Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Wrong Teaching About Mary
-
22-12-2016 9:24am#1When I went through the Bible for my other thread in this section of the site titled " Beware of false Christian theologies ", I could not help but notice that Mary has been misrepresented by the Catholic Church in their teachings about her. One of those teachings is that she remained a virgin all her life. This assertion contradicts Scripture. In the following paragraphs, I examine this using the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible in my references.
The first clue lies in what is said in the Bible after the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, as recorded in Matthew 1:25 as follows : " But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The clear indication here is that he did consummate the marrage after Jesus was born, as the use of the word " until " implies.
The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children. The very same biblical author in Luke 1:57 reported the birth of a sole child to Elizabeth and Zacharias as follows : " When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. " Note the word firstborn is not used in the verse as it relates to the birth of the only child the couple had.
To get the third piece of confirmation, I first need to set the context for the biblical quote. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth with his mother, step-father, Joseph, and their family. Until about the age of 30 he remained in Nazareth in waiting for his ministry to begin. He then went away from his home town, got babtised by JohnThe Babtist and began his ministry commencing preaching and declaring himself the son of God etc. Susequently, when he returned to Nazareth to declare his new status, the Jews who lived there queried who he was as recorded in Matt 13: 55-56: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things. ? "
It is clear from the above quotation that his former neighbours were trying to place him by reference to those who used to live around him- Joseph, Mary and their children. The reference to brothers and sisters are the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. The Greek words giving rise to the translations brothers and sisters were alelphos and adelphe respectively. If these were his cousins or relatives, as some have claimed, then Matthew would have used different Greek words more appropriate to that relationship.
During the ministry of Jesus, lasting a little over three years in duration, not all the children of Mary and Joseph supported his claim to be the Messiah, giving rise to the following verse in John 7:5 in the Bible : " For even his own brothers did not believe in him." The translation here for brothers is from the Greek word meaning blood-brothers, gining us the fourth confirmation that Jesus had siblings.
The last confirmation comes after Jesus had died on the cross. Whilst his siblings did not support him during his live ministry, at least one of them, James, had a change of heart after Jesus resurrection, and then went on to play a significant role in the early church. Consequently, we get the following quotation from Paul in Galatians 1:19 in relation to a trip to Jerusalem : " I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.". This is confirmation from Paul that Jesus had at least one brother.
On this subject Scripture is the only source of true information, and it reveals that Mary had children other than Jesus Christ thereby disepelling the myth that she remained a virgin all her life. The fact that Mary had children by her husband Joseph, and raised them alongside Jesus, enhances her reputation. Mary was therefore normal, and not abnormal as taught by the " ever-virgin" brigade.0
Comments
-
While the gospels and the letters of Paul do confirm that Jesus had brothers and sisters, it doesn't say that they were Mary's children; they could have been Joseph's by his first wife (and this in in fact the traditional belief in Eastern Christianity).
And it's probably not helpful, if you wish to consider other Christian traditions, to mischaracterise them. Traditions which hold that Mary was ever-virgin do not teach that she was "abnormal". You may regard virginity as abnormal, but it's not a view you should impute to others.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »While the gospels and the letters of Paul do confirm that Jesus had brothers and sisters, it doesn't say that they were Mary's children; they could have been Joseph's by his first wife (and this in in fact the traditional belief in Eastern Christianity).
And it's probably not helpful, if you wish to consider other Christian traditions, to mischaracterise them. Traditions which hold that Mary was ever-virgin do not teach that she was "abnormal". You may regard virginity as abnormal, but it's not a view you should impute to others.
My first two paragraphs strongly suggest that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph and children by him. There is no confirmation in the Bible that Joseph had a first wife giving rise to children. Furthermore, if in Gal 1:19, for example. he was such that would not make him the Lord's brother but a cousin through marriage, and Paul would not have used adelphos but the Greek word for cousin or relation instead.
I do consider it abnormal for a man to live with his wife for years and not to have sexual relations with her, especially when there was no obligation placed on either of them to remain celibate.0 -
Your first paragraphs do carry some weight, but they rely on parsing particular words taken from modern English translations of the gospels. I think they'd carry more weight if they looked at the language of the original Greek, with experts in that language confirming that the original words have the same connotations as you are attaching to the words chosen by the modern translators.kieranwaldron wrote: »My first two paragraphs strongly suggest that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph and children by him.
(I'm not saying that they don't have those connotations; just that an analysis of this kind which works entirely off the modern translation is not that persuasive.)
No, but nor is there anything to suggest that Mary was Joseph's first or only wife.kieranwaldron wrote: »There is no confirmation in the Bible that Joseph had a first wife giving rise to children.
Joseph has a fairly patchy representation in scripture, and he disappears entirely after the finding of the child Jesus in the Temple, when Jesus was about 12. This is in marked distinction to Mary, who makes regular appearances during Jesus' public ministry, and who indeed survives Jesus. Furthermore, one of Jesus' last acts is to make provision for Mary's future care, suggesting that Mary was dependent on Jesus.
A reasonably explanation for all this is that, some time between the finding in the Temple and the Baptism of Jesus, Joseph has died. And, while that's by no means conclusive, it's certainly consistent with the view that Joseph was older than Mary.
It's also significant that Jesus doesn't seem to expect that James, or any of his other brother and sisters, will look after Mary. Again, that's not conclusive - there could, for example, have been a big family falling-out - but it's consistent with the idea that Mary is not their mother.
The Eastern tradition is basically this; Joseph was an older man, a widower with children, and he married a second time at least in part because that was necessary in order to care for and raise his family. The scriptural record doesn't confirm this by any means, but it's entirely consistent with it.
Josephs' sons by another wife would not have been cousins to Jesus; they would have been stepbrothers or half-brothers for which, I think, the Greeks did use the word adelphos. If Joseph had been married twice, the children of both his wives would have been considered as, and spoken of, as brothers and sisters to one another.kieranwaldron wrote: »Furthermore, if in Gal 1:19, for example. he was such that would not make him the Lord's brother but a cousin through marriage, and Paul would not have used adelphos but the Greek word for cousin or relation instead.
You may consider it abnormal if you wish; that does not entitle you to say that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was abnormal. In saying that you are simply projecting your own views of what is "normal" onto the Catholic church. And if you're going to criticise the views of the Catholic church, it's important that what you criticise is, in fact, the view of the Catholic church; otherwise your criticism is pretty pointless.kieranwaldron wrote: »I do consider it abnormal for a man to live with his wife for years and not to have sexual relations with her, especially when there was no obligation placed on either of them to remain celibate.
Plus, if you think a bit further about the "second wife" reading of the scriptures, the notion that Mary and Joseph didn't have sex becomes might strike you as a bit less "abnormal". If Joseph is an older many who is marrying so that his existing children will have a mother-figure, it's entirely possible that he doesn't want any more children from his second marriage. In such circumstances, in that society, an abstinent marriage wouldn't be unknown, and certainly wouldn't be "abnormal".0 -
It doesn't matted if you had one child or ten, your firstborn wil always be just that, your firstborn.
Then I suppose it depends on your definition of what constitutes a "virgin".
Someone who has never had penetrative sex, or someone whose hyman is unbroken?
It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.0 -
One or more brothers of Jesus turn up on a few occasions in scripture but, as it happens, not at the crucifixion. Mary is there, but no brothers.It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »One or more brothers of Jesus turn up on a few occasions in scripture but, as it happens, not at the crucifixion. Mary is there, but no brothers.
I agree with you on this.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Your first paragraphs do carry some weight, but they rely on parsing particular words taken from modern English translations of the gospels. I think they'd carry more weight if they looked at the language of the original Greek, with experts in that language confirming that the original words have the same connotations as you are attaching to the words chosen by the modern translators.
(I'm not saying that they don't have those connotations; just that an analysis of this kind which works entirely off the modern translation is not that persuasive.)
No, but nor is there anything to suggest that Mary was Joseph's first or only wife.
Joseph has a fairly patchy representation in scripture, and he disappears entirely after the finding of the child Jesus in the Temple, when Jesus was about 12. This is in marked distinction to Mary, who makes regular appearances during Jesus' public ministry, and who indeed survives Jesus. Furthermore, one of Jesus' last acts is to make provision for Mary's future care, suggesting that Mary was dependent on Jesus.
A reasonably explanation for all this is that, some time between the finding in the Temple and the Baptism of Jesus, Joseph has died. And, while that's by no means conclusive, it's certainly consistent with the view that Joseph was older than Mary.
It's also significant that Jesus doesn't seem to expect that James, or any of his other brother and sisters, will look after Mary. Again, that's not conclusive - there could, for example, have been a big family falling-out - but it's consistent with the idea that Mary is not their mother.
The Eastern tradition is basically this; Joseph was an older man, a widower with children, and he married a second time at least in part because that was necessary in order to care for and raise his family. The scriptural record doesn't confirm this by any means, but it's entirely consistent with it.
Josephs' sons by another wife would not have been cousins to Jesus; they would have been stepbrothers or half-brothers for which, I think, the Greeks did use the word adelphos. If Joseph had been married twice, the children of both his wives would have been considered as, and spoken of, as brothers and sisters to one another.
You may consider it abnormal if you wish; that does not entitle you to say that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was abnormal. In saying that you are simply projecting your own views of what is "normal" onto the Catholic church. And if you're going to criticise the views of the Catholic church, it's important that what you criticise is, in fact, the view of the Catholic church; otherwise your criticism is pretty pointless.
Plus, if you think a bit further about the "second wife" reading of the scriptures, the notion that Mary and Joseph didn't have sex becomes might strike you as a bit less "abnormal". If Joseph is an older many who is marrying so that his existing children will have a mother-figure, it's entirely possible that he doesn't want any more children from his second marriage. In such circumstances, in that society, an abstinent marriage wouldn't be unknown, and certainly wouldn't be "abnormal".
I welcome constructive criticism of anything that I write on this site. I reply to the points made by you in your post, in the order you made them, as follows.
I use the NIV version of the Bible because it is written in modern English and not old English as is applicable to the original KJV Bible. By doing this, it is easier for people reading this thread, who are not necessarily Bible experts, to follow what is being said. The publisher of the NIV Bible gave consideration to previous versions, as well as to the original texts. Consequently, I only go back to the Greek, in the case of the NT, when the meaning of a verse hinges on the correct translation of a word (or words).
The mere fact that sexual relations is mentioned in Matthew 1:25 is proof for me that they took place, and God had foreknowledge of them. If their relationship was only ever meant to be platonic, then why mention them at all in a Bible verse ? I am therefore relying on reasonable inferences from the Bible text for my conclusions, and not on " parsing particular words ".
I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision.
I don't think an inspired writer such as Paul would have used the Greek word for blood-brother in Galatians 1: 19 if there was no blood relationship at all as is applicable to half-brothers.
The word abnormal means " not normal ". If no sex took place in the relationship under review, then that is not normal, and I cannot see why you are objecting to the word used. I am therefore attacking advocates of the "ever- virgin" position , such as the Catholic Church, on their doctrine and nothing else.
In reply to your last paragraph, you are just employing more conjecture in assuming that Joseph was older than Mary. You overall appear to be making four unbiblical assumptions regarding Mary and Joseph's relationship in support of your stance, which are: 1. he was previously married; 2. he had children in his previous marriage; 3. he brought those children to live in the same house as him and his new wife; 4.he was older than her. That is a lot of unsupported assumptions to arrive at your position as against my reasonable interpretation of Bible text.0 -
It doesn't matted if you had one child or ten, your firstborn wil always be just that, your firstborn.
Then I suppose it depends on your definition of what constitutes a "virgin".
Someone who has never had penetrative sex, or someone whose hyman is unbroken?
It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.
why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?0 -
-
It doesn't matter to the work of Christ as to whether Mary remained a virgin or not.
But the problem with it is that it would have been seen as a sinful circumstance in those times. Sex in marriage is (and was) not sinful. Celibacy was NOT the model God intended in marriage, so the later addition to the story to make people feel bad about sex actually downgrades Mary from her status as blessed among women0 -
Advertisement
-
martinedwards wrote: »It doesn't matter to the work of Christ as to whether Mary remained a virgin or not.
But the problem with it is that it would have been seen as a sinful circumstance in those times. Sex in marriage is (and was) not sinful. Celibacy was NOT the model God intended in marriage, so the later addition to the story to make people feel bad about sex actually downgrades Mary from her status as blessed among women
I agree wholly with these observations by you.0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »This is irrelevant to the discussion on Mary's perpetual virginity, as my reply to Peregrinus above states.
not really, if she had other sons as you've tried to claim it's very relevant, so that still leaves the question you've tried to dodge unanswered.0 -
not really, if she had other sons as you've tried to claim it's very relevant, so that still leaves the question you've tried to dodge unanswered.
I am not aware that I tried to dodge any question. My reply to Peregrinus above explains my position which I reproduce as follows:
" I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision."0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »I am not aware that I tried to dodge any question. My reply to Peregrinus above explains my position which I reproduce as follows:
" I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision."
why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?0 -
why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?
Good evening!
As is key in all Biblical interpretation, we don't assume things unless we have warrant to do so.
We know two things from Scripture:- Jesus had brothers and sisters
- John took Mary into his care after Jesus' crucifixion
We aren't explicitly told why, therefore we shouldn't assume it.
Likewise, if one is looking at this from a Biblical perspective, there is no warrant to believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin after marriage to Joseph. I suspect this is the reason why those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it. In much the same way that they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or that Mary was born sinless.
Although I believe the OP's previous post was bordering on heresy, the objections that he raises are entirely fair given what we know about this from Biblical sources. This seems to be a key difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism accepts that the Bible is the highest authority in matters of belief and practice. The Roman Catholic Church places tradition and the papal magisterium above this. Therefore, we're always going to find ourselves in disagreement in matters where the Roman Catholic Church deems itself to have authority over Scripture.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
As is key in all Biblical interpretation, we don't assume things unless we have warrant to do so.
We know two things from Scripture:- Jesus had brothers and sisters
- John took Mary into his care after Jesus' crucifixion
We aren't explicitly told why, therefore we shouldn't assume it.
Likewise, if one is looking at this from a Biblical perspective, there is no warrant to believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin after marriage to Joseph. I suspect this is the reason why those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it. In much the same way that they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or that Mary was born sinless.
Although I believe the OP's previous post was bordering on heresy, the objections that he raises are entirely fair given what we know about this from Biblical sources. This seems to be a key difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism accepts that the Bible is the highest authority in matters of belief and practice. The Roman Catholic Church places tradition and the papal magisterium above this. Therefore, we're always going to find ourselves in disagreement in matters where the Roman Catholic Church deems itself to have authority over Scripture.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
It's a question, not an assumption. If you don't know the answer, or cannot offer any explanation, but instead launched into a straw man lecture about assumptions, what assumptions have you made ?
Also your claims are false, there is no universal view about the subject in Protestantism. Martin Luther believed that Mary remained a virgin.
Zwingli believed she remained a virgin also, as did the Anglican reformers Latimer and Crammer. John Wesley one of the founders of Methodism also supported the doctrine.0 -
It's a question, not an assumption. If you don't know the answer, or cannot offer any explanation, but instead launched into a straw man lecture about assumptions, what assumptions have you made ?
Also your claims are false, there is no universal view about the subject in Protestantism. Martin Luther believed that Mary remained a virgin.
Zwingli believed she remained a virgin also, as did the Anglican reformers Latimer and Crammer. John Wesley one of the founders of Methodism also supported the doctrine.
Good evening!
Simply put, to follow the principles of the Reformation. I need to apply sola scriptura to the matter.
If you can argue on the basis of Scripture, that there is a clear case for Mary's virginity, or that Mary had an immaculate conception, then I would defer to the Bible on the matter. From reading it through a few times I would strain to see how one could form a cogent argument on the basis of Scripture to justify it.
That's my point.
Feel free to come back with me, but from what I can tell the vast majority of Reformed thought has rejected the notion. I accept that some of the first wave of Reformers held on to aspects of Roman Catholic teaching, for example Luther on the Lord's supper (he disagreed strongly with Zwingli on this) and perhaps in this case also, but nonetheless it must come back to sola scriptura for me.
Looking into the methodology of how we handle the Bible to ensure that we don't make unwarranted assumptions is very very important.
I hope that helps.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
Simply put, to follow the principles of the Reformation. I need to apply sola scriptura to the matter.
If you can argue on the basis of Scripture, that there is a clear case for Mary's virginity, or that Mary had an immaculate conception, then I would defer to the Bible on the matter. From reading it through a few times I would strain to see how one could form a cogent argument on the basis of Scripture to justify it.
That's my point.
Feel free to come back with me, but from what I can tell the vast majority of Reformed thought has rejected the notion. I accept that some of the first wave of Reformers held on to aspects of Roman Catholic teaching, for example Luther on the Lord's supper (he disagreed strongly with Zwingli on this) and perhaps in this case also, but nonetheless it must come back to sola scriptura for me.
Looking into the methodology of how we handle the Bible to ensure that we don't make unwarranted assumptions is very very important.
I hope that helps.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
Did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley not apply Sola Scriptura ? If not why not ? and how did they arrive at their conclusion regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary ? Also the Anglican Church, to which I believe you are a member, currently leaves this question open, and doesn't assume it as you have. Do they not hold to sola scriptura either ? Also if you are going to assume sola scriptura, can you please detail where the doctrine of sola scriptura is laid out and proven in scripture ?0 -
Did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley not apply Sola Scriptura ? If not why not ? and how did they arrive at their conclusion regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary ? Also the Anglican Church, to which I believe you are a member, currently leaves this question open, and doesn't assume it as you have. Do they not hold to sola scriptura either ? Also if you are going to assume sola scriptura, can you please detail where the doctrine of sola scriptura is laid out and proven in scripture ?
Good evening!
If you can argue on the basis of Scripture as to why I should accept it, I'll happily hear you out. I want to play on the right pitch though. I think that's fair.
I've not assumed anything, other than if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible, I don't believe it. That's the method encouraged in the 39 Articles of Religion also.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
If you can argue on the basis of Scripture as to why I should accept it, I'll happily hear you out. I want to play on the right pitch though. I think that's fair.
I've not assumed anything, other than if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible, I don't believe it. That's the method encouraged in the 39 Articles of Religion also.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
On what basis do you reject it ? and if so, on what basis do you believe Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted it, were wrong ? What else were they wrong on ?
You claim it must be clearly stated in the bible before you believe it. Where is her loss of virginity clearly stated in the bible ?
Where is sola scriptura clearly stated in the bible ? Where is the doctrine of the trinity clearly stated in scripture ?
Where in the 39 articles does it reject the perpetual virginity of Mary ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Where does it even start to imply that it DID happen?
It doesn't mention anywhere in the Bible that Jesus had a beard.
it's safe to assume that he did as all Jewish men would have had beards.
If he had been clean shaven, then it's VERY likely that someone would have mentioned it.
As I stated earlier in the thread, IF may and Joseph had a sexless marriage, (or if she was born without sin), then it would have been mentioned as something out of the ordinary.
I KNOW that these are solid building blocks of the RC faith and they don't matter to the redemptive work of Jesus, so if RCs believe it then it's no skin off my nose!0 -
martinedwards wrote: »Where does it even start to imply that it DID happen?
It doesn't mention anywhere in the Bible that Jesus had a beard.
it's safe to assume that he did as all Jewish men would have had beards.
let's see if solo delivers a straw man lecture this time about making assumptions . . .martinedwards wrote: »I KNOW that these are solid building blocks of the RC faith and they don't matter to the redemptive work of Jesus, so if RCs believe it then it's no skin off my nose!
If that is the case, why was her perpetual virginity important to Protestants such as Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, and Wesley ?0 -
On what basis do you reject it ? and if so, on what basis do you believe Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted it, were wrong ? What else were they wrong on ?
You claim it must be clearly stated in the bible before you believe it. Where is her loss of virginity clearly stated in the bible ?
Where is sola scriptura clearly stated in the bible ? Where is the doctrine of the trinity clearly stated in scripture ?
Where in the 39 articles does it reject the perpetual virginity of Mary ?
Good morning!
To be brief: basically if the Bible doesn't teach it, or rather if there is no verse stating it, I'm inclined not to believe it.
If you can show me clearly from the Scriptures then I will adopt that position. Until then I don't believe it.
Where the 39 Articles come in is here:39 Articles of Religion wrote:VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION
HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
In short - if it's not in the Bible or if it can't be proved from the Bible, I'm not required to believe it and my salvation doesn't depend on it. At present the perpetual virginity of Mary falls into that category.
I hope that helps.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good morning!
To be brief: basically if the Bible doesn't teach it, or rather if there is no verse stating it, I'm inclined not to believe it.
If you can show me clearly from the Scriptures then I will adopt that position. Until then I don't believe it.
In that case where is sola scriptura stated in scripture ?
And these questions are not posted in response to what you believe or don't believe, but rather the false claim that you made earlier that the Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it.solodeogloria wrote: »In short - if it's not in the Bible or if it can't be proved from the Bible, I'm not required to believe it and my salvation doesn't depend on it. At present the perpetual virginity of Mary falls into that category.
Where does scripture say the bolded part ?
It also leads to the question, why Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine ?
You're keen enough to quote these "reformers" whenever it suits, were they correct or incorrect ?
Also you claimed in this forum to be a member of the Anglican Church, which in fact, doesn't hold to sola scriptura (nor does Methodism), but by contrast prima scriptura, with sacred scripture also being interpreted in line with authentic apostolic tradition and reason.0 -
Also you claimed in this forum to be a member of the Anglican Church, which doesn't hold to sola scriptura (nor does Methodism), but by contrast prima scriptura, with Sacred Scripture being illumined by apostolic tradition and reason.
Good evening!
The definition of sola scriptura that I've quoted to you is from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The 39 Articles are central to Anglican theology and are a codification of essential Anglican belief. Basically, it tells me, that if it can't be proved from Scripture, I'm not under any obligation to believe it.
Now, I'm happy to consider a Biblical case as to why I should believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That's the 'pitch' I'm referring to. We need to play on the right pitch for the discussion to be worthwhile. Otherwise, I think there are potentially more fruitful things to discuss.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Basically, it tells me, that if it can't be proved from Scripture, I'm not under any obligation to believe it.
Again, the Anglican church'es doctrine is actually prima scriptura not sola scriptura.
If you believe in sola scriptura, where is sola scripture stated in scripture ?
Why did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine, were they correct or incorrect ?0 -
Why did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine, were they correct or incorrect ?
It always amuses me when I see a Roman Catholic adopting this argument with non-Catholics. It seems to project a Catholic view of tradition onto others, as if Luther etc were some kind of Church Father to be quoted as an authority.
Most non-Catholics don't feel bound by the views of Luther, Zwingli, Wesley or anyone else. They were fallible human beings who were right about some stuff and wrong about others - just like every theologian.0 -
It always amuses me when I see a Roman Catholic . . .
I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm not from the diocese of Rome (the correct use of Roman Catholic, as apposed to the Ian Pasiely intended style of use ). I'm an Irish Catholic, born in Ireland. I don't refer to Anglicans and Protestants or Presbyterians as English, German or Scottish ones.. . adopting this argument with non-Catholics.
The poster I was discussing it with, identifies as Anglican. Are Anglicans non Catholics in your opinion ?It seems to project a Catholic view of tradition onto others, as if Luther etc were some kind of Church Father to be quoted as an authority.
Most non-Catholics don't feel bound by the views of Luther, Zwingli, Wesley or anyone else. They were fallible human beings who were right about some stuff and wrong about others - just like every theologian.
That's your own projection not mine.
As I already said in my previous posts, that isn't why they were refereed to.
The assertion that was challenged was the false claim that "those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it", and the poster often makes references to Luther and other reformers as though they are Church fathers or an authority.0 -
Good afternoon,The poster I was discussing it with, identifies as Anglican. Are Anglicans non Catholics in your opinion ?
And I've quoted you the sola-scriptura position given in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer.
I'm not a Catholic. But a 'catholic' (lower case c) which means I'm a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ.
The church is also reformed. Meaning it subscribes to the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican Communion is a Protestant denomination in the fullest sense of the word. Hence why I call myself using many terms, Protestant, Evangelical, Reformed, Christian, Anglican because they are all compatible.
I think it's a touch rude to presume to teach me about the church I'm a member of, don't you?
I'm happy for you to present a Biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'll accept it provided it's sufficiently persuasive.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm not from the diocese of Rome (the correct use of Roman Catholic, as apposed to the Ian Pasiely intended style of use ). I'm an Irish Catholic, born in Ireland. I don't refer to Anglicans and Protestants or Presbyterians as English, German or Scottish ones.
Perhaps you should deliver this lecture to the bishops and clergy of your own denomination who frequently apply the designation "Roman Catholic" to themselves? I'm sure they'll appreciate the Paisleyite slur.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement