Ever Virgin???
-
Originally posted by Skibi:
Do u have any idea how ridiculous ur claims sounds? U go against 1900yrs of Christian history.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 8:19-21 NIV
[b]Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we still arguing about this topic? IIRC Jesus' brothers were never part of the twelve.
That aside, the idea of Mary remaining a virgin after being married to Joseph is wrong. Do you expect Joseph to remain a virgin as well? Did God command Mary and Joseph to be both virgins? So both virgins can co-habit together in the same house and have a son... do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?[/b]
1) The 4 people mentioned as brethen of the Lord are actuallie children of Alpheus whose wife is MARY of Clopas (clopas =alpheus)
2) Would Joseph have intercourse with the spouse of the Holy Spirit and vessel of the Word? Would u do it???
3) Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin thats why she was surpirsed when Gabriel said she would bear a child. If she hadnt, why would she be surprised. Its normal for people to do that.
4) Church Fathers in the First Century who lived in Apostolic Times said Mary was Ever-Virgin.
5) The term brother used in that verse can only so mean close friend, cousin or fellow believers.
6) Protestant Reformers held that view. -
sorry, hah,Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:3) Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin thats why she was surpirsed when Gabriel said she would bear a child. If she hadnt, why would she be surprised. Its normal for people to do that.
This part I don't understand
If Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin, why was she given to Joseph in marriage?
If Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin, would this have meant she nows belong to God, then who can betroth her to Joseph as his wife?
question question question????
one other place to talk about
Luke 2:41-51
the place in the gospels that give hint of Jesus' childhood, from 12yrs old till he grown up (some says it was like when he is 33yrs old), why is there was no mention of any brother/sister?
ok, I will stop on this topic for a while, you people can continue... have fun
oh, Pope Nic, its fun going through this discussion with you...
-
Haha me too...its fun.Originally posted by vince69:sorry, hah,
This part I don't understand
If Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin, why was she given to Joseph in marriage?
If Mary had consecretated herself to Temple as a Virgin, would this have meant she nows belong to God, then who can betroth her to Joseph as his wife?
question question question????
one other place to talk about
Luke 2:41-51
the place in the gospels that give hint of Jesus' childhood, from 12yrs old till he grown up (some says it was like when he is 33yrs old), why is there was no mention of any brother/sister?
ok, I will stop on this topic for a while, you people can continue... have fun
oh, Pope Nic, its fun going through this discussion with you...
Joseph was to protect her, take her under his charge, thats the norm. Joseph is an old man thats why he died fast haha.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of MaryÂ’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of MaryÂ’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of JesusÂ’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard MaryÂ’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Here are the quotes:
The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.). -
Most scholars and experts agree that James was Jesus's brother not for no reason ...
-
Excuse me....maybe fundamentalist scholars. No Christian argued James was Christ brother till perhaps this few decades. Protestant Reformers and Church Fathers who breathed sleep and perhaps went to the toilet with Scriptures were unanimous that James was his cousin as his Mother is Mary sister, Mary of Clopas.Originally posted by davidche:Most scholars and experts agree that James was Jesus's brother not for no reason ...
Give me ur scholar list and I will provide a list of Church Fathers, your reformers and modern day theolgicans.
Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES."
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
---Cleophas-(Alphaeus)--Mt 10:2-3, Jn 19:25, Acts 1:13------
+ >------begat------James (the less), Joseph (Joses), and Jude---------
---Mary----the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25------
Common sense LOL.
I hereby see the double standard of Sola Scriptura being employed. A doctrine of Mary having other children is at best implicitly mentioned in Scriptures and yet is true. The Papacy/Real Presence which is explicitly mentioned is not..... -
at the end of the day, the status of Mary has very little to do with our salvation.
so what is she's a virgin and so what if she's not.
is it necessary to prove one way or the other? and the purpose of the insistence to prove one way or another is because of what? so that one side can show the one-upmanship over the other. -
Haha so there is mild and strong heresy???Originally posted by Chin Eng:at the end of the day, the status of Mary has very little to do with our salvation.
so what is she's a virgin and so what if she's not.
is it necessary to prove one way or the other? and the purpose of the insistence to prove one way or another is because of what? so that one side can show the one-upmanship over the other.
So wat if Christ is God and Man instead of God with 2 natures? Does it affect our salvation....if the Church Fathers treated the Nestorian Heresy as such, long condemned will the Church been. -
It is interesting that you have been asked to debate the question of Mary's perpetual virginity. And you added the speculation of whether Joseph will dare to have intercourse with Mary whom was the vessel to bring Jesus to this world.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Haha so there is mild and strong heresy???
