Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Philothei]

The Bible confirms it, and it is also undisputed in the Christian world, that an angel of God came to Mary and told her that God had chosen her to be the mother of God. The angel told Mary: 30 "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call his name JESUS." (Luke 1:30,31) Mary accepted the will of God the Father and she became heavy with child.
Now think about this for a moment. An angel of God actually came to Mary and spoke God's will. She not only believed by faith alone, but God revealed His will unto her through His angel. Mary's response was an incredible act of faith and devotion because it showed pure and unconditional obedience to God. Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
Mary took on the responsibility of bringing forth the Son of God in a society where unwed mothers were subject to terrible shame and immediate stoning. She submitted her body and soul to God's will in order that Jesus Christ may come into the world. Isn't it just a little bit ridiculous to think that once she gave birth to Christ she became just another woman? Isn't her devotion to God sufficient to realize that once she gave birth to the Son of God all her other worldly concerns took a back seat. All of us readily accept the idea that thousands of men and women every year take a vow of celibacy and choose to devote body and soul to God. These men and women voluntarily choose and ascetic life and become monks and nuns. They do so of their own free will based on sheer faith and devotion to Christ. They are not visited by angels of God, and they are not asked to bear our Lord Jesus Christ in their womb. If we believe these Christians can renounce physical desires and subscribe their lives to Christ, why is it so hard to believe that the Virgin Mary renounced her own physical desires and submitted her life to God. Protestants seem to hold ordinary men and women to a higher standard than the one and only mother of the Son of God. Now, that doesn't seem logical does it?

What's even more interesting is that Protestant Christians today don't seem to question the ability of Buddhist monks or other eastern spiritualists to completely submit control of their physical bodies to the power of the mind and spirit. Their abilities, and that of many others like them, are neither challenged, nor looked upon suspiciously, nor considered impossible. They are simply asserting control of mind over matter. But God forbid that such physical subordination should be the result of spiritual faith, purity of soul, and complete devotion to the one true God!
Spiritual superiority and abstinent lifestyles seem to be relegated only to other faiths and other people, except members of Christ's family and the early followers and Disciples of Christ. Those who walked with Jesus apparently could not master their physical urges and achieve the saintly transformation we have witnesses millions of times since the foundation of the Christian faith. The lengths and contortions through which modern Protestant scholars go to justify their illogical theological theories have to be counteracted with an equally strong argument. This must be done in order to show just how out of touch they are with common sense, historical traditions, and the truth. I hope this series achieves that purpose and exemplifies the profound bias that is so evident to me personally.

If someone has a personal encounter with the angel of the Lord you can be certain that experience will leave a lasting and significant impact on that person's life. Now add to that Mary's extraordinary faith and complete submission of body and soul to God, her absolute purity and sanctity of spirit, and her essential task of raising and caring for the Son of God, and I think you'll understand why the idea that Mary just kept on living a regular, "run of the mill" life seems more and more preposterous.

that source raises lots of good arguments

The Virgin Mary - part 1 (an Orthodox perspective)
it comes in 3 parts and i posted one so that we can get an idea about the EV subject matter esp. the Prtotestant "view" on the EV.

 

[Philothei]

IMHO, you can't argue both sides of the coin at the same time:

ah.... I think you are doing this since you say you are not trying to disprove it.... niether to prove it... This is very confusing truly confusing.....

by the way if you say "i drink coffee" it does include future action.... that proves you are a coffee drinker and that implies you will continue to be is it not? It does NOT exlude future action neither...so why argue about it?

 

[Philothei]

