Though, again, I think y'all can believe what you want, the idea that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus plays into the Gnostic thought. After all, they did not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They taught that the material world was evil. Therefore, to say Jesus passed through the birth canal without changing Mary physically would have played into the false beliefs of the Gnostics. But Jesus WAS in physical, human form, he WAS/IS God incarnate - in the flesh. To teach Mary remained a virgin would BE Gnostic teaching, NOT Christianity.
I fully believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. He is the Messiah and that miracle was foretold in Isaiah 7:14. I also honor her faith and courage as well as her faithfulness to Jesus. But, teachings such as her perpetual virginity, her being the Mother of God, her sinlessness and it being necessary for her to bear Christ, her bodily assumption into Heaven and her role as mediator and dispenser of all graces I will pass on. Not only are these teachings NOT Scriptural, they even contradict Scripture. This is just one more proof to me that the Catholic Church is NOT the "catholic" church.
Who quoted it? If thats the one I remember. That’s not what it reads it again. He is comparing it back. Also I will check it out for you. When you take a writing you compare it to everything else written by same author.
By what right do you assume that Mary was a fallen creature when God himself had chosen her as his own? The Bible Tells us that it was because of her disobedience that Eve was to suffer in childbirth. You say you believe in the Virgin Birth. Why then deny a miracle of much less consequence.? Mary was no spirit, but the second Eve, and unlike the first God’s obedient servant. The same Christ who passed through closed doors, who could command the spirits of Elijah and Moses to the top of the mountain, could not come into the world as he pleased and without harm to his mother?
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.