Catholic Mary

[The Biblicist]

Please back at you. If the Bible were all that clear we would not be having this debate, or hardly any other debate about what it means. I'm still waiting for you to produce the Chapter and verse that say absolutely Mary had other children.

Why would "cousins" be mentioned so often with Mary and Joseph as though they did not have any mother and father?

Surely, if you had no axe to grind and simply read the many scriptures already referenced you would naturally conclude she and Joseph had many other children after Christ.

Where in scripture can you find even one text that teaches she was a perpetual virgin? Where in the scripture can you find even one scripture that says she did not have any other children?

Doesn't it seem awful strange that this position by Rome has no biblical evidence whatsoever and yet there are many scriptures that if simply taken at face value over and over again demonstrate the very opposite?

You talk about bias! When you reject 9 scriptures that if read at face value claim she did to 0 that claims she didn't - isn't that what we call "bias" and very strong bias without one shred of evidence?

 

[Zenas]

Why is it so important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin? I don't get what the problem is and why it is so important to deny clear passages that say Mary had other childern...can you please explain?

These passages aren't clear. If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician," would you have reason to believe with any level of certainty that Albert and I shared the same mother? Albert may be my full brother, or my half brother, or my step brother, or even my brother in Christ.

As for importance of the issue, it probably doesn't make any difference in the economy of salvation. However, being mother of a big brood of kids portrays Mary as an ordinary woman. But being a perpetual virgin sort of sets her apart, makes her more remarkable. Makes it seem more appropriate to refer to her as "blessed." And despite DHK's protests and maybe yours too, saying she had other children interjects an interpretation of the Bible that had never been made before 1600. Do you think everyone who read the Bible for the first 1600 years of its existence just got it wrong?

 

[The Biblicist]

These passages aren't clear. If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician,"

Wouldn't it be normal for the hearer to first believe you are saying it in the normal every day usage - your real brother! Why would they assume anything else?

However, being mother of a big brood of kids portrays Mary as an ordinary woman. But being a perpetual virgin sort of sets her apart, makes her more remarkable.

I think it magnifies God and His grace much more if he selected just an ordinary woman. If God can take an ordinary woman and use her like that, does not that encourage ordinary saints to believe that God can do extraordinary things through them as well???

On the other hand, how does it glorify God if he chose an extraordinary woman? Wouldn't that very thing rob God of the glory deserving only of Him?

1 Cor. 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Rome believes that Mary is an exception and raises her up above all humans almost on the level of God and calls her "Theotokos" so that she becomes the object of the very same actions otherwise given to God. She is called a "CO-redemptrix" which raises her above all humans to a "CO-" equal level with Christ in regard to this title as Christ alone is the redeemer of men.

 

[Zenas]

Why would "cousins" be mentioned so often with Mary and Joseph as though they did not have any mother and father?

Surely, if you had no axe to grind and simply read the many scriptures already referenced you would naturally conclude she and Joseph had many other children after Christ.

Where in scripture can you find even one text that teaches she was a perpetual virgin? Where in the scripture can you find even one scripture that says she did not have any other children?

Doesn't it seem awful strange that this position by Rome has no biblical evidence whatsoever and yet there are many scriptures that if simply taken at face value over and over again demonstrate the very opposite?

You talk about bias! When you reject 9 scriptures that if read at face value claim she did to 0 that claims she didn't - isn't that what we call "bias" and very strong bias without one shred of evidence?

I believe I have answered all these questions in recent posts, except to say this belief goes far beyond what you contumaciously call "Rome." Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. You're a Trail of Blood kind of guy. Do any of your authoritative sources like B. H. Carroll have any leads on anyone who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe I have answered all these questions in recent posts, except to say this belief goes far beyond what you contumaciously call "Rome." Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. You're a Trail of Blood kind of guy. Do any of your authoritative sources like B. H. Carroll have any leads on anyone who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Do you have any scriptures that will support she is a perpetual virign or never had any other children???

If not, may I ask you who has the authority to read into the scriptures what is simply not implicitly or explicitly stated by scriptures? Does Martin Luther? Does John Calvin? Does John Wesley? Do you?

There are abundance of scriptures that if taken at face value deny her eternal virignity and assert she had other children.

Only if you have an axe to grind due to some EXTERNAL source outside the scriptures would you even think of such doctrines.

In regard to B.H. Carrol or Baptist historians they are not dealing with inspired history but with uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate views of often biased historians. If they were dealing with inspired history then Rome would have the upper hand in the history argument.

 

[Zenas]

She is called a "CO-redemptrix" which raises her above all humans to a "CO-" equal level with Christ in regard to this title as Christ alone is the redeemer of men.

That is not Catholic dogma, even though I'm sure you want to believe it is.

Also, please don't attribute my words to Tom Butler. Tom is one of my favorite people on the BB but I know he would not agree with me on this and he wouldn't want others to think he said it.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not Catholic dogma, even though I'm sure you want to believe it is.

It is not? Then from what source does it originate? If the scriptures, then what book, chapter and verse?

Also, please don't attribute my words to Tom Butler. Tom is one of my favorite people on the BB but I know he would not agree with me on this and he wouldn't want others to think he said it.

It was an honest mistake. I just finished responding to a question by Tom and I still had it on my paste memory. I will try to correct it.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Zenus...

These passages aren't clear. If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician," would you have reason to believe with any level of certainty that Albert and I shared the same mother? Albert may be my full brother, or my half brother, or my step brother, or even my brother in Christ.

In the words of a VERY famous tennis player back in the 80's...




you...can...not...be...serious!...

 

[Grace&Truth]

These passages aren't clear. If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician," would you have reason to believe with any level of certainty that Albert and I shared the same mother? Albert may be my full brother, or my half brother, or my step brother, or even my brother in Christ.

I have to agree with Biblicist on this, I would believe it to be your real brother unless you actually said otherwise. We do know from Scripture that Joseph was not Jesus real father therefore the brother/sister relationship would be through Mary, that would be the natural use of the wording. If this was not the meaning I would think it would say or explain otherwise so as to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary beyond any shadow of a doubt. Yet the Scriptures are silent regarding this teaching.

As for importance of the issue, it probably doesn't make any difference in the economy of salvation. However, being mother of a big brood of kids portrays Mary as an ordinary woman. But being a perpetual virgin sort of sets her apart, makes her more remarkable. Makes it seem more appropriate to refer to her as "blessed." And despite DHK's protests and maybe yours too, saying she had other children interjects an interpretation of the Bible that had never been made before 1600. Do you think everyone who read the Bible for the first 1600 years of its existence just got it wrong?

The Vigin birth of Jesus is what sets her apart, it was in fulfillment of Prophecy and proves Jesus was the Son of God, not Joseph. Being a perpetual virgin has no bearing whatsoever on the fulfillment of prophecy it is never mentioned, prophecied or taught in Scripture and therefore there would be no need for Mary to remain a virgin. Remember she was married, many thought Joseph was Jesus' natural father, Why? Because she married him and would assume they would have a normal married union. God could have left Mary unmarried and a perpetual virgin, He did not. I see no need for such teaching unless one is purposely exalting Mary to a position she was not ment to hold, and it is not mentioned in Scripture, which would prove that it is not a Biblical teaching (doctrine) at all. Therefore must be rejected.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not Catholic dogma, even though I'm sure you want to believe it is.

Also, please don't attribute my words to Tom Butler. Tom is one of my favorite people on the BB but I know he would not agree with me on this and he wouldn't want others to think he said it.

Isn't the marriage bed "undefiled"? How could Mary be defiled by having children with Joseph???

Does not the scriptures explicitly condemn married persons for not coming together in sexual union?

1 Cor. 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Wouldn't perpetual virginity be sin according to this command by Paul?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Zenus...

If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician," would you have reason to believe with any level of certainty that Albert and I shared the same mother?...

YES! Of course!

That would be the assumption of probably everyone you would say that to. That is...by far... the norm.

It would be up to you to explain if it were one of the other options.

 

[Moriah]

How childish.

You falsely call me childish, and this is okay for you to do? This post of yours is nothing but a personal rant against me, and it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

You have made an accusation against me that you are not able to prove. You claim that I am an idolator yet you cannot provide a single post of mine that proves this lie of yours. I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT I BOW TO ANYTHING OR PRAY TO ANYTHING BUT GOD, I HAVE QUESTIONED AND PROVIDED WHAT I HAVE READ IS THE CATHOLIC POSITION ONLY!!

I have already explained this to you. You defend the Catholics bowing to the Pope, statues, and to Mary. That is a sin, what you do is sin. You believe is okay for the Catholics to commit idolatry. You even defend such evil. You also are a hypocrite for judging me.

Again, I know what and who I worship, and it isn't idols. You conclude because I question your ridiculous reasoning about what Catholics do that I must be guilty. Either dig up a post where I said I worship idols or stop you FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

Again, you DEFEND the Catholics bowing to the pope, to statues, and to Mary. The Bible says do not be a part of any ones sins. Why defend what the Catholics do if you believe it is wrong. You are being deceitful in your replies.

Mature Christians don't behave the way you do. You show not one ounce of humility in your posts.

What you say is more judgments that are false. I could not care less what you think of me, for I answer to God. You want to judge me, but you do not even see the errors of your deceitful ways of defending the Catholics idolatry. You definitely cannot prove what you say about me is truth.

Grow up. Do you really expect to convince anyone with your belittling and mocking?

You name call, and you falsely judge, but you think it is okay. Yet you try to tell me I cannot tell you what you are doing wrong. That is called a hypocrite.

And, once again, you need to let others fight your battles for you on anti-Catholic threads that you start. You couldn't even form your own thought in the responding to 'Alive In Christ's' post and you didn't even bother to put quotes around AiC's exact words. Think for yourself!

You speak nonsense. Others can reply to my threads. You talk nonsense. This is yet more idiotic false judgments from you. You should repent.

 

[Zenas]

Do you have any scriptures that will support she is a perpetual virign or never had any other children???

If not, may I ask you who has the authority to read into the scriptures what is simply not implicitly or explicitly stated by scriptures? Does Martin Luther? Does John Calvin? Does John Wesley? Do you?

There are abundance of scriptures that if taken at face value deny her eternal virignity and assert she had other children.

Only if you have an axe to grind due to some EXTERNAL source outside the scriptures would you even think of such doctrines.

In regard to B.H. Carrol or Baptist historians they are not dealing with inspired history but with uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate views of often biased historians. If they were dealing with inspired history then Rome would have the upper hand in the history argument.

I gave a lot of scriptural reasons for believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary in Post #2 and Post #113, as well as some non-scriptural sources. You can give these scriptures your own spin but you can deny that they are there only if you're going to lie about it.

 

[Zenas]

It is not? Then from what source does it originate? If the scriptures, then what book, chapter and verse?

Co-redemptrix is a belief held by many Catholics, but it is not dogma. Dogma is a belief that the Church holds as true and requires its members to believe as well. There are four Marian dogmas.

1. Divine motherhood, i.e., Mother of God.

2. Perpetual virginity.

3. Immaculate conception.

4. The Assumption.

 

[Zenas]

Wouldn't perpetual virginity be sin according to this command by Paul?

Not if it was practiced by the Mother of God. Would you want to be intimate with the woman who had given birth to the Son of God? I wouldn't. I would be afraid God would strike me down like He did that poor guy who tried to keep the ark from falling off the ox cart.

 

[Zenas]

Zenus...

YES! Of course!

That would be the assumption of probably everyone you would say that to. That is...by far... the norm.

It would be up to you to explain if it were one of the other options.

And that's what scripture does rather well. Go back and ponder the posts I made in Post #2 and Post #113.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Zenus...



YES! Of course!

That would be the assumption of probably everyone you would say that to. That is...by far... the norm.

It would be up to you to explain if it were one of the other options.

I believe that Jewish culture did and still does for that matter, call extended family members and even close friends of the family brothers and sisters.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Co-redemptrix is a belief held by many Catholics, but it is not dogma. Dogma is a belief that the Church holds as true and requires its members to believe as well. There are four Marian dogmas.

1. Divine motherhood, i.e., Mother of God.

2. Perpetual virginity.

3. Immaculate conception.

4. The Assumption.

Again, what book, chapter and verse?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

where is it found in the Bible the terms pope or bible though?

Do you hold both are true, not in the Bible?

you believe in the trinity and the rapture but both words are not in the bible. I hold the bible teaches about Peter's supremecy and the scriptures are bound in a book style known in greek as biblios or bible for english.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not if it was practiced by the Mother of God. Would you want to be intimate with the woman who had given birth to the Son of God? I wouldn't. I would be afraid God would strike me down like He did that poor guy who tried to keep the ark from falling off the ox cart.

Please give book, chapter and verse where it states that she "practiced" perpetual virginity???

Please give book, chapter and verse where anyone in scripture including God ever called her "the mother of God"????

No one believed she was "the mother of God." No one from her home town believed it. No apostle believed it. None of the New Testament congegations believed it. God didn't believe it No one believed it because the Scritpure does not teach it. No where in Scripture is she every called "The mother of God."

It takes the DNA from both the Father and Mother in conception of a child. Mary did not contribute Divine DNA, she only contributed the human DNA. God never had a mother because God preexisted before Mary was born. A child is born but the Son was given (Isa. 9:6).