Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

bbbbbbb · Sep 18, 2017

SolomonVII said:
To be clear , my commentary was in no way promoting or criticizing any Protestant methodologies. Strictly on the level of the historical record, this is not a claim based in history.

Assume, for example, a counterfactual in which no claims were made by anybody that the Resurrection was literal. Then a century or so after all the eyewitnesses were dead, people started believing in the Resurrection. Well, unless there was some previously unknown historical discovery, or a current event compelling such a belief long after the fact, then we as Christians could no longer make the claim that the Resurrection is based in compelling historical evidence. We may still believe or disbelieve for other reasons, but our belief is no longer based in the historical record.
And of course we do make that claim of the Resurrection being an historical event, because the eyewitness accounts are all there, and have been there from the beginning.

Now if the apostles or others who knew Mary were to make the claim about her virginity, then at least the theology would be based in history. As it is, it is not, and the Church never even makes the claim that it is based in history.

You make assumptions about me that are not in evidence.

Whether or not I accept other documents as true, what I don't accept is stating that documents that are not apostolic are in fact apostolic.
The reason for that ought to be obvious.

It is clear to me that statements on Trinity are based in the Bibilical narrative and what it reveals about God. I could make the argument that Trinity is based in the Bible.
As for Scriptural claims for the Perpetual Vriginity of Mary, you claim that there are Biblical assertions of this, but you make no attempt to demonstrate what they are.
Therefore, your contention can be safely disregarded as unverified at this point in the conversation.
"Kepha says so, therefore it is must be true" is generally a bad form for an argument to take in these forums.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide a clear and lucid response.

kepha31 · Sep 18, 2017

kepha31 · Sep 18, 2017

SolomonVII said:
To be clear , my commentary was in no way promoting or criticizing any Protestant methodologies. Strictly on the level of the historical record, this is not a claim based in history.

There are some good Protestant historians that would disagree with that, i.e. Schaff and Kelly. I think the ECF give us the best history available. Do you reject them?

Measuring theology using history as a rule is like measuring morality with mathematics. It's called the Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science.

Assume, for example, a counterfactual in which no claims were made by anybody that the Resurrection was literal. Then a century or so after all the eyewitnesses were dead, people started believing in the Resurrection.

That is a false scenario. The first eyewitnesses passed on this earth-shaking truth, then they committed it to memory and passed it on. It's not the point when they started to believe, the truths were always there. SOME got written down, MOST did not. If you don't believe the 2 complementary modes of transmission of the Word of God have the same divine protection, you either don't have enough faith, or you were born and/or nurtured to think a certain way. We all have our biases.

Well, unless there was some previously unknown historical discovery, or a current event compelling such a belief long after the fact, then we as Christians could no longer make the claim that the Resurrection is based in compelling historical evidence. We may still believe or disbelieve for other reasons, but our belief is no longer based in the historical record.
And of course we do make that claim of the Resurrection being an historical event, because the eyewitness accounts are all there, and have been there from the beginning.

The people in the Bible didn't need a proof text to prove Mary was holy, and your requirement for historical proof that matches 2000 years of development is not realistic. All doctrines develop, especially trinitarian theology and Mariology is no exception. Truth nourishes the soul similar to historical records nourishing the mind. We need both.

Now if the apostles or others who knew Mary were to make the claim about her virginity, then at least the theology would be based in history. As it is, it is not, and the Church never even makes the claim that it is based in history.

Mary didn't need to make any claims to anybody about the obvious. Did Mary make claims about breastfeeding the Baby? Did Mary make claims about changing His dirty diapers? cooking? laundry? Well, it's not recorded in history therefore it never happened....no, wait...there is the Gospels.

You make assumptions about me that are not in evidence.

Dos that mean you accept the first councils of the Church, but only partly?

Whether or not I accept other documents as true, what I don't accept is stating that documents that are not apostolic are in fact apostolic.

Non-apostolic documents does not automatically make them false. The ante-Nicene fathers are a witness to what the early
Church believed, and they discerned inspired books from false books.. The NT canon wasn't even finished yet. The post-Nicene fathers taught the same as the ante-Nicene fathers, with further development. The canon of the Bible was a 350 year development.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Mary?

