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

may · Mar 1, 2005

That Mary had other children also seems indicated by the incident that occurred when Jesus was twelve years old and Joseph took his family to Jerusalem for the festival. On the way back they had traveled a whole day before Mary noticed that Jesus was not with them. Had Jesus been her only child (and miraculously conceived at that), could we imagine her maternal instincts being so dormant that she would have started out without him and not missed him for a whole day? But if by this time she had six or more children by Joseph, we can imagine her having been so busy that she might not have missed Jesus for a whole day.Luke 2:41-50.

True, the question might be asked, If Mary had other children, why did Jesus entrust his mother to his apostle John instead of to her other children? For one thing, his other brothers may not have been at the site of his impalement, they apparently not yet having become believers. Also, of his disciples, John was closest to Jesus, and had a spiritual relationship with him that exceeded any natural relationship.John 19:26, 27.

No*s · Mar 1, 2005

may said:
That Mary had other children also seems indicated by the incident that occurred when Jesus was twelve years old and Joseph took his family to Jerusalem for the festival. On the way back they had traveled a whole day before Mary noticed that Jesus was not with them. Had Jesus been her only child (and miraculously conceived at that), could we imagine her maternal instincts being so dormant that she would have started out without him and not missed him for a whole day? But if by this time she had six or more children by Joseph, we can imagine her having been so busy that she might not have missed Jesus for a whole day.Luke 2:41-50.

And why couldn't they have left Jesus with some relatives who went off without Him? Like the brothers and sisters, there are multiple understandings within the reasonable limits of interpretation. I can actually use this text to argue that at that there were no other children mentioned (in fact...I have used it for such in the past). Both cases, though, are reading into the text the situations we assume going in.

I would be hard-pressed to imagine that it was due to Mary's handling of six children. Traveling even a couple of hours is one thing before realizing a child was gone...but a whole day? And the most special one at that? I think, rather, that reading it as Jesus being in the care of others during the journey makes more sense, and it fits since whole groups of people, often family, would travel together at that time for safety's sake. It, thus, makes no statement about Mary's having children.

May said:
True, the question might be asked, If Mary had other children, why did Jesus entrust his mother to his apostle John instead of to her other children? For one thing, his other brothers may not have been at the site of his impalement, they apparently not yet having become believers. Also, of his disciples, John was closest to Jesus, and had a spiritual relationship with him that exceeded any natural relationship.John 19:26, 27.

Again, I don't see how this could be the case. The language Jesus used wasn't something temporary, but "Woman behold they son" and to John "Behold thy mother." Those are pretty strong terms, stronger than "Take care of her until my brothers get here."

Earlier in this thread, you asserted that the Council of Nicea and subsequent Ecumenical Councils established this doctrine to tame the pagan masses. I ask you, now, to validate it with historical documents. That's a strong assertion you made, and it's easy to swing the pagan mallet, but I'd like you to proffer some evidence for it. After all, you are deriding another's faith. I don't have a problem with that, except that if you don't have any evidence, it's more than a little shadey to make such a declaration. Where is your proof? If you have none, I'd at least like it to come out in the thread.

Scuba Pete · Mar 1, 2005

Jesus put more emphasis on the "spiritual" than on the physical. Consequently, it would follow that he would trust his spiritual brother far more than a physical one.

Chris · Mar 1, 2005

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?

No I don't believe it's necessary to believe in the virgin birth. I think that's all surface level religion. Christianity is much deeper. I agree with you that it is a lifestyle, not a recorded logbook. There aren't many beliefs I believe necessary for salvation - just the important ones like Christ being the Son of God, His resurrection, and a few more. Most everything else is religion.

No*s · Mar 2, 2005

Chris said:
No I don't believe it's necessary to believe in the virgin birth. I think that's all surface level religion. Christianity is much deeper. I agree with you that it is a lifestyle, not a recorded logbook. There aren't many beliefs I believe necessary for salvation - just the important ones like Christ being the Son of God, His resurrection, and a few more. Most everything else is religion.

That is a point that we will certainly not see eye to eye on and is a topic for a different thread

.

may · Mar 2, 2005

No*s said:
;

Earlier in this thread, you asserted that the Council of Nicea and subsequent Ecumenical Councils established this doctrine to tame the pagan masses. I ask you, now, to validate it with historical documents. That's a strong assertion you made, and it's easy to swing the pagan mallet, but I'd like you to proffer some evidence for it. After all, you are deriding another's faith. I don't have a problem with that, except that if you don't have any evidence, it's more than a little shadey to make such a declaration. Where is your proof? If you have none, I'd at least like it to come out in the thread.

