A scriptural defense of the Perpetual virginity of Mary

Verga | 4/15/16 | Verga

[MHGinTN]

well and truly stated ... and thank you for that bit of education.

[Kandy Atz]

Excellent point. We are on shifting sand when we stray from the Rock of God’s Truth.

[MHGinTN]

ping

[rwa265]

I would guess that the Akathist is much more eloquent in Greek.

[Elsie]

So; Rome repels dummies; eh?

[Elsie]

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.

I believe US is NOT in the list for a reason.

Hebrews 6:4-6

[Elsie]

You asserted: "Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?”

Then I'll ask a Catholic:

"Is the bible adequate enough teaching from GOD?"

[MHGinTN]

The ping was an invitation to post that list of ECFs refuting that ‘Peter is the rock’ assertion. ... And this time I’m gonna add it to my desktop file.

[HossB86]

I was going by John 10:28-30...

Hebrews says elightened — maybe not saved. As has been pointed out, I’m no theologian. But I believe what Christ said — when we’re saved, no one can snatch us out of his hand. And if God is sovereign, we can’t snatch ourselves out either.

Only God knows if those folks are saved.

Hoss

[boatbums]

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

Won't need to since she is posting articles from Bible teachers and pastors - not her own work. She doesn't post them and then challenge everyone to prove the writer wrong like you did here. Your intent was crystal clear in writing what you did and the fact that you are incapable of hearing opposing views without accusing others of not reading, being ignorant, lacking intelligence, etc., only proves it.

I wrote and posted this for two reasons:
1) It is the absolute unvarnished truth that needed to be said and heard.

Unvarnished??? Nope, you slathered on the varnish so thick there was very little "truth" showing at all. Do you think you stated anything new or undiscovered over the dozens of times this topic has come up in the past?

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."

There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion? Here's the thing verga, IF there really was Scriptural proof of this dogma I WOULD accept it. You really don't have undeniable proof from Scripture and more than a few places in Scripture that prove the opposite. It is you who seems to be unwilling to be honest about them.

Why can't you just agree to disagree seeing as this is not a salvific tenet of the Christian faith? I certainly can. I'll bet metmom can, too.

[mitch5501]

"Why can't you just agree to disagree seeing as this is not a salvific tenet of the Christian faith?"

No it's not but wresting the scriptures certainly could be.

[boatbums]

The unlearned and unstable do that - to their OWN destruction.

Where Catholicism erred is by having a pope declare this a dogmatic truth under an ex cathedra pronouncement. This makes belief in this a mandatory matter of faith for Catholics with some of them asserting it must also apply to all of Christendom. That's why we have these never ending, never resolved arguments on the RF. Trying to prove it by Scripture is futile. Not only does it not say that in Scripture, it is disputed by Scripture. That's why they must place God's word on equal footing with their traditions and their magesterium.

Nice to hear from you! How's the weather? My nephew and his wife just got back from vacation from there and New Zealand. They had a great time. I'd love to visit there one day.

[chasio649]

I worry naught about Mary...Jesus is the big guy....Mary is an afterthought. I am extremely comfortable with that...no need to comment to me. I am not Catholic and never will be :)

[verga]

Virtually everything in there was directly from the scripture, except for one passage from the Talmud which confirmed the Jewish understanding of Deuteronomy.

There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion?

Difficulty withy the reading again. Go back, I clear said there is scriptural proof, You (ALL) just don't accept it.

[verga]

The unlearned and unstable do that - to their OWN destruction.

Admitting your error is the first step to correcting it. I am glad you have taken such a bold step. I will pray for your further improvement.

[Elsie]

We’ll have to disagree here.

I don’t think my free will vanished when I got ‘saved’.

If; at some point; I no longer ‘believe’ in the One; I’m toast.

[Elsie]

Admitting your error is the first step to correcting it.

Yup...

But first one has to see the error; THEN own it.

[metmom]

Yup, I can, too.

[HossB86]

That's the wonderful difference between Protestant and RCC -- we can disagree on minor issues like this because the REQUIREMENT for salvation is faith alone. Our disagreements don't hinge on our soul's fate.

Hoss

[MHGinTN]

Your private interpretation 'proves it' for the religion of catholiciism, but since that is an 'other gospel' it matters nothing in Christianity and since the scriptures refute your private interpretation, there is little left to even discuss.

You put a lot of effort into that essay. Sadly, your mind is so biased by the catholiciism interpretations that you are apparently unable to see where there is a massive difference in catholiciism and Christianity. We can't fix that.