Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?

[systemdown101]

Its lies in the fact that virginity is a blessed state and also Mary is blessed for that because she bore Christ by her virginity. We need to affirm her Ever Virginity because it was in the blessed virgin state that she bore Christ the Logos.

Does it make sense now?

Actually, now it makes even less sense. Is it a miracle that a virgin conceived? Yes. Is it a miracle that a woman is a virgin for the rest of her life? Not really.

This argument is becoming a "he said she said" kind of argument, a "my word against yours" kind of thing. But the Universal Church of Christ has always honored Mary as being "Ever Virgin" because virginity was needed for Christ to be born. We honor Mary because she is the true Ark of the Covenant. This is very important.

Virginity was needed as a sign for Him to be affirmed as the Messiah, but her REMAINING such after His birth and the purification ceremony afterwards was not, as far as I can tell. And now she's called 'The Ark of the Covenant"? Okay, that's just strange. Please don't tell me people believe she had the Ten Commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's Rod inside of her as well.

In any event, this is merely a matter of one tribes religious dogma disagreeing with another tribes, and I don't see it being an issue for salvation or loss of such either way.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Actually, now it makes even less sense. Is it a miracle that a virgin conceived? Yes. Is it a miracle that a woman is a virgin for the rest of her life? Not really.



Virginity was needed as a sign for Him to be affirmed as the Messiah, but her REMAINING such after His birth and the purification ceremony afterwards was not, as far as I can tell. And now she's called 'The Ark of the Covenant"? Okay, that's just strange. Please don't tell me people believe she had the Ten Commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's Rod inside of her as well.

In any event, this is merely a matter of one tribes religious dogma disagreeing with another tribes, and I don't see it being an issue for salvation or loss of such either way.

Is it a miracle that Mary had children with Joseph? No. Not really.
Did Mary have children with Joseph? Scripture does not say that she did.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Actually, now it makes even less sense. Is it a miracle that a virgin conceived? Yes. Is it a miracle that a woman is a virgin for the rest of her life? Not really.



Virginity was needed as a sign for Him to be affirmed as the Messiah, but her REMAINING such after His birth and the purification ceremony afterwards was not, as far as I can tell. And now she's called 'The Ark of the Covenant"? Okay, that's just strange. Please don't tell me people believe she had the Ten Commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's Rod inside of her as well.

In any event, this is merely a matter of one tribes religious dogma disagreeing with another tribes, and I don't see it being an issue for salvation or loss of such either way.

This is what the Church has taught and it is what it is, it is God's will, "but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" ( Romans 9:20)

How do you know that the Will of God is for you to only read your Bible as the ultimate authority? The Scriptures do not teach Sola Scriptura.

 

[systemdown101]

This is what the Church has taught and it is what it is, it is God's will, "but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" ( Romans 9:20)

How do you know that the Will of God is for you to only read your Bible as the ultimate authority? The Scriptures do not teach Sola Scriptura.

I have history on my side that Yeshua and the Bible is the ultimate authority, because of all the many, MANY things the Church has done which have NOT been in accordance with what one would think Yeshua would want done in His name, and which have tarnished His image. I don't think you really want to go there.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I have history on my side that Yeshua and the Bible is the ultimate authority, because of all the many, MANY things the Church has done which have NOT been in accordance with what one would think Yeshua would want done in His name, and which have tarnished His image. I don't think you really want to go there.

No. Not at all. You believe that YOU are the ultimate authority on what the Bible means. Because, you have "history on your side". So you are promoting yourself, not the Bible.

History is on the side of the Church, not of us as individuals.

 

[systemdown101]

No. Not at all. You believe that YOU are the ultimate authority on what the Bible means. Because, you have "history on your side". So you are promoting yourself, not the Bible.

History is on the side of the Church, not of us as individuals.

Oddly enough, I said Yeshua and the Bible are the ultimate authorities and not me. I'm entirely fallible. But I see what you did there. Nice try.

But okay. History is on the side of the Church. Very well. Please explain the Spanish Inquisition and how Yeshua would have completely approved. Because "History is on the side of the Church" And that's just for starters.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Oddly enough, I said Yeshua and the Bible are the ultimate authorities and not me. I'm entirely fallible. But I see what you did there. Nice try.

But okay. History is on the side of the Church. Very well. Please explain the Spanish Inquisition and how Yeshua would have completely approved. Because "History is on the side of the Church" And that's just for starters.

Roman Catholicism is NOT THE CHURCH. The Spanish Inquisition happened OUTSIDE of the Orthodox Church.
Why do you think Papism is "the Church"?
Just because Catholicism claims it is the True Church doesn't make that True!
That's for starters.
History is on the side of the True Church.
Catholicism is a schism from the Church that began in 1054 AD.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Oddly enough, I said Yeshua and the Bible are the ultimate authorities and not me. I'm entirely fallible. But I see what you did there. Nice try.