So wat if Christ is God and Man instead of God with 2 natures? Does it affect our salvation....if the Church Fathers treated the Nestorian Heresy as such, long condemned will the Church been.
Maybe i can add another speculation. See Luke 2: 41-52, where the boy Jesus was sitting in the midst of doctors in the temple. Its says in this two verse:
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Wouldn't it be plausible that Joseph and Mary had already forgotten that Jesus was "special" and they had consumated their marriage over the 12 years? -
Originally posted by fandango:
I suppose Angel Gabriel appearance to both of them and his virgin both was forgotten. Its implictly mentioned in Scripture that Mary was consecreated as a virgin forever when she was a girl. Joseph was her gurdian.
It is interesting that you have been asked to debate the question of Mary's perpetual virginity. And you added the speculation of whether Joseph will dare to have intercourse with Mary whom was the vessel to bring Jesus to this world.
Maybe i can add another speculation. See Luke 2: 41-52, where the boy Jesus was sitting in the midst of doctors in the temple. Its says in this two verse:
[b]49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Wouldn't it be plausible that Joseph and Mary had already forgotten that Jesus was "special" and they had consumated their marriage over the 12 years?
[/b]
And in Luke when Christ was 12, do you see any sibling accompanyinh him. The Brothers James etc etc must be younger than him but we see no appearance of them.....WHY??? -
1. I didn't say that there is mild and strong heresy.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Haha so there is mild and strong heresy???
So wat if Christ is God and Man instead of God with 2 natures? Does it affect our salvation....if the Church Fathers treated the Nestorian Heresy as such, long condemned will the Church been.
2. We can sit here and continue to accuse each other of heresy.
3. We are not taking about the Nestorian Heresy.
4. The issue about Mary, truly has nothing to do with our salvation.
'nuff said. -
You sound quite upset.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I suppose Angel Gabriel appearance to both of them and his virgin both was forgotten. Its implictly mentioned in Scripture that Mary was consecreated as a virgin forever when she was a girl. Joseph was her gurdian.
And in Luke when Christ was 12, do you see any sibling accompanyinh him. The Brothers James etc etc must be younger than him but we see no appearance of them.....WHY???
While you throw me another speculation, let me give you another.
See Luke 2:7.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, wouldn't it be more appopriate to use "only begotten" or "only child" rather than "firstborn"? -
1-3: No commentOriginally posted by Chin Eng:1. I didn't say that there is mild and strong heresy.
2. We can sit here and continue to accuse each other of heresy.
3. We are not taking about the Nestorian Heresy.
4. The issue about Mary, truly has nothing to do with our salvation.
'nuff said.
But speaking of heresy, the issue of Mary having children was a heresy rebutted by St Jerome in the 4th century.
4. Neither does the nature of Christ (both admit he is God) affect our salvation.
Generally, I also feel we view salvation too generally.
Each denomination has his own idea of how salvation comes about. Some may view certain doctrines as essential, others do not. To me the Papacy is necessary for salvation, to others it does not. We should not lob everything together. Do i make sense....must be calculus....makes me go HIGH
-
We may view salvation DIFFERENTLY....Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Generally, I also feel we view salvation too generally.
Each denomination has his own idea of how salvation comes about. Some may view certain doctrines as essential, others do not. To me the Papacy is necessary for salvation, to others it does not. We should not lob everything together. Do i make sense....must be calculus....makes me go HIGH
Nonetheless we really cannot prove one way or the other before.
I have said this before: the only way to prove who's right and who's wrong is after we die.... but when that happens, it no longer matters.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion as to what salvation entails, but within EH, salvation may be defined differently from what you think, as such, let's move on. -
LOL, im not arguing why or how our salvation differ.Originally posted by Chin Eng:We may view salvation DIFFERENTLY....
Nonetheless we really cannot prove one way or the other before.
I have said this before: the only way to prove who's right and who's wrong is after we die.... but when that happens, it no longer matters.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion as to what salvation entails, but within EH, salvation may be defined differently from what you think, as such, let's move on.
I am merely pointing out that saying certain doctrines are not important or not essential to our salvation is wrong as each of us view salvation differently. We cannot condemn any doctrine as unimportant. If that is the case wouldnt there be only one Church???
To a catholic, an argument whether speaking in tongue has ceased is hardly important to HIM but he should not dismiss it as unimportant as a charismatic view it with the outmost importance.
Hence we should not dismiss a doctrine on the outcome that it does not corresspond with your idea of salvation. Every doctrine must be viewed with importance especially the ones that divide us. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
very sorry, OT a lot.... (not related to discussion)
Excuse me....maybe fundamentalist scholars. No Christian argued James was Christ brother till perhaps this few decades. Protestant Reformers and Church Fathers who breathed sleep and perhaps went to the toilet with Scriptures were unanimous that James was his cousin as his Mother is Mary sister, Mary of Clopas.
the part in bold may just cause Protestant Reformers and Church Fathers (that you had in mind when making this statement), roll over in their graves, to think that they who hold the scriptures as sacred and God given, would bring them into the 'toilet' (a place of filth)...
