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 ...
Is “supernatural encounter” sufficient to describe the Incarnation?
It's tedious to you because you have no evidence to support your position and you can not show any other meaning for the OT Scripture than what was posted in my post 267 that supports Mary ever virgin
Nowhere is it taught that Mary was always a virgin
You were shown that it has been taught since the second century CONSISTENTLY and there is typology of Scripture that supports this.
You need to prove that it has NOT been taught consistently throughout Christianity and show typology that does not support the perpetual virginity of Mary and show historical writings to support your claim.
Have fun trying,perhaps you will learn something along the way the helps you grow in faith and love of the fullness of Christ and love for His Mother
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
It’s tedious because plain scripture is discarded while typology is misused. I need to continually love Christ more. I have no need to grow in love for Mary.
Then, why did Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by speaking in tongues, BEFORE being baptized? Why did Paul tell the Philippian jailer to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? When was the thief on the cross baptized? Yet Jesus promised him he would be in Paradise that day!
They were not known as “the Way” but as “people of the Way”. Big difference there!
And take themselves out of the gene pool?
Mary is the queen of heaven right?
Could have been? Are you seriously trying to tell us to believe a doctrine the rests of “could have been?
In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos'}; for sisters, it’s adelphe {ad-el-fay'}. The word for cousin/kinfolk is suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts.
Plain Scripture says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth,but it's not. Does this shake your faith?Hopefully not. We must understand that there are other meanings and lessons besides this that God is revealing to us
I have no need to grow in love for Mary.
Do you admire selfless love in anyone you know that loves Christ and goes beyond themselves in compassion for others even when suffering their own persecutions ?Does your love for them grow because of this?
Hopefully so. So why do you not want to imitate the love Our Blessed Mother had and understand that to grow in love for her means you are going to grow in love for Christ who created Our blessed Mother.
You may have he last word,dear sister, I have busy day at work tomorrow and need to get some sleep
That’s what the catholics claim. But so did the Babylonians with Ashtoreth... and we all know how God felt about it!
The Holy Spirit was showing the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. Paul did not tell the Phillipian jailer baptism is the first act of obedience, no one was told that in the Scripitures. Acts 2 and Acts 22 explicitly say baptism is for the remission of sins. The Church received this teaching from the Apostles and has taught it for 2,000 years. When the Roman persecution ended and the Catholic Church could meet at Nicea, it said it believed one baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” It wasn’t until the 16th century did baptism become a useless ceremony. That poor old thief on the cross, he gets pulled out every time somebody wants to attack baptismal regeneration! He died before the Church was founded on Pentecost, so NT baptism didn’t apply to him.
Can you tell me of any Christians anywhere between the years 95ad and the 16th century that believed in this two baptism theory?
beautiful post, thanks for sharing!
That was my point but you won’t get those that belong to the RCC to understand I’m afraid.
As far as the thief on the cross, yes he died before Pentecost, but you will agree with me that he lived during New Testament times. I would not be in such a hurry to make him an exception.
What 2 baptism theory are you talking about? I thought we were talking about whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. And, honestly, we are straying too far away from the theme of this thread. If you will start one about baptism I will be glad to debate you there!
Out of curiosity, do either one of you know what baptism means?
A pity! And I mean it. My whole family in Spain is Catholic and sometimes I worry about their salvation. My mom’s faith was on the candles, masses... that she could pay for. Just weeks before I was to defend my doctoral dissertation, I received from her a ribbon that had been rubbed against a rock on which, tradition said, Mary had stood (this was in Spain) leading the charge against Napoleon’s troops. I’m not kidding! The idea was that I would put it in my pocket and so would not have any difficulty answering questions. It went in the same dumpster that the candle she sent me after hurricane Hugo, to keep further hurricanes away from our home!
i am assuming you hold to the Baptist “2 baptism” theory:
1. Holy Spirit baptism for salvation
2. water baptism as a public first act of obedience
Romans 10:9-10 was written to believers already. You haven’t dealt with Acts 2 or 22 or about 10 other verses where baptism is clearly shown to be for the forgiveness of sins. No one was ever told to “ask Jesus to come into your heart” in the NT. Was not Paul ( Saul ) himself told in Acts 22 to arise and wash away his sins? So Paul would not be telling the Romans something different in Romans 10 would he?
Please don’t forget the Apostles went all over the known world at the time spreading the Gospel and adding all those that were to be saved to the Church. And what did we find when St John died around 95ad? We had a universal Church, that whether you were in Antioch, Rome, Egypt, India, Greece, all believed in baptismal regeneration. Why? Because the Apostles taught them!! Stop with the 16th century tradition of men and believe the Apostolic Faith!
It went in the same dumpster that the candle she sent me after hurricane Hugo, to keep further hurricanes away from our home!"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
baptism is the sacrament of faith in which your sins are forgiven and you receive the Holy Spirit. but something tells me this isn’t what you were looking for! :)
Baptism is a transliteration from the Greek word meaning immersion. I understand the term was used in the dyeing business, as cloth was immersed/dipped into the dye. As a Southern Baptist, I believe baptism is a symbol of what has already taken place in a person’s soul. It represents dying to the old life, being buried with Jesus and raising with Him to a new life. Of course this only makes any sense when you are baptized by immersion, but OTOH, if it’s not immersion it needs to be called something else, not baptism!
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.