The Bible and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

No, the two living fathers I mean are God the Father, the father of Jesus, and Joseph, the father of Mary's alleged other children. Does it not seem problematic to you that Mary would allow another man to give her children when the father of her first child (God the Father) was still very much in the picture, so to speak?

Since when is it OK for a woman to bear the children of a second father when the first father has not died and has not abandoned the woman?

 

"Ray is saying, 'Jesus does not need to be reminded who and where all the sinners are in all of the world. God is omniscient and does not need, nor does He have participants in His redemption. "


Well then I guess all that preaching that goes on in this world by pastors is a bunch of nonsense hey ray. You guys are so bent against Catholicism that even when truth is biting you in the face you reject, reject, reject. Why? Because it is catholic. I did not say that Mary did the redemption in any way. Only that she participates in it by helping to bring others to it. You say God doesn't need anyone to bring people to him. He will do it on his own or at least that is the way you come accross.

You also said in another post that Mary was blessed, basically because she nursed Jesus at her breasts. Once again because of your bent against Catholicism and because of you attitude toward the mother of the Lord you completely miss the point of the scripture where the woman says "blessed are the breasts that nursed you". Jesus says "blessed rather the one who does the will of God". Mary was blessed because she said yes to God "be it done according to your will". She would not have been blessed had she not submitted to God's will. She was not forced to do it. She willfully submitted to God. That is the essence of her being blessed. But ray says, no Jesus is all wrong and she was blessed because she nursed Jesus at her breasts. Oh well.


"On the Cross He accomplished it once for all when He said, 'It is finished.' He did not say, 'I am finished;' He meant that the perfect plan of salvation was obtained for all of humankind. "

So nobody needs to be preached to. We don't need to preach the Gospel. Noone needs to repent because 2000 years ago Jesus finished everything such that some, before they were even born had a free pass and, well, there wasn't enough grace for everyone so some are just going to end up in hell.

Blessings

 

I wonder if someone could tell my how a great Bible scholar like John Calvin could believe in the P.V. if it is so un-Christian. Can't somebody please explain to me why it's un-Christian to agree with John Calvin on this topic?

 

thessalonian,

You still refuse to try to answer my questions in a previous post; please understand I can sympathize with your dilemma.

You said, 'Well then I guess all that preaching that goes on in this world by pastors is a
bunch of nonsense hey ray.

Ray is saying, 'Read your Bible; St. Mark 16:15-16.'

You said, 'You guys are so bent against Catholicism that
even when truth is biting you in the face you reject, reject, reject. Why?
Because it is catholic.'

Ray is saying, 'We love Roman Catholics but wish they were more Biblical in their faith.'

You said, 'I did not say that Mary did the redemption in any way. Only that she participates in it by helping to bring others to it.'

Ray is saying, 'Mary died and her ashes are somewhere in Israel. At the resurrection of the just she will rise and will ascend into Heaven at Jesus' coming. [I Thess. 4:17] Dead people cannot pray for living sinners.' Does Hebrews chapter eleven say that any of the O.T. saints pray for sinners?

Ed said, 'You say God doesn't need anyone to bring people to him. He will do it on his own or at least that is the way you come accross.'

Ray is saying, 'Your answer is found in Romans 10:13-15.'

Ed said, 'You also said in another post that Mary was blessed, basically because she
nursed Jesus at her breasts. Once again because of your bent against
Catholicism and because of you attitude toward the mother of the Lord you
completely miss the point of the scripture where the woman says "blessed
are the breasts that nursed you".

Ray is saying, 'I never made any comment about the physical body of Mary and I think you know it. Also, I do not recall the verse in the Bible about 'Blessed are the breasts that nursed you.'

Jesus says "blessed rather the one who does the will of God". Mary was blessed because she said yes to God "be it done according to your will". She would not have been blessed had she not submitted to God's will. She was not forced to do it. She willfully submitted
to God. That is the essence of her being blessed.'

Ray is saying, 'I agree 100% with your statement above.'

You said, 'But ray says, no Jesus is all wrong and she was blessed because she nursed Jesus at her breasts. Oh well.

Ray is saying, 'I never called attention to the anatomy of the mother of the Lord. I did say that we cherish what she did by bringing about, the salvation plan, through Jesus Christ and that He was born of the virgin Mary.'

I said, 'On the Cross He accomplished it once for all when He said, 'It is finished.'
He did not say, 'I am finished;' He meant that the perfect plan of salvation
was obtained for all of humankind.'

I am continuing to say 'that Jesus died for the sins of all sinners. [I John 2:2] Each sinner must believe in Jesus with all of his or her being in order to be saved. [John 3:16]

You said, 'So nobody needs to be preached to. We don't need to preach the Gospel.'