Earlier in this thread ,on the origins of the belief, i quoted Catholic priests themselves and Professors of church history. in the Encyclopaedia Britannica so these are not my words but those who recgonize where the beliefs stem from ,so i am sorry if the truth is hard to bear, but after all, we should all as christians be interested in truth , just as jesus was. maybe not all christians are interested in truth ,but jesus was
. The very goal of research and education is to learn the facts, the truth,

No*s · Mar 2, 2005

may said:
Earlier in this thread ,on the origins of the belief, i quoted Catholic priests themselves and Professors of church history. in the Encyclopaedia Britannica so these are not my words but those who recgonize where the beliefs stem from

If you'll remember, I responded earlier to that statement you reference. I wrote:

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.

I will further add that I have doubts about your quotes, but I can't look them up. I have trouble believing that a Roman Catholic will disparage their own faith as pagan and still hold it. It simply makes no sense. If you can find some, I can find several dozen to your one who disagree with you.

May said:
so i am sorry if the truth is hard to bear, but after all, we should all as christians be interested in truth , just as jesus was.

You haven't presented truth, just articles without citations so we can look things up. It is hard to accept someone who says that a doctrine was established by a councils that took place hundreds of years after our first testimony for the doctrine, and we are to do this because you have quoted a group of people with no references to who you quoted and haven't provided any primary citations for it being pagan?

May said:
The very goal of research and education is to learn the facts, the truth,

Then act accordingly. Give citations, that is what I asked for. What soruces, particularly sources from the Early Church, can you name that made this claim? If you have them, name them. If you don't, then admit to it. I would also like the books, articles, etc. you pulled these quotes from the priests from. I don't think they're being quoted in context. That's not too much to ask.

precept · Mar 2, 2005

Those who teach that it doesn't matter that doctrinal errors are propagated as truth.... Think again! "Sanctify them through thy truth.... 'THY WORD IS TRUTH" I quote TRUTH HIMSELF, Jesus!

" A "half-a truth" is an outright Lie! The ancient Israelites had the truth of God directly delivered to them by God, Himself. They, like false Christianity today believed in One God. They, like false Christianity today, followed deligently, or so they thought the commands of God. Jesus called to their attention the error of their ways and the futility of their efforts as directed to the worship of a God who refused their worship, because they worshipped him lyingly re their doctrines In Jesus words..."You whited sepulchres!...Matthew 23:27... You blind leaders of the blind!...Mattrhew 15:14...You are liars!...John 8:54-55 You belong to your father the devil...he was a liar from the beginning...and the father of lies." ...John 8:44

All "lLiars" are hated by God and will be destroyed by God in a "lake of fire" ...Revelation 21:8

God cannot be associated in any way with an established falsehood passed off as truth. While it is true that godly men and women, over the many centuries have embraced error as truth...and while it is also true that these men and women practiced error as truth...yet it is equally true that all these godly men and women gladly embraced truth the moment truth was revealed to them. They rejected their previously held errors and embraced truth. Paul is an example of one such godly person. Joseph of Arimathea, of the Jewish leadership is another.

Truth cannot be compromised! Not in one iota! It is the father of lies, satan that caused the death of Very God. False Christianity makes God as accepting error/lies as truth; false Christianity makes Very God as satan.
The Bereans were commended by Paul for "searching the scriptures daily" to see whether the "things" Paul taught them from the scripture, were so". ...Acts 17:11.

The Bereans were new Gentile converts to Christianity. If they saw it fit to make sure Paul was teaching truth...If Jesus was adamant that truth be not compromised...then it is consequently imperative that the "seeker after truth" does his own scripture research "to see whether those 'thiungs' as taught by any religion..."are indeed so!" and fully supported by God's Word-His Scriptures!

No one can be saved while believing a lie! ...Romans 1:25..."Who Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator....". The error passed of as truth re "Mary's perpetual Virginity"...The error passed off as truth re "Mary is alive and in heaven"....The error passed off as truth re "praying to Mary" will get your prayers a better hearing from Jesus[she will request her son on your behalf]...The error of Mary not comsummating her marriage to her husband Joseph....And the many other errors passed off as truth make false Christianity destined as "deceivers of them that have the mark of the beast" and destined to the fires of hell.

