Ever Virgin???
-
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
The gospel of James is dubious and written after the earliest authentic Christian writings of Paul.
By the Gospel of James support it...its quite early right?
31
Behold, you [b]WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
34
But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
The angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all!!![/b]
Your logic is amusing. Shouldn't Mary have said - How can this be, since I CAN have no relations with a man?
"Have" is present tense. It simply means Mary did not have any relations recently when the angel spoke to her.
Assuming you are right, it is funny that Mary's reply entertains the possibility of having relations with a man. -
Mr Pope is silent liao?
-
PopeOriginally posted by Pope Nicholas:Why do modern day protestant believe Mary had sexual relations when it is not mentioned in Scripture explicitly? Isnt there a double standard employed here by advocates of Sola Scriptura?
Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, how can she have 2 spouse??? Can others enter through the same gate which the Saviour did? Can others be borned from the Ark? It makes no logical sense!!!
on the first part, I agree with you that the Bible is not clear on this issue, since the Bible is not clear, I will say both side of the equation are doing inference.
(*** deleted... not really helpful...)
on the second part, of Mary being spouse of the Holy Spirit, can you show me the supporting verses?
Thanks -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
correction, I think you are quoting from the Gospel according St. Luke and not the Gospel of James.
By the Gospel of James support it...its quite early right?
31
Behold, you [b]WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
34
But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
The angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all!!![/b]
-
Gospel of James supprt perputual virginity while Gospel of Luke says she is consecreated a virgin.Originally posted by vince69:correction, I think you are quoting from the Gospel according St. Luke and not the Gospel of James.
Here is 3 Church Father intepretation of the Scripture. I have shown u the Protestant Reformers as well.
Luke 1:31:
"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free." Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).
Matt 1:25
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
St Chrysostom argument is the same as John Salza with the Raven example.
John:
"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232). -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
go look again lah, the verses you quoted earlier is from the "Gospel according to St Luke". Open your bible, tell me where can you find the "Gospel of James", there is only a "Letter from St James".
Gospel of James supprt perputual virginity while Gospel of Luke says she is consecreated a virgin.
Here is 3 Church Father intepretation of the Scripture. I have shown u the Protestant Reformers as well.
Luke 1:31:
"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. [b]This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free." Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).
Matt 1:25
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
St Chrysostom argument is the same as John Salza with the Raven example.
John:
"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
[/b]
btw, you did not even quote from this so call Gospel of James here, these verses you are quoting is from the Gospel accoding to St Luke, St Matthew and St John.
pls put the source of your quotation correct. and I have not even dispute any doctrine yet. -
I have long quoted the Gospel of James which very explicitly stated Mary was a virgin throughout her life. The Gospel of James is not Scripture so u wont find it part of the Bible. It is still authoritative as its orthodox. Was written in 120AD.Originally posted by vince69:go look again lah, the verses you quoted earlier is from the "Gospel according to St Luke". Open your bible, tell me where can you find the "Gospel of James", there is only a "Letter from St James".
btw, you did not even quote from this so call Gospel of James here, these verses you are quoting is from the Gospel accoding to St Luke, St Matthew and St John.
pls put the source of your quotation correct. and I have not even dispute any doctrine yet.
I quoted a verse from the Gospel of St Luke. And gave my intepretation of it. Icemoon gave his. I now in turn looked at Church Father's and Reformers intepretation of those very same verse. Strangely, both agree that mary remained a virgin. -
why call it a gospel when it is not? still need to establish who is the real author somemore.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I have long quoted the Gospel of James which very explicitly stated Mary was a virgin throughout her life. The Gospel of James is not Scripture so u wont find it part of the Bible. It is still authoritative as its orthodox. Was written in 120AD.