-
Wth haha.Originally posted by vince69:very sorry, OT a lot.... (not related to discussion)
the part in bold may just cause Protestant Reformers and Church Fathers (that you had in mind when making this statement), roll over in their graves, to think that they who hold the scriptures as sacred and God given, would bring them into the 'toilet' (a place of filth)... -
Very twisted thread....
-
Originally posted by fandango:
Will a child be only considered first born when another is bornt??? Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'.
You sound quite upset.
While you throw me another speculation, let me give you another.
See Luke 2:7.
[b]7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, wouldn't it be more appopriate to use "only begotten" or "only child" rather than "firstborn"?
[/b]
In Exodus 34:20 , the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.
And I too can play the same game as throughout Scripture, Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary.
Till you can explain how
1) Who was Christ brothers?
2) Why did he commit the care of his Mother to his Apostles and not his brothers?
3) Why was Mary shocked when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child? If she wasnt consecreated as a virgin to the Temple, the question she asked would not be relevant for she will concieve a child later in marriage. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived).
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . 'brothers' really means 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
Martin Luther, (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
How can u accept his doctrine of sola scriptura yet label his exegeis of Scripture regarding the virginity of Mary as heresy??? One on end u are advancing the doctrine of sola scriptura and on the other hand labelling him as a heretic?
More importantly, no Christian accepted the viewpoint u held so dear till very recently....this few decades. -
Mt 1:25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I was shocked last nite when a protestant debater friend questioned me on the perputal virginity of Mary but pointing to a verse in Scripture that says Jesus had brothers. While i refuted him pointing to the term aldephos means cousins as well etc etc.
I am curious, is this a Protestant view or just his demented denomination viewpoint which also believes if u cannot speak in tongues, u will not be saved. If Im not mistaken Luther, Calvin also beleived in the Ever Virgin Mary.
Mt 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. [WEB] -
Originally posted by Ironside:
hmm .. I conclude this simply tells us Mary had sexual relations.
Mt 1:25 and did not know her [b]till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
Mt 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. [WEB][/b]
am I right? -
The thing bothering me is why would the gospel authors lump Jesus with his cousins?
Not as if the cousins have any significance in the account, like your bring in Lot is brother of Abraham because Lot is significant in the account.
The only plausible reason is the cousins (i.e. the brothers and sisters) are famous people. Like you'd say today .. hey isn't this Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William?
But James, Jude etc. are not shown to be famous people, correct me if I'm wrong. In fact the more famous cousin, John the Baptist whose father is a temple priest, didn't even qualify.
The other plausible reason is the parents are dead, so Joseph and Mary adopted them. But their parents are not dead. -
arbuthen?Originally posted by Icemoon:hmm .. I conclude this simply tells us Mary had sexual relations.
am I right? -
hmmm?
Which means the Epistles wrote little about Mary(Bearer of Christ) means the Apostles did not acknowledge that she holds a position anywhere in the doctrine? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
It is not fair that you based your theories solely on the Gospel of James, when our theories are based on the hermeneutics of the entire bible.
Will a child be only considered first born when another is bornt??? Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'.
In Exodus 34:20 , the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.
And I too can play the same game as throughout Scripture, Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary.
Till you can explain how
1) Who was Christ brothers?
2) Why did he commit the care of his Mother to his Apostles and not his brothers?
3) Why was Mary shocked when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child? If she wasnt consecreated as a virgin to the Temple, the question she asked would not be relevant for she will concieve a child later in marriage. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived).
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . 'brothers' really means 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
[b]Martin Luther, (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
How can u accept his doctrine of sola scriptura yet label his exegeis of Scripture regarding the virginity of Mary as heresy??? One on end u are advancing the doctrine of sola scriptura and on the other hand labelling him as a heretic?
More importantly, no Christian accepted the viewpoint u held so dear till very recently....this few decades.[/b]
I hope you get the drift. -
Actually, No, you can infer it to be so, but cannot conclude it.Originally posted by Ironside:Mt 1:25 and did not know her [b]till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
Mt 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. [WEB][/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by Icemoon:
hmm .. I conclude this simply tells us Mary had sexual relations.
am I right?
reason being, all this verse said is that Joseph did not have sexual relation with Mary till the day she gave birth to Jesus, the first born.
Now, whether or not they have sexual relation after that, can only be a guess, ie, not necessary that they will have.
cheers