Wrong Teaching About Mary

ABC101

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I actually use the English Standard Version usually which is a more literal translation than the NIV.

I don't think translations really make a huge difference. However, I'm happy for you to use whatever translation you see fit to prove your point. It's not my job to prove your position for you.

To date on this thread there has been no clear Biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'd also love for someone to respond to my posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

On the contrary I think there is a large difference between these two translations...

The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."

The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

I think it's helpful to remain focused on the topic of this thread.

I'm happy to look into Leviticus on another thread but it is a rabbit hole that leads us away from the topic at hand.

The reality is of course a non-Catholic will not argue the same way as a Catholic on this issue. Or indeed many others. Why? Our understanding of the place of the Bible seems to be different.

That's actually the core issue. The idea that the church has authority over the Scriptures rather than the other way around is what led in part to the Refornation. It also explains our difference here I think.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ABC101

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I think it's helpful to remain focused on the topic of this thread.

I'm happy to look into Leviticus on another thread but it is a rabbit hole that leads us away from the topic at hand.

The reality is of course a non-Catholic will not argue the same way as a Catholic on this issue. Or indeed many others. Why? Our understanding of the place of the Bible seems to be different.

That's actually the core issue. The idea that the church has authority over the Scriptures rather than the other way around is what led in part to the Refornation. It also explains our difference here I think.  

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I was not referring specifically to Leviticus.
I was using Leviticus as an example (just one example) in response to your comment about Translations not being important.
Can you see the distinction?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm happy to discuss Leviticus on a more appropriate thread. We're now looking into Mary.

If you think translation is actually an issue in this specific case I'm happy to discuss it. Otherwise we'll go a country mile off topic.

Edit: As an aside I don't see a massive difference in translation there.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ABC101

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm happy to discuss Leviticus on a more appropriate thread. We're now looking into Mary.

If you think translation is actually an issue in this specific case I'm happy to discuss it. Otherwise we'll go a country mile off topic.

Edit: As an aside I don't see a massive difference in translation there.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good Afternoon Solodegloria,

I am not requesting a discussion on Levitcius.
  
The two different translations of Levitcius was given as an example only.   I am surprised that you see little difference in the two translations given on this example.   And I will repeat once again... I am not requesting a discussion on Levitcius.

Given the importance you place on following what is written in the scriptures, it is ironic that you purposefully ignore (fail to understand?) the importance of fallible interpretation of the scriptures.

Again I will repeat, I am not requesting a discussion on Leviticus.

hinault

ABC101 wrote: »

Given the importance you place on following what is written in the scriptures, it is ironic that you purposefully ignore (fail to understand?) the importance of fallible interpretation of the scriptures.

It's not that surprising :P

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

I'm not concerned about two broadly similar translations of a text no. Particularly when one is using a Hebrew idiom that describes what the other text is saying. I'm especially not concerned when it is it is irrelevant to the topic. The NIV does more legwork I agree.

The topic is a request for a solid Biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary. If there is none - it is fine to say that there is none and we can regard it as a secondary issue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ultra violet 5

kieranwaldron

In the three months or so since this thread has been on this website, it has attracted more than 5,000 views and 98 comments. However, the comments from people seeking to agree with the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary have failed to identify a single piece of Scripture to support their arguments; they have only come up with unbiblical assumptions to support their views on the subject.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject are therefore incorrect, and provide a false basis for the adoration of Mary which they readily promote against the evidence of the Bible.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

In the three months or so since this thread has been on this website, it has attracted more than 5,000 views and 98 comments. However, the comments from people seeking to agree with the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary have failed to identify a single piece of Scripture to support their arguments; they have only come up with unbiblical assumptions to support their views on the subject.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject are therefore incorrect, and provide a false basis for the adoration of Mary which they readily promote against the evidence of the Bible.

Problem: RC teaching needn't be biblical in order to be considered authoritative by the RC church and it's adherents. There's tradition, for example. If Mary's perpetual virginity is a tradition then that can be considered as valid and authoritative as something appearing in scripture.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

Problem: RC teaching needn't be biblical in order to be considered authoritative by the RC church and it's adherents. There's tradition, for example. If Mary's perpetual virginity is a tradition then that can be considered as valid and authoritative as something appearing in scripture.

The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is the sole source of Christian faith; and the Catholic Church should point out to their supporters situations where their traditions contradict Scripture.

uck51js9zml2yt

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is the sole source of Christian faith; and the Catholic Church should point out to their supporters situations where their traditions contradict Scripture.

And hell will freeze over in the meantime;)

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is the sole source of Christian faith; and the Catholic Church should point out to their supporters situations where their traditions contradict Scripture.

I think it's a little unrealistic, not to say unreasonable, to think that the Catholic church should base its beliefs and teachings on what is the sole source of faith as far as kieranwaldron is concerned. How does kieranwaldron get to issue these decrees, and why must the Catholic church accept them?