I am saying, 'evangelical Christian pastors preach the Gospel while your clergy, build nearly everything around the Eucharist.'

You said, 'Noone needs to repent because 2000 years ago Jesus finished everything
such that some, before they were even born had a free pass and, well, there
wasn't enough grace for everyone so some are just going to end up in hell.'

Ray is saying, 'Is this part of your dogma. I know that we require repentance/turning from sins and believing in the Living Savior, even Jesus Christ our Lord. The people ending up in Hell will be there because of their refusal to receive Christ. [John 1:12 & John 3:18b,c]

Regards . . .

 

Harley4Him,

Did John Calvin come out of Judaism, Islam, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism?

I'll give you a hint. John Calvin was a priest and probably not all of the barnacles of traditional error fell off during his lifetime.

I never read that Calvin believed in the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary." You may be right.

Regards . . .

 

"John Calvin was a priest and probably not all of the barnacles of traditional error fell off during his lifetime. "

Nope, sorry Ray, Calvin was never a preist, though his father wanted him to become one. There is no evidence that he was ever ordained.

 

This so-called tradition which comes from the Protoevangelium of James, a book filled with myth and lies, clearly contradicting the Word of God in many places, remains just that: unverified tradition or myth. In other words it is a story used by the RCC to bolster their doctrine of the Pepetual Virginity of Mary, even though it has no Scriptural support.
RC's cannot accept the Bible when: "brother" means "brother."
It is too logical for them to assume that Mary, a virgin, would marry Joseph, also a virgin, and would conceive while still a virgin (by means of the Holy Spirit), the Messiah. For the RCC, who so venerates, adores, and exalts Mary, it is amazing to the Protestant community how the Catholics would want to so disgrace Mary's marriage by having her married to either a divorced or previously married man. In a society where marriages are arranged (on both sides of the family), would it have been acceptable to "St. Anne" and her husband to have their daughter Mary marry a previuosly married man that already had children of his own. How ridiculous to even entertain such a thought! They would never seek out such a man for a husband for their daughter. Even to think of such an idea is ludicrous. But because you have this warped theology, you have to come up with these warped ideas in order support the unbiblical theology. It gets further and further from the truth all the time.
DHK

 

Jesus's older brothers did not come to know Jesus as the Messiah, that is, as their Lord and Saviour, until some time after the resurrection. Therefore it was only suitable that Jesus would entrust Mary to the care of John (his beloved disciple), and not to his brothers, who at that time were unbelievers.
DHK

 

Jesus was born of a virgin and had no father. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. The very word "incarnation" means "God in the flesh." And the name "Immanuel" means "God with us." We need to remember who Christ is: God!

What implication is there if Mary had children by Joseph after Christ was born? None! It was the natural thing for Mary to do--that is, to carry on her normal marital life. God used her to bring Christ into the world. She was now free to carry on a normal life just like any other Jewish woman. And the Scriptures indicate just that: she had normal relations with her husband Joseph and bore children by him (those that are mentioned in Mat.13:55,56).

The virgin birth of Christ is very important.
First it is a fulfillment of prophecy going all the way back to Genesis 3:15, which is the first Messianic promise. God specifically said that he would put enmity between the serpent's seed and the seed of the woman. He also said that the seed of the womam would crush the head of the serpent.
But a woman has no seed. Only a man does. This was a reference to the virgin birth of Christ, and prophecy of a coming Messiah.
Secondly, it was needful that the Messiah be born of a virgin, for the Adamic sinful nature is passed down through the man. It is inherited through man. By being born of a virgin Jesus did not inherit man's sinful nature, for he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by sinful man. It took a sinless man to take the place and make the atonement for a sinful man. It took God to atone for the sins of all the men of all the ages of all the world.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
DHK

 

Only God would know that, since He caused it to be so, just as He caused it to be revealed to His Church.
God knows that there is no need for the "Pepetual Virginity of Mary" story, and that it is all made up by wicked sinful men deliberately so, to deceive men. What God says about such is: "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Mat.18:6).

To outright say that "God revealed it to His church is an outright lie. To be more accurate is to say: "Satan revealed it to the RCC." It is not a Biblical doctrine; it is not of God.

"henceforth all generations will call me blessed"
That is a good answer. I like these one's as well.

Genesis 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Genesis 26:29 That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael be, The wife of Heber the Kenite;

Since Jael lived about 1200 years before Mary did, and was also called "blessed above ALL women, then she must be blessed even greater than Mary, for her blessing was 1200 years longer.

