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

[No*s]

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.

That's how some of us look at the idea of the canon of Scripture as being all important. It wasn't in the first century, the second, third, or even the fourth...if it was, it would have been clearly laid out earlier, but I'll leave that there .

On the subject of the thread, we do have alternative interpretations of "brother" in the Gospels that makes just as much sense. It's not reading past the meanings but encapsulated within it. The story expressed in the Early Church that they were Jesus' step-brothers is found in Greek. In fact, I don't know a word for that other than the one used. I also know of other uses for the word in the Semitic flavor of Greek such as "cousin."

The Scripture passages about Jesus' "brothers," then, is quite neutral and cannot be used to refute the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is well within known usage of the word, not an odd unattested meaning .

 

[Scott1]

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.

No*s did a nice job on his reply... so I'll leave it there..... but to be clear:

Belief in the Virginity of Mary has NOTHING do with your eternal salvation/destination.

Not a bit..... just wanted to make my position clear on that.

 

[Joannicius]

[/left]

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,
[/size][/font]
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

I sure can get behind that SOGFPP (Scott), you put the correct emphaasis on the right sylahbel

 

[true blood]

No*s did a nice job on his reply... so I'll leave it there..... but to be clear:

Belief in the Virginity of Mary has NOTHING do with your eternal salvation/destination.

Not a bit..... just wanted to make my position clear on that.

Totally in agreement. However this erronous belief has EVERYTHING to do with a perfect fellowship with the Father. False doctine will actually limit what God can do in ones lives. The Catholic church along with every other denominations each play their role in teaching false doctrines of men. This is fact. Actually the doctrine one puts into their mind, in a sense, shapes and molds their type and measure of believing. One could conclude that today's church is far weaker then the 1st century church. They cured diseases and sicknesses via mere words. They rose dead people from the grave and walked upon water. They must of had a more purer doctrine in their minds. We(the church) sure do not have their type of believing.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I disagree true blood...

You can still see the "LAW" rear it's ugly head in many of the apostle's writings. The spirit has been leading those who will submit to his will into a greater and greater understanding of the FREEDOM we have in Jesus. What is our ultimate goal? I think I Corinthians makes a case for what IS most important in Christianity:

I Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

In the first century, God used miracles to germinate faith. It would take nothing less. As the love of the disciples grew, the need for these miracles has diminished. No matter how "impressive" any miracle might seem, they pale in comparison to the real love displayed by Jesus' disciples. After all the scripture tells us that they will know we are disciples, not by our miracles, but by the love we have for each other. THAT is the true miracle... the spiritual one.

John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

As for marginal concepts like the virginity of Mary... it really doesn't matter. It's obviously not addressed directly, and so is open to our opinion. Look at the issues; make a decision and move on to truly serving (and loving) others.

 

[Scott1]

However this erronous belief has EVERYTHING to do with a perfect fellowship with the Father.

What is perfect fellowship? And who are you to judge such a thing?

One could conclude that today's church is far weaker then the 1st century church. They cured diseases and sicknesses via mere words. They rose dead people from the grave and walked upon water. They must of had a more purer doctrine in their minds.

Unless you can personally perform these miracles, by your standard, YOUR faith must not be pure..... so how can you then judge the faith of others?

My devotion to the Mother of God has STRENGTHENED my faith in Christ.

Luke 1:46 (KJV) And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

It's right there in the Bible true blood! Her soul MAGNIFIES the Lord..... or do you doubt the Word of God?

Scott

 

[true blood]

ND you are right. I wasn't looking at the issues that way and the topic isn't directly addressed in scripture. I only feel that the zealous devotions and religious observances and prayers unto anyone other then the one true God are very odd because it goes against scripture. Why have a such a religious commitment with a dead woman who rests in her grave still awaiting the resurrection? Im not doubting that such a devotion will strengthen a faith. As I've said before, all information put into ones mind develops ones faith. My goal is to find the true info for my own mind and for me the devotion to a "mother of God" is a step in the wrong direction (for me). Also it's doctrine adopted like in the 3 or 4 century. I'm sceptical of any adopted doctrine post 1st century and even during that period there was a falling away from the truth.

 

[No*s]

ND you are right. I wasn't looking at the issues that way and the topic isn't directly addressed in scripture. I only feel that the zealous devotions and religious observances and prayers unto anyone other then the one true God are very odd because it goes against scripture. Why have a such a religious commitment with a dead woman who rests in her grave still awaiting the resurrection? Im not doubting that such a devotion will strengthen a faith. As I've said before, all information put into ones mind develops ones faith. My goal is to find the true info for my own mind and for me the devotion to a "mother of God" is a step in the wrong direction (for me). Also it's doctrine adopted like in the 3 or 4 century. I'm sceptical of any adopted doctrine post 1st century and even during that period there was a falling away from the truth.

Well, we don't feel it was adopted in the third or fourth century. It's quite well in place in the second, and for those of us that think it's true, the story dates back into the first. In both cases, clearly earlier than the third or fourth century .

On the dead woman, you'd be right, if we believed Mary to be dead. However, Christ promised that those in Him would never perish. He asserted that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but that He is the God of the living not the dead. St. Paul proclaimed "Oh death, where is thy sting, Oh grave where is thy victory?" because death has been emptied out. Lastly, Moses and Elijah went to meet Christ. They were clearly vivified in some sense.

For us, Christ has conquered death...and those in God are not dead, but only their bodies have ceased. He is the resurrection, and He has conquered death utterly. These are Scriptural promises that bear on the issue .

 

[Scott1]

Also it's doctrine adopted like in the 3 or 4 century. I'm sceptical of any adopted doctrine post 1st century and even during that period there was a falling away from the truth.

Does that include the Bible?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey Scott,

were there any portions in the scripture that were written that late??? Most are attributed to the first century, and early second century at the latest, right?

 

[Scott1]

were there any portions in the scripture that were written that late??? Most are attributed to the first century, and early second century at the latest, right?

Hiya Pete..... I believe you are correct..... but remember that there were SEVERAL other books/letters written during the same period. The Book of Enoch (being discussed in another thread is a good example) was referred to as "Scripture" by several of the pre-5th century Church fathers..... the Western Church did note quote from the Book of Hebrews for almost two hundred years.* Edit

...... my point? Scripture was not Scripture for at least another hundred hears after all the Books were written..... just think about how much time it would take for a single letter from Paul to be copied/distributed to ALL the Christian communities.... let alone 10 or 15 of these letters..... and that's assuming that those same Christian communities were not reading/distributing books/letters that did not make it into the Bible.

For true blood to cast doubt on anything that finds its origin in the 3-4 century.... after a honest study of history and the timeline, common sense is gonna tell you that the Bible did not fall hardbound with gold trim from the sky in its present (non-Catholic, of course ) condition..... the Canon of Scripture as we know it (that the Protestant faith changed during the reformation) was defined as such by the early Church.... because of this, I would hope that it should prevent those like true blood who would like to pawn off history as pagan and untrustworthy.... it was not all bad..... I'm kinda fond of the Bible!

Peace my friend,
Scott

 

[No*s]

Hiya Pete..... I believe you are correct..... but remember that there were SEVERAL other books/letters written during the same period. The Book of Enoch (being discussed in another thread is a good example) was referred to as "Scripture" by several of the pre-5th century Church fathers..... the Eastern Church (if I remember correctly) rejected the Book of Hebrews for a time......

...... my point? Scripture was not Scripture for at least another hundred hears after all the Books were written..... just think about how much time it would take for a single letter from Paul to be copied/distributed to ALL the Christian communities.... let alone 10 or 15 of these letters..... and that's assuming that those same Christian communities were not reading/distributing books/letters that did not make it into the Bible.

For true blood to cast doubt on anything that finds its origin in the 3-4 century.... after a honest study of history and the timeline, common sense is gonna tell you that the Bible did not fall hardbound with gold trim from the sky in its present (non-Catholic, of course ) condition..... the Canon of Scripture as we know it (that the Protestant faith changed during the reformation) was defined as such by the early Church.... because of this, I would hope that it should prevent those like true blood who would like to pawn off history as pagan and untrustworthy.... it was not all bad..... I'm kinda fond of the Bible!

Peace my friend,
Scott

Yes, the closed canon is an emphatically post-Nicene phenomena. Even when it was "settled," I don't think it was. Usually I see it dated as settled around 396, because of the Council. However, the Ethiopians are among the Non-Chalcedonians that broke away, and they still have a stubstantially different Bible.

There was only so much space on a scroll, and "Holy" denoted anything as separated from God, and "Scripture" denoted a writing...many books including Enoch and the Didache fit that criteria. With the creation of the codex, though, I think it finally finished crystalizing a few centuries later with some give or take on the OT (but did so differently, the Russian Orthodox Bible differs from the Greek Orthodox Bible, both of which differ from the Roman Catholic Bible, all of which differ from the Ethiopian Bible).

There was no "Bible" in the Early Church, just holy writings .

