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.
But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (ICor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
Oh, I must have misread your statement; perhaps you can re-read your statement and explain it again.I've never remotely suggested such, nor do I believe such.
I don't think Mormons are "lying" either. They believe what they believe, and you have stated that's what matters (I don't agree with you, but that's another discussion for another day, thread and forum).
What I DO think is that you reject the very arguments you are using.
How so ?
Actually, I'm hoping we can talk about this dogma. It's that Mary never had intercourse.
Here, again, you understand this "dogma" with the human creation and your opinion as normative, not Christ.
You don't accept that a story/report about a person is true if the one's sharing it say it is, so I don't know why I should accept that it is.
You don't accept that something entirely about a person should be dogma (not sure I agree with you on that, but again, another issue for another day, thread and forum) so I don't know why you are supporting that a dogma about a person must thereby be infallibly true.
As I have shown, you really don't understand that the "dogma" is actually about Christ. There would be no Incarnation, no Mary, without Christ. It is your humanistic ideology which assumes that it is about Mary.
You reject the faith of the Mormon because they believe Christ founded their denomination since it is not about Christ and take it upon yourself individually to declare it false and reject it, fully accepting what they teach as accountable and needing substantiation. And yet you insist that all must accept the Catholic or Orthodox that Mary had no sex ever because it's not about a person and this is not accountable, and rebuke anyone who even asks about it (remember: I've NEVER denied it or called it false).
I didn't say it was true or false. I said I reject it. Do the Mormons believe in the God-man Christ ? Is He the center from which all their belief and theology arises ? Like you, they make the human the measure, not Christ.
I prefer Christ.
Yeah it is and further more.....You see the "dogma" in that light, as "about the sex life of a person" because you evaluate anthropocentrically with yourself and your opinion as the measure of all things.
Greetings. Would you consider the Catholic Denomination as "legalistic"? Thanks.prove it....
We say it is about the incarnation....
Because: Mary was not ordinary in her relationship with Christ. She was the Mother of the God-man. God offered her a special role in the human history. Christ's having half-brothers has implications on his incarnation and already posters have presented those implication also...
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/
By the way CJ we do not have "catechesis book" that tells us what to believe word for word only decisions of councils that do.... Our faith is conciliar and patristic....Canons in the EO are but guidelines for our spiritual Fathers.... not laws to follow... We are not legalistic.
When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
Greetings. Well from what I hear, the Orthodox and RCs share pretty much the same traditions and doctrines and this thread appears to be about the doctrine of mariology so why am I not allowed to bring them up?This is off topic... I just posted this to clarify my position... Not to compare...
It is about how YOU CJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
all men share in Christs humanity..For all men are humans.. Not all men share in His Godliness though.. Only those whom are born of the Spirit of God. This is why we are told in scripture we know no man according to the flesh.. For it is
not through the flesh that men are saved but by the Spirit..
Joh 3:6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Himin this way no longer.
1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
ah......1. Ah, so we're heretics and blasphemers...
2. I don't refuse to acknowledge anything. I've never denied the possibility. There are 29,998 denominations that have no position at all about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born - if at all. There is only one denomination that has a dogma about this, one that has doctrine. Both together means that 2 have an official view and 29,998 don't.
3. Well, obviously, IF Mary had other children then it's pretty unlikely that she remained a virgin. However, there is no dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" or "Mary Had No Other Kids." Never has been. Anywhere. By any denomination. The sole issue is this: Did Mary have sexual intercourse after Jesus was born? 29,998 denominations don't answer the question - dogmatically , doctrinally or officially in any way. Two do. We're discussing the position of those two.
The rest of the quote all relates to a diversion. I'm not interested in a dogma and doctrine that doesn't exist anywhere (and never has). I'm interested in the dogma/doctrine that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's about sex. By Mary. Let's stay on topic.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
Here it is: Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
It's about MARY.
It's about PERPETUALITY.
It's about SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
What part of that entirely escapes you?
No, the teaching is about Christ.
You make it about Mary; perhaps this is because, as you said previously (as quoted even by another poster) that you worship Mary.
Great. The Mormon faith that CHRIST founded the LDS is one you regard as accountable and you appoint yourself to arbitrate the matter and you dismiss it because it's not about Christ. Then (without even taking a breath), you state that the Catholic and Orthodox faith that MARY never had sexual intercourse is not accountable and MUST be dogmatically correct because it's about Christ. Odd. Very odd.
I'm not arbitrating. I did not say Christ rejects it. I say I reject it.
The dogma of Mary the Perpetual Virgin is about Mary. It's that Mary never had sexual intercourse. That's the teaching. I'm not sure what part of that totally escapes you.
It escapes your understanding because you see everything from your humanistism. This is relativism, because Christ is truth and center, not the human or human mores and understanding.
Corruption......of the land........
Corruption......of the land........
1 Corin 15:50 This yet I am averring brothers! that flesh and blood Kingdom of God inheriting not is able to. Neither the corruption/fqora <5356> of the uncorruption/afqarsian <861> is inheriting.
Reve 11:18 and the nations are angered and came the wrath of Thee, and the time/season of the dead ones to be judged, and to give the wages to the slaves/bond-servants of Thee, the prophets, and to the saints, and to the ones fearing the name of Thee, the small ones and the great ones, and to blight/thru-corrupt/di-afqeirai <1311> (5658) the ones blighting/thru-corrupting/di-afqeirontaV <1311> (5723) the land. [Genesis 6:11-13]
yes brother the Glorious LAND / BODY OF CHRIST !! Isaiah 63 and Daniel 11 !
wow how clear it is to SEE it now after so long a time waiting !
woohoo!!
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;
That is evidence that you truly do not understand the dogma at all, which certainly makes the discussion rather difficult. In order to actually question a dogma, one must understand it as those who profess it do and be able to discuss it as such, not as they in error believe it to be. Otherwise any discussion is well, moot.Thelka,
There's nothing "Christocentric" about the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's about Mary - not Christ.
.
Do you believe Christ is speaking of his own flesh here, and is your interpretation therefore is that the flesh of Christ profits nothing?Has no one read this?
Joh 6:63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Greetings. What dost thou make of 2 Corin 5 and Revelation 17?Do you believe Christ is speaking of his own flesh here, and is your interpretation therefore is that the flesh of Christ profits nothing?
Also, does that mean that nothing one does in the flesh is of any consequence at all?
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?