary.

To impose a 21st century, western, juridical, understanding on an ancient, middle eastern, non-juridical witness and, thereupon rejecting the witness, is a genetic fallacy.


I don't understand the Protestant obsession with the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God With Us.

Why is it important to anyone that she had sexual relations?
Click to expand...

Jim,
You don't seem to understand the erroneous reasonong of a genetic fallacy.

I have attempted to correct what I consider is false teaching - the perpetual virginity of Mary - in my article for which I provided a link: 'Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document'.

Oz
 
OzSpen said:
Jim,
You don't seem to understand the erroneous reasonong of a genetic fallacy.

I have attempted to correct what I consider is false teaching - the perpetual virginity of Mary - in my article for which I provided a link: 'Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document'.

Oz
Click to expand...
Your opinion that it is a "false document" is less than convincing.
In fact, labeling it a "false document" is a good example of "poisoning the well."
I believe it is biased.
 
Last edited:
Jim Parker said:
Your opinion that it is a "false document" is less than convincing.
In fact, labeling it a "false document" is a good example of "poisoning the well."
I believe it is biased.
Click to expand...

Jim,

Since the Protoevangelium of James is in the Pseudepigrapha, what's the meaning of pseude?

Oz
 
Last edited:
OzSpen said:
Since the Protoevangelium of James is in the Pseudopigrapha, what's the meaning of pseudo?
Click to expand...
PLEASE!
Don't play games with me.
Don't try to take the meaning of part of a word and make it mean something all together different than its true meaning.
2nd 3rd Isaiah are pseudopigapha and they are part of the canon of scripture.
Revelation could be pseudopigrapha.
Pseudopigrapha is the name assigned to literature whose author used an assumed name.
That does not make the information in the document false.
It only means that the author used a literary form commonly used in his day.
Calling the Pentateuch, "The Book of Moses" is an example of pseudopigrapha.
The title of every modern Webster's dictionary renders the work speudopigrapha.

I read through your article which was apparently an argument with someone called "Tom."
It contained all the standard bilge that Protestants trot out when they want to disparage the Roman church.
It is religious bigotry and beneath a scholar of your caliber.
 
Jim Parker said:
PLEASE!
Don't play games with me.
Don't try to take the meaning of part of a word and make it mean something all together different than its true meaning.
2nd 3rd Isaiah are pseudepigrapha and they are part of the canon of scripture.
Revelation could be pseudopigrapha.
Pseudopigrapha is the name assigned to literature whose author used an assumed name.
That does not make the information in the document false.
It only means that the author used a literary form commonly used in his day.
Calling the Pentateuch, "The Book of Moses" is an example of pseudopigrapha.
The title of every modern Webster's dictionary renders the work speudopigrapha.

I read through your article which was apparently an argument with someone called "Tom."
It contained all the standard bilge that Protestants trot out when they want to disparage the Roman church.
It is religious bigotry and beneath a scholar of your caliber.
Click to expand...

Jim,

The pseudepigrapha contains spurious or pseudonymous writings. We know the Protoevangelium of James is a spurious document because of its various teachings that contradict Scripture.

Your view on Isaiah is the teaching of higher criticism and liberal theology and has been refuted over and over.

In your reply here you goaded me.

Oz
 
OzSpen said:
We know the Protoevangelium of James is a spurious document because of its various teachings that contradict Scripture.
Click to expand...
YOU may know, but unless you have a mouse in you pocket, "we" is very much in question.
OzSpen said:
Your view on Isaiah is the teaching of higher criticism and liberal theology and has been refuted over and over.
Click to expand...
So, you think Isaiah lived for about 180 years?
And calling the view "liberal theology" is, again, the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

OzSpen said:
In your reply here you goaded me.
Click to expand...
Don't want to be goaded? Don't goad.

You ignore the fact that pseudopigrapha was, in the AME, an accepted form of literature. It was a way to commit to writing an oral tradition. The Gospels are an example of committing of oral tradition to writing. (Though they were written by eye witnesses of the events or, as with Luke, assembled from the reports of the eye witnesses.)
You also ignore the fact that the way we evaluate the historicity and accuracy to day is totally inappropriate for the evaluation of AME literature. Do you think that the words of Paul in Acts are as accurate as the transcript of an audio tape?

The Protoevangelium of James is a record of the oral tradition which was already generally accepted at the time of it's writing. If it were known that Mary had other children, it would certainly have been know at the time of its writing and it would have been rejected.

And where are the accounts of Mary's "other children?" What happened to them? None of them are mentioned by any of the apostolic fathers. We do not have even one mention of any of Mary's alleged "other children" anywhere in any of their writings.

All we have is 20th+ century Protestants demanding that Mary have a "normal sex life."
After having been the tabernacle of the LORD for 9 months, an honor allotted to one woman in all eternity, it seems right to Protestants like you that she should be degraded to common use.
 
Jim Parker said:
YOU may know, but unless you have a mouse in you pocket, "we" is very much in question.

So, you think Isaiah lived for about 180 years?
And calling the view "liberal theology" is, again, the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.


Don't want to be goaded? Don't goad.

You ignore the fact that pseudopigrapha was, in the AME, an accepted form of literature. It was a way to commit to writing an oral tradition. The Gospels are an example of committing of oral tradition to writing. (Though they were written by eye witnesses of the events or, as with Luke, assembled from the reports of the eye witnesses.)
You also ignore the fact that the way we evaluate the historicity and accuracy to day is totally inappropriate for the evaluation of AME literature. Do you think that the words of Paul in Acts are as accurate as the transcript of an audio tape?

The Protoevangelium of James is a record of the oral tradition which was already generally accepted at the time of it's writing. If it were known that Mary had other children, it would certainly have been know at the time of its writing and it would have been rejected.

And where are the accounts of Mary's "other children?" What happened to them? None of them are mentioned by any of them, apostolic fathers. We do not have even one mention of any of Mary's alleged "other children" anywhere in any of their writings.

All we have is 20th+ century Protestants demanding that Mary have a "normal sex life."
After having been the tabernacle of the LORD for 9 months, an honor allotted to one woman in all eternity, it seems right to Protestants like you that she should be degraded to common use.
Click to expand...
Jim,

I'm in hospital as I write on a mobile. I don't have resources here to refute your view of several Isaiahs. Scholars know Protoevangelium of James is spurious for a number of reasons, one of which is the places where it differs with Scripture.

I'm too unwell to continue this discussion.

Oz
 
Jim Parker said:
It would have been lawful.
But what is lawful is not relevant.
Being lawful and being a fact are two very different things.

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
I don't see the context in 1 col 10:23 in Mary's marriage and relations with her husband. Jesus is the Christ and Lord.

Randy
 
This was stated in Jesus's "home town" in the context we know Him and His Family -
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Aren’t all his sisters with us?

There is absolutely no reason not to see a Mary who had other children with her lawful husband. Especially since they are spoken of Jesus in a family context. Wasn't Mary His Mother? So why then are the others not exactly as written. His siblings. They are His siblings. Ordinary family - ordinary man -Jesus. Thats how God chose to send and reveal His Son into this world. Not as a rich powerful king with many servants and a castle. But one who was a servant to all and yet the world was made through Him. As is stated the world didn't recognize Him.

Randy
 
OzSpen said:
Jim,

I'm in hospital as I write on a mobile. I don't have resources here to refute your view of several Isaiahs. Scholars know Protoevangelium of James is spurious for a number of reasons, one of which is the places where it differs with Scripture.

I'm too unwell to continue this discussion.

Oz
Click to expand...
Oooh! Why are you in hospital?? I will be praying for you!

jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top