A scriptural defense of the Perpetual virginity of Mary

Verga | 4/15/16 | Verga

[daniel1212]

You can argue all you want that from literal-historical hermeneutics a perpetually virgin Mary is nonsense, but you are going to find out that the RCC allegorical approach to the Mary paradigm has such a firm grasp on simony and so much SPAM that it is to Romanists therefore both an honorable and just ploy to cement customers to the brand such that they will never give it up and go back to true New Testament doctrine.

Too much the case, but many have seen the light, thanks be to God. The amount of labour and contrivances Mary worshipers must go thru in order to attempt to provide a semblance of support for such traditions testifies to the fact these teachings did not become established due to the weight of Scriptural warrant, and that this is not the basis for the veracity of Cath teaching anyway. And because it is not, it also that testifies that Catholicism did change the Bible, as it would not have been hard to at least add a word of special praise to Mary in the espistles to the churches, and or a word about her perpetual virginity, or at least just remove the "till" from "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25)

But since that was not practical, and because Truth is only what Catholicism says it is, then that did not happen.

[Iscool]

They used Greek, even for the OT (the Septuagint). Even the Jews used Greek then. I’ve been told that some of the Fathers used Aramaic but I’ve never been able to confirm that.

It's always been my understanding the the Greek Orthodox used the Old Latin Bible (not Jerome's Vulgate) and the church still has some copies of that translation...I also understand that the Old Latin matches the KJV and not the Septuagint...

[HossB86]

You mean like Mohammed and the Koran being dictated to him by Gabriel?

Nice try for a Straw Man. Fail.

When we read Scripture we read God's Word. I'm not reading the Koran. I'm reading God's word.

Hoss

[HossB86]

What we have here are drive-by internet “theologians” attempting to undermine the solid Catholic teaching of two millennia. Not only is this irrefutable Catholic teaching as the Church founded by Christ and instructed to teach ONE truth for ALL times to ALL people

You might have a point -- were your statement true. But, unfortunately for Roman Catholicism, it's not. Christ didn't found the Roman Catholic Church. He founded Christianity... not Catholicanity. Yet, Catholicanity tends to be what's "practiced" instead of Christianity. As for the Catholic Church's claim to teach one truth all times to all people, let me ask you about this "truth":

Is Mary a "mediatrix" as is taught (apparently as ONE truth in the CCC)? CCC 969 states that Mary, in part:

"...she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..."

So, does the Catholic Church teach that Mary brings "gifts of salvation?" Is that part of the ONE truth to which you allude? If so, it's heresy. It's a falsehood and a false gospel. Why? Let's look at God's Word:

John 14:6 says (and can be understood without being a theologian):
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

Hmmm. NO one comes to the Father except through me... and my mother? NO. Christ alone. So, by one simple verse, we see that CCC 969 teaches FALSEHOOD.

But, let us continue.

I mentioned the whole "mediatrix" thing. In CCC 969 it says:
"Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

Yet, in 1 Timothy 2:5 we find:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus,"

Again.... ONE mediator. Doesn't say TWO mediators, or a A mediator and A mediatrix.... Only Christ. Yet, CCC 969 teaches as part of that "one truth" that Mary does something that God's very word -- his inerrant, God-breathed word refutes. It's plain. It's simple. No "drive by theologian" needed. Only simple reading skills and the ability to see what's written in God's word, and that it contradicts the Roman Catholic false gospel.

As for your other converts from Protestantism, well, all I can say is the Devil is busy, isn't he? No doubt those folks weren't saved.

So... since God's word refutes this one piece of filth (CCC 969), the rest of the rotten structure can't be too difficult to expose -- and it has been.

Hoss

[imardmd1]

Just in English, or English interpretations of Greek, or do other languages make the cut too?

You're not making sense here, Scholar. What has this to do with what I wrote and you didn't read?

BTW, what are “heretristics”?

A new word I just coined for my vocabulary, and perhaps for others, too. A merging of "heretics" and "patristics" of whom most were stabbing in the dark at the religion of the Christ of the Cross with the spear of Platonism and other Gentile philosophies they wouldn't let go of and be converted. The ones who were undiscipled in the Word, who twisted everything that the Apostles Peter and Paul recorded:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned* and unstable** wrest, as they
do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before,
beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for
ever. Amen." (2Pe 3:15-18)

* αμαθεις from the verb manthano to learn, from which we get unlearned, but as applied to learners of The Faith (μαθηται = disciples), in this context it means "undiscipled"; that is, not treated with the same personal supervision as the Twelve and Paul were, and after them the men John Mark, Timothy, and Luke that they trained in the doctrines of The Christ. Pew-warming is not discipleship.

** αστηρικτοι unstable, vacillating; in this context implies doctrinally unfixed

Doubtless Peter, addressing the Jewish Diaspora, was having the same problems with undiscipled religious wanna-bes that were plaguing Paul (Phil. 3:17-20) and Beloved John (2 Jn, 3 Jn). Even Jesus was disappointed with local church leaders in Asia (Rev. 1,2,3).

Do you know the difference between worship and veneration?

Duhhhh. They're the same in the Biblical context, with only a sliding scale as to the perceived intensity. There is no point at which "veneration" ceases and becomes "worship." Don't think you can play games with which language expresses it. The golden standard is the Koine Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic in which God's Will is exactly transmitted, and from which any other language is informed as to linguistics. There is one word in the Greek, and one word in the Hebrew. They are exactly equivalent to each other, and they only relate to one's attitude toward God, not any fellow human.

Please don't ask this question again.

[Steelfish]

There you go again. Selective quotes that have been demolished by theologians through the centuries including Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism. You exclude references to the the explicit mission given to Peter as the rock on which Christ founds His Church with the unequivocal authority that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven etc....

Similarly, you show no understanding of the sacred oral tradition that existed prior to scripture and was used as a reference point to cross-check the accuracy of the many written scripts by the early Church fathers.

Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No. The Bible itself states that their are “oral” teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers “Sacred Apostolic Tradition.”

In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

You might like to know what Dr. A. David Anders has to say. He was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College. He set out deliberately to show why Catholicism was wrong. This was a long historical and scholarly quest. He ended up a Catholic convert.

He brilliantly essays the belief in the Eucharist and other Catholic doctrine in these compelling terms:

Here’s a quote from his conversion process to Catholicism:

“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles. “

“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.”

The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”

[boatbums]

Sorry not jumping through your hoops. My case was fully proven, some just don’t care about the truth enough to see it.

See, I knew you only posted this thread NOT to discuss the subject but to present what you probably thought was an airtight open and closed defense of your "case". Your boastful presumption added to your posting history has resulted in just another warmed over, stale rehashing of what others have written books on - and you conclude those who disagree with your case do so because we "don't care about the truth". What gall! I do hope you didn't imagine you would change anyone's mind.

[imardmd1]

In the OT translation, Jerome tossed the Septuagint as being unreliable and instead, translate from the Hebrew. Part of the reason the Septuagint had to be discarded was that so mny of the New Testament verses being explained by Jesus, Paul, and others were a kind of targum on the OT reference (Lk. 4:18-19 vs Is. 61:1, 2a; Heb 10:5 vs Ps. 40:6); and being so, there were some differences. The Greek OT having become presided over by Hellenistic Christians whose ethic was way less than that of the very careful Jews with the Hebrew, the newcomwer Gentiles just copied over the NT changes into the LXX. And now, we have “scholars” trying to convince us that the LXX was more faithful to the OT than the Jew-maintained Hebrew in which it was written! Circular logic, not squaring up to the facts!

[boatbums]

I know you didn’t read it because I provided example’s of what it meant directly from scripture. Any one that is foolish enough to think betrothed means merely engaged, has never read the Bible for any depth.

No, you are wrong. I did read it -stop insinuating I lied. I never said betrothal was like modern engagement - you were the one doing that when you insisted Joseph couldn't have divorced Mary unless they were "married". Here's what you said which prompted my little lesson on Old Testament Jewish betrothal:

No She was BETROTHED. For all intents and purposes they were WED. If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her. Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.” Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9. On the way to Bethlehem the Scripture still refers to them as BETROTHED.

Can you not understand what I was trying to clarify to you?

[Elsie]

"Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

Jeanie was INVOKED by rubbing the lamp!

[Elsie]

No doubt those folks weren't saved.

We've no evidence of this.

The bible warns about being led astray; after knowing the Truth.

[verga]

That is absurd! If anyone would be stoned it would be Mary,

That is exactly what I said: Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.Learn to read.

[verga]

Please remember it actually takes intelligence to convert to the Catholic Church, it only takes hurt feelings to leave.

[verga]

You “Clarified” nothing. I am the one providing clarity, some refuse to accept it.

[daniel1212]

That is exactly what I said: Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.Learn to read.

Yes, that is what it said. Sorry, it was a long day with a lot of reading, but with one less absurdity for you.

[HossB86]

Morning Elsie!

That's true; we don't know for certain. Yet, the Bible says once we belong to God, no one can snatch us from his hand. I would think that would include US as well. But they are at the very least deluded.

Hoss

[HossB86]

The post you replied to was post 304; yet I see that you have not referenced anything from that post to refute, particularly the blasphemy postulated by the Roman Catholic Church in CCC 969. If this is to what you refer with "selective quotes" just saying that there have have been theologians who have "demolished" them tells me nothing. How did they demolish God's word? Simple passages that refute Roman teaching that speak plainly.

Why haven't you answered post 304?

Hoss

[PeterPrinciple]

different between what the Church taught and what Scripture taught

---

A few thoughts:

I think you said something there that should not be passed over too quickly.

Joh 6:31 After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, ‘Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Joh 6:32 Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now He offers you the true bread from heaven.

Doesn’t the above verse 31 sound familiar? They are quoting scripture. Moses gave them the bread. We read the Bible and say, where would they get that?

Exo 16:15 The Israelites were puzzled when they saw it. “What is it?” they asked each other. They had no idea what it was. And Moses told them, “It is the food the LORD has given you to eat.

