Posted on 08/17/2009 9:10:31 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
Yes.
My apologies.
And this from the guy who played ordination in school.
*sigh*
Three snaps WAY up!
OH that is so good.
Where in scripture does it say that Mary remained a virgin?
Isaiah 7:14, Canticles 4:12, Luke 1:24 and 27
Every virtuous woman is a virgin before conceiving her firstborn. The Blessed Virgin has the title, because she remained a virgin despite conceiving and giving birth. Her vow of perpetual virginity, as noted in Luke 1:34, was never broken. If you take up the contrary position, you are no longer espousing Christian doctrine.
Where in scripture does it say that Mary lived a sinless life?
Canticle 5:2, Canticle 6:9, Apoc 21:1-2, 9-end
Where in scripture does it say that Mary was assumed into heaven? Canticle 6:10, Apoc 12:1, Apoc 21:1-2, 9-end
Have fun!
rjsimmon: As someone who went through the Ordination ceremony for priesthood, I would disagree.
Petronski: ROFLOL
Reading into that quite a bit, I would say.
Luk 1:34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
Mary was a virgin prior to giving birth to Jesus, but she no longer was after Joseph and she began with the 1/2 brothers and sisters.
Mat 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Did Mary immaculately conceive James, Jospeh, Simon, and Judas.
Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the advent of Christ. Mary is not mentioned, nor is a perpetual virginity.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Canticles 4:12
Not scripture. They are hymns.
Luke 1:24
Luk 1:24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion.
???
and 27
Luk 1:27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Okay, she had never been with a man prior to Joseph. How is that perpetual?
My apologies then. I stated him as a Catholic theologian, but the source I found simply stated him as a Christian theologian.
I did not find him in Wikipedia, though.
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/James.A.Wylie.html
Are you attacking me personally or making fun of yourslef?
Scripture teaches Mary did NOT remain a virgin. Jesus was her firstborn. Multiple passages talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus - and yes, Greek has words for cousin and kin, and they are used regularly by the NT writers (14 times, by my count - including Luke 1:36). Paul refers to James as “the Lord’s brother” - and expression never used of any other Christian. Not for Peter. Not for John. There is also no instance of the NT saying X the brother of Y, where they were not brothers. It also says Joseph had no relations with her until she gave birth.
That doesn’t mean anything bad about Mary. It was gentile philosophers who were appalled at the ‘Mother of God’ also giving birth to others. There is nothing dirty about laying with your husband, or giving birth.
Luke 1:24 & 27 have nothing to do with perpetual virginity. Isaiah 7:14 prophesied the Virgin Birth, not endless virginity.
“If you take up the contrary position, you are no longer espousing Christian doctrine.”
No, we’re just reading the Bible. If your doctrine conflicts, your doctrine is wrong. The words of scripture are ‘God-breathed’, and God doesn’t breath error.
You are just showing us that when you read the Sacred Scriptures, you do not understand what is being said.
1. Jesus brethren. Brother-kin-cousin are all the same word in Aramaic. None of the passages used by ignorant exegetes ever prove anything other than Jesus had male relatives. Never is any man referred to as the son of Mary, except for St. John at the foot of the cross. Jesus’ final words to all of us are to accept Mary as our mother. Which is what faithful Catholics do.
2. Luke 1:34 specifically highlights her vow of virginity, which she did not want to break. If you think a perfect intellect, not clouded by original sin, would be asking about the birds-and-the-bees the instant before rendering the FIAT that would precipitate the Incarnation, your penetration of the mysteries swirling in Luke 1 is woefully shallow.
3. Isaiah has everything to do with perpetual virginity, he was talking about The Virgin. All of the sacred music written since that Fiat back me up. Bach, Mozart, Palestrina, Thomas Aquinas, we’re all buds. :)
4. Your rule of faith is your human interpretation of a sacred text you do not understand. My rule of faith is a gift from God, given in Baptism, by which I have the sensus fidelium when exposed to inspired text. In my case, faith precedes private interpretation, in your case private interpretation precedes faith. It is what St. Francis de Sales calls using reason as a positive rule of faith, when in reality it can only be used as a negative rule of Faith. Evidence for this is the thousands of protestant sects which all claim to have the Bible as their rule of faith. If the Bible is God-breathed, where is the division coming from, if not from the inverted use of reason as a positive rule of faith?
I addressed parthenogenesis in post 60. I believe Almighty God supplied the necessary “DNA” to conceive His Son by Mary.
Apart from the FACT that the NT was written in GREEK, I ought to point out that Aramaic also has a word for cousin. Find an Aramaic lexicon and look it up.
As I pointed out, Luke used cousin (and kin) - he knew the words, he just didn’t use them when discussing the brothers of Jesus.
Also, as I pointed out, the NT never says X the brother of Y unless he is.
Nor did Mary plan on being a perpetual virgin in some sort of weird vow - “18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
That is not a description of some sort of perpetual virginity vow, for Joseph planned on taking her as his wife, until he found out she was already pregnant.
But those facts don’t match your doctrine, so wish them away if you will. But please don’t pat yourself on the back, and claim to be a Christian and call me a heathen (”Your rule of faith is your human interpretation of a sacred text you do not understand. My rule of faith is a gift from God, given in Baptism”) when you use doctrine to determine what scripture says, instead of using scripture to determine what your doctrine should be.
Those who demote the word of God below the teachings of the men who run their church deserve any deception they fall in to...
I’ll never understand why Mary, the second most remarkable human who ever lived, must also be accorded all of these super powers. Wasn’t it enough that she gave birth to the Son of the Living God? That she raised Him, stood by Him through all His trials, to the very end? Frankly I would find it even more miraculous that she did all this as a flesh and blood human whose body returned to the earth when she died.
**whose body returned to the earth when she died.**
Then where is she buried?
No, because she didn't conceive them at all.
But your interpretations are not.
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.