But okay. History is on the side of the Church. Very well. Please explain the Spanish Inquisition and how Yeshua would have completely approved. Because "History is on the side of the Church" And that's just for starters.

Jesus and the Bible are the ultimate authority. Not really: Jesus Christ and the Church, His Church, are the True Authority. Christ is LORD over His Church. The Bible is a part of the Church; the Church says, because She is led by the Spirit of Christ (John 16:13), what the Bible means.
And that's just for starters! (beginners).

 

[SantoSubito]

Oddly enough, I said Yeshua and the Bible are the ultimate authorities and not me. I'm entirely fallible. But I see what you did there. Nice try.

But okay. History is on the side of the Church. Very well. Please explain the Spanish Inquisition and how Yeshua would have completely approved. Because "History is on the side of the Church" And that's just for starters.

Abuses do not make the Church suddenly become not the Church. Even though the Spanish Inquisition was not a strictly Church affair, it was controlled, funded, and primarily ran by the Spanish crown. In fact most of the people charged with heresy (which was also a secular crime at the time) wanted to be tried in a Church tribunal and not a secular court, since the Inquisitors were much more merciful than their secular counterparts. A trial in a Church tribunal would often result in fines and a long period of public penance if the accused recanted, while the best you could hope for if you recanted in a Spanish court was that they would hang you instead of burning you at the stake (hanging being much quicker and more painless than burning at the stake).

 

[systemdown101]

History is on the side of the True Church.
Catholicism is a schism from the Church that began in 1054 AD.

Well, why didn't you say so! Okay, I can work with this! Let's start with a couple easy ones from BEFORE those Catholics left.

In 306 AD, The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. So, I hope you have never known anyone in the community who was Jewish or dealt with him or her, because the Church says you can't. Please explain to me why this is correct and why you cannot deal with a Jew in the community and why the Church, the One Unchanging Church is correct.

Or how about this one: in 535 AD The Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians. So, what have you done to prevent Jews from holding public office as the Church commands? Please explain to me why this is correct and why God approves of it. How DO you know God approves of it?

For extra credit points, please explain what else the Church should be doing to the Jews. Maybe it hasn't gone far enough? And when you've answered those, I've got more.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Abuses do not make the Church suddenly become not the Church. Even though the Spanish Inquisition was not a strictly Church affair, it was controlled, funded, and primarily ran by the Spanish crown. In fact most of the people charged with heresy (which was also a secular crime at the time) wanted to be tried in a Church tribunal and not a secular court, since the Inquisitors were much more merciful than their secular counterparts. A trial in a Church tribunal would often result in fines and a long period of public penance if the accused recanted, while the best you could hope for if you recanted in a Spanish court was that they would hang you instead of burning you at the stake (hanging being much quicker and more painless than burning at the stake).

Saint Peter never conducted a Spanish Inquisition. No true successor of St. Peter would, either. St. Peter was the leader of the Church at Antioch, so the Patriarchs of Antioch all have Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, too. And unlike some of the popes of Rome, they never had a Spanish Inquisition either.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Well, why didn't you say so! Okay, I can work with this! Let's start with a couple easy ones from BEFORE those Catholics left.

In 306 AD, The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. So, I hope you have never known anyone in the community who was Jewish or dealt with him or her, because the Church says you can't. Please explain to me why this is correct and why you cannot deal with a Jew in the community and why the Church, the One Unchanging Church is correct.

Or how about this one: in 535 AD The Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians. So, what have you done to prevent Jews from holding public office as the Church commands? Please explain to me why this is correct and why God approves of it. How DO you know God approves of it?

For extra credit points, please explain what else the Church should be doing to the Jews. Maybe it hasn't gone far enough? And when you've answered those, I've got more.

Easy. Those are not Ecumenical Councils. Only once a council is accepted by the whole Catholic Church, and this happened only 7 or 8 or maybe 9 times, would it be so for all Orthodox Christians.
In Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile, so Jews, too, can be saved. No Gentile should pride himself at being Gentile or non-Jewish. No Jew should pride himself of being Jewish. Christ said ethnicity does not matter.

 

[systemdown101]

Easy. Those are not Ecumenical Councils. Only once a council is accepted by the whole Catholic Church,

BZZT! Sorry! The Catholic Church does not exist for the purposes of your argument. They left you at 1054. Therefore, we must consider rulings made by the Church, the Unchanging True Church Which Has History On It's Side And Is Unfallible.

But okay: From Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off." Oh, and by the way:

The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto. In the West, Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon an "erratic" one. For the attitude of the Popes, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons see Hefele. However, Pope Hadrian I did write favourably of the canons of this council. The Catholic Church has never accepted the council as authoritative or ecumenical.

