Importance of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

[redleghunter]

We are Christians taught by Paul to test our beliefs and teachings. We are also supposed to judge other Christians which I’m not very fond of the idea. I feel it’s necessary to question everything I believe in order to fully understand it.

My quote of Francis was tongue in cheek.

 

[redleghunter]

That an English translation not what the language it was written in. Seeing the language it was written in as demonstrated in this thread does not mean brother and sister but closer to kin

No this is not correct. The Greek does not support it.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It' has nothing to do with my faith it is what the Church believed form the beginning...

Documented evidence (the Bible) shows what the Church believed from the beginning...unless you don't really mean from the very beginning.

I could ask the same question: why not just believe that Mary was ever-virgin?

Thanks for at least being on-topic. The "why not?" argument is always invalid, especially in respect to the "why?" argument. One needs a reason for doing a thing. One does not, however, need a reason for not doing something. Otherwise, we might feel obligated to do nearly everything, for no reason at all. They have special rooms for people like that.

I've read this far, and I still don't see a clear answer to the question. So...will the sky fall if it turns out that Mary had a real marriage with Joseph?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nvm. ..

 

[AmusingMargaret]

Jesus himself refrained from sexual relations and encouraged others to do the same. The apostle Paul did the same. Pious women throughout the history of the Church have abstained from sexual relations as a form of purity.

Who could possibly be more pure than the one chosen by God to give birth to His son? There is no reason to believe that she did not maintain that purity for the rest of her life.

Except for the Bible speaking of Joseph not knowing her after the birth of Jesus, the same word for "knowing one's wife" and mentioning his brothers and sisters, including James, who Paul called the Lord's brother, in Galatians 1, and Mark 6 and Matthew 13 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Jude and Simon were Jesus's brothers. Those verses also mention sisters of Jesus but don't give their names. I don't remember ever reading Jesus encouraging anyone to stay single, and Paul never condemned marriage. If you're talking about fornication, that's a different thing and doesn't really apply to this conversation.

Having said all that, it doesn't matter to me if you believe Mary was a virgin all her life. I'm just pointing out the obvious, not really trying to change your views, and mine won't be changed on this particular thing. Mary was a special mother, indeed, but she lived a normal life as Joseph's wife.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You may have missed the underlying current which is true.

Those who believe this hold all their faith in church teachings.

If this (and likely other) teachings of the church are destroyed, then faith falls with it.

Our church is full of people who grew up in a denomination that taught this kind of thing. I'd say their faith is just fine now, flourishing even.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nvm ..

 

[redleghunter]

What I wonder is this; Is it right to blow up the foundation of someone's faith?

Even if we don't agree, this is his foundation. Someday that foundation may be challenged to the point all faith might be lost - but should it be us to cause it to be lost?

Or rather, should it be us holding his hand and helping him regain

I understand your point. But assertions the Greek supports something it clearly does not has to be mentioned in a discussion forum.

Plus I know many a Good Catholic who have told me in the past their belief is confirmed by tradition and they don’t need the Bible for their justification. I highly respect that position than the wresting eisegesis some go through to try to use the Bible as a servant to doctrines not taught.

We have one poster on another thread blowing up the Bible to make his point there is no Holy Spirit. Then another redefining Greek words to shoehorn Universalist doctrine. It amazes me the lengths some will stretch and wrest the Scriptures to “prove” a doctrine.

 

[redleghunter]

Those who believe this hold all their faith in church teachings.

If this (and likely other) teachings of the church are destroyed, then faith falls with it.

Which is the purpose of the OP @Phil 1:21 started.

Which can be answered here:

Matthew 7: NASB

24Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.25The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its collapse!”

 

[Loren T.]

Jesus himself refrained from sexual relations and encouraged others to do the same. The apostle Paul did the same. Pious women throughout the history of the Church have abstained from sexual relations as a form of purity.

Who could possibly be more pure than the one chosen by God to give birth to His son? There is no reason to believe that she did not maintain that purity for the rest of her life.

There is nothing impure about sexual relationships between husband and wife.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I understand your point. But assertions the Greek supports something it clearly does not has to be mentioned in a discussion forum.

Plus I know many a Good Catholic who have told me in the past their belief is confirmed by tradition and they don’t need the Bible for their justification. I highly respect that position than the wresting eisegesis some go through to try to use the Bible as a servant to doctrines not taught.

We have one poster on another thread blowing up the Bible to make his point there is no Holy Spirit. Then another redefining Greek words to shoehorn Universalist doctrine. It amazes me the lengths some will stretch and wrest the Scriptures to “prove” a doctrine.

I had thought I deleted what I wrote to you and didn't post those thoughts, but it apparently came back unawares when I made the other reply; that will teach me to check the preview.. lol

You are correct though.

 

[Tutorman]

And I will go by what the Bible says. We all have our allegiances I guess.

Reckon so. One can not find go by the Bible in the Bible

 

[Tutorman]

Ok... Do you at least see it fruitful to start with the wholly Inspired Holy Scriptures first. Meaning Bible first? Considering the very people we speak of are actually mentioned in the Holy Scriptures?

The Church created the Bible, I will stat with the Church first.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Reckon so. One can not find go by the Bible in the Bible

2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Tutorman]

Then why doesn't my Bible say "closer kin"? And why does it matter?

It does the English translators choose to render it that way and of course man ran with it disregarding the Church and history

 

[Tutorman]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

That is a fail. You will you never find the instructions to go by the Bible alone.

 

[Loren T.]

I've never really researched it in depth, but Augustine had a messed up doctrine on sex in marriage. I wonder how much he influenced the church on this and celebate priests, etc?

 

[dreadnought]

It does the English translators choose to render it that way and of course man ran with it disregarding the Church and history

You don't think English translators take their jobs seriously, apparently.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That is a fail. You will you never find the instructions to go by the Bible alone.

Its not a fail. The end result, according to scripture, of following God-breathed scripture, is a complete man.

17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

That complete man, in my estimation, is able to be presented before the Lord on that Day, and will not fall. I'm good with that.

 

[Tutorman]

Its not a fail. The end result, according to scripture, of following God-breathed scripture, is a complete man.

17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

That complete man, in my estimation, is able to be presented before the Lord on that Day, and will not fall. I'm good with that.

Still a fail. The idea of going by the Bible is a man made fallacy and the idea never appears in the Bible