I quoted a verse from the Gospel of St Luke. And gave my intepretation of it. Icemoon gave his. I now in turn looked at Church Father's and Reformers intepretation of those very same verse. Strangely, both agree that mary remained a virgin.
and why so strange that they agree? afterall the Reformers like Luther were taught by the Church Fathers as well.
anyway, I am not here to debate the doctrine on 'the perpetual virgin of Mary", since the Bible is not really conclusive about it (my opinion only). I am more interested in finding out how the Chruch Fathers/Tradition come to this conclusion. -
x2!!!!!Originally posted by vince69:I am not here to debate the doctrine on 'the perpetual virgin of Mary", since the Bible is not really conclusive about it (my opinion only). I am more interested in finding out how the Chruch Fathers/Tradition come to this conclusion. -
There are many gospels. Only 4 were selected by St Irenaus to be inspired (in response to heretic marcion creating a NT-canon). No one knows who is the real author though the works is authentic.Originally posted by vince69:why call it a gospel when it is not? still need to establish who is the real author somemore.
and why so strange that they agree? afterall the Reformers like Luther were taught by the Church Fathers as well.
anyway, I am not here to debate the doctrine on 'the perpetual virgin of Mary", since the Bible is not really conclusive about it (my opinion only). I am more interested in finding out how the Chruch Fathers/Tradition come to this conclusion.
Its strange because Modern day protestants scorn Tradition (understandable) and their Reformers as well (i dont understand why). The Reformers even called a 4th century dude, Heldivus, who argued against the perputual virginity, a pig-head. So my question is why do Protestants reject the thier own Reformers. Surely as creators of Sola Scriptura, they would have reject the perputual virginity if it wasnt strong scripturially.
Anyway, the 3 intepretation of the scripture verse is to show Icemoon, that Church Fathers holds Apologist John Salza (and my) view as well. -
seems like we will have to go figure this out ourselves .... for now.Originally posted by M©+square:x2!!!!!
-
the idea of Sola Scriptura is regarding comparing what is taught against the Scripture, it was design/formulated to weed out errant and non scriptural teachings and traditions (be it from Church Fathers or Reformers).Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:There are many gospels. Only 4 were selected by St Irenaus to be inspired (in response to heretic marcion creating a NT-canon). No one knows who is the real author though the works is authentic.
Its strange because Modern day protestants scorn Tradition (understandable) and their Reformers as well (i dont understand why). The Reformers even called a 4th century dude, Heldivus, who argued against the perputual virginity, a pig-head. So my question is why do Protestants reject the thier own Reformers. Surely as creators of Sola Scriptura, they would have reject the perputual virginity if it wasnt strong scripturially.
Anyway, the 3 intepretation of the scripture verse is to show Icemoon, that Church Fathers holds Apologist John Salza (and my) view as well.
one such teaching is the legalised selling/buying of indulgence by Pope Leo X in 1517 to raise funds to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (this is the incident that provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation).
For the record. this practice was subsequently outlawed by By decree of Pope Pius V in 1567, following the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to attach the receipt of an indulgence to any financial act, including the giving of alms (which shows that the church teaching/practice regarding this issue at that time was indeed in error). -
Yes...practices can be removed. The idea of celibate priest can be removed as well as its not a teaching by Sacred Magisteruim or Ex Cathedra.Originally posted by vince69:the idea of Sola Scriptura is regarding comparing what is taught against the Scripture, it was design/formulated to weed out errant and non scriptural teachings and traditions (be it from Church Fathers or Reformers).
one such teaching is the legalised selling/buying of indulgence by Pope Leo X in 1517 to raise funds to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (this is the incident that provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation).
For the record. this practice was subsequently outlawed by By decree of Pope Pius V in 1567, following the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to attach the receipt of an indulgence to any financial act, including the giving of alms (which shows that the church teaching/practice regarding this issue at that time was indeed in error).
And so on one hand, modern day protestants are advancing the Reformers as last bastion of light in the Middle Ages and yet labelling them as blatant heretics??? -
And the 3 quotes from Church Fathers is basically thier intepretation of Scrpture. So as an advocate of Sola Scriptura, there should be no problem reading thier intepretation of Scripture.
-
Like i've always questioned Ben about this issue.Originally posted by vince69:seems like we will have to go figure this out ourselves .... for now.
It always seems like the focus is always on Mary than Christ. Which is something i am uncomfortable about.
Even the debate on doctrine about Marialogy is more intense than other issues.
Catholics will have to embrace the theology of Perpetual Mary, otherwise the doctrine breaks.
A picture of the Virgin Mary was brought on board, while the galley was in port, to be kissed by the slaves. When Knox refused, the picture was thrust into his face. Outraged, he flung the "accursed idol" into the river, saying "Let our Lady learn to swim."