 

[Scott1]

Great points No*s.... we should start a new thread about this someday.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well, I would be the first to admit that I am terribly ignorant of the "origin of scriptures" and in reality, most of what I know I have gleaned from you two (now ain't THAT a scary thought ).

I have always been amazed at how the scriptures will turn around and define itself for the most part. As Mark Twain once said:

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

I feel the same way and have dedicated my life to implementing the small parts that I do understand.

 

[Scott1]

(now ain't THAT a scary thought )

Hehe.... yes sir.... quite so.

Onward!.... dear friend.... may the Light of the Lord help your understanding of Scripture..... just don't stop trying to learn more about the history.... it will only strenghten your faith.

Scott

 

[No*s]

(now ain't THAT a scary thought ).

In that case...you may be in trouble. I know for my part I'm not adding too much .

 

[madhatter85]

I honestly believe it was meant as a form of revrence towards her regarding her initial virginity. If sex was so bad, why would God make us in a way that we must copulate in order to reproduce? Joseph and Mary were married and i;m sure they probably had even more children after Christ. after all, he had a family he lived with, he knew his cousin, John the Baptist.

 

[Smoke]

Somebody has been digging deep in the archives!

The question is not whether the perpetual virginity of Mary is factual, but whether it's a true Christian doctrine. (At least, I don't take those to mean the same thing.) Of course it is. It's what was believed by all Christians everywhere until relatively recently; it is believed by all the historic churches and was believed by all the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin and right down to John Wesley, who also believed in it. The Biblical passages about the brothers and sisters of Jesus were never any obstacle to the belief, as they were believed to be either his step-siblings (Joseph's children by a previous marriage) or his cousins.

Nor is it based on the idea that sex is bad. It has been and still is believed by Christians who reject all that Augustinian crap about sex.

Many Christians today find it impossible to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary not because they read their Bibles more carefully (they don't), and not because they have healthier attitudes about sex (they don't), but because they have lost the concept of a life that is wholly consecrated to God, even to the exclusion of conventional family relations -- even though both Jesus and Paul taught that such a life was preferable to family life. Although I'm no longer a Christian, I still think that such Christians are much poorer for the loss.

 

[madhatter85]

Somebody has been digging deep in the archives!

The question is not whether the perpetual virginity of Mary is factual, but whether it's a true Christian doctrine. (At least, I don't take those to mean the same thing.) Of course it is. It's what was believed by all Christians everywhere until relatively recently; it is believed by all the historic churches and was believed by all the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin and right down to John Wesley, who also believed in it. The Biblical passages about the brothers and sisters of Jesus were never any obstacle to the belief, as they were believed to be either his step-siblings (Joseph's children by a previous marriage) or his cousins.

Nor is it based on the idea that sex is bad. It has been and still is believed by Christians who reject all that Augustinian crap about sex.

Many Christians today find it impossible to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary not because they read their Bibles more carefully (they don't), and not because they have healthier attitudes about sex (they don't), but because they have lost the concept of a life that is wholly consecrated to God, even to the exclusion of conventional family relations -- even though both Jesus and Paul taught that such a life was preferable to family life. Although I'm no longer a Christian, I still think that such Christians are much poorer for the loss.

Interesting post, I for one have never believed in a perpetual virgin Mary. Nor do i pray to her or put her on a pedistal as some other denominations do.

I do agree with you that most Chrisitans do not read thier bibles carefully, and that they don't have healthy attitudes towards sex.

As far as i am LDS, i have always been taught, and i firmly believe that the family unit is most essential to God's plan. If it was not the case, then why would have Jesus been born into a family. why would we call god our Heavenly Father, why woudl have Jesus called him Father, Why would have God created Adam and Eve, if the family was not the most essential and fundamental social group?

I am unsure as to refrences where a life wholly dedicated to God was preferrable over a family life, and where they say that they cannot co-exist in someone's life.

I do think that is for another thread so, back to the Virgin Mary, I have never seen any scriptural passages to suggest that Mary and Joseph did not do the bedroom mambo after Jesus was born. (I'm sure Joseph would have been a very sad man if he had to live a life of celibacy) hence the scriptual passage in genesis "A man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto hsi wife, and they shall be one flesh" I don;t know about you, but that sounds to me like a sexual act. If It was so bad that people be married and have sex why is it portrayed as a good thing in previous scriptures?

 

[Smoke]

As I'm no longer a Christian, I don't think it's appropriate for me to debate a Christian in the Christian DIR, even in defense of a traditional and once universal Christian belief. Besides, I already said what I had to say about it.