No! No one can be saved; believing a lie, but still thinking it is God's truth as taught in scripture!

False Christianity is hated by God! and so hated that He has slated false Christianity to the fires of hell...Revelation 19:20:.

precept

may · Mar 2, 2005

precept said:
Those who teach that it doesn't matter that doctrinal errors are propagated as truth.... Think again! "Sanctify them through thy truth.... 'THY WORD IS TRUTH" I quote TRUTH HIMSELF, Jesus!

" A "half-a truth" is an outright Lie! The ancient Israelites had the truth of God directly delivered to them by God, Himself. They, like false Christianity today believed in One God. They, like false Christianity today, followed deligently, or so they thought the commands of God. Jesus called to their attention the error of their ways and the futility of their efforts as directed to the worship of a God who refused their worship, because they worshipped him lyingly re their doctrines In Jesus words..."You whited sepulchres!...Matthew 23:27... You blind leaders of the blind!...Mattrhew 15:14...You are liars!...John 8:54-55 You belong to your father the devil...he was a liar from the beginning...and the father of lies." ...John 8:44

All "lLiars" are hated by God and will be destroyed by God in a "lake of fire" ...Revelation 21:8

God cannot be associated in any way with an established falsehood passed off as truth. While it is true that godly men and women, over the many centuries have embraced error as truth...and while it is also true that these men and women practiced error as truth...yet it is equally true that all these godly men and women gladly embraced truth the moment truth was revealed to them. They rejected their previously held errors and embraced truth. Paul is an example of one such godly person. Joseph of Arimathea, of the Jewish leadership is another.

Truth cannot be compromised! Not in one iota! It is the father of lies, satan that caused the death of Very God. False Christianity makes God as accepting error/lies as truth; false Christianity makes Very God as satan.
The Bereans were commended by Paul for "searching the scriptures daily" to see whether the "things" Paul taught them from the scripture, were so". ...Acts 17:11.

The Bereans were new Gentile converts to Christianity. If they saw it fit to make sure Paul was teaching truth...If Jesus was adamant that truth be not compromised...then it is consequently imperative that the "seeker after truth" does his own scripture research "to see whether those 'thiungs' as taught by any religion..."are indeed so!" and fully supported by God's Word-His Scriptures!

No one can be saved while believing a lie! ...Romans 1:25..."Who Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator....". The error passed of as truth re "Mary's perpetual Virginity"...The error passed off as truth re "Mary is alive and in heaven"....The error passed off as truth re "praying to Mary" will get your prayers a better hearing from Jesus[she will request her son on your behalf]...The error of Mary not comsummating her marriage to her husband Joseph....And the many other errors passed off as truth make false Christianity destined as "deceivers of them that have the mark of the beast" and destined to the fires of hell.

No! No one can be saved; believing a lie, but still thinking it is God's truth as taught in scripture!

False Christianity is hated by God! and so hated that He has slated false Christianity to the fires of hell...Revelation 19:20:.

precept

Good post,
. One unbiblical doctrine leads to another. this has happened because of the false trinity doctrine

it actually diverts from true worship. This opens the way for doctrines and practices that are contrary to Gods will. One outstanding example is the way in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, is viewed by millions of people in both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic lands.

in official church doctrine, she is referred to as "the Virgin Mary Theotokos." The word the·o·to´kos means "God-bearer" or "mother of God." The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Mary is the mother of God. . . . If Mary is not truly the mother of God, then Christ is not true God as well as true man." Thus, as part of their Trinity doctrine, these religions teach that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, making Mary the "mother of God." The same source adds that devotion to Mary includes: "(1) veneration, or the reverent recognition of the dignity of the holy Virgin Mother of God; (2) invocation, or the calling upon our Lady for her motherly and queenly intercession; . . . and private prayers [to Mary]."

