Does the Ever-virginity of Mary Contradict Scripture?

[lil_christian]

That's why I'm lone wolfin' it. Your views concerning that matter are very Catholic.

Ok I've said it once and I'll say it again. This is what I believe:

I believe that even though I have made the choice to believe in Jesus Christ, that did not save me, nor does it make me superior to the salvation. Jesus is the one that saved me. It's not what I did that saved me, it's what HE did that saved me. There is no other besides Jesus. Only He can wash away my sins. Christianity is a daily walk with Jesus...repenting of my sin, dying to self daily...more of Him, less of me. Obeying Him and His Holy Word. Hiding it in my heart that I might not sin against Him. Going out and telling others of the Good News. Ready to share of the hope that is within me.

 

[SantoSubito]

Well that's good that YOUR CHURCH condemns it. However. It does not mean your church is the true church. Again, Your whole foundation in this so called doctrine is based on might be's and maybe's. God has never based any doctrine he ever had on might be and maybe's.

It was all the Christian Bishops from England to Jerusalem that gather to condemn Nestorius and his view. No branch of orthodox Christianity accepts your view Catholic or Protestant.

mary bore Christ's humanity. She did not bore God. God never had a beginning or end. Those are the facts. Jesus himself said this when he made it clear, "Before abraham was I AM. He existed outside of time and space. The flesh Mary Gave Christ brought him into time and space. But she did not bore God. God was before mary,

Saying that Mary bore God in her womb is not saying she created God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Your still not getting it. In English the word "until" does imply a change of state after an event, but the Greek word for "until" does not imply a change of state after an event, it only addresses what happened up to an event and not what happened after. The only reason we even translate as "until" is because that's the closest we can get. The only way to convey the meaning of the Greek word "until" in that passage would be to use a whole sentence in English.

No your not getting it. The word until in the english greek or any language means that what is stated to happen happens UNTIL THAT TIME and that time only. It does not convay what happens AFTER that time. So you can not use this as an excuse to back up your doctrine. All you can do is confirm that the passage shows until the birth of her first born. She had not slept with a man. In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM can you prove that AFTER this event mary did or did not sleep with her husband.

1. Mary had the ability after
2. Mary was free to do what she was commanded not to do after this.
3. Jospeh was commanded to stay away until this time. Nothing states joseph was not free to "Have his wife" after this time.

When "Until happened" the command was completed. Nothing states the command followed AFTER this event took place.

Again, you can't use your OT example, because the woman in Question was UNABLE to have kids after she died. This it could never be infered she did. Mary did not die. and joseph did not die,

 

[jimmydiggs]

Ok I've said it once and I'll say it again. This is what I believe:

I believe that even though I have made the choice to believe in Jesus Christ, that did not save me, nor does it make me superior to the salvation. Jesus is the one that saved me. It's not what I did that saved me, it's what HE did that saved me. There is no other besides Jesus. Only He can wash away my sins. Christianity is a daily walk with Jesus...repenting of my sin, dying to self daily...more of Him, less of me. Obeying Him and His Holy Word. Hiding it in my heart that I might not sin against Him. Going out and telling others of the Good News. Ready to share of the hope that is within me.

Pelagius <--- read up on that

 

[lil_christian]

That's because it's not a Sunday comic strip you find in the bible. It requires study.

Whaa? :O You mean, going to Reverendfun.com doesn't help me understand the Bible?? :O

Haha, just kidding. It DOES require study. But God intended it to not be so hard that the average Christian couldn't understand it studying/meditating on it. That's what I mean.

 

[jimmydiggs]

As to the subject of the thread.


I've never understood why it matters as to whether Mary had been a virgin to the day she died, or if she had ten thousand kids. As far as I have seen thus far, it makes no difference theologically.

 

[jimmydiggs]

But God intended it to not be so hard that the average Christian couldn't understand it studying/meditating on it. That's what I mean.

At this point, that's an opinion.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96yuKUzrqWw[/video]

 

[SantoSubito]

No, I've been pretty much been using the King James for this debate. I've used the New American Standard Version. But it doesn't really stray far from the King James Version. It doesn't have the "Thy's" "thee's" and "thou's" and old English kind of style.

Your point? the KJV is no more infallible than the NASB is or the NIV for that matter. It's certainly more fallible than the Greek manuscripts. There is a reason why no credible Protestant scholar tries to argue the "until" line against the Perpetual Virginity, because they know as well as their Catholic counterparts that the word "until" in Greek doesn't imply a change of state after an event.

 

[lil_christian]

The KJV Isn't as great as the IFB or "Bible Baptists" claim.

I say the bible is the Bible...unless it's certain Translations like the NIV or The Message (The Message makes me cringe. It's THE WORST you could ever read.) I haven't looked into many more translations besides the KJV, NASB, NIV, and The Message.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I say the bible is the Bible...unless it's certain Translations like the NIV or The Message (The Message makes me cringe. It's THE WORST you could ever read.) I haven't looked into many more translations besides the KJV, NASB, NIV, and The Message.

Don't let yourself be deceived into KJV-Onlyism. The KJV isn't the most reliable bible. All vary.

 

[lil_christian]

Your point? the KJV is no more infallible than the NASB is or the NIV for that matter. It's certainly more fallible than the Greek manuscripts. There is a reason why no credible Protestant scholar tries to argue the "until" line against the Perpetual Virginity, because they know as well as their Catholic counterparts that the word "until" in Greek doesn't imply a change of state after an event.

Well first off, I don't read/speak Greek. My DAD does. Second off, I haven't seen a Greek Bible anywhere. Even then, there is more than one language in the Bible.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It was all the Christian Bishops from England to Jerusalem that gather to condemn Nestorius and his view. No branch of orthodox Christianity accepts your view Catholic or Protestant.

so this means I am wrong? Thanks. The pharisees made the same argument to Jesus, and what did jesus use to refute their claims? Scripture.

Saying that Mary bore God in her womb is not saying she created God.

Mary did not bare God in her womb. she bore the flesh of Christ. who do you think gave Christ his flesh? God the son was alive before mary became pregnant, while she was pregnant. and after she gave birth to the flesh.

When I die. the flesh my mother gave me will die. The soul God gave me will live on.

The soul of Christ was not bore by any human being, It is eternal in all ways, he had no beginning and no end. These are the words of God himself. and no orthodoxy can trump the words of God.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Says who?? You?

Was Christ in human flesh when he created the earth?
Was Christ in human flesh when he walked with Adam?
Was Christ in human flesh when he was in the burning bush?
Was Christ in human flesh when he was in the fiery furnace with Meshack Shadrack and abendigo?

mary Gave Christ a human flesh to enter to become man. You trying to twist things does not make what I believe a heresy. Facts are facts no matter what anyone says!

No, Christ was never in human flesh at those times, I exagerated when I said that. I was thinking of the verse: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

And you just proved the point I have been making since Scott started this thread. Your saying I am a heretic because i do not believ in a doctrine based on what ifs and maybe's. Just because MEN say so. You should be ashamed of yourself for not seeking truth, and calling me a heretic because I do not believe in something that can not be proven by Scripture.

Do not denigrate Men. The Bible was written by Men as well. Moses and all of the Prophets were men. Jesus was a man.

1. Mary birthed Jesus flesh.
2. It is not know when God the son entered this flesh, before birth or AT birth. But if people are saying he did not enter until long after the lfesh was born, I would agree, they are in error. But it does not take the fact that mary did not birth God. God was around before mary was even born. The son created mary in mary's mother';s womb, and gave her life. How could the one which gave mary her life be born of mary?
3. Jesus was NOT Human before the foundation of the world, where do you get this? Mary's egg, which was inseminated by the touch of the HS gave Christ his human flesh. so how Could Christ be Human before the foundation of the world? when the egg had not even been created yet!
4. You may believe I err, but God (the son) entered the flesh born of mary after the flesh was created. Those are facts, supported by scripture. and nothing you or anyone else says can change the facts!

We must say to this that the Holy Spirit had had to have been the bearer of the Essence of the LOGOS (Jesus) and that when it was conceived in Mary's womb, it instantly fused the 2 Natures of Christ into one Essence, Human and Divine. But the flesh of Christ could not have "entered the flesh born of mary after the flesh was created", this is not possible because Jesus Divinity as well as Humanity must have come into one being in Mary at one time, or else we have no union of Humanity and Divinity, it would not be possible, it could not happen.

Mary's pure blood had to be mixed with the Essence of the Logos (Jesus) in order for this fusion to take place. For her purity is the only reason why it happened.

1. A true bishop will teach the word of God. not twist and distort it.
2. A true bishop will do as Jesus did, paul did, and peter did. And use scripture to prove his truths are from God. Not human tradition.
3. A true church does not sources outside of Scripture. Scripture will WITHOUT A DOUBT support all doctrines of the church.
Your bishops and your churches have NONE of these characteristics. So they can not be the foundation of truth.

What Scripture? You have no New Testament without the Church. You would have the Gospel of Thomas or Peter, or some kind of Gnostic writing if the Church had not given us the proper books in the New Testament.

You have the Scriptures which testify of themselves,but without the Church, you have no sure foundation on which to base the authenticity of them. That is why the Apostle Paul said that we NEED the Church because it is the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)

God did not give us a bible which we could not understand. It is also not a dead word in which we must look to men over a thousand years ago to know how to interpret it. God said his word is ALIVE and POWERFUL, sharper than any TWO EDGED SWORD. It is just as alive today as it was the day John penned his last words and closed the book. Sorry you believe in a dead word. But I do not believe in a dead word.

The Real Word of God is Jesus Christ, it is not the Text of the Bible. The Bible is very very helpful for a person to live a Godly life, but if it does not have the proper interpretation, it will not be able to be fully explained.

Without the "Pillar of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) you are being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Ephesians 4)
For there is not the "Unity of the Faith" spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4, there is only division, because of people's refusal of humility. Protestantism is not "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph 4:3) And thus, there is no "Unity of the Faith" (Ephesians 4:13)

 

[lil_christian]

Don't let yourself be deceived into KJV-Onlyism. The KJV isn't the most reliable bible. All vary.

Believe me I don't...I personally like the NASB better. Same with my mom...she's the one that got me to liking the NASB. I'd use her Bible all the time for studies. Well, I still do...lol

Oh, and I forgot to add to the list the NLT. I actually own an NLT.

 

[Grandpa]

Not really. Your Bible was translated by fallible men using a limited language so it's bound to have shortcomings, like words that mean something different than what they mean in the Greek.

Let's talk about the Greek then. Where in the NT does Adelphos mean anything other than brother?

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Anything in that language lead you to believe that Jesus mother is not called Mary? Anything to lead you to believe that Joseph was not a carpenter?
Does anything lead you to believe that Jesus brothers from the womb are not James, Joses, Simon and Judas by the language in that text?

 

[lil_christian]

I used King James for this one because I thought that that is what would work best for this...guess not *sigh*

 

[SantoSubito]

No your not getting it. The word until in the english greek or any language means that what is stated to happen happens UNTIL THAT TIME and that time only. It does not convay what happens AFTER that time. So you can not use this as an excuse to back up your doctrine. All you can do is confirm that the passage shows until the birth of her first born. She had not slept with a man. In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM can you prove that AFTER this event mary did or did not sleep with her husband.

Never tried to. The whole point was to show that you can't use Luke 2:11 as definitive proof that Mary didn't remain a virgin.

Again, you can't use your OT example, because the woman in Question was UNABLE to have kids after she died. This it could never be infered she did. Mary did not die. and joseph did not die,

The English word "until" always implies a change of state after an event, while the Greek word does not. That was the point of the OT examples. In a non-literal translation the OT examples would be translated along the lines of "To the day of her death she had no children". Word for word translation use "until" because thats the closest English equivalent to the Greek word, even though it makes the passage nonsensical in English.

 

[lil_christian]

Never tried to. The whole point was to show that you can't use Luke 2:11 as definitive proof that Mary didn't remain a virgin.

Well unless I misunderstood, you guys were saying unto and until were the same words.

Well, unto and until are two different parts of speech.

Unto is a preposition.

Until is an adverb. It answers, in an adverb phrase, the question, "When?"

And that's what I was trying to prove. They have two different functions. To try and say they're the same does not work.

 

[lil_christian]

Pelagius <--- read up on that

I couldn't care less on what he taught, I care about what JESUS taught. I care about what the BIBLE says. The Word that God breathed life into!

 

[lil_christian]

You can try to make heads or tails out of this:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results


Result of search for "Until":

891. achri akh'-ree or achris akh'-rece; akin to 206 (through the idea of a terminus); (of time) until or (of place) up to:--as far as, for, in(-to), till, (even, un-)to, until, while. Compare 3360.

1519. eis ice a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases:--(abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

2193. heos heh'-oce of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):--even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).

3360. mechri mekh'-ree or mechris mekh-ris' from 3372; as far as, i.e. up to a certain point (as a preposition, of extent (denoting the terminus, whereas 891 refers especially to the space of time or place intervening) or conjunction):--till, (un-)to, until.