razeontherock
Well-Known Member
This makes no sense.
I don't see that we have any "how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other" today, so this point is moot.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So did the the Monarchianists, Unitarians, Sabellians, and Arians. So do the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses.
And the Trinity: how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other.
This makes no sense.
I don't see that we have any "how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other" today, so this point is moot.
Is there something shocking about it? His parish through the liturgy out in favor of the sort of happy-clappy band concerts. Not exactly an insignificant issue.
Ya know, when you train a bank teller, you don't show them every type of counterfeit. What you do, is train them to recognize the real deal. That way, counterfeit sticks out like a sore thumb.
I would hope you could extend this idea appropriately.
Disagreed. I find Trinity to be perfectly clear in Scripture, and the same goes for Mary's Divine maternity, and chastity. (Until Jesus' birth) The only one of these that needs anything extra-Biblical for support is PV, although I must admit this is a case where Tradition at least does not contradict Scripture.
Ya know, when you train a bank teller, you don't show them every type of counterfeit. What you do, is train them to recognize the real deal. That way, counterfeit sticks out like a sore thumb.
I would hope you could extend this idea appropriately.
The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.Exactly. The Bible does say that there were 4 named brothers and numembred and unnamed sisters of Jesus. But it doesn't say they were via Mary (athough - yes - "brother" here would need to be in the loosest meaning possible since Joseph was not related to Jesus - but yes, that meaning did exist). It doesn't say the WERE via Mary, and it doesn't say they were NOT via Mary. It doesn't say. The Bible also doesn't say that Mary had no sex ever. It doesn't say that She did and it doesn't say that She didn't. It doesn't say. If silence is reason to be silent in one case, why is it defended in the other as in fact confirmation of a view?
If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?You said, Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well." Okay, when you read the SILENCE about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - SILENCE about anything remotely related to it - how is insisting, in the boldest way possible, "Mary made a vow to God, the precise content of said vow was 'I will die - or not - having had no sex ever' and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth and fact that Mary had no sex ever" - how is that not "reading into things that aren't there and assuming much that isn't there as well?"
I don't want to discuss sex, thank you. We can discuss Mary's obedience to God, and her life as a dedicated and loving handmaiden of God and how she was with no man because that's what it shows in the Bible. And we've told you, I don't know how many times, why her ever-virginity (her devotion and total dedication to God) is so important. It points to Christ our Savior.I agree. NORMALLY, how often people have sex is a private matter. Note how we have YET to have any woman here defending this dogma telling us how often THEY have sex, and yet.... I know, it's just ONE of the many very peculiar things about this dogma. Many that are uncomfortable with it share your feeling completely, responding "why is it anyone's business? Much less a matter of highest importance?" I don't think it's any of my business how often you have sex (if at all).
It sure does! It says she was the Mother of Christ God. It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children. If she wasn't married, then she didn't have marital relations, so she could not have bore any other children. The end.And nothing says that she wasn't or didn't have other children. And - to the point - NOTHING is said of any vow by Mary to God, NOTHING about the content of said vow, and NOTHING about how often She had sex - if at all - up to and including the moment of Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there). If silence means we CANNOT say Mary had children, why does SILENCE mean we can shout in the boldest way possible that Mary had no sex ever?
Bishop Isaiah had talked about the problems with translations, and that this was partly the reason why the Jewish authorities after the death of Christ, threw out some OT books that were originally there and used by the Greek-speaking Jews that were there around 200 years before Christ came to earth. It is said that the Jewish authorities took out some of the books that pointed more to the ever-virginity of Mary and her being the Mother of God - Christ the Savior - and other more telling passages that Christ was the Messiah.This is relevant to an issue that has been running "under" this thread, and several in GT.
Among those who honor what is recorded in Scripture, the translators changes to Scripture should raise alarm bells.
Per this thread, consider that the term mnisteuw/engaged has been translated gamew/espoused. And this change has suggested a particular interpretation of every other verse mentioning Mary, an interpretation that is not actually supported by what is stated in Scripture.
As an aside (as many know) I was raised in a Scripture centered Protestant Church. (Well, the denomination at large was not necessarily, but my dad was my only minister til I was 18, and he was strongly Scripture centered.)
The Orthodox Church was the only other Scripture-center Church I could find.
Now consider: the translators have changed words in Scripture (mnisteuw to gamew, ostis to dioti ostis, paradosis to didaskalia), and these changes support their understanding, their tradition.
The Orthodox Churches had every opportunity to likewise change Scripture in order to more clearly back up the teachings still held - and didn't.
So who honors Scripture more - those who change Scripture to force a more clear support for their position, or those who don't change Scripture.
The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.
If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?
I don't want to discuss sex, thank you. We can discuss Mary's obedience to God, and her life as a dedicated and loving handmaiden of God and how she was with no man because that's what it shows in the Bible. And we've told you, I don't know how many times, why her ever-virginity (her devotion and total dedication to God) is so important. It points to Christ our Savior.