A survey of Scriptures regarding the use of the word until shed some light on that mystery. In the Old Testament, in the book of Genesis, there is one example of its use: 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent out a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6,7) Following the other presumed interpretation of until used in Matthew would imply that the raven never flew again once the waters dried up. Now that doesn't sound rational does it?
Again in Psalm 110:1 the Scripture describes God the Father addressing Jesus: The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Does that mean that Christ will stop sitting at the right hand of the Father once God makes Christ's enemies His footstool? If we follow Protestant logic in its treatment of the word until, then these verses are saying exactly that. That's not a believable explanation of this passage and no Christian would ever agree with that description of its meaning. Yet if there is to be overall consistency throughout the Bible then according to the Protestant definition of the word until in the Gospel of Matthew, there can't be any other possible interpretation.
There are many more passages in the Holy Scriptures that also support similar interpretations of "until." I have included belose Father Peter Gillquist's own magnificent analysis on this very topic.
From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son," does not automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew the word until (or till or to) can have several meanings. We find it in II Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the day of her death." It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says, "Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read, "[Moses was buried] in a valley in the land of Moab. . . but no one knows his grave to (until) this day." Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply that Michal has a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be with us at the end of the world, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church.
On one hand we have many instances in the Bible where the word until is used one way; as in the examples above. Then there is one instance and one instance alone, in the Gospel of Matthew, when all of a sudden the very same word until is being interpreted by western scholars completely different than before. Not only is the definition of this word diametrically opposed to all the other times it gets used in both the Old and New Testaments, but it would also be the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions that Joseph "knew" the Virgin Mary. Since the universal view of all Christians, Orthodox, Catholics and Protestant alike, is that the Scriptures represent the true word of God, it is irrational to believe that God could contradict Himself by giving the word until different interpretations.

The Virgin Mary - part 3 (an Orthodox perspective)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is very confusing truly confusing.....

It is, isn't it?

The point was made that the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary is confirmed by Luke 1:34.
I've been trying ever since to figure out how.
I was told because the PRESENT active indicative requires it. But it doesn't.
Then that the verb "shall" requires it. But it doesn't.
Then that the foreign context imputed into the text requires it - well, only if you imputed it there (but then ANYTHING imputed into the text agrees with what's imputed into the text).

The point has been made that the future is indefinate but then that it MUST be until death. But future just means future.

Now, finally, after 21 pages, you state that actually, NOTHING in the text confirms this dogma. It's not an apologetic AT ALL. It doesn't state this AT ALL. It's merely "implied." That's not a confirmation, not an substantiation, NOT the point that was made 21 pages ago and defended ever since.


And while I agree (AS I ALWAYS HAVE) that this view is POSSIBLE, it's not REQUIRED - thus it doesn't substantiate the view. There is, I've offered, other possibilities, one that seems to me to be MORE textual, more in line with the grammar. That is that Tradition is CORRECT and that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened on the same day (March 25) within minutes or hours of each other. The angel states that Mary will conceive. The "will" is INDEFINATE - it could be 1 second in the future, it could be 82 years in the future - he simply doesn't say and the grammar offers not a hint. I simply put out there that maybe he was CORRECT and the event was soon - within the day. Mary - it would seem confused by the whole thing - asks, "how can this be since I am a virgin." It could be that Mary is actually CORRECT and understands that this conception will not happen 62 years in the future when she might be too old and perhaps Joseph died, and she understands it ins't 5 years in the future when she and Joseph might be blessed by God with a "quiver of children" (as the Psalmist puts it), or even maybe a year from then when Mary and Joseph will be together. Nope. She's CORRECT. She understands the incarnation is sooner rather than later, perhaps even now rather than a second before her death/undeath. Now, do I claim as a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that that IS the case? NO! I have no dogma on this at all! But THAT could be "implied" by the verse just as easily (I think far more easily) that what you think is "implied" - and I don't have to do remarkable things to the grammar to make it reasonable. But as I said, I'm with the 49,998 denominations that HAVE NO POSITION on how often Mary had _____ after Jesus was born or how long she was a virgin after this discussion with the angel. It might have been a year, maybe 5 years, maybe 10, maybe 50, maybe right through the time of Her death. YOU are the one insisting to the very highest level possible that she had no _____ EVER, that she was a PERPETUAL virgin, and that this verse confirms that. Saying, "well, it's POSSIBLE" is entirely moot to whether it is true - and it becomes AMAZING that all of you would argue this point with me for 21 pages when I admitted all along that it's POSSIBLE, just not mandated. What were you doing?

"i drink coffee" it does include future action.... that proves you are a coffee drinker and that implies you will continue to be is it not? It does NOT exlude future action neither...so why argue about it?

1. No, it does not require that I drink coffee until the second before I die, it does not mandate PERPETUALITY.

2. Why argue about it? Because it's your apologetic!!!!!! The point was this verse confirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. If it does - then I need to embrace this dogma. If it doesn't, then you apologetic has failed, and you did not make the point you've been arguing about for 21 pages now. I didn't bring up this verse - and I've not been arguing that it confirms the Perpetual virginity of Mary. I've been saying it is indefinate, it does NOT say - either way.

