The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

SD your points are simply rationalizing, but they don't give any Spiritual signifigance to her remaining a virgin. There is Spiritual signifigance to her being a virgin when she gives birth to Jesus, but I have yet to see it clearly explained why she should remain one. Siting sibling rivalry and denoucing sex as a dirty act are not valid arguments for the case.

JM

#1354
Why is it necessary for Mary to be a virgin for her entire life ?
This is my "logic" answer . I haven't checked Rome for this, but here goes
Mary conceived of the Holy spirit . When a woman conceives a child by a man, she has a special relationship to him and is not allowed to "have sex" with anyone else while they both live . Well, since the Holy Spirit is God, she is then His Spouse and not permitted to have sexual relations with anyone .
Therefore, since she conceived virginally, she remained "ever virgin".Speaking of relationships, Mary was the daughter of God the Father, mother of God the Son, and Spouse of God the Holy Spirit .
There is no chapter and verse, this is "logic"

SD your points are simply rationalizing, but they don't give any Spiritual signifigance to her remaining a virgin.

My rationalization is rational, at least. They are good reasons. Let me expand upon the "sibling rivalry" point. Mary remained without sin her entire life. She was the new ark of the covenant, a perfect vessel. One would not even think of desecrating the holy vessel which held God Incarnate with mere human contents. That's the spiritual significance.

SD

"Mary was the daughter of God the Father"

I can see how you can logically make the other 2 statements concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit, but this one needs some Scriptural support, and please dont site "Mary, full of grace" as your evidence of Mary being Immaculately Conceived.

JM

Havoc, in Deuteronomy, God gave men authority to interpret the Law. Jesus himself acknowledged the authority of the Pharisees to interpret the Law. Please keep in mind too what I have pointed out previously: that the Pharisees were not a monolithic group. The Shammaites were much more 'rigid' and 'legalistic', and likely were the group that drew Jesus's ire. On the other hand, Jesus had a great deal in common with the Hillelites.

You're helping me illustrate a point. I hope you know that.

The Pharisees were given their authority by God. It was also removed by God via the Messiah. The messiah is now the interpreter and judge of the Law and the Commandments. He is the King of Isreal and of the Congregation. As such, the priesthood answers to Him and derives from Him. And the bible says we all who believe are now priests. The spirit of God is Given us to interpret for us directly. If we get it wrong, it is our fault because God made all the resources directly available to each of us. There is no excuse for failure. And the only reason for failure is disobedience to God. God knew what He was doing.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and denounced their methods and their traditions; but, you are correct that he did say they should be obeyed at the time because they still held places of authority. Upon the death and resurrection, that authority was revoked. The priesthood of old was now useless. And anyone now claiming a priestly authority has none. Teachers and Preachers are servants to be heeded. We ignore those who teach correctly to our own peril. In heeding false teachers we do that to our own peril as well.

I know this will get me flack from Havoc for being superstitious, but...

Think of it this way, if you had a cloth or napkin that Jesus used to wipe the sweat from his brow, would you use it to clean up the table? To wash dishes with? Or would His having contacted it make it "special"? Something dedicated as sacred is not then used for mundane purposes.

How more so with Mary, who had the most intimate contact with Jesus, providing his sustenace in utero.

SD

Mary was the daughter of God the Father"

I can see how you can logically make the other 2 statements concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit, but this one needs some Scriptural support, and please dont site "Mary, full of grace" as your evidence of Mary being Immaculately Conceived.

I think you overthought that one. He wasn't referring to the IC or anything. Mary was a daughter of the Father in the same way that every Jew, or every person, is a child of the Father. That's all.

SD

What follows is a pure cut and paste. I submit it because it sounds reasonable to this poor slob.

Starting with Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI, "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

.Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
Hmmmm! That's funny, Eusebius seems to agree with Clement.

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

Now Hegesippus was a first generation member of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus’ disciples and family. He knew the folks.....how could he have gotten so confused??

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ." Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx:

"So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ." Clement:

"When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."

