• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Is The Perpetual Virginity of Mary a true Christan Doctrine

Joannicius

Active Member
The concepts, history, and folklore that you espouse has me amazed that you can put these conclusions in an orderly fashion. I see nothing concise or conclusive in your response, full of conjecture and hearsay, and that tells me you know anything other than the letters. You obviously have been led astray by false teachers of the letters and hate RC, whom I am not here to defend.

You started out contradicting yourself. Saying no one can have private interpretation then proceed to tell me what the scriptures say. Not only did you tell me what they said but what the angel was thinking and why!!!!

I told you what I believe after 40 plus years being a Christian and a good 30 of it in study. The "left field" you are coming from sounds like an alliance with the ones who hate The Orthodox Christian Church, not love.

From your post, I would say that you may know the RC but not the Orthodox.

Legion, mmmm
 

precept

Member
Joannicius said:
You started out contradicting yourself. Saying no one can have private interpretation then proceed to tell me what the scriptures say. Not only did you tell me what they said but what the angel was thinking and why!!!!

I told you what I believe after 40 plus years being a Christian and a good 30 of it in study. The "left field" you are coming from sounds like an alliance with the ones who hate The Orthodox Christian Church, not love.

From your post, I would say that you may know the RC but not the Orthodox.
Legion, mmmm

Joannicius.....I bow to your thirty years of study; yet find it extremely strange that so much study left you without benefit of the barest of minimum of quotation of the scripture you have been studying for thirty years. You may conclude as you wish; but for every "conjecture' and or 'private interpretation" you charge to my account, I was not afraid to support same with direct quotation from the same scripture you have been studying for thirty years. I would have at the very least expected a rebuttal re any particular scripture quote...as would have been expected from one who has studied so much of scripture for so long a time. But to date you have certainly not disappointed me..for one cannot respond when one is bereft of the knowledge required to so respond.

It is not surprising that as bosum buddies of the Roman Catholic church, that, but for a difference in points of view of a few doctrines, you both are verily of the same "cloth"..no matter that you think you are different. Had not the pope proclaimed himself "top bishop" and your excommunicating "him" and him excommunicating "you'...you both, but for this falling out would have been "peas in a pod", cozy in the false doctrines of false Christianity.

But while separate, you still espouse false doctrines; doctrines far removed from the the true doctrines of Jesus' disciples and Jesus' apostle, the apostle Paul who singularly founded the Gentile churches; now offshoots as in "Orthodox churches" and "Roman Catholic churches" that now no longer practice the truths as taught them by Jesus' apostle.

I await your response with at the very least relevant scripture to support your deviation from the original gospel as taught the Greek church and other churches of Asia by the apostle Paul.


precept
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
It would be wonderful to see some scripture supporting this, but I don't see it coming as it doesn't exist. As far as importance goes, the belief or non-belief in this doctrine is NOT going to change one's salvation. To continue would be to tilt at windmills, and I for one don't have the time.
 

Chris

Member
This debate is getting a little too hot.

But to date you have certainly not disappointed me..for one cannot respond when one is bereft of the knowledge required to so respond.
Isn't that a little presumptious? I'm on your side with this one, but you're getting way to personal with this.
Why don't we just drop the arrogance, and show a little respect. The catholics have a decent argument to their side as well. I think if you were to take a little time to research it, you'd feel the same. I'm not saying it will change your belief (it surely hasn't changed mine), but it will enhance your perspective.

As far as importance goes, the belief or non-belief in this doctrine is NOT going to change one's salvation.
My sentiment exactly.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
It would be wonderful to see some scripture supporting this, but I don't see it coming as it doesn't exist. As far as importance goes, the belief or non-belief in this doctrine is NOT going to change one's salvation. To continue would be to tilt at windmills, and I for one don't have the time.

There isn't any that clearly demonstrates it. The closest we have are a handful of passages. The first, and most potent, is the that if she had no other children, then we have a reason for why Christ gave her to John to care for. Likewise, we have the method of interpretation that likens her to the Ark of the Covenant and the gate that is shut after the Lord comes through (the passage in Ezekiel Scott referenced).

None of those Scriptures, though, proves it. They do support it, but not prove it. There's always another way to interpret them. Of course, there is no way to prove she had children either. This issue cannot be settled either way by Scripture alone.
 

Joannicius

Active Member
I threw gasoline on the fire, I'm sorry. I shall leave what I have said with the answer No*s has given and say, all is well. And repeat my self to say that this is NOT a dogma, I wanted It discussed but took it to a personal level, forgive me Precept !

We shall discuss and debate some more I am sure......

Peace and Grace to you In Christ the Lord of Heaven and Earth
 

may

Well-Known Member
Why has the Catholic Church made the matter of Mary’s being a virgin perpetually a teaching of the Church though it is without any support in tradition or Scripture? No doubt because of the sanctity that virginity is supposed to impart. But, according to the Bible, virginity is only a virtue among single persons. The apostle Paul tells married people not to deprive each other of the marital due, which Mary would have done had she remained a virgin after bearing Jesus.—1 Cor. 7:3-5.