So what is the source of this “scripture” they are quoting? Tradition says that Moses gave them the manna. Tradition has become confused with scripture. Tradition is a higher authority than Gods word. And what is the source of that tradition passed on since the beginning? It is the Talmud. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_rabbinic_literature

Of course Jesus quickly addresses that matter with the truth.

RC has a long history of established traditions they lay claim to. Sadly protestants have traditions too and we as individuals have traditions. The first few chapters of Revelation give us strong warning to reform and get back on target. Jesus knew we would drift........................

[verga]

See, I knew you only posted this thread NOT to discuss the subject but to present what you probably thought was an airtight open and closed defense of your "case".....What gall! I do hope you didn't imagine you would change anyone's mind.

I trust I will see similar comments from you when metmom makes her regular (Daily?) "Studying God’s Word ping"

I wrote and posted this for two reasons:
1) It is the absolute unvarnished truth that needed to be said and heard.
2) Not one of you can say that "There is no scriptural backing for the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary."
If you are honest the very most you can say is: "There is scriptural backing, we just choose to read/ interpret it differently."

[MHGinTN]

LOL, you can't even complete your first paragraph without contradicting the 'ECF' 9the early church fathers) you intend to stake your beliefs upon! ... "You exclude references to the the explicit mission given to Peter as the rock on which Christ founds His Church " If Elsie felt like it, he could post a long list of Ramanish ECFs who taught that it was the profession which Peter made under Holy Spirit guidance upon which JESUS stated that He would build HIS CHURCH, not romanism.

But wait! There's more!

You asserted, "Similarly, you show no understanding of the sacred oral tradition that existed prior to scripture" and that is stated (giving you the benefit of the doubt) in such a non-specific way as to be useless drivel. The Bible of Judaism had been around for a very long time and Paul referred heavily to it and taught his new born Christians what they needed to know for their growth in Grace and knowledge. When Paul wrote to Timotheus, what SCRIPTURES do you suppose Paul was referring to that Timotheus should study to show himself approved, a workman worthy of his hire? And what do you suppose the Bereans searched daily in order to confirm what Paul and Barnabas had been teaching them? And we could go on, to note the words of Peter, instructing newborns in Christ to consult the teachiong of Paul, which can still be found in letters written by Paul to various gatherings of believers who were born from above ... and when do you suppose those letters started to be generated ... Paul gives you all the clues to have a very firm pattern for dating the letters, if you actually studied The Letters and Paul's words, instead of blindly following the magicsteerignthem dictates.

But wait! There's more!

You asserted: "Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No." And I would agree with that! Prophecy is direct communication from God to man and is not scripture until recorded in print. Trouble with catholiciism is, your traditions contradict the character of God and the Word of God. One simple example will show this, though the contradictions run wide and deep in the religion of catholiciism:

Where do the Laws given in Leviticus originate? An ignorant catholic might jump in with, 'They were Judaism laws, not Christian laws.' But that ignores the reality that God gave those laws and JESUS confirmed that those laws would not pass away. Yet the catholic Mass poses gross violation of those laws as the basis for the authority of the pagan rite called catholic Mass(es). Do you even know why those laws will not pass away? ... They give an outline of the CHARACTER of God The Father Almighty! God is not a liar, therefore thou shalt not bear false witness. God is not a murderer from the start --satan is, and he murders souls daily-- hence the law that thou shalt not commit MURDER. God made the living things to have their LIFE in their blood. The life is in the blood --the blood is not life, the life is IN the blood. Therefore God commanded for all their generations that they shall not eat the blood, for therein is the life of the living thing. Yet catholic Mass commands adherents to eat the blood of Jesus Christ ... a more satanic demiurge you will not find!

Like Mormons, catholics want to insist that they have the ONLY true Christianity. Also like the Mormons, the catholic hierarchy is absolutely the opposite of Christianity, as illustrated with that simple lesson on the catholic Mass.

And I will end this with the following assertion. You cite David Anders as a prime example of catholic fealty. But in reality David Anders is a prime example of an unregenerate man falling prey to the great lies sown in catholiciism by the father of lies: "He brilliantly essays the belief in the Eucharist and other Catholic doctrine". Such a lack of discernment of the idolatry of the catholic Mass is evidence of a dead soul. The catholic Mass has several idolatrous aspects, not the least of which is claiming to eat in a wheat wafer the SOUL and DIVINITY OF GOD! And these wheat wafers are carried around in a closed box and veneration is directed to this box of wafers, as if these are the real presence of Jesus Christ kept sequestered in a box until a paganism priest takes him out for their purposes! And that added to the blasphemy of eating the blood of Jesus Christ, the real blood, but magically remaining hidden from view by seeing the wheat wafer when 'it has been transubstantiated' by the magic incantation of the catholic priest!

God can 'wink' at ignorance, but you have cited men you believe to be scholars, and chrisitians and catholics. They might be scholars, and catholic, but they are not Christians if they can study the catholic Mass and conclude it to be Christian.