Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Mary Was Not a Perpetual Virgin

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mary Was Not a Perpetual Virgin

    It is true that God's word teaches that Mary, even though she was a virgin at the time, came to be with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, and Roman Catholicism teaches that correctly. However, the Word of God says not one thing about God preserving Mary's "virginal integrity inviolate" during the birth process of His Son, or that Mary abstained from sexual contact with Joseph her husband after the birth of Christ, but that is exactly the false teaching that the of Roman Catholic Church promulgates. Why do Roman Catholics believe the blatant lies of the RCC instead of God's written truth?
    RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Raynebeau View Post
    It is true that God's word teaches that Mary, even though she was a virgin at the time, came to be with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, and Roman Catholicism teaches that correctly. However, the Word of God says not one thing about God preserving Mary's "virginal integrity inviolate" during the birth process of His Son, or that Mary abstained from sexual contact with Joseph her husband after the birth of Christ, but that is exactly the false teaching that the of Roman Catholic Church promulgates. Why do Roman Catholics believe the blatant lies of the RCC instead of God's written truth?
    Well, when you manufacture a totally FALSE "Goddess Thing" that you want the sheep to worship, it's always a good idea to give it "Super-powers", and maybe a "flying House" too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Raynebeau View Post
      It is true that God's word teaches that Mary, even though she was a virgin at the time, came to be with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, and Roman Catholicism teaches that correctly. However, the Word of God says not one thing about God preserving Mary's "virginal integrity inviolate" during the birth process of His Son, or that Mary abstained from sexual contact with Joseph her husband after the birth of Christ, but that is exactly the false teaching that the of Roman Catholic Church promulgates. Why do Roman Catholics believe the blatant lies of the RCC instead of God's written truth?
      Where does the Bible say that she wasn't a perpetual virgin?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

        Where does the Bible say that she wasn't a perpetual virgin?
        When it tells us about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. 3 ECFs said she had further children and even Catholic bible experts tell us that the terms of brother and

        sister as used in scripture does NOT mean cousin.



        Fr. John P. Meier
        A Marginal Jew -Vol 1
        Rethinking the Historical Jesus
        Imprimitur
        p 328

        "What is the constant usage of the NT in this matter? The answer
        is clear; in the NT, adelphos, when used not merely figuratively
        or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical
        or legal relationship, means only full or half brother, and
        nothing else. Outside our disputed case it never means stepbrother
        (the solution of Epiphanius), cousin (the solution of Jerome),
        or nephew. When one considers that adeophos (in either the literal
        or the metaphorical sense) is used a total of 343 times in the NT,
        the consistency of this "literal" usage is amazing. To ignore the
        strikinglyconstant usage of the NT in this regard, as well as
        the natural redactional sense of the Gospel passage we have already
        examined, and to appeal instead to the usage of koine Greek in various
        Jewish and Pagan texts cannot help but look like special pleading."

        p329

        "Those who wish to use sustain the cousin approach must face the
        further difficulty that it is a relatively late, post Nicene
        solution. By contrast both the Epiphanian solution and the view
        that the "brothers of Jesus" were real brothers can find supporters
        in the 2d and 3d centuries. The antiquity and spread of the opinion
        that the brothers of Jesus were real brothers are often
        overlooked by the cousin approach."

        p331

        "In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means
        cousin or even stepbrother, while there are abundant cases of
        its meaning physical brother(full or half). Hence from a purely
        philological and historical point of view, the most probable
        opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings.
        This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least
        some Church writers up until the late 4th century."

        I can describe the early ECFs on this topic also if you want.

        JohnR

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by highrigger View Post

          When it tells us about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. 3 ECFs said she had further children and even Catholic bible experts tell us that the terms of brother and

          sister as used in scripture does NOT mean cousin.

          JohnR
          You didn't answer the question. Please use the Bible.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

            You didn't answer the question. Please use the Bible.
            mark -
            Could you please use the Bible to explain Roman Catholicism's notion that “virginity” is somehow a holier state than a godly marriage, because the Roman .Catholic Church's "Mary," being labeled as a perpetual virgin, reflects a misguided perception that is contrary to the explicit testimony of the New Testament (1 Timothy 4:1ff; Hebrews 13:4).
            RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Raynebeau View Post

              mark -
              Could you please use the Bible to explain Roman Catholicism's notion that “virginity” is somehow a holier state than a godly marriage, because the Roman .Catholic Church's "Mary," being labeled as a perpetual virgin, reflects a misguided perception that is contrary to the explicit testimony of the New Testament (1 Timothy 4:1ff; Hebrews 13:4).
              It's actually Jesus' position. The Catholic Church believes Jesus.

              Matthew 19:10-12:

              "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry. Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.'"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by highrigger View Post

                When it tells us about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. 3 ECFs said she had further children and even Catholic bible experts tell us that the terms of brother and

                sister as used in scripture does NOT mean cousin.



                Fr. John P. Meier
                A Marginal Jew -Vol 1
                Rethinking the Historical Jesus

                Imprimitur
                p 328

                "What is the constant usage of the NT in this matter? The answer
                is clear; in the NT, adelphos, when used not merely figuratively
                or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical
                or legal relationship, means only full or half brother, and
                nothing else. Outside our disputed case it never means stepbrother
                (the solution of Epiphanius), cousin (the solution of Jerome),
                or nephew. When one considers that adeophos (in either the literal
                or the metaphorical sense) is used a total of 343 times in the NT,
                the consistency of this "literal" usage is amazing. To ignore the
                strikinglyconstant usage of the NT in this regard, as well as
                the natural redactional sense of the Gospel passage we have already
                examined, and to appeal instead to the usage of koine Greek in various
                Jewish and Pagan texts cannot help but look like special pleading."

                p329

                "Those who wish to use sustain the cousin approach must face the
                further difficulty that it is a relatively late, post Nicene
                solution. By contrast both the Epiphanian solution and the view
                that the "brothers of Jesus" were real brothers can find supporters
                in the 2d and 3d centuries. The antiquity and spread of the opinion
                that the brothers of Jesus were real brothers are often
                overlooked by the cousin approach."

                p331

                "In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means
                cousin or even stepbrother, while there are abundant cases of
                its meaning physical brother(full or half). Hence from a purely
                philological and historical point of view, the most probable
                opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings.
                This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least
                some Church writers up until the late 4th century."

                I can describe the early ECFs on this topic also if you want.

                JohnR
                "Fr. Meier represents an old and established tradition of scholarship which gave birth to the Jesus Seminar, and which for over a hundred of years has delighted to deny most of the things taken for granted by traditional Christians. Building upon this liberal tradition, Meier asserts that genuine stories about Jesus can be differentiated from spurious stories about Him by applying several criteria. To his credit, Fr. Meier does not use beads.

                The first criterion is what he calls “the criterion of embarrassment”—stories of Jesus which might cause the Church embarrassment are more likely, he says, to be genuine. Next comes “the criterion of discontinuity”—the notion that if a saying of Jesus finds no echo in earlier Judaism or in the later traditions of the Church it is more likely to be genuine. Next comes “the criterion of multiple attestation”—the notion that if a saying is mentioned in more than one source (the sources being determined entirely by liberal scholars) it is more like to be genuine.

                Applying these criteria, Meier concludes that: Jesus may or may not have been virginally conceived; that He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; that Mary had other children than Jesus. He also concludes that many of the Lord’s miracles are not historically accurate, but are simply creations of the first century church—miracles such as Christ’s healing of the ear of the centurion’s servant cut off in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ’s walking upon the water, His stilling of the storm, and His changing of the water into wine at the wedding at Cana. More might be said, but you get the idea. Meier’s formidable foot-notes (which compromise about half the book) consist of citations of and debates with other scholars, so that reading his work gives one a deep insight into the state of contemporary liberal scholarship. (In fairness, it should be stressed that Meier is at pains to state that his book does not represent his own personal beliefs, but only what can be learned from the assured results of scholarly investigation.)

                That scholarship seems to be the fruit of a hermeneutic of suspicion, one which begins from a place of scepticism. It seems to assume a priori that no statement in the canonical four Gospels should be accepted unless it can prove itself by passing the above-mentioned rigorous criteria. Such radical and deeply-rooted suspicion strikes me as odd. No one, to the best of my knowledge, treats any other historical figure in this way. Certainly historians dismiss some stories told about historical figures as unreliable while they accept other stories, but a predisposition to dump pretty much everything told about Christ in the Gospels unless it can pass a severe liberal grilling by hostile readers seems unusual. One begins to suspect a bias against Christ on the part of those doing the grilling. It is as if Christ is presumed guilty of inauthenticity at the outset, and needs to clear Himself of the charges one by one or stand condemned. This hermeneutic is now thoroughly ingrained (one might say, “enthroned”) in the world of liberal academia, and no one aspiring to stature or university tenure in that world will be accepted unless they conform to this hermeneutical bias."https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/jesus-seminar-john-meier-reliability-gospels/


                I think it is helpful to understand the mindset of the author you quote. He is looking at the Bible as an academic , not as a believer.

                Blessings
                May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and ineffable Name of God be forever praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in Heaven, on Earth, and under the Earth by all the creatures of God and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Amen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Philomena View Post

                  "Fr. Meier represents an old and established tradition of scholarship which gave birth to the Jesus Seminar, and which for over a hundred of years has delighted to deny most of the things taken for granted by traditional Christians. Building upon this liberal tradition, Meier asserts that genuine stories about Jesus can be differentiated from spurious stories about Him by applying several criteria. To his credit, Fr. Meier does not use beads.

                  The first criterion is what he calls “the criterion of embarrassment”—stories of Jesus which might cause the Church embarrassment are more likely, he says, to be genuine. Next comes “the criterion of discontinuity”—the notion that if a saying of Jesus finds no echo in earlier Judaism or in the later traditions of the Church it is more likely to be genuine. Next comes “the criterion of multiple attestation”—the notion that if a saying is mentioned in more than one source (the sources being determined entirely by liberal scholars) it is more like to be genuine.

                  Applying these criteria, Meier concludes that: Jesus may or may not have been virginally conceived; that He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; that Mary had other children than Jesus. He also concludes that many of the Lord’s miracles are not historically accurate, but are simply creations of the first century church—miracles such as Christ’s healing of the ear of the centurion’s servant cut off in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ’s walking upon the water, His stilling of the storm, and His changing of the water into wine at the wedding at Cana. More might be said, but you get the idea. Meier’s formidable foot-notes (which compromise about half the book) consist of citations of and debates with other scholars, so that reading his work gives one a deep insight into the state of contemporary liberal scholarship. (In fairness, it should be stressed that Meier is at pains to state that his book does not represent his own personal beliefs, but only what can be learned from the assured results of scholarly investigation.)

                  That scholarship seems to be the fruit of a hermeneutic of suspicion, one which begins from a place of scepticism. It seems to assume a priori that no statement in the canonical four Gospels should be accepted unless it can prove itself by passing the above-mentioned rigorous criteria. Such radical and deeply-rooted suspicion strikes me as odd. No one, to the best of my knowledge, treats any other historical figure in this way. Certainly historians dismiss some stories told about historical figures as unreliable while they accept other stories, but a predisposition to dump pretty much everything told about Christ in the Gospels unless it can pass a severe liberal grilling by hostile readers seems unusual. One begins to suspect a bias against Christ on the part of those doing the grilling. It is as if Christ is presumed guilty of inauthenticity at the outset, and needs to clear Himself of the charges one by one or stand condemned. This hermeneutic is now thoroughly ingrained (one might say, “enthroned”) in the world of liberal academia, and no one aspiring to stature or university tenure in that world will be accepted unless they conform to this hermeneutical bias."https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/jesus-seminar-john-meier-reliability-gospels/


                  I think it is helpful to understand the mindset of the author you quote. He is looking at the Bible as an academic , not as a believer.

                  Blessings
                  so you pit what 1 priest believes and says, against what another priest believes and says. great unity amongst priests!


                  "I was changed, redeemed, forgiven before the blood was dry.

                  The debt I owed was canceled in the twinkling of an eye."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

                    It's actually Jesus' position. The Catholic Church believes Jesus.

                    Matthew 19:10-12:

                    "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry. Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.'"
                    No mark, if it was actually Jesus' position, then it would be written in the Holy Scriptures, but it's not. That is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church had to base its belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary upon their own contrived Roman Catholic Tradition, and upon their very own philosophical considerations, in order to come up with the unscriptural teaching that “virginity” is somehow a holier state than a godly marriage, because the Roman .Catholic Church's "Mary," was being labeled as a perpetual virgin. Again, this all reflects a misguided perception that is contrary to the explicit testimony of the New Testament (1 Timothy 4:1ff; Hebrews 13:4).
                    RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mica View Post
                      so you pit what 1 priest believes and says, against what another priest believes and says. great unity amongst priests!

                      what two priests, mica? JohnR quoted Meier, and so did Philomena
                      Last edited by Curious Joe; 05-25-18, 05:19 PM.
                      Though the godless poured poison in to your veins, your heart still beats with love for Christ,
                      O bishop Theodore, martyred father, who now raise your prayers before the Throne of God.