Yes, we do no dishonor to Mary when we accept that she gave Joseph his marital due as a dutiful wife should and as a result had children besides Jesus. So, both reason and the Scriptures indicate that Jesus did have half brothers and half sisters.

 

Joannicius

Active Member
IMO
This isn't a dogma either way from the studies and comments made here (for their isn't conclusive proof either way), and The Orthodox Church states that it isn't Dogma, but we believe it to be true for we have history to rely on. Thank You for your input one and all.

(and goodnight mrs. Cavendish where ever you are)
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Joannicius said:
I threw gasoline on the fire, I'm sorry. I shall leave what I have said with the answer No*s has given and say, all is well. And repeat my self to say that this is NOT a dogma, I wanted It discussed but took it to a personal level, forgive me Precept !

We shall discuss and debate some more I am sure......

Peace and Grace to you In Christ the Lord of Heaven and Earth

You're right by saying it's not a dogma, but I think that making a hard and fast classificaton of what and where here on this is somewhat misleading to Protestants. The Church has taught this universally, and well, it cannot simply be relegated to an optional status. After all, what homoousia is for the Trinity the Theotokos is to the Incarnation.

Mary's unique holiness plays a large role in that, and from that, so does her virginity. While removing the doctrine doesn't compromise either doctrine, it does make the ediface more unstable. When you build a house, not all the studs in the wall are absolutely necessary, and thus like dogma, but the more you pull out the more unstable the house becomes.

It further has a good deal to say about the reliability of the Church. With the Holy Spirit as Her guide, we have no record of her denying this, only those who are schismatics doing so. If we allow for this as an optional opinion, we call doubt on it, because this is a unanimous testimony. If it is in error, then what of Nicea? Nicea wasn't ecumenical just because the Emperor called it...but because it was accepted by the whole Church and clarified what she had always taught. If we make the ecumenical authority of the Church optional here, it detracts from the ecumenical aspect of the councils. Oikoumeni after all means "the whole inhabited world."

Thus, it is true this isn't a dogma...emphasizing that is somewhat misleading to those who don't understand how the Orthodox faith works, and it is always best to refrain from saying what is a necessary belief and what is not. After all, it is normative for salvation that someone should trust the Church...it simply isn't something God is bound by.
 

may

Well-Known Member
So if the Bible provides no proof of "the perpetual virginity of Mary," where did this belief originate?






Origins​
of the Belief





"In several ancient religions," observes Jesuit priest Ignace de la Potterie, "virginity had a sacral value. Certain goddesses (Anath, Artemis, Athena) were called virgins." Yet, what does that have to do with Mary? Catholic priest Andrew Greeley explains: "The Mary symbol links Christianity directly to the ancient religions of mother goddesses."​

Professor of church history Ernst W. Benz comments on this link with ancient pagan religions. "Veneration of the mother of God," he wrote in The New Encyclopædia Britannica, "received its impetus when the Christian Church became the imperial church under Constantine and the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . [The peoples’] piety and religious consciousness had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin,’ a development that led all the way from the old popular religions of Babylonia and Assyria . . . Despite the unfavourable presuppositions in the tradition of the Gospels, cultic veneration of the divine virgin and mother found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary."​

But what moved the Roman Church to adapt and adopt the "great mother" goddess and "divine virgin" cult? For one thing, the "pagan masses" coming into the church wanted it; they felt at home in a church that venerated a ‘great virgin mother.’ "In Egypt," Professor Benz notes, "Mary was, at an early point, already worshipped under the title of the bearer of God (Theotokos)." So the "divine virgin" cult was adopted to accommodate the "pagan masses" that were streaming into the church.​

Impetus to the veneration of Mary was provided at the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. How so? Well, the Trinity doctrine was there made an official Catholic teaching, the Nicene Creed declaring Jesus to be God. This supposedly made Mary the "bearer of God," or "mother of God." And as Professor Benz said: "The Council of Ephesus (431) raised this designation to a dogmatic standard." The next step was to make Mary a "perpetual virgin." This occurred when the title "eternal Virgin" was given to Mary at the second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E.

 

oracle

Active Member
Joannicius said:
What do you thinK?
And why?
IMO, the historical Mary was not a virgin when she bore Jesus. She was only later written as a virgin, but this is pure symbology. Most people do not know what this fictional Mary stands for.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
May, I've tended to ignore your posts in this thread, because they never respond to anyone and rarely take the other side's points into account. Here, though, I feel the need to respond.

The post above completely ignores history. How could Nicea establish a doctrine that we have testified two hundred years before it? That makes no sense. Most Nicea conspiracy theories ignore little details like that. The same thing is true of the Trinity.