Eusebius:
"A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."

The brother, HUMANLY SPEAKING???? Now what do you suppose he meant by that??

Hegesippus:
"...and these still survived of the Lord's family, the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be His brother, humanly speaking."

Luke:
Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother (MHTHR) of Jesus and with his brothers (ADELFOI)."

The Greek usage (in parentheses) that LUKE so"incorrectly" used, just to confuse all of us, is mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Go here for full argument.

In any event, do any of you suppose you can show just when "Perpetual Virginity" became an issue in the Church?

Vehicle and building design, Calligraphy, I'd say anything that doesn't lend itself to worship. If it will be paid undue respect, it is a no-no.

Oh, wait, you finally did ask one that applied to everyone didn't you? Think about that and then ask yourself if you feel like a twit yet? Wasn't intending to be mean; but, it illustrates a point quite well. If you need a flashlight, I can post some highlights. I've been keeping track of the answers I gave and the questions asked. "What do you think" and such.. Go back and read the line of questions and answers up til now. You all see what you want. Much as Dignan in his response in 899 to another issue.

You Got close to the truth in your arguing because you assumed that what I stated as an application to myself was being globally applied to everyone. You still didn't quite get it right. And you still can't see the problem you have, unfortunately. I tryed to draw it out.

If it's wrong for me. It's wrong because I have a problem with it. That's a biblical truth that you all missed (strike 1). If another does something that can cause his brother to stumble that is sin (strike 2). And more specific and to the point, the images of Mary and the saints were made to be adored, sang to, prayed to, etc. They have and do serve this function. By definition, they were made for the purpose that is described by the 2nd commandment. Pelayo got closer to that, I think, than anyone; but, without thinking about how it applied to him.

It wasn't a perfect excersize. But, you all reacted as expected. Dave better than expected. Beligerant without discernment. To the credit of my fellow brothers here and without prompting all of them were silent. Perhaps not for the reasons I suspect; but, it shows somebody was paying attention. Flame away.

1369 is meant for you

This is getting so stupid answering questions like this, and Havoc getting a rectal cavity search because he made a personal decision to get out of the art field

Thank you JH. Glad to know my thoughts regarding whether ya'll got this or not were understood by ya'll. Confirmation is always a good thing :) But, don't get too shaken. I let it happen to me for a purpose. This is the same thing that was done to our Lord. The priests were after Him from the start. They hated him so that they could see only what they wanted in his speach because they were searching for something to use against him. They've been putting words in my mouth for some time. This time, I just let it go to see how far they'd go with it. When the Lord finally fell silent and didn't defend himself, they tried him in silence, beat him in silence and crucified him. This wasn't that bad. I answered; but, only in such a way as to cover myself and let them see it as applying to the world..

Rectal Cavity search - Rofl. That is rather what it appears to be isn't it.

Now why is it important for Mary to not have other kids? I think it speaks, as I said, to the miracle of the virgin birth. Certainly one woman, dedicated as a virgn who has a kid because of a miracle sits better with me than a woman with 6 or 8 kids claiming one of them is the son of God.

the Proto-Gospel of St. James, which was known to Origen and was probably composed before his time, is evidence that Our Lady was venerated quite early on. This this practice grew is suggested by the fact that her role increases from the earliest to the latest gospels. But the opposition we see to the concept of perpetual virginity is really just anti-Catholicism: the Protestant exaultation of marriage in opposition to monasticism; their fanatical opposition to the medieval cult of Mary. That Jesus himself never married --was in fact a monk like Anthony or a friar like Francis, anyway--is something they never face up to.

Now there is signifigance for Mary being a virgin when she gave birth, but I dont see why the Catholics are so adamant about her remaining a virgin.

This is funny, because I posted the identical question (this has always baffled me) a few months ago when we discussed this subject. Translated, the answer is: Cuz' that's our story and we're stickin' to it! Because they have to no matter what evidence is shown, they don't think they can afford to be shown in error on anything like this. It's bunk dressed up in fancy clothes and given the name "Holy Tradition".

My rationalization is rational, at least. They are good reasons. Let me expand upon the "sibling rivalry" point. Mary remained without sin her entire life. She was the new ark of the covenant, a perfect vessel. One would not even think of desecrating the holy vessel which held God Incarnate with mere human contents. That's the spiritual significance.
------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider this:

Romans 3:

20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,

22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;

26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
------------------------------------------------------------

I realize this touches on "Justification by Faith" (another sensitive subject) but, let's just concentrate on "sin".

Do you have any Scriptural evidence that Mary was exempted?

Siting sibling rivalry and denoucing sex as a dirty act are not valid arguments for the case.

Not to mention the fact that counter arguments abound based on logic that would be equally valid without in any way risking the purity of the Lord. Ie. God, knowing that Jesus was going to die, would not leave a family without Children. And the argument of sibling rivalry looses more ground to "Why can't you be more like Joseph's son". This stuff happens in every day life without divinity. The sibling argument denies reality.

As far as the "Are these not His sisters" statement. They are precisely posing the question that if these all came from the same parents, where did this One, Jesus, derive all these things the others do not have. This flatly loses it's meaning if one trys playing word games (that do not fit btw). It is intended to reflect his divinity.

But the opposition we see to the concept of perpetual virginity is really just anti-Catholicism: the Protestant exaultation of marriage in opposition to monasticism; their fanatical opposition to the medieval cult of Mary.

Just think of it as us doing our part for the ancient Christian duty and obligation to proclaim the truth and fight heresy.

This is funny, because I posted the identical question (this has always baffled me) a few months ago when we discussed this subject. Translated, the answer is: Cuz' that's our story and we're stickin' to it! Because they have to no matter what evidence is shown, they don't think they can afford to be shown in error on anything like this. It's bunk dressed up in fancy clothes and given the name "Holy Tradition".

It's propped up because there are a lot of Catholics out there that worship Mary that would no longer call themselves Catholic if this were removed. It is a tool. More Catholics in SouthAmerica believe in "the virgin" than the Lord. Is that not what we read a few threads ago. And have we not seen the parades, all of us, in south america as in other parts of the world where an Idol of Mary is paraded around the streets of these small towns in large processions Celebrating the Goddess who Gave birth to a God named Jesus. They lavish her and cover her in money.. The modern Catholic 'miracles' always have something to do with Mary.. The weeping virgin that cries water or blood, the virgin idol with images in her eyes or some such nonsense, the wierd (and I'm afraid, not understood even by me) crucified virgin...

But the opposition we see to the concept of perpetual virginity is really just anti-Catholicism: the Protestant exaultation of marriage in opposition to monasticism

If that's your take, it has nothing to do with Protestants. The Apostles and thier servants penned the Bible. Your argument is with them. They didn't write what you would like to turn their words to say. The Lord had brothers and sisters. It's in the Bible - to your detriment. If that's anti-Catholic, then the Bible is anti-Catholic. What a truth.

Siting sibling rivalry and denoucing sex as a dirty act are not valid arguments for the case.

It is my personal opinion that the beliefs at the time this doctrine was "developed" were that sex was dirty and Jesus mother couldn't have sullied herself in such a disgraceful act as to have sexual intercourse ever (even with her lawful husband). Of course, once the doctrine is developed it's not likely to ever be changed. It's not in their way of doing things to admit they were wrong.

Or is there some other logical flaw?

The logical flaw comes in on the error created in lifting Mary up on a pedastal, making idols to her, etc. The error is in the midst of that, seeing the Catholic church say she gave birth to God and leave it hanging out there for people to abuse. I understand completely why it's done. Ya'll may not; but, ya'll are the willing dupes (scuse') that have to defend it because a bunch of Carnys in fish hats are more intent on their own purposes than on watching out for your souls. If it looks good, do it. If it makes money do it. If it gives them power do it. What other reason is there other than just outright error? Because mariology does not in anyway line up with scripture.