Posted on 05/31/2011 11:34:50 AM PDT by sigzero
Mary was a virgin who was to conceive by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Son of God. Few in Christian realms would deny Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin through pregnancy and the birth of Christ. This was the ultimate fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, emphasis added)
However, Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ can become a heated debate in some circles. Though some may think this is a Roman Catholic versus Protestant view, it is not. Many Protestants, including people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, have held to Mary remaining a virgin for the duration of her life. Let’s look at the issues in a little more detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
So should all women stay virgins in order to follow her example?
You are arguing that you are equal to Jesus and you are not.
>>ultimately you reject even “sola scriptura” for “sola robroya”. you are you own pope.<<
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. You are exactly right - in a sense. ;)
That sense is that “I am my own pope in that I don’t need one.” I have Jesus. Or, more accurately, He has me.
“you understand Baptism is for the remission of sins?”
I understand that REPENTANCE and baptism is for the remission of sins.
Lol! No one on this thread has said anything to that effect. There is actually quite a good debate going on here with both sides using Scripture.
Did you read the Scripture from Luke I cited?
He says she will (future tense) conceive a child. Why would a woman who was planning to be married be confused by an announcement that she was going to (in the future) have a baby?
You argue that she knew that the angel meant immediately because in the story told in the Scripture (or, the life Mary led) events transpired soon after.
But Mary, the real person represented in the Bible, did not have knowledge of future events when she responded to the angel. Did she? I don't think she did, but your argument seems to hinge upon this.
Can you explain?
i was pretty sure i am not equal to Jesus, but thanks for the confirmation.
>>some Church history would have been useful.<<
Believe it or not, that is one that I have not studied much. I have a cursory understanding of important stuff, but since I view it much as people view a company. I’m just more interested in what the bible says than what a particular “church group” teaches, unless I am planning on joining that particular group. Then I get into it. I did that with Mormonism when I thought about becoming a Mormon back in the early 80’s. THAT was an eye opener.
But in this is the explanation for why I did not know about the ever virgin Mary nonsense until the last year or so. What I find so revealing is how many Catholics don’t know it either.
And I think there is a story there. ;)
wow, i am amazed! do you mind telling me what denomination you are?
Yeah, some guy named Paul said the same thing.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptised into the name of Paul?" 1Cor 1:10-13
Did Mary know this when she responded "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"?
How does the angel's use of future tense translate naturally into an immediacy in Mary's mind?
“Why would a woman who was planning to be married be confused by an announcement that she was going to (in the future) have a baby?”
Exactly. That is a good question that you should answer. She WAS going to be married and she WAS surprised. She shouldn’t have been unless she thought she this was going to happen soon.
I don’t KNOW that she knew it was going to be immediate. Her question leads me to believe that she knew it was. Again, this is my opinion. That seems logical.
It isn’t logical that she would be engaged if she was supposed to remain a virgin.
Yes indeed.
You are amazed by what?
Then it certainly is an exception. I do believe that hostility towards a belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary arise out of a deep hatred of it being Catholic dogma and therefore suspect. If not I suspect it would be regarded as adiaphora. Since arguments can be made for both sides using Scripture. That it is not for me confirms it is not the belief itself that is the problem but that it is a “Catholic” belief.
Just once I wish they would gripe at the Orthodox.
you seem very sincere, but very puffed up in YOUR understanding of Scripture. i think what you are missing is the Holy Spirit and His guiding of the Church. Jesus gave the Church authority to teach and baptize. If the Church has the authority to teach, don’t we have an obligation to learn?
>>the other poster is arguing the Church is the Body of Christ and you can’t seperate Jesus from His Body. some want Jesus without His Body or wish to make a new body.<<
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Colossians 1:24
[ Paul’s Labor for the Church ] Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
etc.
I think this is pretty clear. We just have to nail down what “church” means. :)
You say.
His Church says different.
So, you claim authority to determine the scope of His Church. Who gave you that authority?
The Bible says.
Well, the Church cannot be simply a “body of believers” if the rest of the Bible is true. The Church of the Bible is one, and teaches the Truth, guided by the Holy Spirit.
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH. So which “body of believers” teaches the truth?
How would you make sense of the following?
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18
Where do you take your concerns? Makes no sense whatsoever without the visible Church Christ established with teaching authority, and the power to loose and bind. Christians can’t even agree on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
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.