Why was the Trinity firmly affirmed at Nicea (or more properly the Deity of Christ)? Well, because people had started denying it in the East. Why was the term "Theotokos" enshrined? Again, because people had begun denying it. In both cases, the concepts predate the council. The same is true of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It's first directly testified to in the second century long before these proceedings, and was rejected by only two people we know of (we can always expand it to three).

It, further, has problems, because there is no way the Emperor Constantine would have been able to make the bishops compromise their faith. One of them had had his eyes plucked out. Others had had limbs cut off. There were other bishops there who had survived tortures and things. Why? Because they had refused to acquiesce to the Roman Government and simply participate in the imperial cult. Now, after going through all of that, they simply do an about-face? That is poorly thought-out at best.

Now, the comparison of the Christian veneration of the Theotokos and paganism is vulgar at best. I can swing the pagan mallet towards you just as easily as you can swing it towards me. Rather than making vague statements on why it was established, how about quoting some primary sources to that point? It would go a lot further and make you more credible here.

Until you do, I will regard your belief system as a copy of Islam...equally without proof or historical backing. However, I can make it fit just as easily as you did here.
 

Chris

Member
You're right by saying it's not a dogma, but I think that making a hard and fast classificaton of what and where here on this is somewhat misleading to Protestants. The Church has taught this universally, and well, it cannot simply be relegated to an optional status. After all, what homoousia is for the Trinity the Theotokos is to the Incarnation.
Well then it is dogma, but the church is afraid(???) to label it so. Lets call a spade a spade.

Edit: By the way, I know I promised further elaboration in my last post, but I lied. I don't really see this debate going either way, and furthermore I can understand why you believe what you do. I think you're wrong, but like NetDoc said, I don't believe it's an important issue. It certainly shouldn't be dogma, or whatever more liberal title the Church would assign it.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Chris said:
Well then it is dogma, but the church is afraid(???) to label it so. Lets call a spade a spade.

A "dogma" is something carefully and clearly defined in council in response to heresy. This has not been done so. It has simply been passed down, because there has never been significant challenge to carefully define it. Orthodoxy is quite reactive rather than proactive when it comes to defining theology :).

By the standard that "anything that is binding upon its members," then the PVoM certainly qualifies. However, we need to remember that the nature of "binding" and the definitions of words varies from between individuals.
 

Chris

Member
No*s:
A "dogma" is something carefully and clearly defined in council in response to heresy. This has not been done so. It has simply been passed down, because there has never been significant challenge to carefully define it. Orthodoxy is quite reactive rather than proactive when it comes to defining theology :).
Dogma is church doctrine.

You've proved it yourself that PVoM is Orthodox dogma

Exhibit 1:
No*s:
The Church has taught this universally, and well, it cannot simply be relegated to an optional status.
Exhibit 2:
No*s:
After all, what homoousia is for the Trinity the Theotokos is to the Incarnation.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Remember, we are using two different definitions from two different groups, and words have varying shades of definitions in different groups. As such, we are actually both right here :). I try to avoid the term and the distinction in these dialogues.
 

Chris

Member
Ok, well then the question turns to, do you think the belief is necessary for salvation, or even a deeper relationship/understaning of God?
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Chris said:
Ok, well then the question turns to, do you think the belief is necessary for salvation, or even a deeper relationship/understaning of God?

And the answer to the first part, if it is necessary for salvation, is a yes and no. Orthodoxy, and I, don't tend to say "These beliefs are ncessary, but if you discount these others, then you're damned." It's not part and parcel to the faith. Instead, the faith is to transform ourselves into the image of Christ, to make right that which is broken in us.

As such, faith isn't simpy a matter of accepting precepts or belief, but of an entire lifestyle. The lifestyle, naturally, changes with the tenets of belief that are included. When we change our view of one aspect, it affects another, which in turn will help change who we are on the inside. It isn't a mechanical process here, but an organic one...one much harder to predict. Teachings are interdependent on each other, and teaching is interdependent on the lifestyle of the person.

As such, it has a hard place in the Orthodox faith, but by the same token how it affects our salvation cannot be clearly mapped out. It's not a clear "yes" or "no." It is simply part of the faith of Christ, which is given to us for our salvation. On a more extreme example, I believe the Deity of Christ is a key component of salvation, but does this mean that I must exclude someone who doesn't accept it? I don't think so, but by not accepting it, they make their path far more difficult.

So it is with the PVoM. One might be able to obtain salvation without it, but another person may be blocked by what their beliefs do with their lifestyle. I cannot say.

I know on that one, the answer seems round about, but it's really the best way I have to explain it. Quite clearly, though, that for the deeper understanding of God, that would be an affirmative :).
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Chris said:
Ok, well then the question turns to, do you think the belief is necessary for salvation, or even a deeper relationship/understaning of God?

I just thought of a question to ask in counter-position :). Do you believe the same things about the Virgin Birth? Is it necessary for either salvation or the deeper levels of understanding?

If you do believe it is necessary, what purpose does the Virgin Birth serve?
 
Top