John Knox 1514-1572 (Protestant reformer.) -
I am even more perturbed that Sola Scriptura had so badly divided the reformers from Day 1.Originally posted by M©+square:Like i've always questioned Ben about this issue.
It always seems like the focus is always on Mary than Christ. Which is something i am uncomfortable about.
Even the debate on doctrine about Marialogy is more intense than other issues.
Catholics will have to embrace the theology of Perpetual Mary, otherwise the doctrine breaks.
A picture of the Virgin Mary was brought on board, while the galley was in port, to be kissed by the slaves. When Knox refused, the picture was thrust into his face. Outraged, he flung the "accursed idol" into the river, saying "Let our Lady learn to swim."
John Knox 1514-1572 (Protestant reformer.)
Here is quotes from Martin Luther which runs counter to Knox.
Martin Luther
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521). -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Like the broken recorder......
I am even more perturbed that Sola Scriptura had so badly divided the reformers from Day 1.
Here is quotes from Martin Luther which runs counter to Knox.
[b]Martin Luther
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
[/b]
he plays the same thing over and over and over.... -
Because none of you can address the reasons why do modern day protestants run counter to their Reformers on the issue of Mary and since you brought up Knox, why were they so divided then.Originally posted by M©+square:Like the broken recorder......
he plays the same thing over and over and over....
The Church Fathers quotes was meant for Icemoon and Vince69 and not for you at all since you reject all Church Father AND Reformers intepretation of Scripture but prefer your FALLIBLE intepretation of scripture.
I think Martin Luther correctly described MC2 ideologies.
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209 -
Ignore the exchange between MC2 and me....it has little relevance to the topic.
-
The gospel of James (should be the protoevangelium?) is dubious.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I have long quoted the Gospel of James which very explicitly stated Mary was a virgin throughout her life. The Gospel of James is not Scripture so u wont find it part of the Bible. It is still authoritative as its orthodox. Was written in 120AD.
Who is the author. All of us agree that James, the bishop of Jerusalem, died before 120AD. In fact he died in 62AD. -
Its written by someone else. But what I am trying to say is that the early christians accepted the view that Mary was ever-virgin, or else such a book would have been derided as heresy instead or being known as an orthodox writings.Originally posted by Icemoon:The gospel of James (should be the protoevangelium?) is dubious.
Who is the author. All of us agree that James, the bishop of Jerusalem, died before 120AD. In fact he died in 62AD. -
You got it all wrong.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The Church Fathers quotes was meant for Icemoon and Vince69 and not for you at all since you reject all Church Father AND Reformers intepretation of Scripture but prefer your FALLIBLE intepretation of scripture.
I am not a Christian. If you read my posting, I lean towards Judaism more. So I care nothing about church father or reformers. Quote from the Talmud if you want to convince me.
vince is not a traditional protestant. In fact he will be hard pressed to quote anything from the greats. Maybe you can ask him to quote Hagin or Copeland.
Mc2 is the most learned among the three of us. He read Calvin's Institutes and other Protestant works. He doesn't reject them, only questions them. -
Told you liao .. the proto-orthodox declared what is heretical and what is not.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Its written by someone else. But what I am trying to say is that the early christians accepted the view that Mary was ever-virgin, or else such a book would have been derided as heresy instead or being known as an orthodox writings.
The early christians were not monolithic. In fact, at one point, Marcion's followers outnumbered the proto-orthodox. -
But the proto-orthodox truimphed....Originally posted by Icemoon:Told you liao .. the proto-orthodox declared what is heretical and what is not.
The early christians were not monolithic. In fact, at one point, Marcion's followers outnumbered the proto-orthodox.
Anyways, the scripture verses (MAt1:25, Luke1:31 and John) which we clashed, I provided 3 Church Fathers which uses the same arguments as Apologist John Salza. -
Icey knows me ... (but hoh, I don't like to read Hagin's and Copeland's books)Originally posted by Icemoon:You got it all wrong.
I am not a Christian. If you read my posting, I lean towards Judaism more. So I care nothing about church father or reformers. Quote from the Talmud if you want to convince me.
vince is not a traditional protestant. In fact he will be hard pressed to quote anything from the greats. Maybe you can ask him to quote Hagin or Copeland.
Mc2 is the most learned among the three of us. He read Calvin's Institutes and other Protestant works. He doesn't reject them, only questions them.