I actually thought this was a funny one, funny in that I laughed at it, but okay, let's use it. Please explain why it is you may not, can not, see a Jewish doctor. Do they have cooties? Do you know any Christians who have seen a Jewish doctor? What have you done about it? Did you alert your church? How do you know God would not want you to see a Jewish doctor? How does the Church know this is so? It is unfallible, after all.

The one I really wanted to use next was the one about how the Church said that Jews are not to appear in public around Easter.




By the way, anytime someone says "their" church is unfallible, I laugh. I laugh because it would hurt too much to cry, when you consider all the evils organized religion has done over the centuries. GOD is infallible. Men? Not so much. And the church here on earth? It's made up of men, many of whom only say they're believers, but as often as not abuse their power.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

BZZT! Sorry! The Catholic Church does not exist for the purposes of your argument. They left you at 1054. Therefore, we must consider rulings made by the Church, the Unchanging True Church Which Has History On It's Side And Is Unfallible.

But okay: From Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off." Oh, and by the way:



I actually thought this was a funny one, funny in that I laughed at it, but okay, let's use it. Please explain why it is you may not, can not, see a Jewish doctor. Do they have cooties? Do you know any Christians who have seen a Jewish doctor? What have you done about it? Did you alert your church? How do you know God would not want you to see a Jewish doctor? How does the Church know this is so? It is unfallible, after all.

The one I really wanted to use next was the one about how the Church said that Jews are not to appear in public around Easter.




By the way, anytime someone says "their" church is unfallible, I laugh. I laugh because it would hurt too much to cry, when you consider all the evils organized religion has done over the centuries. GOD is infallible. Men? Not so much. And the church here on earth? It's made up of men, many of whom only say they're believers, but as often as not abuse their power.

Okay. So I should just follow YOUR tradition, whatever it is? If it's not infallible, why do YOU follow it?

 

[systemdown101]

Okay. So I should just follow YOUR tradition, whatever it is? If it's not infallible, why do YOU follow it?

Nice try at a deflection, but I never said *my* church was infallible, much less the Jews. You did. (For the record, neither are infallible or perfect) So, to the question at hand: Are you now, or have you ever taken medicine from a Jew, in direct defiance of the One True Church, the EOC? And if you knew of a Christian who was doing so, what would you do about it? I mean, this IS something the EOC decided was the law. Or you know, what if you were dying and the only doctor who could save you was Jewish? Would your typical member of the EOC rather die than let this hypothetical Jew touch him? What is so bad about Jewish doctors and pharmacists? And why does God not like them?


Also: This really wouldn't be an issue if you weren't saying the EOC is infallible. I have more questions like this one to ask. Many more. Or perhaps you'd just like to admit it isn't quite as perfect as you think it is because the EOC is, at heart, a collection of human beings who are infallible and make mistakes, just like the rest of us do?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

BZZT! Sorry! The Catholic Church does not exist for the purposes of your argument. They left you at 1054. Therefore, we must consider rulings made by the Church, the Unchanging True Church Which Has History On It's Side And Is Unfallible.

But okay: From Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off." Oh, and by the way:



I actually thought this was a funny one, funny in that I laughed at it, but okay, let's use it. Please explain why it is you may not, can not, see a Jewish doctor. Do they have cooties? Do you know any Christians who have seen a Jewish doctor? What have you done about it? Did you alert your church? How do you know God would not want you to see a Jewish doctor? How does the Church know this is so? It is unfallible, after all.

The one I really wanted to use next was the one about how the Church said that Jews are not to appear in public around Easter.




By the way, anytime someone says "their" church is unfallible, I laugh. I laugh because it would hurt too much to cry, when you consider all the evils organized religion has done over the centuries. GOD is infallible. Men? Not so much. And the church here on earth? It's made up of men, many of whom only say they're believers, but as often as not abuse their power.

Sorry! The Orthodox Church IS the Catholic Church. Roman Catholicism FALSELY calls itself "the Catholic Church". That's their fault, not mine. I call the Orthodox Church what She is: the Catholic Church: The Orthodox Catholic Church. If you know the Truth, YOU WILL KNOW THAT!

 

[SantoSubito]

This is strange. Theres a discussion about a council and I actually have no dog in this fight.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Nice try at a deflection, but I never said *my* church was infallible, much less the Jews. You did. (For the record, neither are infallible or perfect) So, to the question at hand: Are you now, or have you ever taken medicine from a Jew, in direct defiance of the One True Church, the EOC? And if you knew of a Christian who was doing so, what would you do about it? I mean, this IS something the EOC decided was the law. Or you know, what if you were dying and the only doctor who could save you was Jewish? Would your typical member of the EOC rather die than let this hypothetical Jew touch him? What is so bad about Jewish doctors and pharmacists? And why does God not like them?


