Mariolatry?

[Jipsah]

Like I said Mary-worshipper.

And it was nonsense when you said it the last time, too.

You're not flat earth as well, are you?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So to summarize our discussion so far

1. There is zero scripture reference that Mary remained a virgin all her life after the birth of Jesus
2. But there are many scripture references to Mary having other children and having consummate her marriage with Joseph.

Yet, its simpler to just believe that Mary was the eternal virgin.

Alright then.

Point one is contradicted by Matthew 1:23. Point two is imaginary. Thus, the conclusion is based on false premises and is unreliable.

 

[Jipsah]

Mary-worshippers

Was that revelation delivered by your Resident Revelator, perhaps?

 

[Jipsah]

So when Paul said he met James, the Lord's brother, Galatians 1:19, that James is not really his natural brother, but Catholics believe he is some kind of "spiritual brother"?

Half brother, matey. Hardly a radical concept. My kids have a half brother who they simply refer to as their brother in English and their elder brother in Korean. I think you're trying too hard.

 

[Jipsah]

So I assume you share the view too that James was from Joseph's previous wives, who all pass away before he marry Mary?

Nah, can't be that. I mean, no one died young in those wondrous times, and especially not in childbirth.

 

[Jipsah]

But if Catholics believed that, then when Joseph and Mary left Jerusalem for Egypt with boy Jesus in Matthew 2:13-16, they have to also believe that Joseph left all his other children, that were supposedly born before Jesus, in Jerusalem, to fend for themselves?

Of course! I mean, they obviously had no kinfolk to leave them with for awhile. The Nuclear Family was the rule then. As soon the hyoung 'un graduated high school they lit out. and had little of nothing to do with their extended families ever again.

And they could fly.

all these without scripture references?

Holy tradition, mate. The same authority upon which the Canon of Scripture is based.

I don't know how you concluded that is the "prevailing beliefs among a plurality or majority of all Christians, even today.

Because the overwhelming majority 0f professing Christians in the world are Catholics of one form or another to whom the Assumption of the Theotokos is settled fact. And even amongst a great many Protestants is the Assumotion is a matter of faith. No, the Baptists and Campbellites and Pentecostalists such-like don'y believe it, but in the great scheme of things, there really aren't many of them.

 

[Jipsah]

It is scripture that is GOD breathed, not church teachings.

In what book of the Bible is the Canon of Scripture defined?

 

[ARBITER01]

Matthew 1: 20 But hardly had this thought come to his mind, when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take thy wife Mary to thyself, for it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that she has conceived this child;
21 and she will bear a son, whom thou shalt call Jesus, for he is to save his people from their sins.
22 All this was so ordained to fulfil the word which the Lord spoke by his prophet:
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel (which means, God with us).✻

[Is. 7.14. ‘The virgin’ is a literal translation of the Hebrew; ‘a virgin’ would equally express the sense of the original prophecy.]​

24 And Joseph awoke from sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, taking his wife to himself;
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.✻

[The text here is more literally rendered ‘he knew her not till she bore a son’; but the Hebrew word represented by ‘till’ does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. (Cf. Gen. 8.7, Ps. 109.2, Dan. 6.24, I Mac. 5.54.) So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such inference to be drawn when our Lord is called her ‘first-born’ Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law (Lk. 2.23).]​

Occam's razor, while a useful human invention, should not cause undue concern. The complexity arises from the claim that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations multiple times and that Mary bore several children by Joseph. However, there is no scriptural basis for this claim. Conversely, I require no additional scripture to affirm what is explicitly stated in the holy scriptures: that Blessed Mary is a virgin, as declared in Matthew 1:23. There is no need for me to add or assume anything to uphold the virginity of Blessed Mary.

One of the things that we don't do is try to fit scripture into our doctrinal stance. Nothing is earlier or more authoritative than GOD's words, so our understandings and our teachings must derive from it, not the other way around. We can't massage definitions of Greek and Hebrew words to have an end result to what we want just because our church teaches it.

Trying to tell me that Mary had a child but somehow remained a virgin after that child birth, is ridiculously stupid and impossible up front, but GOD also never made such a prediction through His prophets that something like that would happen in the first place. The virgin birth was predicted, yes, but not some sort of GODLY C-section that allowed Mary to remain a virgin somehow afterwards.

Besides, the accounts in scripture that others posted here are easily understood. Jesus had brothers and sisters, and Joseph was their father. That's easy to understand from various translations.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

231 234 235 236 237 238

Ok i have linked all the post and you say you corrected your statement about saying i believe or have written something i did not write. But i do not see where any of you post were corrected.

You quoted a post of mine and wrote
By saying that "So Jesus' divine and human nature were not brought to a union in Mary's womb." a person would literally be saying that Jesus was a mere Man and nothing more. They would also be denying that The Word which was God, has always been God and was With God became Flesh.

But no where did i ever say this. I actually wrote this in reply to poster George95

So you do not believe in Mary's womb the two natures were combined by God, so God could bring forth the God-man to humanity.

I was asking George95 does he not believe that the two natures were combined by God in Mary's womb.

So you say you apologize in post 237 and have fixed the reply. But i do not see this post 235 fixed as it is written like the above italicized words from your post.

So i do not know what you corrected and what you are apologizing for.

This will be the last time i bring this up as i have moved on. Like i stated i am not offended by people opinions about me on this site

The problem with this view, as I have explained to you, is that it is Monophysite. Not Oriental Orthodox, the excellent Miaphysite Christology of my friend @dzheremi , but rather the flawed Christology of Eutyches.

You are basically saying that Jesus Christ is a hybrid of God and Man. The problem with that is that it denies his full Humanity and his full Deity. He cannot be fully God and fully Man, nor can he actually be God-Man, if his Divinity and Humanity were changed or are confused in His incarnation. This is why all Christian churches teach that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, having put on our human nature in the Incarnation, and his humanity and divinity being united in one person and one hypostasis, without change, confusion, separation or division.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

One of the things that we don't do is try to fit scripture into our doctrinal stance. Nothing is earlier or more authoritative than GOD's words, so our understandings and our teachings must derive from it, not the other way around. We can't massage definitions of Greek and Hebrew words to have an end result to what we want just because our church teaches it.

Trying to tell me that Mary had a child but somehow remained a virgin after that child birth, is ridiculously stupid and impossible up front, but GOD also never made such a prediction through His prophets that something like that would happen in the first place. The virgin birth was predicted, yes, but not some sort of GODLY C-section that allowed Mary to remain a virgin somehow.

Besides, the accounts in scripture that others posted here are easily understood. Jesus had brothers and sisters, and Joseph was their father. That's easy to understand from various translations.

It appears that you believe a church develops a doctrine first and then seeks scriptural backing. While this may occur in some denominations, it is not the method of the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, doctrines emerge from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition, with Scriptures being the foremost source of divine revelation and Tradition providing the apostolic interpretation and instruction. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a time-honored teaching from the apostles, supported by Holy Scripture. However, you seem to reject it because of its non-acceptance by Protestantism. The concern with the Protestant approach is that it attempts to conform scripture to the confines of human reasoning and imagination.

 

[ARBITER01]

It appears that you believe a church develops a doctrine first and then seeks scriptural backing.

I think that is exactly what has happened. History tends to repeat itself a lot. The Judeans made a religion out of GOD's words, it seems your denomination has done the same.

It's just history repeating itself.

While this may occur in some denominations, it is not the method of the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, doctrines emerge from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition, with Scriptures being the foremost source of divine revelation and Tradition providing the apostolic interpretation and instruction. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a time-honored teaching from the apostles, supported by Holy Scripture.

No it's not, but hey, keep telling yourself it is.

There's no reason for GOD to somehow restore Mary's virginity after childbirth. That was not something that was predicted through the OT prophets. And to be honest, GOD would have no reason to do such a thing anyways.

It's just a denominational lie.

 

[Guojing]

Point one is contradicted by Matthew 1:23.

A virgin shall be with child is not saying she will always remain a virgin after that child is born.

Where is the contradiction?

Point two is imaginary.

You ignored those scripture references I have provided, other than Galatians 1:19?

Matthew 13:56 Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31

According to your interpretation, every time those scripture said brother and sister, you insist they ALL meant cousins.

Who is the one imagining things?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A virgin shall be with child is not saying she will always remain a virgin after that child is born.

Where is the contradiction?


You ignored those scripture references I have provided, other than Galatians 1:19?

Matthew 13:56 Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31

According to your interpretation, every time those scripture said brother and sister, you insist they ALL meant cousins.

Who is the one imagining things?

I do not advocate for any specific interpretation; however, Holy Tradition does. It instructs us to uphold the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained perpetually virgin, a teaching that dates back to the inception of Christianity.

---

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, has a long and complex history.

Early Origins​

The earliest written tradition supporting this doctrine appears in the Protoevangelium of James, a late 2nd-century text 1,2. This apocryphal work emphasizes Mary’s virginity and portrays her as a perpetual virgin.

Development in Early Christianity​

By the 4th century, the doctrine had gained significant traction. Early Church Fathers like Origen and St. Athanasius were strong proponents 2. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. officially gave Mary the title “Aeiparthenos,” meaning "ever-virgin" 1,2.

Medieval and Reformation Periods​

The Lateran Synod of 649, convened by Pope Martin I, further emphasized the threefold character of Mary’s virginity: before, during, and after the birth of Christ1. During the Reformation, the doctrine was codified in documents like the Lutheran Smalcald Articles (1537) and the Reformed Second Helvetic Confession (1562) 1.