The reason for that ought to be obvious.

The Bible is apostolic, ECF's are not, but they give us the best historical record of about 8 centuries.The first 40 (-1) Popes were martyred. Is that in any of your historical sources?

It is clear to me that statements on Trinity are based in the Bibilical narrative and what it reveals about God. I could make the argument that Trinity is based in the Bible.
As for Scriptural claims for the Perpetual Vriginity of Mary, you claim that there are Biblical assertions of this, but you make no attempt to demonstrate what they are.
Therefore, your contention can be safely disregarded as unverified at this point in the conversation.
"Kepha says so, therefore it is must be true" is generally a bad form for an argument to take in these forums.

From post #415

Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.

It isn't simple, most sincere converts struggle with it, much the same as any new convert would struggle with the Trinity. I can tell you ignored these numerous articles.
Why Should We Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
scripturecatholic

bbbbbbb · Sep 18, 2017

kepha31 said:
There are some good Protestant historians that would disagree with that, i.e. Schaff and Kelly. I think the ECF give us the best history available. Do you reject them?

Measuring theology using history as a rule is like measuring morality with mathematics. It's called the Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science.

That is a false scenario. The first eyewitnesses passed on this earth-shaking truth, then they committed it to memory and passed it on. It's not the point when they started to believe, the truths were always there. SOME got written down, MOST did not. If you don't believe the 2 complementary modes of transmission of the Word of God have the same divine protection, you either don't have enough faith, or you were born and/or nurtured to think a certain way. We all have our biases.
The people in the Bible didn't need a proof text to prove Mary was holy, and your requirement for historical proof that matches 2000 years of development is not realistic. All doctrines develop, especially trinitarian theology and Mariology is no exception. Truth nourishes the soul similar to historical records nourishing the mind. We need both.
Mary didn't need to make any claims to anybody about the obvious. Did Mary make claims about breastfeeding the Baby? Did Mary make claims about changing His dirty diapers? cooking? laundry? Well, it's not recorded in history therefore it never happened....no, wait...there is the Gospels.
Dos that mean you accept the first councils of the Church, but only partly?

Non-apostolic documents does not automatically make them false. The ante-Nicene fathers are a witness to what the early
Church believed, and they discerned inspired books from false books.. The NT canon wasn't even finished yet. The post-Nicene fathers taught the same as the ante-Nicene fathers, with further development. The canon of the Bible was a 350 year development.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Mary?

The Bible is apostolic, ECF's are not, but they give us the best historical record of about 8 centuries.The first 40 (-1) Popes were martyred. Is that in any of your historical sources?

From post #415

Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.

It isn't simple, most sincere converts struggle with it, much the same as any new convert would struggle with the Trinity. I can tell you ignored these numerous articles.
Why Should We Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
scripturecatholic

So, we can be sure without the slightest doubt that somebody was always around Mary and Joseph to make sure they never engaged in any hanky-panky. And, moreover these detectives did not bother to keep any notes on file for anyone to check later, knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

If you believe that, I have some really fantastic conspiracy theories for you.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
So, we can be sure without the slightest doubt that somebody was always around Mary and Joseph to make sure they never engaged in any hanky-panky. And, moreover these detectives did not bother to keep any notes on file for anyone to check later, knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

If you believe that, I have some really fantastic conspiracy theories for you.

You seem to have no sense of the holy or the sacred.

...In order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.

That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Perpetual virginity is an extension of the supernatural nature of the birth. If Mary had had other children, skeptical people like you, who reject the virgin birth as it is, would have more “grounds” to doubt that Jesus’ birth was supernatural and miraculous.

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

Now, how one gets to the virgin birth / perpetual virginity scenario to an imaginary position that all of this somehow is an “anti-sexual” point of view, perhaps you can explain to me. It’s not actually there. It’s merely projected onto the state of affairs by those who already believe that the Church is “against sex” merely (mostly, it seems to me) because it has sensible rules (another whole discussion).

Now, going beyond Mary and the birth of Jesus, the biblical, Christian view of virginity is that it’s a great state if one is called to it. Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 7) that all should follow the calling that God gave them. If they are called to be single (which in biblical morality, means celibate), this is good, because (as he says) the single person can give undistracted attention to the Lord, whereas the married person is naturally concerned about wife or husband, too.