Ever-Virginity The Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin knowing her personally from the beginning one generation to the next and then passing the truths on from , never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning.

AGAIN, I'm totally at a loss to see how this confirms that the ONLY grammatically correct way to read Luke 1;34 is that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, that what She said was CURRENTLY the case MUST - by rules of koine Greek grammar - remain the case up to and through the second of Her death.

This appears to me to be a separate apologetic, one now that it's a dogmatic fact BECAUSE it's been taught "ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, ALL GENERATIONS." Okay, again, it's moot unless its evidenced as true. So, you need to confirm that the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary has been taught "from the beginning" (whether such be the Annunciation around 6 BC or Pentecost likely not later than 31 AD or some point inbetween), ALWAYS (meaning it's been continually proclaimed from at least 31 AD on) and "in all generations." Start with the one alive in 6 BC or 31 AD and then every 20 years or so thereafter.

Once it is established that the apology is true, THEN we can discuss if it therefore confirms the dogma. But we can't consider it or regard it vis-a-vis the issue until we know it is factually correct. Two unestablished claims does not make for one correct position - it just piles on the unsubstantiated claims, thicker than before. Substantiate the claim, THEN we can consider whether it has any bearing on whether the position is correct.





.

​

 

[MrPolo]

Is there any irony that the title of this thread contains the word "perpetual"?

 

[Philothei]

Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason.

However, I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19 (the crucifixion) it says this.



Now if Jesus had siblings, he was obviously the oldest and thus would ahve been charged with caring for his mother once his father was out of the picture (and seeing as Joseph never appears, we can assume that he is dead by this point). Upon the death of the oldest son, care for the mother would pass to the next oldest son. However, that is not what happens here. Jesus instead asks a friend to care for his mother and commands them to know each other as if they were mother and son.

I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?

BTF

Behold there is the OP

So mentioning the Adelfi Adelfos is not off topic afterall....according to the Op

 

[Dorothea]

You and Philothei both have the patience of Job.

Yes, I've often thought that and have said that (along the same lines) months ago.

 

[Dorothea]

Is there any irony that the title of this thread contains the word "perpetual"?

 

[Philothei]

Let us call it the "perpetual" thread also proving that it extends in the "future" .... it has done so for 97 pages and the future is out there hopefully by 2011 we could all be here celebrating the EV for generations to come

 

[Thekla]

Well.... running with that.... I'm following you UNTIL the very last illogical, noncontextual, assumptive leap.
It does NOT mandate UNTIL DEATH.

The context under discussion is the future (provided by "shall" , used by both Gabriel and Mary).
Again:
I'll try to sketch it out a bit; perhaps this will help:

When Gabriel speaks to Mary, Mary is betrothed. (Betrothal is typically followed by marriage.) This is contextual.

Gabriel announces a future conception. This is contextual.

Mary responds re: a future conception. This is contextual.

There is no indication of when in the future. This is contextual.

Thus, the future is from the "now" of the announcement until death.

Now, where is the leap ? I have worked exclusively with context.

Either the future is indefinate in which case it does NOT confirm perpetuality OR it means "until the moment of your death/undeath" in which case you've failed to show that's the sole meaning of the of PRESENT active indicative.

If by "the future", it is not meant "until your death", then where is the scriptural statement providing the limit of future ? This is an opinion until you provide supporting evidence for your assertion.

The sole question is this: Does the grammar here mandate PERPETUALITY. There's no dispute that she was a virgin at the moment she said that she was.

Grammar alone is not communication; it is the template which permits cogent organized communication. It is the grammar and context which, providing no limit for the "when" or "duration" of "shall" states "until death".

It's indefinate, it does not require perpetuality. "I will go to Hawaii" does not mean that I will be going to Hawaii all the days of the rest of my life and will die going to Hawaii.

You have not provided an analogous statement; there is no context.

Here, with context (drawn from the scripture we are discussing):

"You shall fly to Hawaii."

"How shall I fly to Hawaii since I have no plane ?"

Sorry, I fail to see how all this confirms that the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary was taught 'ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION."

Then it seems you must have in mind a (non-textual) limit to the span of future; it would help support your assertion if you could provide it.

No one said the Scripture forbids the understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. YOUR point is that it CONFIRMS it. This verse is YOUR apologetic for YOUR point - PERPETUALITY.

Your apologetic is that there is a limit on the "when" of "shall"; you have not provided evidence for your assertion. (IE, there is no apologetic for your position.) My argument has been entirely from scripture; there is no contextual statement on the "when" of future. Thus, the duration of the action/condition described by "know not a man" is ongoing without limit.

You seem to forget, I didn't bring up this verse. You did.
I didn't suggest that this verse confirms my view (I don't have one). You did.

Your position is that my position is incorrect; that is a position (albeit presently unsupported).

If you are going to continue to reference this verse as your apologetic for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, then you need to evidence that the mandated meaning is PERPETUALITY. Otherwise, the apologetic is moot.

Assertion without supporting evidence is opinion.

I have given evidence; you have remained unable or unwilling to provide evidence to refute my position.

IMHO, you can't argue both sides of the coin at the same time: The future (??!!) is indefinate AND it means until She died/undied.

How did your assertion get into my supported position.
I have only 'one side of the coin'; the other side is yours.
I never said such a thing (indefinite) -- you seem to have eisegised your assertion into my argument.

The point was made here that the GRAMMAR of the verse mandates perpetuality. Perhaps you disagree with that point. If you do, then we are left with the words themselves - and as we all know, there's nothing here about perpetuality.

Grammar needs words; it does not communicate in "empty space".

There is no context that mandates that Mary will not know a man on the day of her death/undeath. She speaks of her virginity in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. There's no context here that speaks of ANYTHING when Mary would be 72 years old. Much less on the day of her death (or undeath depending on your view - I don't know what the Orthodox teach as to whether She died or not).

I know what present active indicative means
There is context; the context is future without limit.

You seem to forget I have no position to support.
You do.

Your position seems to be that my argument is flawed; that is a position.
You do have a position. But you have no argument, as you have made only unsupported assertions.

It's YOU insisting that this verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.
Not just future virginity (whether such be 1 minute or 62 years - the verse doesn't explicitely state), but PERPETUALITY.

Again, please provide evidence from scripture exhibiting a limit to the span of the future in the verse.

No, I never said the verse FORBIDS that understanding, it's your position that it REQUIRES that understanding.

The scripture says what scripture says ...

The ball is YOURS. It's been in your court for 20 PAGES of posts now. There have been several attempts to pass it to me, but I've never said this verse confirms the perpetual virginity of Mary - you did.

I don't recall saying any such thing; can you quote my post and identify the quote # so I can read what I said ?

I never said the grammar requires that - that's the position you are defending. I never said this is my apologetic for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I never even said I think the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is true!!! It's YOUR position, YOUR apologetic, YOUR point.

And I have provided support for my point.
You have not provided any supported argument to refute mine.

 

[Philothei]

Your position is that my position is incorrect; that is a position

but to be able to argue postion..... one has to have the "anti-thesis" so the other the "thesis" if those two are not vis-a-vis each other....how can there be converstation? 'This is what makes this whole "discussion" instead of a plain out discussion a confussion.

If one sits on the fence and tells both sides you are wrong and you are wrong....the fact he sits on the fence is by all means a position that to tell "both others" that they are wrong. With such logic all Christianity looses its essence of faith and falls into the realm of "theory" and the book of the Bible (without any solid evidence of its very existance) truly moot...................

Alas we as christians should fall into such folly to believe that even the 4 gospels or the epistles need to be 'evidenced' as texts since we truly have ONLY copies of the originals....then what we shall say? Oh.... but ...evidence please..... Show me the "hard core" forensic evidence that the Bible was indeed a doc written as early as the 2nd century......Cause there is no existing text to witness to it..... And in all reality we do believe "by faith" ONLY that such texts existed

God bless,
P.

 

[Standing Up]

ah.... I think you are doing this since you say you are not trying to disprove it.... niether to prove it... This is very confusing truly confusing.....-snip-

Well, that is how I came into the conversation, not having a position one way or the other. And quite frankly, I still have no clue as to why it is important the ever-virginity. Although, apparently, after the "martyr period", say 325, the "ascetic period" arose. Evidently that is when this idea arose as well, that is why it is important (unless of course you can somehow produce written texts from earlier that say otherwise).

Some argue that Joseph had sons from another marriage. If so, then they are the legal heirs to the throne, being the first-born. That argument, therefore, is wrong.

Some argue that brothers means uncles. But there is a Greek word for uncle used in scripture. So, if that was the meaning, the writers would have used that meaning. They didn't, therefore, that argument is flat.