Modern Perspectives​

Today, the doctrine is upheld by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and some Protestant denominations1. However, it is rejected by most modern nonconformist Protestants 1.
The doctrine has been a subject of theological debate, particularly regarding the interpretation of biblical references to Jesus’ "brothers" 1,3. Despite differing views, the perpetual virginity of Mary remains a significant aspect of Marian theology in many Christian traditions.
If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

Learn more
1en.wikipedia.org, 2udayton.edu, 3catholic.com, 4stpaulcenter.com, 5neverthirsty.org, 6catholic.com+2 more

 

[Guojing]

I do not advocate for any specific interpretation; however, Holy Tradition does. It instructs us to uphold the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained perpetually virgin, a teaching that dates back to the inception of Christianity.

---

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, has a long and complex history.

Early Origins​

The earliest written tradition supporting this doctrine appears in the Protoevangelium of James, a late 2nd-century text 1,2. This apocryphal work emphasizes Mary’s virginity and portrays her as a perpetual virgin.

Development in Early Christianity​

By the 4th century, the doctrine had gained significant traction. Early Church Fathers like Origen and St. Athanasius were strong proponents 2. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. officially gave Mary the title “Aeiparthenos,” meaning "ever-virgin" 1,2.

Medieval and Reformation Periods​

The Lateran Synod of 649, convened by Pope Martin I, further emphasized the threefold character of Mary’s virginity: before, during, and after the birth of Christ1. During the Reformation, the doctrine was codified in documents like the Lutheran Smalcald Articles (1537) and the Reformed Second Helvetic Confession (1562) 1.

Modern Perspectives​

Today, the doctrine is upheld by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and some Protestant denominations1. However, it is rejected by most modern nonconformist Protestants 1.
The doctrine has been a subject of theological debate, particularly regarding the interpretation of biblical references to Jesus’ "brothers" 1,3. Despite differing views, the perpetual virginity of Mary remains a significant aspect of Marian theology in many Christian traditions.
If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

Learn more
1en.wikipedia.org, 2udayton.edu, 3catholic.com, 4stpaulcenter.com, 5neverthirsty.org, 6catholic.com+2 more

So why not just say,

"The belief that Mary remained perpetually virgin" is a teaching that my church and some other churches I know teach. I know there is no explicit scripture backing for that belief, but it is something I choose to believe in"?

That is a perfectly fine stand to take, and I can respect that stand as well, even if I disagree with that belief.

 

[ARBITER01]

I do not advocate for any specific interpretation; however, Holy Tradition does. It instructs us to uphold the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained perpetually virgin, a teaching that dates back to the inception of Christianity.

Like we was saying, it is a church teaching. I can appreciate honesty though.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So why not just say,

"The belief that Mary remained perpetually virgin" is a teaching that my church and some other churches I know teach. I know there is no explicit scripture backing for that belief, but it is something I choose to believe in"?

That is a perfectly fine stand to take, and I can respect that stand as well, even if I disagree with that belief.

The assertion is that all ancient churches maintain the teaching of the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[Guojing]

The assertion is that all ancient churches maintain the teaching of the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity.

Yes, those "ancient churches" that you have in mind can all be classified under "some other churches I know".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, those "ancient churches" that you have in mind can all be classified under "some other churches I know".

Indeed, they can. However, what does that mean other than the fact that a majority of professing Christians hold this belief and are taught so in their churches? What you express in your posts represents your opinion and possibly that of others, but it does not reflect the teachings of the majority of Christians.

 

[Guojing]

Indeed, they can. However, what does that mean other than the fact that a majority of professing Christians hold this belief and are taught so in their churches? What you express in your posts represents your opinion and possibly that of others, but it does not reflect the teachings of the majority of Christians.

I have encountered various posters who like to claim that their view is what the "majority of professing Christians" also holds.

I never understood why someone needs to make claims like that in discussions about Christian doctrine. If you are confident about what you believe in, you don't need to make appeals like that.

 

[d taylor]

The problem with this view, as I have explained to you, is that it is Monophysite. Not Oriental Orthodox, the excellent Miaphysite Christology of my friend @dzheremi , but rather the flawed Christology of Eutyches.

You are basically saying that Jesus Christ is a hybrid of God and Man. The problem with that is that it denies his full Humanity and his full Deity. He cannot be fully God and fully Man, nor can he actually be God-Man, if his Divinity and Humanity were changed or are confused in His incarnation. This is why all Christian churches teach that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, having put on our human nature in the Incarnation, and his humanity and divinity being united in one person and one hypostasis, without change, confusion, separation or division.

-

​

I know one thing, you think you know more than what I do, about what i believe. People who put tradition above The Bible sure have high opinions of themselves and their beliefs.