SolomonVII
Well-Known Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 23,138
- 4,918
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
I have not given a sola scriptura premise. You are arguing a strawman, copiously so.Your premise of "sola scriptura" is not in the Bible.
It is not really my obligation to explain why, since my contention was never that they did or didn't. My only contention is that the Bible does not teach PVMThen explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until a handful of liberal radicals the 19th century came along. That's 5 times I've post this request, and you keep ignoring it, because you refuse to admit you have deviated from 2000 years of Christian thought, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic. It's not us with the heresy.
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity
A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?
ignored by SolomonVII
A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
ignored by SolomonVII
These explanations and defenses simply are not asserting Biblical proofs for the Virginity of Mary. Anyone with a semblance of honesty would recognize that.
What the defenses and apologia are doing are offering possible plausible explanations of how a married Jewish woman might potentially remain a virgin, or how it is plausible that what the Bible describes as brothers and sisters of Jesus are in fact possibly not brothers and sisters.
Instead of asserting Mary's virginity, they are running interference with readings of the Bible that offer possible contrary proof that Mary had other children.
Since it was not my contention that these brothers referred to are indeed Mary's progeny, there is no reason for me to address these strawmen proofs and defenses.
Ezekiel 44 is about the Temple. It is reading a theology already decided upon by people who already believe in EV back into the Bible.Ezekiel 44:1-2
ignored by SolomonVII
Luke 1:34 is about the Virgin birth and that is an example of a theology that is apostolic, Biblical, and historically based, as it ties back to people who are personal witnesses to Christ and his family.Luke 1:34 - well explained by prodomos in post #458
ignored by SolomonVII
"As an Evangelical, I had long regarded the reading of Ezekiel 44:1-2 to support Mary’s perpetual virginity as mere 'proof-texting.' I thought the Fathers were beginning with this passage and then trying to build a doctrine of perpetual virginity on it. But the more I saw how the early Church (including the New Testament authors)
the more I came to realize that the Church’s faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not derived from Ezekiel 44:1-2 any more than her faith in the virgin birth was derived from Isaiah 7:14. . .
- linked the tabernacle,
- the temple,
- and the Body of Christ,
- and the roles of Mary,
- the ark,
- and the gate of the temple,
ignored by SolomonVII
THERE IS NO VERSE THAT EXPLICITLY STATES MARY REMAINED A VIRGIN.There is no verse that explicitly states Mary remained a virgin therefore Mary did not remain a virgin is a non sequitur fallacy.
FULL STOP!
YES YES YES !!! That is what I have been contending all along. That is all that I have been contending all along.
YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!
Certainly EVERYTHING AFTER "therefore" would be a non sequitur.
Which is why I have not asserted anything about Mary's PV, except that it is not the testimony of any apostle, that it does not come from the Bible, and that it developed outside of the historical time frame where it could be considered to be a historically verifiable statement of Mary.
Good choice. You have been embarrassing yourself by engaging in your scurrilous disregard of basic facts up to this point.Now it's my turn...
It is well past time for you to scurry.
Bye Bye.
Last edited:
Upvote
0