Posted on 06/23/2003 2:36:07 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Where is the verse saying she was not a perpetual virgin? You're the one denying it, why not prove your claim?
One may be ignorant of the doctrine and be saved, because the doctrine is not necessary by a necessity of means (as is faith in the existence of the Triune God, the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, and the future of man in either heaven or hell based on our acts).
However, those who deny the truth of the doctrine, knowing that the Catholic Church teaches it, are heretics, and will be lost, because they deny divine revelation, and turn what they do accept of it into a concotion of their own opinions, rather than accepting simply the truths proposed for our belief by God through Christ and the Apostles to the Church.
I have a soft spot in my heart for Deal Hudson. When the "Voice of the Faithful" crew were bullhorning parishioners at the Cathedral where the Cardinal said Mass and acting up and setting themselves up as an alternative magisterium, Mr. Hudson flew to Boston to attend Mass and meet with a bunch of regular shmoes AND some of the VOTF members to get a first hand idea of what was going on. He was very supportive of efforts to "out" VOTF and he is a regular, nice guy, good sense of humor and a great love of God.
What is Protestant Golf? Is it the personal interpretation of the rules by each player? Does that make Mulligans the equivalent of accepting homoexuality?
It isn't necessary, I wouldn't think. On the other hand, why is it necessary for you that she have other children? You can't prove it either way from the bible alone.
Ya know, the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos has been documented since before the canonization of the bible. The very group who you trust to put the correctly inspired books in the bible also venerated Mary as a perpetual virgin AND believed in the consecrated Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
I could be wrong by a hundred years or so, but the very first time Christians started to disbelieve in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary was in the last couple of hundred years or so.
Sure I can. Read my post 79 and provide a cogent answer to the biblical arguments contained within. You know, something more than your standard content-less one line rejoinder. Include with your answer not only why I am wrong, but why you are right. It would be refreshing if you actually made an arguement for a change, rather than just arguing.
And I will take silence as an admission that you can't demonstrate anything to us, and will publicize your defeat accordingly.
Show us where it says in the Bible that Joseph and Mary had intercourse.
However, my reaction now, before you've even attempted to write anything:
Oh, I'm sorry, but I think you're going to have to "add to the Word of God" to demonstrate what is nowhere stated.
1) Because Scripture gives her the title of "virgin" (Isaiah 7.14, Matthew 1.23, Luke 1.27), which makes no sense if she subsequently had sex. 2) Because the creed calls her "the Virgin Mary". 3) Because it pleased God to arrange things in this way.
Mary having sex with her HUSBAND relates in NO WAY to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Sure it does. To say that after Almighty God passed forth from her womb, that a man would dare to desecrate her be having sexual relations with her, is to deny the divinty of Christ. It is a statement that there is nothing particualrly Holy about giving birth to God the Word that would give one any pause from daring to touch that which God has so hallowed.
Certainly, this is not the attitude of Scripture towards those things which God has super-sanctified by his physical presence, such as the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies, both of which are figures of Blessed Mary. When men dared to touch the Ark, they were killed. When anyone besides the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies they were killed. When Ezekiel saw God pass through the East Gate of the new Temple, the Lord made abundantly clear His thoughts on whether any man should dare have something to do with this entranceway:
And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut (Ezekiel 44.2)
God entered the world through the womb and birth canal of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Afterwards, in accordance with His word, this passageway was shut up forever, and Mary remained inviolate.
It is an abominable blasphemous sacrilege to suggest that God felt the man-made objects such as the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant were too super-sacntified to be touched by the hands of mere mortals or entered into, but that the Virgin Mary, she whom he made "full of grace" and "blessed among women" was not, and took on the task of ordinary motherhood after giving birth to Jesus Christ, her firstborn Son apparently being such a trifle that she needed a goodly lot of others to supplement him.
Oh? Show me then. It shouldn't be hard to make an actual argument, if that is within your mental powers, which I currently doubt, since your argumentation does not extend far beyond one-liner 3rd grade scatological terminology.
Heck, just point me to where you refuted it all 1000 times before through a few links. I don't need all 1000 instances, three or four would be fine. No need to retype what you've patiently and cogently explained elsewhere. Unless of course, you've never done it. I highly suspect this, seeing how difficult it is to find a post of yours that contains more than three lines.
how long you been posting here Hermann?
Since fall 2000 - just as long as you.
My defeat, ROFLOL
Yes, you're defeat. You talk big but run fast. There's a word for that behavior - Coward. And two words for your unsubstantiated pseudo-beliefs - Revolting Heresy.
Again, you want to work with the Bible alone? Tell me where it says Mary had sex with Joseph. You seem so certain of it, so it shouldn't be hard to just quote the verse. Just quoting one verse of the Bible shouldn't overtax your abilities here.
Run along Hermann.
No I think I'll stay right here and refute and ridicule the falsehoods you are attempting to spread about Blessed Mary. I'm certain my God, the Lord Jesus, is pleased by my honoring his Mother.
And its oh so easy when the opposite side of the issue concedes the field by failing to offer anything but profanity.
Welcome aboard Patrick!
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Who's "us"?
Invincible ignorance can be overcome.
Technically, no it doesnt. It stops mattering at the manger.
...and to the divinity of Mary's child.
Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that Jesus was made divine?
Are the nativity stories an essential part of Christianity?
Absolutely. Explain how and why the Virgin Birth (a single event in time-and-space) demands a Perpetual (never ending) maintenance of Mary's virginity.
Your question begs a more basic question. Why is it necessary to find a "proof text" of Mary's perpetual virginity in the Bible? That's not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible tells us to hold on to the traditions passed on to us by Christ's Church, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15The Church Fathers on Mary's perpetual virginity.So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
A more fundamental question to you is, why do you hold to a non-scriptural tradition ("the Bible alone") promoted by a heretic?
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.