Some wonder why Jesus would turn Mary over to John, if there were other brothers and sisters to care for her. This of course was pre-resurrection and none of them believed on Him. Hence, this is not an argument proving brothers. As well, there are, as some know, other historic/spiritual reasons for doing this. John (his lineage) taking care of the Church as it were (I wonder what the Peter folk think about this?)

As to the idea, Mary took a vow of ever-virgin before the angelic encounter, this would be a contradiction to scripture. So I do not believe she would execute that. (Be fruitful and multiply or Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. --- she wouldn't "go against" the blessing. As well, we don't read of her doing that in scripture.)

So, hope that helps

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Show me the "hard core" forensic evidence that the Bible was indeed a doc written as early as the 2nd century......Cause there is no existing text to witness to it..... And in all reality we do believe "by faith" ONLY that such texts existed

God bless,
P.

I know this is a bit frustrating, but Polycar's letter to the Phillipians written c150 evidently quotes from each of the 27 letters of the NT (and clearly from 24 I believe is the number).

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Philothei]

Do you know where i can find the original ? that is all what "scholars" say of copies of copies......of the originals...

 

[Thekla]

Well, that is how I came into the conversation, not having a position one way or the other. And quite frankly, I still have no clue as to why it is important the ever-virginity. Although, apparently, after the "martyr period", say 325, the "ascetic period" arose. Evidently that is when this idea arose as well, that is why it is important (unless of course you can somehow produce written texts from earlier that say otherwise).

Actually, asceticism (fasting, chastity, etc.) was included in the NT, and early Church. Note that John the Baptist and Paul were chaste; Christ speaks of being "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven".
The article I quoted mentions rabbinical literature re: the chastity of Moses following his encounter with God on Mt. Sinai.

Some argue that Joseph had sons from another marriage. If so, then they are the legal heirs to the throne, being the first-born. That argument, therefore, is wrong.

Some argue that brothers means uncles. But there is a Greek word for uncle used in scripture. So, if that was the meaning, the writers would have used that meaning. They didn't, therefore, that argument is flat.

The Greek word for uncle is not used for Abraham; Abraham and Lot are called "adelphos". Adelphos means more than just brother and uncle; it denotes any patriarchal (father/arche -origin, primary, first) relationship (tribe, country, household, stepsibs, kinsmen, etc.).

Some wonder why Jesus would turn Mary over to John, if there were other brothers and sisters to care for her. This of course was pre-resurrection and none of them believed on Him. Hence, this is not an argument proving brothers. As well, there are, as some know, other historic/spiritual reasons for doing this. John (his lineage) taking care of the Church as it were (I wonder what the Peter folk think about this?)

Of course, the events of the post-resurrection were not unknown to God.

As to the idea, Mary took a vow of ever-virgin before the angelic encounter, this would be a contradiction to scripture.

Unusual, but not a contradiction; there were others who were chaste in the Bible.

So I do not believe she would execute that. (Be fruitful and multiply or Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. --- she wouldn't "go against" the blessing. As well, we don't read of her doing that in scripture.)

Isn't Christ fruitful

Why would the rabbi's not condemn Moses for remaining chaste instead of having more children (in the early lit., Mishnah iirc) ?

So, hope that helps

Thanks for discussing
(know I'm not Philothei, so hope its ok ...)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

but to be able to argue postion..... one has to have the "anti-thesis" so the other the "thesis" if those two are not vis-a-vis each other....how can there be converstation? 'This is what makes this whole "discussion" instead of a plain out discussion a confussion.

Or just even more evasion....


Look, if a Protestant denomination or two where to state as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had Pink Hair - I just have a hunch we'd have a number of Catholic and Orthodox posters asking for the confirmation for this matter of dogma. Now, they need NOT have a dogma that Mary Had Red Hair (maybe they think it unknown or moot what color hair She had), but if they are being told they are WRONG in a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty (heretic? My priest, "There are no heretic in heaven!"), I just have a hunch they'd ask for some reasonal basis for the DOGMA.

The 49,998 denominations are SILENT on the matter of Mary's _____ life after Jesus was born are apt to believe this is respectful to Our Blessed Lady. They are apt to believe God in Scripture is silent on this matter. They are apt to regard that the earliest Tradition in this matter was also silence. They are apt to believe the affirmation/confirmation or ANYTHING in regard to Her ____ life after Jesus was born doesn't suggest ANY dogma about it. They are apt to believe Christians generally should be silent on how often a loving couple has _____, probably not the "stuff" for DOGMA. NONETHELESS, they aren't saying the two or three denominations that DO make a huge fuss over this are WRONG to believe what they do (they MAY think it strange, but not WRONG).

