| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/22/2017 3:39:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 05/13/2017 6:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
The notion that marital sex is impure, is rejected. But you must grasp that in Mary's case, her virginal and maternal body could not belong to two: her exclusive fidelity must be to Him Whose Son she bore.
So you might want to view her virginity in the light of her fidelity.
And the prefiguring via the Ark of the Covenant shows this so beautifully.
What is the Ark --- what is any ark? A container, a crate with handles. A box. There is nothing wrong with putting your laundry in a box, or your lunch, or your old love letters. Some of this is just a practical good ("I need something to carry our picnic lunch in") and some of it might even be, in a way, personally sacred to you ("These love letters are my most intimate and prized possession").
But you would not put these things in the Ark of the Covenant.
Why? Not because laundry and lunches and love letters are sinful, but because they are not specially consecrated in the unique way that the Ark of the Covenant and its contents are consecrated. (When I say "consecrated" I mean "Set apart to the the service of God in an exclusive manner.")
An ordinary box (ark) can be serve to carry your lunch, but not the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is permanently consecrated to "sacredness" in view of the sacred things it would contain.
An ordinary woman can surely have honorable sexual union with her husband, but Mary was already permanently consecrated to "sacredness" in view of the sacred One who would come upon her and make her body fruitful, and the sacred One she would contain. Theotokos: God-carrier.
In the rich covenant theology which fills Sacred Scripture from Gen. to Rev., we can discern that Mary herself is both a person and a sign of God's Covenant faithfulness. She is like Haaretz Israel, the beloved and betrothed of God. She is like Virgin Daughter of Zion. She is the exceptional example of the faithful Jewish people. She is also the image of the Bridal and Maternal Church, Mater Ecclesia, Mother of the Redeemed (Rev 12 and Rev 22:17).
Her exclusive faithfulness to her Lord in this bridal sense is embodied in her ever-virginity. She is "set apart" for Him alone. It is her ever-fidelity.
Awful hard to defend yourself if your writings no longer exist. Makes one wonder if those documents had some help in “disappearing”.
I know you are a longtime student of Bible studies, so I believe this will be of interest to you:
Semitic Idioms in the New Testament (LINK)
It makes me so happy to delve into Scripture in this way.
Vatican archives are notorious disappearing vaults. The ‘church’ has been hunting down and sequestering anything that contradicts their dictates for more than 1500 years. Don’t be surprised if ‘another’ fire mysteriously breaks out in the basement, prior to the antichrist taking control of humanity with the True Ekklesia ‘missing’.
We’re done.
With accusations like that, I don’t think MHG is the one who is mentally ill.
WHERE do you come up with stuff like that?
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks....
The word “only” could have been used. Like in “ Only begotten of the FATHER”.
“Firstborn” does indeed mean more than one as in “her firstborn”, not “ her only born”.
Yet none of the passages in question are noted. Keep trying.
And there is a Greek word for only as used in relation to the only Son of God. Monogone (?) I don’t have my GR dictionary handy. Taking a break cutting grass.
If, as Catholics claim, Mary had set herself aside exclusively for God, why did she become engaged to Joseph?
MDO, lately in your posts, you present made up things as if they are true, and then use them to build further 'truths" on that false foundation.
This attempt to spin straw into gold clearly demonstrates there is no support in Scripture and no support from a single Apostle about what you are trying to defend.
Scripture says nothing that supports Mary's body belonging to God.
Nor does any doctrine of Christ, nor doctrine of salvation depend on Mary remaining a virgin.
If we are to believe all God says about marriage, Mary's body belonged to Joseph alone - for mutual enjoyment with Mary and for sex within their marriage.
Your tag line wipes out a lot of Roman Catholic theology in that case.
Maybe i am right and maybe i am wrong.
LOL ... Mary was betrothed to Joseph BEFORE she consented to surrogacy of The Son of GOD. In the Catholic scenario Mary revoked her vows to Joseph then consented, but she obviously did not let Joseph know before consenting to the surrogacy. That YOU cannot get around that FACT as the scriptures reveal it must be so frustrating for your apologetics of Mariology demi-goddesshood.
I finally stopped laughing ... I really had a hard time believing you actually asked this:
If Jesus having brothers and sisters is the only evidence you have that Mary had other children( which it is ) then you have no evidence which would stand up in any real court.
But only mock trails which is like the trial Jesus went through.
This is nothing but a Catholic and Protestant war and has nothing to do with any proof but only something to bash each other about.
With Christians like this we sure in the hell don`t need any anti Christians.
I don`t know if Mary had other children or not, i am simply saying i see no proof that would hold up to any logical argument so i am of the opinion she did not.
If you think she did then fine but why try to turn opinions into facts which are not there.
If the Bible does not say it in plain words, please don`t preach it to me.
I’m addressing the topic of the thread, the perpetual virginity of blessed Mary, mother of “God with us” according to twenty centuries of unbroken holy tradition in the one holy catholic apostolic church.
Which apparently is not a correct assertion on your part.
There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[37] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[45] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Early_Church
It is used nine times in the NT...six in reference to Jesus.
John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9.
Contrast with how Luke describes Jesus.
πρωτότοκος: 4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν ...and she gave birth to her firstborn son...
The word prototokos allows for other children.
The Catholic, I am sure, will dismiss this. They seem to want the text to say Joseph and Mary had sex on Thursday and nine months later, James was born and so on and so on.
That verbiage is not necessary based on the abundance of texts we have all establishing the brothers and sisters being in Him family...with Joseph and Mary being the biological dad and mom of His brothers and sisters.
Nice dodge. If you're going to claim the Greek Orthodox are correct regarding the perpetual virginity then you have to admit they are correct regarding the pope.
You can't play it both ways.
.
The Notzerim, the true followers of the words of Yeshua recorded in the gospels, are the only faith that are not a cult.
If you had any love of truth, you would not even click on the links that you post. They are directly from the seed of the serpent, and only the seed of the serpent would wish to offer them to deceive others.
If it is not found in the Acts, nor the Gospels, it is of the serpent. That includes every man made “creed,” chant, rosary, or appeal to dead men.
If Yeshua observed it,it is of his narrow path, as the Apostles demonstrated in the Acts. We pray and Mikvah in Yeshua’s name only, as he requested.
.
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.