True to Scripture.It sure does! It says she was the Mother of Christ God. It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children. If she wasn't married, then she didn't have marital relations, so she could not have bore any other children. The end.
The position of Mary having children relies on extra-scriptural support,
and does contradict what is written in Scripture
The understanding of ever-virginity is more consistent with Scripture.
The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.
There are only two denominations on the planet, since the 6th century anyway, that have jumped to ANY conclusions about all that AT ALL.If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?
Can't blame you; I'm sure a lot of our friends aren't participating in this thread (and all the others about Mary's sex life) for the same reason. I didn't until I was maybe 16 or 17 - I just found it too disrespectful until then. But since it's DOGMA - forever dividing the church to the highest level over this issue of her sex life - I don't think we have any choice. If these two denominations insists on shouting about it, as a matter of highest importance for all then it's a matter of highest importance of all for all to discuss, however inappropriate it may understandably seem.I don't want to discuss sex, thank you.
I agree. And so you don't say anything about it. The Bible of course also says NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. You don't assuming anything as a dogmatic fact in one case but do in the other. I agree with you: Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles and everyone for at least 200 years said NOTHING about Mary's kids (other than Jesus), just as they said NOTHING about Mary having not had sex (other than at the Nativity). I understand your rubric, you're just reversing it in the case of Mary's sex life.It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children.
It is directly contradicted by what is stated in Scripture; anyone who states that Jesus had siblings is appealing to tradition (ie cannot claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura).Well, IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" then I agree - it seems quite likely that it would be reasonably arbitrated that such is insufficiently substantiated.
Exactly not; both Luke and Matthew attest that Mary and Joseph were engaged (mnisteuw). Nowhere in Scripture is it attested that they were married.I disagree. IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids," it would not contradict Scripture at all. But such would be meaningless and irrelevant in terms to confirm such to be true.
The parameters of your particular standards for "confirmation" have not been stated. Claiming that something is "hardly confirmed" where no standards have been iterated is meaningless."More" is hardly confirmation....
There is no Greek equivalent for "siblings".Actually, since there is a Scripture about Jesus' siblings (it's just not definitive enough for dogma), and since there is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, I'd say that idea of Mary Had Lotsa Kids is more defendable by Scripture than is Mary Had No Sex EVER - but it would be my arbitration that EITHER can be confirmed OR denied by Scripture. But then there is no Dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" (or even an official teaching or doctrine) in ANY denomination known to me. There is a Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" in two denominations.
It is directly contradicted by what is stated in Scripture
nowhere is attested that Jesus had siblings. No such passage exists.
Can't blame you; I'm sure a lot of our friends aren't participating in this thread (and all the others about Mary's sex life) for the same reason. I didn't until I was maybe 16 or 17 - I just found it too disrespectful until then. But since it's DOGMA - forever dividing the church to the highest level over this issue of her sex life - I don't think we have any choice. If these two denominations insists on shouting about it, as a matter of highest importance for all then it's a matter of highest importance of all for all to discuss, however inappropriate it may understandably seem.
So if there are no denominations that have a dogma that says Mary was not a perpetual virgin, how come there are so many people in those denominations who teach it?
John MacArthur for example. Evangelical preacher whose study bible has sold more than a million copies, president of a seminary, pastor of a church, and considered to be one of the most popular evangelical preachers around. Actively teaches that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
A simple google search will turn up site after site professing the Bible "truth" that Mary was not a virgin. Non-denominational churches, baptist churchs, evangelicals, church of Christ -- all teaching to their flocks that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
Of course, they don't call it "dogma". They simply call it "biblical truth".
Come to think of it, they don't call anything "dogma".
It is interesting that one who claims 'no opinion' on a matter can so vehemently object when a group takes one side and defines it as being dogma, but has no objections to people teaching the other side at all, as long as they don't call it "dogma". They can call it "bible truth" though. Apparently that's okay.
Of course, the logic of that thinking escapes me.
It is interesting that one who claims 'no opinion' on a matter can so vehemently object when a group takes one side and defines it as being dogma, but has no objections to people teaching the other side at all, as long as they don't call it "dogma". They can call it "bible truth" though. Apparently that's okay.
I agree. NORMALLY, how often people have sex is a private matter. Note how we have YET to have any woman here defending this dogma telling us how often THEY have sex, and yet.... I know, it's just ONE of the many very peculiar things about this dogma. Many that are uncomfortable with it share your feeling completely, responding "why is it anyone's business? Much less a matter of highest importance?" I don't think it's any of my business how often you have sex (if at all).
Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary I think it will be very interesting to examine this belief, where it originated from and any evidence of such a theory/teaching/belief/doctrine as being legit or true.
(not sure what the official position of the RCC is with this)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?