Also: This really wouldn't be an issue if you weren't saying the EOC is infallible. I have more questions like this one to ask. Many more. Or perhaps you'd just like to admit it isn't quite as perfect as you think it is because the EOC is, at heart, a collection of human beings who are infallible and make mistakes, just like the rest of us do?

Don't you understand Matthew 16:18? That's infallibility. Don't you understand Jesus Christ our Saviour said "Get thee behind Me, Satan", to St. Peter? Both are true. Infallible Church. Fallible St. Peter.
The Church is the Body of Christ (Eph. 4). It contains some fallible human beings. As Christ's body, it does err. In its individual members, members can err. Members are not the Church Herself.

I'm not obsessed with the Jewish question. There's nothing wrong with seeing a Jewish doctor. Or any non-Christian doctor. I don't know what you are talking about!

 

[systemdown101]

Don't you understand Matthew 16:18? That's infallibility. Don't you understand Jesus Christ our Saviour said "Get thee behind Me, Satan", to St. Peter? Both are true. Infallible Church. Fallible St. Peter.
The Church is the Body of Christ (Eph. 4). It contains some fallible human beings. As Christ's body, it does err. In its individual members, members can err. Members are not the Church Herself.

I'm not obsessed with the Jewish question. There's nothing wrong with seeing a Jewish doctor. Or any non-Christian doctor. I don't know what you are talking about!

Sure you do. You just don't want to admit it.

You've said the EOC IS the Church. You've said the Church does not err. The Church says you can't see a Jewish doctor or pharmacist. Therefore, you may not. I'm asking you why you can't, what was the reasoning behind it, and how the Church knows that God commanded every Christian to never see a Jewish doctor or pharmacist. I'm also asking you what you would do if someone you loved saw one. Would you report it, and what would the Church do to that person? I mean, this is heresy, and the infallible Church says this person needs to be put out, which I assume means excommunication. Or what if you saw someone getting aspirin from a Jew and didn't report it, would YOU be excommunicated for aiding and abetting a criminal? You say there's nothing wrong with seeing a Jewish doctor, yet the EOC, which can not err, says otherwise. Who is right?

What I am doing here, BTW, is called "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd." I have nothing personal against you or the EOC (as much as it may seem otherwise right now) but your logic is faulty and I'm trying to demonstrate it to you. I could use other EOC commandments as examples for you if you wish, but I thought the one example I used was sort of amusing.

 

[kujo313]

Yes, we can ask Mary to pray for us as also all the other Saints. What is so hard about that? We pray to Mary and the Saints to PRAY TO GOD for us. We do not look at Mary and the Saints as our Savior, because our Savior is Jesus Christ, but we pray to them to pray for us to God.

But you will probably reply, "Me, pray to dead people?", and I will answer you yes, because they are not dead but alive in Christ.

And about 1 Cor 2:2, what makes you think you can project the message that Paul was saying without properly interpreting the text? Sola Scriptura has screwed a whole lot of people up when it comes to theology, it is not an Apostolic Teaching.

Sola Scriptula was good enough for the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

Not only did they receive Paul's teachings with eagerness, but they actually examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Which "Scriptures"? Law and Prophets? What was WRITTEN?

By this time in Acts, Jesus has already risen and ascended to Heaven. Paul had already met with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. Paul learned from them. They all "compared notes", if you will.
If there would've been any thing else added, say like, consulting the dead or "previously alive on planet Earth", putting more focus on Mary or whatever, Paul would've learned it and included such things in his Epistles.
He did not.
Instead, he warned of people like you who come with "another gospel" than what he, himself, taught.

In going back to the "Scriptures" that the Bereans had, check the Law and Prophets. It does NOT say, "a virgin shall give birth and she...." anything.

Sure, all the angels and saints may be in one accord with God in His Will: that all be saved. But it does not mean to pray to any of THEM to pray to God when Jesus taught to go to God, Himself. The parable of the ten virgins: YOU go to WHERE they, the five with oil, WENT to.

Outside Scripture is a slippery slope. It's where things like wearing Mary's scapular or using prayer beads (rosary) to pray the same request to Mary over 50 times in one sitting alone.
It's where you wonder just WAS Mary a virgin all her life or not. It doesn't REALLY matter for the Salvation of mankind wether she did or not. It didn't change the fact that Mary WAS a virgin and gave birth, just as prophecised to be a SIGN for the coming Messiah.

So, again, I say that this whole thread is meaningless and is a waste of time.

If you INSIST on investigating and/or discussing whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus, it is not necessary for Salvation and not a requirement for getting into Heaven.