                      [Kontakion of Blessed Theodore (Byzantine-Ruthenian usage)]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Raynebeau View Post

                        No mark, if it was actually Jesus' position, then it would be written in the Holy Scriptures, but it's not.
                        I just quoted Jesus in the Holy Scriptures.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mark Rome View Post

                          I just quoted Jesus in the Holy Scriptures.
                          Mary was a eunuch?

                          "I was changed, redeemed, forgiven before the blood was dry.

                          The debt I owed was canceled in the twinkling of an eye."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mica View Post

                            Mary was a eunuch?
                            Oh look a balloon!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by highrigger View Post

                              When it tells us about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. 3 ECFs said she had further children and even Catholic bible experts tell us that the terms of brother and

                              sister as used in scripture does NOT mean cousin.



                              Fr. John P. Meier
                              A Marginal Jew -Vol 1
                              Rethinking the Historical Jesus
                              Imprimitur
                              p 328

                              "What is the constant usage of the NT in this matter? The answer
                              is clear; in the NT, adelphos, when used not merely figuratively
                              or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical
                              or legal relationship, means only full or half brother, and
                              nothing else. Outside our disputed case it never means stepbrother
                              (the solution of Epiphanius), cousin (the solution of Jerome),
                              or nephew. When one considers that adeophos (in either the literal
                              or the metaphorical sense) is used a total of 343 times in the NT,
                              the consistency of this "literal" usage is amazing. To ignore the
                              strikinglyconstant usage of the NT in this regard, as well as
                              the natural redactional sense of the Gospel passage we have already
                              examined, and to appeal instead to the usage of koine Greek in various
                              Jewish and Pagan texts cannot help but look like special pleading."

                              p329

                              "Those who wish to use sustain the cousin approach must face the
                              further difficulty that it is a relatively late, post Nicene
                              solution. By contrast both the Epiphanian solution and the view
                              that the "brothers of Jesus" were real brothers can find supporters
                              in the 2d and 3d centuries. The antiquity and spread of the opinion
                              that the brothers of Jesus were real brothers are often
                              overlooked by the cousin approach."

                              p331

                              "In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means
                              cousin or even stepbrother, while there are abundant cases of
                              its meaning physical brother(full or half). Hence from a purely
                              philological and historical point of view, the most probable
                              opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings.
                              This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least
                              some Church writers up until the late 4th century."

                              I can describe the early ECFs on this topic also if you want.

                              JohnR
                              here are excerpts from a paper by catholics and evangelicals regarding Mary's virginity. https://www.firstthings.com/web-excl...sters-of-jesus

                              ....Bauckham argues first that Meier’s contention that the word adelphos would not have been used of stepbrothers, cousins, or nephews does not hold water as a linguistic argument. Among other reasons, he notes that Meier himself supposes that Mark’s use of adelphos in Mark 6:17 must have meant “half brother” rather than “brother,” because Philip was Herod’s half brother. Why then should one suppose that the use of “adelphos” with respect to Jesus’ brothers and sisters cannot mean “half brother” or “stepbrother”? .....

                              ....In his essay “The Brothers of Jesus and His Mother’s Virginity,” José M. Pedrozo defends the position taken by Jerome, against the criticisms set forth by John P. Meier. Pedrozo limits his discussion to examining the patristic evidence for the various viewpoints. He argues that Meier exaggerates the place of the Helvidian view before the fourth century. The first example given by Pedrozo comes from Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History. As Pedrozo says, “Meier seems to think that the simple use of the terms ‘cousin’ and ‘uncle’ in Eccl. Hist. 4.22.4 and the denotation of James as ‘the brother of the Lord’ in Eccl. Hist. 2.23.4 (two texts from different contexts) are sufficient to validate his point of view.” But Pedrozo argues that Hegesippus, from whom the fragment comes, describes Symeon as being elected to replace James, because Symeon, as the son of Clopas, is a second cousin¯second to the first, James....
                              ....Rather, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the burden is an ecclesial task that has as its object the entirety of the biblical witness. When the early Fathers shared in this burden, they concluded both that the New Testament offers no proof that Mary was the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, and that the living Mary discerned through ecclesial contemplation of the biblical texts had no child but Jesus Christ....
                              Last edited by ramcam2; 05-25-18, 07:45 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X