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's a little unrealistic, not to say unreasonable, to think that the Catholic church should base its beliefs and teachings on what is the sole source of faith as far as kieranwaldron is concerned. How does kieranwaldron get to issue these decrees, and why must the Catholic church accept them?

The Bible is not only the sole source of truth as far as I am concerned but a view clearly taught by Scripture itself. Proverbs 30:5-6 states the following:
" Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. "

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

In the three months or so since this thread has been on this website, it has attracted more than 5,000 views and 98 comments. However, the comments from people seeking to agree with the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary have failed to identify a single piece of Scripture to support their arguments; they have only come up with unbiblical assumptions to support their views on the subject.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject are therefore incorrect, and provide a false basis for the adoration of Mary which they readily promote against the evidence of the Bible.

Hi Kieran,

First and foremost Kieran, the burden of proof is always lies with the person making the claim.

Your claims were pretty much rebuffed on the first few pages of this thread, and then you refused to answer much of what you were asked, and then you eventually disappeared from the thread.

Atheists, non Christians, and non Catholics simply don't hold the same beliefs, but this forum is also particularity popular with anti theists, anti Christians and anti Catholics alike. In contrast to people who simply hold a different belief, they in turn have tried to present on this forum many claims and arguments against theism, Christianity and Catholicism, none of which have stood up to close scrutiny upon further questioning.

They all follow a common pattern : repeatably soapbox allegations against theism/Christianity/Catholicism (usually involving misrepresentation or ignorance of actual theist/christian/catholic beliefs) and make a claim based on a false premises which then invalidates their conclusions. All of their arguments to date on this forum against theism/Christianity/Catholicism have failed on these basic errors of logic.

We're happy to re-run this thread again, but beware you'll be asked to back up your allegations, answer all questions fully and honestly, and be expected to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the premises you base you claims on are true, and that you conclusions correctly follow from your premises and satisfy basic logic.

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is the sole source of Christian faith; and the Catholic Church should point out to their supporters situations where their traditions contradict Scripture.

Or more truthfully Kieran, contradict your personal interpretation of scripture. The very same personal interpretation of scripture, that leads you to also claim that man does not have an immortal soul, the trinity does't exist, hell does not exist, and Christians do not go to heaven.

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

Problem: RC teaching needn't be biblical in order to be considered authoritative by the RC church and it's adherents.

Or rather more accurately, a true Christian tradition cannot contradict scripture, and a true interpretation of scripture cannot contradict the traditionally held practices and beliefs that Christians have held since the earliest days of the Church. Otherwise e.g. the heresy of Arianism in the early centuries of the Church, would have been not have been heresy at all, and would have taken over Christianity.

kieranwaldron

......... wrote: »

Or more truthfully Kieran, contradict your personal interpretation of scripture. The very same personal interpretation of scripture, that leads you to also claim that man does not have an immortal soul, the trinity does't exist, hell does not exist, and Christians do not go to heaven.

The topic under discussion on this thread is the perpetual virginity of Mary and nothing else. Do not bring unrelated issues into your comments.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Less of the back-seat moderating please. if you've a problem with a post please report it.

Thanks for your attention.

kieranwaldron

......... wrote: »

Hi Kieran,

First and foremost Kieran, the burden of proof is always lies with the person making the claim.

Your claims were pretty much rebuffed on the first few pages of this thread, and then you refused to answer much of what you were asked, and then you eventually disappeared from the thread.

Atheists, non Christians, and non Catholics simply don't hold the same beliefs, but this forum is also particularity popular with anti theists, anti Christians and anti Catholics alike. In contrast to people who simply hold a different belief, they in turn have tried to present on this forum many claims and arguments against theism, Christianity and Catholicism, none of which have stood up to close scrutiny upon further questioning.

They all follow a common pattern : repeatably soapbox allegations against theism/Christianity/Catholicism (usually involving misrepresentation or ignorance of actual theist/christian/catholic beliefs) and make a claim based on a false premises which then invalidates their conclusions. All of their arguments to date on this forum against theism/Christianity/Catholicism have failed on these basic errors of logic.

We're happy to re-run this thread again, but beware you'll be asked to back up your allegations, answer all questions fully and honestly, and be expected to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the premises you base you claims on are true, and that you conclusions correctly follow from your premises and satisfy basic logic.

Your accusation that I refused to answer much of what I was asked is untrue. I answered all the questions that I considered worthy of a reply. If you list out the questions, with names and dates of postings, that you allege that I didn't answer, then I will have a look at them.

kieranwaldron

......... wrote: »

Hi Kieran,

First and foremost Kieran, the burden of proof is always lies with the person making the claim.

Your claims were pretty much rebuffed on the first few pages of this thread, and then you refused to answer much of what you were asked, and then you eventually disappeared from the thread.

Atheists, non Christians, and non Catholics simply don't hold the same beliefs, but this forum is also particularity popular with anti theists, anti Christians and anti Catholics alike. In contrast to people who simply hold a different belief, they in turn have tried to present on this forum many claims and arguments against theism, Christianity and Catholicism, none of which have stood up to close scrutiny upon further questioning.

They all follow a common pattern : repeatably soapbox allegations against theism/Christianity/Catholicism (usually involving misrepresentation or ignorance of actual theist/christian/catholic beliefs) and make a claim based on a false premises which then invalidates their conclusions. All of their arguments to date on this forum against theism/Christianity/Catholicism have failed on these basic errors of logic.

We're happy to re-run this thread again, but beware you'll be asked to back up your allegations, answer all questions fully and honestly, and be expected to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the premises you base you claims on are true, and that you conclusions correctly follow from your premises and satisfy basic logic.

Your accusation that I refused to answer much of what I was asked is untrue. I answered all the questions that I considered worthy of a reply. If you list out the questions, with names and dates of postings, that you allege that I didn't answer, then I will have a look at them.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible is not only the sole source of truth as far as I am concerned but a view clearly taught by Scripture itself. Proverbs 30:5-6 states the following:
" Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. "

You say 'clearly thought' based on the kind of slivers of scriptural evidence which the RC church use to indicate e.g. apostolic succession. If you can do it so can they. And with apostolic succession comes extra biblical authority. Including (somewhat circularly) the authority to insist scripture means what RC says it means 😀

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Bible is not only the sole source of truth as far as I am concerned but a view clearly taught by Scripture itself. Proverbs 30:5-6 states the following:
" Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. "

You say 'clearly thought' based on the kind of slivers of scriptural evidence which the RC church use to indicate e.g. apostolic succession. If you can do it so can they. And with apostolic succession comes extra biblical authority. Including (somewhat circularly) the authority to insist scripture means what RC says it means 😀

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say 'clearly thought' based on the kind of slivers of scriptural evidence which the RC church use to indicate e.g. apostolic succession. If you can do it so can they. And with apostolic succession comes extra biblical authority. Including (somewhat circularly) the authority to insist scripture means what RC says it means 😀

In reply to your comments, I do not accept that I am using " slivers of scriptural evidence " in support of my views on the status of the Bible; I only used one quote from the latter in the piece highlighted in support of the view that nothing should be added but I could have used 3 or 4 others saying the same thing. I do not accept that the Catholic Church have superiority over anyone in biblical authority because I have never accepted apostolic succession for the following reasons: I do not accept that Jesus Christ appointed Peter to any special status above the other apostles; nor that he was the first pope handing his authority down to persons following in his footsteps.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say 'clearly thought' based on the kind of slivers of scriptural evidence which the RC church use to indicate e.g. apostolic succession. If you can do it so can they. And with apostolic succession comes extra biblical authority. Including (somewhat circularly) the authority to insist scripture means what RC says it means 😀

In reply to your comments, I do not accept that I am using " slivers of scriptural evidence " in support of my views on the status of the Bible; I only used one quote from the latter in the piece highlighted in support of the view that nothing should be added but I could have used 3 or 4 others saying the same thing. I do not accept that the Catholic Church have superiority over anyone in biblical authority because I have never accepted apostolic succession for the following reasons: I do not accept that Jesus Christ appointed Peter to any special status above the other apostles; nor that he was the first pope handing his authority down to persons following in his footsteps.

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your accusation that I refused to answer much of what I was asked is untrue. I answered all the questions that I considered worthy of a reply. If you list out the questions, with names and dates of postings, that you allege that I didn't answer, then I will have a look at them.

Skommando and others - why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?
(you repeatedly did not answer what you were actually asked on this one)

Lmaopal - Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time

lazybones - Where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?

Abolsom - But you said there job is to enforce doctrine worldwide, and that what they're saying is in line with the doctrinal view. Which surely makes it relevant?

And for starters I have a few of my own . . .

Kieran Waldron "If they were never meant to have sexual relations, as some claim" - Who claims they were never meant to, and where do they claim this ?

Where does the New Testament identify Jesus' brothers and sisters with certainty as blood brothers and sisters, and hence as children of Mary ?

I'm afraid Kieran if you want people to believe it was not possible that Mary remained a Virgin, you're going to have to provide a lot more than you have to date.

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your accusation that I refused to answer much of what I was asked is untrue. I answered all the questions that I considered worthy of a reply. If you list out the questions, with names and dates of postings, that you allege that I didn't answer, then I will have a look at them.

Skommando and others - why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?
(you repeatedly did not answer what you were actually asked on this one)

Lmaopal - Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time

lazybones - Where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?

Abolsom - But you said there job is to enforce doctrine worldwide, and that what they're saying is in line with the doctrinal view. Which surely makes it relevant?

And for starters I have a few of my own . . .

Kieran Waldron "If they were never meant to have sexual relations, as some claim" - Who claims they were never meant to, and where do they claim this ?

Where does the New Testament identify Jesus' brothers and sisters with certainty as blood brothers and sisters, and hence as children of Mary ?

I'm afraid Kieran if you want people to believe it was not possible that Mary remained a Virgin, you're going to have to provide a lot more than you have to date.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

We seem to have two threads running regarding the Virgin Mary.

Locking this thread.

You can continue the discussion in the otther thread.

Thanks for your attention.