But TWO denominations are dividing Christianity, telling others they are fundamentally WRONG in a matter of highest importance, perhaps even questioning their soul and salvation, shouting to the very highest level a point of about Our Lady's ____ life. They must do what they demand all others to do: substantiate their position. Look, someone can say, "I think drinking gin is good." Fine. I have no opinion about gin (never tasted it), but hey, no problem with me. But when they say, "It is a matter of highest importance among Christians that all drink 4 oz. of gin every day - or you are a heretic, apostate, and the salvation of your soul is at least in question, and we will excommunicate you from the Church of God!" Well, then, perhaps now booted out, condemned, is it UNREASONABLE to ask, "What's the substantiation for this view about daily drinking 4 oz of gin?" I don't think so. Even if I've never tasted gin. Even if I don't care if YOU drink it or not. IMHO, we are to be united. It's necessary we AT LEAST UNDERSTAND what divides us. Since the insistence to the very highest level is that I'm WRONG in a matter of extreme importance, the LEAST one should be able to do is clearly state why. Not 95 pages of evasions and ridicule and diversions, not a constant, "I'm right so I'm right and therefore you're wrong." "How RUDE for you to even think about the ____ life of Mary, but yes, we SHOUT about that every issue and regard it a subject of highest importance but you are RUDE to even bring it up." (YES, that IS primarily what we get).

I'm persistent. I will continue to do all I can to get at this issue until I understand all this. INCLUDING why Catholics (and now it seems Orthodox) so often say and do what they do in this regard. It is a puzzle. I will pursue this until I solve it.

If one sits on the fence and tells both sides you are wrong and you are wrong....the fact he sits on the fence is by all means a position that to tell "both others" that they are wrong.

Perhaps, but as you know, I've not called ANYONE wrong. The 49,998 denominations do not call ANYONE wrong. My pastor embraces this view, he says most Lutheran pastors ar like me and have no position, he says some Lutheran pastors reject the view. NO ONE CALLS ANYONE WRONG or heretical or apostate or unchristian or condemned, no one is excommunicated or defrocked over this AS IF THEY WERE WRONG. Thus, we aren't calling YOU or EACH OTHER wrong. No. THAT is solely found in two denominations - one of which is YOURS. Now, if you are going to proclaim that - the LEAST you must do is substantiate that your condemnation is substantiated.

When Luther wrote some things (twisted and misunderstood by the RCC at many points), he was viewed as saying the RCC was wrong (as he did, at some points). He was called to substantiate what he said. THIS IS WHAT THE RCC DOES, and I assume the EO too unless truth does not matter in the EO. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, what the RCC DEMANDS of all others it must also do.






.

 

[Philothei]

You cannot believe that to "embrace" that view is ok while to call it a dogma is wrong..Belief is still that belief and if CC an EO consider that belief to be the dogma and they stand by it....Proterstant denominations have no business to their beliefs....or then Calvinism is the same wrong as a dogma... why would you accept those who aspouse it? EV was ALWAYS in the trad of the church was told to you time and time again ....Your million proto denominations disregard it for 200 years so? Who is the one stuck with believing that EV had pink hair NOW? not us.... All proterstants do that.... allowing for the EV to be whoever people "think" she is...and that is nice and dandy by me....Just keep believing whatever. The Church will not change its dogma because some decided it to put everything up to test... Like I said find me evidence about the very bible you hold .... We do not even have an original copy of it... before the 4th century roughly speaking. So your quest is empty handed... I feel sorry for those who seek truth by man's fallable knowledge and disregard that wisdom that the Lord has given us through our sacred Tradition. For all generations will be calling HER blessed and indeed we all do

 

[Thekla]

.

But TWO denominations are dividing Christianity, telling others they are fundamentally WRONG in a matter of highest importance, perhaps even questioning their soul and salvation, shouting to the very highest level a point of about Our Lady's ____ life.
.

This is a misrepresentation.

Absent supporting evidence, it approaches slander.

It is a matter of highest importance among Christians that all drink 4 oz. of gin every day - or you are a heretic, apostate, and the salvation of your soul is at least in question, and we will excommunicate you from the Church of God!"

So is this analogy



Lord have mercy +

 

[Thekla]

If having no position is equated with neutrality, why discuss the matter -- especially in such an extreme manner ?

If having no position is equated with a similar view of each side, why no response directed at the other view ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Look, if a Protestant denomination or two where to state as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had Pink Hair - I just have a hunch we'd have a number of Catholic and Orthodox posters asking for the confirmation for this matter of dogma. Now, they need NOT have a dogma that Mary Had Red Hair (maybe they think it unknown or moot what color hair She had), but if they are being told they are WRONG in a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty (heretic? My priest, "There are no heretic in heaven!"), I just have a hunch they'd ask for some reasonal basis for the DOGMA.

The 49,998 denominations are SILENT on the matter of Mary's _____ life after Jesus was born are apt to believe this is respectful to Our Blessed Lady. They are apt to believe God in Scripture is silent on this matter. They are apt to regard that the earliest Tradition in this matter was also silence. They are apt to believe the affirmation/confirmation or ANYTHING in regard to Her ____ life after Jesus was born doesn't suggest ANY dogma about it. They are apt to believe Christians generally should be silent on how often a loving couple has _____, probably not the "stuff" for DOGMA. NONETHELESS, they aren't saying the two or three denominations that DO make a huge fuss over this are WRONG to believe what they do (they MAY think it strange, but not WRONG).

But TWO denominations are dividing Christianity, telling others they are fundamentally WRONG in a matter of highest importance, perhaps even questioning their soul and salvation, shouting to the very highest level a point of about Our Lady's ____ life. They must do what they demand all others to do: substantiate their position. Look, someone can say, "I think drinking gin is good." Fine. I have no opinion about gin (never tasted it), but hey, no problem with me. But when they say, "It is a matter of highest importance among Christians that all drink 4 oz. of gin every day - or you are a heretic, apostate, and the salvation of your soul is at least in question, and we will excommunicate you from the Church of God!" Well, then, perhaps now booted out, condemned, is it UNREASONABLE to ask, "What's the substantiation for this view about daily drinking 4 oz of gin?" I don't think so. Even if I've never tasted gin. Even if I don't care if YOU drink it or not. IMHO, we are to be united. It's necessary we AT LEAST UNDERSTAND what divides us. Since the insistence to the very highest level is that I'm WRONG in a matter of extreme importance, the LEAST one should be able to do is clearly state why. Not 95 pages of evasions and ridicule and diversions, not a constant, "I'm right so I'm right and therefore you're wrong." "How RUDE for you to even think about the ____ life of Mary, but yes, we SHOUT about that every issue and regard it a subject of highest importance but you are RUDE to even bring it up." (YES, that IS primarily what we get).

.

You cannot believe that to "embrace" that view is ok while to call it a dogma is wrong..

I disagree.

You may say that liver tastes good. I have no opinion (I've never tasted it). I may say it's okay for you to think what you do. You may respond that it's okay that I have no view on that. You have a position. I don't. No one is calling anyone wrong - even though we don't have the same position. Follow?

Now, perhaps another says, "I think liver tastes bad." Now, again, I may have no opinion on that pov. But you declare, "That's WRONG!" You are denying a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty, a dividing issue in Christianity, you are anthema, you are apostate!" Now, you MAY be agreeing with the 49,998 denominations that say, "passionate opinions on this matter are welcomed - and none are declared to be heresy" in which case you are agreeing with the 49,998 denominations on this and disagreeing with 2 - including yours.

Re-read what I posted to you; you seem to have missed the entire point of what I communicated.

EV was ALWAYS in the trad of the church was told to you time and time again ....

I respectfully disagree that if something is said consistently, THEREFORE it MUST be dogmatically correct. Yes, I agree, this has been posted a number of times but NO ONE IS WILLING to give the evidence that it is true. I could put up 500 posts here at it's always been believed that Mary Had Pink Hair - and thus you would be told time and time again, is it your position that THEREFORE it's true? If you reject this rubric, why do you demand we accept it?

Your million proto denominations disregard it for 200 years so?

1. NONE of them ever embraced it as dogma.

2. No, there are only 2 out of the "millions" of denomintions that say ANYONE is wrong for ANY position vis-a-vis Mary's ___ life after Jesus was born. My friend, you CONSTANTLY want to reverse the reality.




.