Both states are, therefore, exalted. The consecrated virgin is considered to be “married to the Lord”. Marriage is a sacrament. It gives grace to those who are married...

read more here:

Catholic Virginity: Is it Merely an “Anti-Sex” Viewpoint?

Phil 1:21 · Sep 19, 2017

The virgin birth is true because it's scriptural. Perpetual virginity is not because it's counter-scriptural. Kind of cut and dry really.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
So, we can be sure without the slightest doubt that somebody was always around Mary and Joseph to make sure they never engaged in any hanky-panky.

Matt. 19:11-12 – Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones. we can be sure without the slightest doubt that somebody was always around to make sure Jesus and Paul never engaged in any hanky-panky.

Matt. 19:29 – Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.And, moreover these detectives did not bother to keep any notes on file for anyone to check later, knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

Matt. 22:30 – Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make. somebody was always around priests/bishops to make sure they never engaged in any hanky-panky.

1 Cor. 7:7 – Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is. somebody was always around Jesus and Paul to make sure they never engaged in any hanky-panky.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church. knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 – Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.” (good/better, not bad/good)
And, moreover these detectives did not bother to keep any notes on file for anyone to check later, knowing that untold millions of souls were at risk of eternal damnation.

If you believe that, I have some really fantastic conspiracy theories for you.

My favorite are the idiotic Jesuit conspiracies the Christian Taliban dream up.

Have you ever wondered why satanists publicly (attempt) to desecrate a statue of Mary, hold a black mass in front of a Catholic church, but not bother offending Protestant churches?

The difference between ignorant anti-Catholic Mary bashers and satanists is profound...so are the similarities.

Tangible · Sep 19, 2017

JayW said:
The virgin birth is true because it's scriptural. Perpetual virginity is not because it's counter-scriptural. Kind of cut and dry really.

PV is not "counter-scriptural." Scripture is simply silent about it. There is no reason to fear PV as a doctrine unless there is an attempt to bind consciences for or against it.

For historical and Confessional reasons, I gladly confess PV. However, it is not a necessary doctrine, and one may hold it or not according to one's own conscience and reasoning and still be considered part of the Church catholic.

Phil 1:21 · Sep 19, 2017

Tangible said:
PV is not "counter-scriptural." Scripture is simply silent about it.

We know Jesus had brothers and sisters. We know that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage until after Jesus' birth. That's not silent at all.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

Tangible said:
PV is not "counter-scriptural." Scripture is simply silent about it. There is no reason to fear PV as a doctrine unless there is an attempt to bind consciences for or against it.

For historical and Confessional reasons, I gladly confess PV. However, it is not a necessary doctrine, and one may hold it or not according to one's own conscience and reasoning and still be considered part of the Church catholic.

Not accepting the doctrine is one thing, not understanding it is another. But demanding explanations and refusing every resaonable explanation is simply wrong. bbbbb has stooped to a new low.

SolomonVII · Sep 19, 2017

Non-apostolic documents does not automatically make them false.

That's right.
I never said that non-apostolic documents are false, but only that they are non-apostolic.
This is a very simple concept really, that non-apostolic documents are non-apostolic.
But since my only claim was that EV doctrine does not come from the apostles, producing non-apostolic documents to refute that claim has no merit.
Hint: They way to refute the claim that EV is not apostolic is to produce proof that apostles made the claim.
So far there have been none of those documents forthcoming, so it is obtuse for you to still be arguing against that very simple claim.

You are entitled to your own faith, but not to your own facts. Facts are neither Catholic nor Protestant. It is either a fact that EV is a non-apostolic dogma, or it isn't. Producing one million non-apostolic documents in support of EV does not refute the fact that EV is non-apostolic.
All that it would take is one document that comes from an apostle on EV of Mary to refute my claim that EV is not an apostolic dogma.

Are you willing to concede that point yet then, or stick to your position that non-apostolic documents are apostolic?
If so, do you also make a point of arguing that black is white, and blue is red?
Just curious.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House

Numbers 30:3-5

Vows Taken by a Married Woman

Numbers 30:6-8

Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman

Numbers 30:9-12

Context: Vows to "Afflict Herself"

Numbers 30:13-16

All right: so what does all of this mean? The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman's vows to "afflict herself," which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse.

Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussing three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependent on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.

Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman--say, Mary, in this instance--took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband--in our case, Joseph--heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind "and makes them null and void after he has heard of them," the the sin will be upon him: "he shall bear her iniquity" (Num 30:15).

One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew's Gospel tells us: Joseph was a "righteous man" (Matthew 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence--and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)--and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin. (otherwise, Joseph would not be righteous)

However implausible it may sound to a sex-saturated Western culture that a man would ever do such a thing, the fact of the matter is that the Old Testament appears to assume it as a real possibility. Indeed, the fact that an entire chapter of the Bible is devoted to it appears to suggest that vows of sexual abstinence on the part of women must have been a visible enough part of the culture that a law was necessary to deal with the situation! (This should come as no surprise to students of antiquity; consecrated virgins were part of the religious landscape of the ancient world).

Should there be any doubt about this, I would suggest in passing that the reader call to mind the controversy that faced Pauline churches about young widows renegging on their vows of sexual abstinence (1 Timothy 4) and the otherwise difficult and confusing passage in 1 Corinthians about what a man should do about marrying his "virgin" (1 Cor 7:36-38). If both these texts apply to the situation envisaged in Numbers 30, then Mary's situation is anything but unique in culture.

The Sacred Page: A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

bbbbbbb · Sep 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
Not accepting the doctrine is one thing, not understanding it is another. But demanding explanations and refusing every resaonable explanation is simply wrong. bbbbb has stooped to a new low.

I take that as a compliment. Thank you.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

SolomonVII said:
That's right.
I never said that non-apostolic documents are false, but only that they are non-apostolic.
This is a very simple concept really, that non-apostolic documents are non-apostolic.
But since my only claim was that EV doctrine does not come from the apostles, producing non-apostolic documents to refute that claim has no merit.
Hint: They way to refute the claim that EV is not apostolic is to produce proof that apostles made the claim.
So far there have been none of those documents forthcoming, so it is obtuse for you to still be arguing against that very simple claim.

You are entitled to your own faith, but not to your own facts. Facts are neither Catholic nor Protestant. It is either a fact that EV is a non-apostolic dogma, or it isn't. Producing one million non-apostolic documents in support of EV does not refute the fact that EV is non-apostolic.
All that it would take is one document that comes from an apostle on EV of Mary to refute my claim that EV is not an apostolic dogma.

Are you willing to concede that point yet then, or stick to your position that non-apostolic documents are apostolic?
If so, do you also make a point of arguing that black is white, and blue is red?
Just curious.

We need to get on the same page. I will explain my understanding of "apostolic" and you give yours. Maybe there is common ground we can work with

"Apostolic" is one of four attributes or divine characteristics describing the Church. They are inter-related. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. None of these are of human origin but humans are in it.
read more about the 4 marks

"Apostolic" is not confined to documents, and what exactly constitutes an apostolic document in your books? How has the term been understood in the last 2000 years? Is there anything that is apostolic but not in document form? Did it die off with the last Apostle?

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

Does this define Tradition or does it define apostolic? The answer is both.

An additional definition: First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history...
Read more here

Still waiting:
Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.

kepha31 · Sep 19, 2017

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

PILLAR OF FIRE PILLAR OF TRUTH

SolomonVII · Sep 20, 2017

In ecumenical discussions, I use the narrowest meaning of the word apostolic to mean the direct teaching of the original apostles chosen by Christ,including Paul. This is the criteria that the early church used to select which books to include in the authoritative compilation of writings of the Bible. Controversial books such as Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were ultimately deemed to be writings of the apostles Paul and John,and were thereby included. (It is unlikely that either were). Other writings such as the ProtoEvengelium of James were deemed to be pseudo-epigraphical writings that only pretended to be writings of the apostle James, and were rejected as being authoritative, and quite correctly so.

Of course, we can also use apostolic in a sense that anything papal is apostolic, or in the sense that anything of this or that apostolic Pentecostal church is apostolic, and in a denomination-specific forum that is an adequate definition

But this conversation is not being conducted in a denomination specific forum, and therefore the lowest common denominator for all of us in calling ourselves apostolic (as we do per Nicene rule) is an understanding that apostolic refers to things directly taught by the apostles.