Rebekkah, who lived about 2,000 years before Mary was not only blessed above all woman, but blessed as the mother of billions of women, a figure of speech indicating a number so great it would be impossible to count, an innumerable amount. Her blessing was indeed great. Both of these blessings were just as great, if not greater, than the one bestowed on Mary.
DHK

 

Analytical Bible Dictionary


The other Mary was the mother of James the less (an apostle also known as the son of Alphaeus), but not the mother of Joses, for Joses was the son of Mary the mother of Jesus.
However there is a relation in that the Mother of James the less could be also the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.
</font>[/QUOTE]The problem with that is that means that Mary's sister - was also named Mary. Not very likely. (Hello! This is "Mary and this is my other sister Mary")

My guess is that the sister of Mary is not named in John 19. (But her sister is up for "immaculate conception" from the same womb that produced Mary - my friends).


John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."


Mary, her sister, and two other Marys = 4 not 3.

Can you show that James the son of Alphaeus is in fact James the Less? I don't find that link mentioned.


DHK said

Now that part I "get".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "design" was to show that Christ was God and was not "God pro-created" by Mary. That makes this a case of "Incarnation" and NOT pro-Creation!

Our RC bretheren delight in making Mary the "Mother of God" by direct contradiction to the Incarnation.

If Mary is NOT the "Mother of God" as in Pro-Creation but only in parental role on earth - THEN Joseph is the Father of God. The confusion such error tosses into the Gospel is "obvious". Hence we don't do it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I find all the explanations so far given for the necessity of Mary's virginity unconvincing. Nobody has explained why Joseph could not have known Mary, and perhaps even had children with her, before the Holy Spirit incarnated Christ in her womb. To answer the argument about causing confusion I'd just say let the Scriptures say that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. That's as verifiable as the Scriptures saying that she was a virgin. Anybody who believed the Scriptures that Mary was a virgin would likewise believe the Scriptures if they said she was not a virgin, and had still given birth to Jesus through the Holy Spirit. And to say it was prophecied just avoids the point -- it was prophecied because God chose it to be so. He didn't have to make it that way after some out-of-control prophets backed Him into a corner!

So I ask again, what is the real significance of having a virgin giving birth to Jesus?

 

Jesus was born of a virgin and had no father. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. </font>[/QUOTE]The point is that one of the Persons of the Trinity other than The Word brought forth the incarnate being Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary. If it's OK for Mary to be bearing the children of two different persons (God and Joseph) after Jesus was born, why not before?

 

Meercat,

You said, 'I respectfully ask you do you not find it interesting that the early "reformers"
Luther and Calvin ALSO believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Yes, I do find that interesting, but they may have changed their belief toward or at the end of their earthly, spiritual journey.

Have you lost all of the spiritual effects having been a former Baptist/Pentecostal?

 

DHK,

I liked your post on page 2.

If the mother of our Lord had been married previously and had a 'built in family' {children}
the Prophet Isaiah could never have written the words in Isaiah 7:14.

When Joseph met Mary while taking his donkey to the town well, she would not have been a virgin maiden. Thus, Jesus would not have been born to a virgin mother. {Oh, the part about the donkey and well, I made up.

 

thessalonian,

I read the whole story of John Calvin in seminary and know that his father was Roman Catholic and I believe worked for one of the churches prelates. You are right that the father greatly encouraged him to become a priest and later John became a lawyer. I find this interesting and will look it up when I get up to Lehigh University.

 

C'mon Ray God could just as easily have inspired Isaiah to say something else! It's not Isaiah's words that are the reason Jesus was borne of a virgin!

What reason did God have for having a virgin bear Jesus?

 

The answers are convincing enough and quite simple if your willing to accept them.
There is an obvious necessity of Mary's virgin birth (even apart from what Isaiah said in Isaiah 7:14), and that is, without the virgin birth Jesus would be born a sinner having inherited a sin nature like the rest of us, disqualifying himself as a sacrifice--the perfect lamb of God, without blemish, slain for the sins of mankind.

What you are proposing is all conjecture. You are reading into the Bible that which is not there, and only for the reason to support a man-made doctrine which is unbiblical and not taught in the Bible. It is like infant baptism. You use the same type of argument. You say that it doesn't say that there were not any infants in Acts 2 when the 3,000 were saved (not even taking into consideration that they all had to believe and repent first). Well, it doesn't say that there weren't any dogs, cats, zebras, and lions either. How far will you go with man-made doctrines? Pope John XXIII baptized a bell. I wonder if there were any bells in those 3,000 that got saved?
You read into Scripture that which is not there. There is no evidence or proof anywhere that Joseph had children, or was not a virgin when he got married to Mary. Whey do the Catholics insist that he was not?

Again the real significane of Jesus being born to a virgin is that he would not inherit a sin nature like the rest of us--that He would be both perfect man and God at the same time.
DHK