However, the word the·o·to´kos does not appear in the inspired Scriptures. And nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was the "mother of God." Jesus did not teach it, nor did first-century Christians. Furthermore, the Bible plainly shows that Jesus was not God Almighty in human form but was Gods Son. Indeed, when Mary was notified by an angel that she would bear a son, she was told: "Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, Gods Son." (Luke 1:35) So Jesus was Gods Son, not God himself in human form. Hence, Mary was the mother of Gods son Jesus, not the mother of God in human form. That is why neither Jesus nor his disciples ever called Mary the "mother of God.so, it seems to me that they have strayed from the teaching of the bibleand will have to answer to God himself for this, as you quite plainly made clear from the scriptures

Scuba Pete · Mar 2, 2005

Drar Precept and May...

You are turning your versions of the "Truth" into just another law made by man. As I pointed out earlier, anything short of the deification of Mary is well within scripture's toerance for diversity. Her role is not part of the core values and beliefs that determine whether one is Christian or not.

God and Jesus have ALWAYS worked through imperfect man. They know we will misunderstand much. As long as we don't strain the gnat and swallow the camel, we will be fine.

Joannicius · Mar 2, 2005

No*s said:
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.

You are very correct, clairification is in order. You are good at that. I forget how different the concept of "dogma", along with many other, differs from the East to the West.

Chris, Precept, Doc, May and Oracle - - PLEASE NOTE

No*s · Mar 2, 2005

Joannicius said:
You are very correct, clairification is in order. You are good at that. I forget how different the concept of "dogma", along with many other, differs from the East to the West.

Sadly, differences in semantics are often the biggest cause of confusion and miscommunication

. I fall into the same trap.

true blood · Mar 7, 2005

Let's face it. Many here Idolize Mary. Millions in the world do.

No*s · Mar 7, 2005

true blood said:
Let's face it. Many here Idolize Mary. Millions in the world do.

Are you absolutely certain you aren't misinterpreting what you see? I've met very few people that I would say worship Mary if that is what you're trying to say...

may · Mar 8, 2005

"I am the handmaid of the Lord, said Mary, let what you have said be done to me." (Luke 1:38, JB) Thus Mary humbly acceded to this divine direction and in time gave birth to Jesus.

During the following several centuries, however, her devotees elevated her from being a lowly "handmaid of the Lord" to the position of "queen mother" with immense influence in the heavens. Church leaders officially proclaimed her "Mother of God" in 431 C.E. at the Council of Ephesus. What triggered this transformation? Pope John Paul II explains one factor: "True devotion to the Mother of God . . . is very profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity."Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Therefore, accepting Mary as the "Mother of God" hinges on believing in the Trinity. However, is the Trinity a Bible teaching? Examine, please, what the apostle Peter wrote in the Bible. He warned that "false teachers . . . will subtly introduce dangerous heresies [and] will try to exploit you too with their bogus arguments." (2 Peter 2:1, 3, The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips) One such heresy was the teaching of the Trinity. Once that was accepted, the idea that Mary was the "Mother of God" (Greek: Theotokos, meaning "God-bearer") was quite logical. In his book The Virgin, Geoffrey Ashe states that "if Christ was God, the Second Person of the Trinity," as the Trinitarians reasoned, "then his mother in his human manifestation was the Mother of God."

If Jesus were "God whole and entire," as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church states, then Mary rightly could be called the "Mother of God." It must be said, though, that many early Trinitarians found it hard to accept this teaching when it was first proposedas do Trinitarian Protestants today. It has been called a "devotional paradox, he whom the heavens could not contain was contained in her womb." (The Virgin)Compare 1 Kings 8:27.

But is Jesus Christ really "God whole and entire"? No, he never made that claim. Instead, he always acknowledged his subordinate position to his Father.See Matthew 26:39; Mark 13:32; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28.

Joannicius · Mar 8, 2005

true blood said:
Let's face it. Many here Idolize Mary. Millions in the world do.

I will have to agree that many including my self "idolize" Her if you mean put in HIGH ESTEEM and desire to see Her as my example and goal in obedience ............Not Worship Her.

She was taken to the temple at approx. 3 years of age and given to God as Samuel, raised in the company of virgins.......visited by Angels in the Holy of Holies.......can't believe it? The East knows the history, dates, names etc. that the West (for the most part) has "tossed aside" as fables etc. Our choice to accept the beauty of Her and the history or not ! !

It is hard for me now, to imagine not seeing the beauty of one so willing to do as she was asked by The Creator of All........ who, in turn Honors Her. Look at the first miracle Jesus did!?!

Scott1 · Mar 9, 2005

may said:
During the following several centuries, however, her devotees elevated her from being a lowly "handmaid of the Lord" to the position of "queen mother" with immense influence in the heavens.

You've conveniently not cited the whole story:

Luke 1:

41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

46And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,

I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.....

The key to understanding Marian dogmas is: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.

So, for instance, in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or “God bearer.” Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or “Christ bearer.” She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.
The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.

So the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. This is evident, for instance, in the definition of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin (promulgated in 553 at the Council of Constantinople). This tradition isn’t so much explicitly attested as reflected in the biblical narrative. Yes, we must grant that the biblical narrative is ambiguous in that it speaks of Jesus’ “brothers” (but does it mean “siblings” or merely “relatives”?). However, other aspects of the biblical narrative strongly suggest she remained a virgin.

This has been our faith for over a thousand years..... we may love those of you who are members of a church that was started in the last hundred years or so..... but you can't rewrite history.

Scott

may · Mar 10, 2005

Says Catholic priest Andrew Greeley: "Mary is one of the most powerful religious symbols in the history of the Western world . . . The Mary symbol links Christianity directly to the ancient religions of mother goddesses."The Making of the Popes 1978 (U.S.A., 1979), p. 227.
It makes no difference how long a church has been around ,if it is based on unbiblical beliefs and is linked to pagan worship it is wrong in gods eyes according to the bible.

Was

Mary the Mother of God?

The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: "You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . The child will be holy and will be called Son of God."Luke 1:31-35, JB;

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God." (1967, Vol. X, p. 21) The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but was Jesus God? In the fourth century, long after the writing of the Bible was completed, the Church formulated its statement of the Trinity. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295; At that time in the Nicene Creed the Church spoke of Jesus Christ as "very God." After that, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., Mary was proclaimed by the Church to be The·o·to´kos, meaning "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." However, neither that expression nor the idea is found in the text of any translation of the Bible.

Scott1 · Mar 10, 2005

may said:
It makes no difference how long a church has been around ,if it is based on unbiblical beliefs and is linked to pagan worship it is wrong in gods eyes according to the bible.

True..... but your quote does nothing to prove that any Catholic dogma is based on unbiblical or pagan beliefs..... your quote only proves what Fr. Greeley believes.

may said:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God." (1967, Vol. X, p. 21) The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but was Jesus God? In the fourth century, long after the writing of the Bible was completed, the Church formulated its statement of the Trinity. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295; At that time in the Nicene Creed the Church spoke of Jesus Christ as "very God." After that, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., Mary was proclaimed by the Church to be The·o·to´kos, meaning "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." However, neither that expression nor the idea is found in the text of any translation of the Bible.

It's interesting that you hold the Bible as your standard, at yet don't cite the Church Council that defined the Canon of Scripture..... hmmmm I wonder why that is?

May.... you, and most Protestants.... seem to ignore the obvious:

If a Church Council can define the Canon that you defend as the Word of God, the same Church can hold a Council and make other decisions...... to assert that the Council got the Canon of Scriptue correct...... but EVERYTHING ELSE wrong, is revisionist history of the worst kind..... and truly beneath respect.

Scott

Scuba Pete · Mar 10, 2005

Hey Scott,

Well, I am not a protestant, but I think your comments are aimed at all Christian churches who do not bear the name "Catholic". While I agree that the Synod assembled the books of the Bible, I see that as a scholarly effort more than a spiritual one. I do believe that God could have guided Muslims or Jews to do the same thing for us, but he chose that council.

BUT, the council didn't WRITE any of the NT. That was done by members of the first century church, or at least written from verbal accounts of the first century Apostles. Much that is in that assemblage of epistles tells us to not add or subtract from them and especially not to modify the Gospel. I find it odd that the church who did all this, refuses to believe the results of their own work, and continues to drift from what is written. We would be far more ready to follow your Church, if it more closely followed the scriptures that it deemed as "holy".

Again, when it comes to the continued virginity of Mary, it appears from the body of Scripture that Jesus had brothers and sisters. There is no reason to believe otherwise, except for some writings that appear much later than the first century. As for me, I choose to ascribe to the scriptures as God has them set apart.

However, IF this doctrine were that important, then I am sure the Lord would have addressed it outright. That he didn't and that this was not addressed by the apostles, tells me we are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. There is nothing in the NT to indicate that belief or not in her evervirginal state will have any bearing on anyone's eternal destination.

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

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Member

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Member

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...