That is the sense that I am using apostolic.
And, since the apostles were all eye witnesses of the ministry of Christ and the resurrection, it is this first hand account that is important to any historical claims.
So, if this is no longer in dispute according to such a definition, shall we move forward?

bbbbbbb · Sep 20, 2017

SolomonVII said:
In ecumenical discussions, I use the narrowest meaning of the word apostolic to mean the direct teaching of the original apostles chosen by Christ,including Paul. This is the criteria that the early church used to select which books to include in the authoritative compilation of writings of the Bible. Controversial books such as Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were ultimately deemed to be writings of the apostles Paul and John,and were thereby included. (It is unlikely that either were). Other writings such as the ProtoEvengelium of James were deemed to be pseudo-epigraphical writings that only pretended to be writings of the apostle James, and were rejected as being authoritative, and quite correctly so.

Of course, we can also use apostolic in a sense that anything papal is apostolic, or in the sense that anything of this or that apostolic Pentecostal church is apostolic, and in a denomination-specific forum that is an adequate definition

But this conversation is not being conducted in a denomination specific forum, and therefore the lowest common denominator for all of us in calling ourselves apostolic (as we do per Nicene rule) is an understanding that apostolic refers to things directly taught by the apostles.

That is the sense that I am using apostolic.
And, since the apostles were all eye witnesses of the ministry of Christ and the resurrection, it is this first hand account that is important to any historical claims.
So, if this is no longer in dispute according to such a definition, shall we move forward?

Thank you for your excellent clarification.

Tangible · Sep 21, 2017

JayW said:
We know Jesus had brothers and sisters. We know that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage until after Jesus' birth. That's not silent at all.

Given the facts that the same words were commonly used in Greek for brother, step-brother, half-brother, male cousin, and likewise with their female counterparts, no one can say for certain exactly which relationship is indicated by "brother" and "sister".

Also, the grammatical construction of the "until" verse you referred to is not uniquely translatable as "they did not have sex until ... and then they did."

There is quite enough ambiguity in both cases to state that, though scripture does speak of these things, it is silent as far as making authoritative, unambiguous statements.

Therefore, we may exercise our Christian freedom in this area and accept, deny, or leave undecided the doctrine of PV according to our own conscience.

bbbbbbb · Sep 21, 2017

Tangible said:
Given the facts that the same words were commonly used in Greek for brother, step-brother, half-brother, male cousin, and likewise with their female counterparts, no one can say for certain exactly which relationship is indicated by "brother" and "sister".

Also, the grammatical construction of the "until" verse you referred to is not uniquely translatable as "they did not have sex until ... and then they did."

There is quite enough ambiguity in both cases to state that, though scripture does speak of these things, it is silent as far as making authoritative, unambiguous statements.

Therefore, we may exercise our Christian freedom in this area and accept, deny, or leave undecided the doctrine of PV according to our own conscience.

This ambiguity appears to be extremely minor, such that not even one translator of the Bible into English has translated these words as anything other than brothers and sisters, nor have they bothered to add translators' notes to the texts in question indicating any reasonable probability of this ambiguity.

It is only the advocates of the dogma of PV that cast aspersions upon the work of the host of faithful translators of the text.

Phil 1:21 · Sep 21, 2017

Tangible said:
Given the facts that the same words were commonly used in Greek for brother, step-brother, half-brother, male cousin, and likewise with their female counterparts, no one can say for certain exactly which relationship is indicated by "brother" and "sister".

Also, the grammatical construction of the "until" verse you referred to is not uniquely translatable as "they did not have sex until ... and then they did."

There is quite enough ambiguity in both cases to state that, though scripture does speak of these things, it is silent as far as making authoritative, unambiguous statements.

Therefore, we may exercise our Christian freedom in this area and accept, deny, or leave undecided the doctrine of PV according to our own conscience.

I agree. I've heard well presented cases both ways. In the end it's a nonissue with respect to core beliefs. It matters not for justification or sanctification. It's a good discussion topic though.

Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads