Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[35] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[43] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[35]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Development_of_the_doctrine
In your opinion. I supplied The accepted "Strong's concordance definition for every word that required definition. I quoted the scriptures verbatim and documented additional points from the Hebrew Talmud using the best translation possible and cited volume and page.
I engaged in the strictest exegesis. The only ones engaging in eisegesis are those non-Catholics that refuse to accept the plain truth of the scriptures.
Please go to the original Greek.
And it started very early the Protoevangelium of James.
There is nothing, repeat nothing, in Mary's statement indicating she was vowing to remain a virgin.
If you think you engaged in exegesis, you need to go back to wherever you got your Greek training and get a refund.
Unlike you, however, I documented my sources. I put these verses in my post on how the NASB, KJV AND DR translated the passage in question.
If you think Mary's reply to the Gabriel indicates perpetual virginity you are practicing deceit in your translation.
It's. not. in. there.
Here's a challenge to you. Using the Greek and that verse only, show how Mary is saying she is pledging perpetual virginity.
I'll go paint my house while you dig that up.
We already have. But here it is again. This is how the Greek would read if translated into English.
and not knew her until that she had brought forth a son; and he called the name of him Jesus.
But by actually showing the truth of what the Word says we show we do love the truth.
“Here is the rest of the challenge for the non-Catholics. Lets see if you can find an Early Church Father from the first 300 years or so that denied the Perpetual Virginity. Several of you have claimed (erroneously) that the Catholic Church did not exist until around 313 AD. So any of the ECF’s would belong to the “mystery Christian” sect and would be all over this.”
Better yet, find any source before 100ad - the time of the Apostlrs. If they taught it, just demonstrate it.
Better yet, find any source before 100ad - the time of the Apostlrs. If they taught it, just demonstrate it.
If he could just show it in Luke 1:34 that would be a good start.
Verga,
I too want to commend the amount of effort you put into your thread post.
Obviously, I don’t agree with all you or your conclusion. No problem there.
Maybe you be richly blessed in His grace. May we all grow in grace and truth.
This stems from the Protoevangelium of James does it not?
In your opinion. Every single non-Catholic has ignored the citations from the book of Deuteronomy that strictly prohibits Joseph from a conjugal relationship as well as the Example set by David in 2 Samuel.
Can you cite anything from the Talmud that reverses this: In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce, and not remarry her.
If you go all the way back to the original post you will see ALL those citations from a book called, .....wait for it......The Bible.
So Mary is the Wife of God as well as the Mother of God?
I think the OT prohibits that sort of behavior, and I’m sure the Talmudic scholars would frown upon it as well.
And trying the 'prove a negative for me' routine is also a hollow gesture. You can do better than that.
Please! How inane! The Catholic Church existed before Scripture. The teaching of the Church includes not only the strong scriptural passages cited in Verga’s post but also the sacred oral and liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Cult began before Scripture? Wait -- I've been told repeatedly on this site by Catholics that Christ FOUNDED the Church on Peter... who is right? You, or the myriad of others who have said Christ founded the Catholic Church?
Uhhh. Neither. The Catholic Church didn't roll around until sometime near 300 A.D. Founded by man. Not Christ.
Hmmm. Next...
The narrative of St. Luke must ultimately be traced back to the testimony of Our Blessed Lady. The evangelist himself points to Mary as the source of his account of the infancy of Jesus, when he says that Mary kept all these words in her heart (2:19, 51)
This is so laughable as to almost be not worth addressing. But yet, I will. The Scripture you cherry pick, Luke 2:19, and 2:51:
2:19 "But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart."
2:51 "And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart."
Funny -- neither of these cherry picked verses indicate anything about Luke taking Mary as the source of his account; it only makes reference to what Mary did regarding the events that occurred... "she pondered them in her heart."
She pondered. That's it. Claiming that it indicates anything other that what it plainly says is to add to Scripture. And claiming that means Luke sourced Mary for his Gospel is adding to Scripture.
Scriptura Sola folks wade in shallow theological waters and have no clue of the great and towering intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church that spans centuries of scholarship, theology, ritual, and teaching.
Now... THIS is rich -- "shallow theological waters..." <-- this is the purview of Catholicism as it holds Scripture in such low esteem. And Sola Scriptura doesn't mean what you think it means -- you might try some of that "towering intellectual tradition, scholarship, theology, ritual and teaching" to figure out that your definition is the great Straw Man of the Catholic Church. I'm surprised the RCC doesn't have statues of the Sola Scriptura Straw Man for all to venerate.
If "shallow theological waters" is the accusation thrown at those who believe that Scripture is God-breathed, inerrant, infallible, and the whole, total source for living the Christian life, then I'm more than happy to roll up my pants legs and be right there. But if that shallowness is what we have, the parched, arid desert of the Roman Catholic Church would make the Atacama Desert look like an oasis.
The only inanity I've seen is the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of God's Word.
Hoss
Please provide chapter and verse for what you are citing.
Verga! You just argued that God caused Mary the Mother of Jesus to violate her marriage contract! She was already betrothed to Joseph when God placed Jesus in her womb! Your premise starts with this betrothal is the same as being married! Please, FRiend, look at what you are mistakenly arguing.
Personally, I do appreciate all the painstaking time and effort you’ve apparently put into writing this, verga. I can’t say I’m going to agree with your conclusions, but I do recognize that you must have worked very hard on this to put it together.
I’ve read quite a lot of what you wrote thus far, and I have to say that to the point I’ve gotten so far I haven’t seen any convincing arguments.
- On the point about Mary’s response and “shall be,” the “shall be” refers only to her conceiving in her womb and bringing forth a Son, which is going to happen in the future.
- On what the relationship was between Joseph and Mary at this point, they were married but the situation wasn’t exactly like marriages today.
- All that’s said about the “nuptial” language and Mary “having entered into a ‘relationship’ with the Holy Spirit” are possibilities, not certainties, and it doesn’t seem to me that the overall evidence supports the possibilities you mention. You mention that Mary’s simultaneous matrimonial relationships with the Holy Spirit and Joseph are possible in “exactly the same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.” In that case, then, since Christians can also marry and consummate their relationships while being the bride of Christ, there is no basis either in that sense to prevent Mary from doing so.
- Comparing Joseph and Mary’s marriage other situations in which the woman has gone with another man or had a child with him is
- I believe it’s truly a mistake to in any way read something sexual into Mary’s marriage to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. Sexual relations are for creatures. God is Spirit. Do you know how Jesus healed people in different ways. Some He touched, but not always in the same way. With one man He took His own spittle and some mud and put it in his eyes. With others, He never touched them but just spoke. As Jesus said as He raised Lazarus, and as the voice of His Father came from Heaven that to some sounded like a thunderclap, He and His Father said and did certain things for the benefit of the people who heard and saw them, not because He needed to do or say certain things. The point is to be more UNDERSTANDABLE to us. That is what it sounds like that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. From Psalm 91:
“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” (1)
“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” (4)
Psalm 17: “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings...”
Psalm 36: “How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.”
During Jesus’ transfiguration, a cloud also overshadowed Peter, James and John.
We have to think that one of the many reasons for why God created both birds and shadows, for example, is so that once we had observed birds and shadows, then God could explain about Himself and spiritual truth to us through psalms like these.
- “Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.”
Again, maybe. But the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament always have to be considered. We are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, Christ living in us.
- The claim about Jesus having John take Mary as his mother, thereby meaning that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, doesn’t have merit. Whatever the situation with Jesus’ brothers and sisters, they weren’t at the Cross. John was. This is simply of no relevance whatsoever: “it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.” And it was unheard of to do many things that Jesus, the Son of God, did. What comes first is God’s family, the spiritual one of the Church. Anyone in the Church should, unless doing so means to sin against God, obey the command of taking care of their parents. Jesus fulfilled the Law, as He said, and part of that was providing for His mother. He did that by leaving her with a devoted family member, the family of God, whose devotion was such that he followed Jesus to the Cross. Who better to take care of Mary than the one who would do so out of Christian love, one who had been discipled (taught) by Jesus, believed in Him, and was an Apostle? Even if Jesus’ brothers were believers at this point, they weren’t at the Cross, and we know that while Jesus was discipling (training), they didn’t believe in Him. John was a true son, a son IN CHRIST, out of his devotion to God, while Jesus’ brothers, it seems, were only so at that point out of the flesh. (I would also think, if the blood kin argument had merit, and if Jesus’ brothers were only cousins, they would have a similar responsibility to take care of Mary, especially as in that culture of close extended families, cousins could be called brothers.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.