Mary

[Hope]

Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.

Not even sure that this is applicable nowadays.  For many who I know, its more the meaning and purpose, rather than support or structure, though the element of support often comes later - sometimes as a 'supporter', rather than a 'supported'.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

Every womb is sacred, I don't think any sane person could argue that fact, I find all this Mary and Virgin birth stuff puzzling, it's as if Our Lord, Our Salvation needs credentials.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

[Owlswing]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!

[BashfulAnthony]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

In the time of, Galileo,  people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.  Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered;  the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters.  What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century?  To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind.  My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever:  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

[ad_orientem]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!

Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.

[Rhiannon]

Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.

Not even sure that this is applicable nowadays.  For many who I know, its more the meaning and purpose, rather than support or structure, though the element of support often comes later - sometimes as a 'supporter', rather than a 'supported'.

You are ignoring the fact I mentioned 'meaning'. What is love, if not meaningful? And without the structure - not only a framework of belief, but organisations to join and the friendships and contacts that come with them, including the needy - being a supporter in a Christian context isn't easy.

And many posters here have spoken movingly of the support they get from their faith and experiences. Don't put down their truth just to disagree with me.

[Rhiannon]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!

Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.

Is it anything to do with me?

[Shaker]

In the time of, Galileo,  people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.  Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered;  the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters.  What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century?

By definition we can't know, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing - whatever developments come along long after we're all dead and burnt or buried, they'll all, without exception, be made on the same basis as the ones you mention: by intelligent people thinking rationally about stuff and working it out, logically and clearly, using their brains and not their knees, their reason and not their faith.

To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind.  My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever:  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Since you like quotes so much, here's one for the collection: "Keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brains fall out."

[BashfulAnthony]

In the time of, Galileo,  people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.  Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered;  the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters.  What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century?

By definition we can't know, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing - whatever developments come along long after we're all dead and burnt or buried, they'll all, without exception, be made on the same basis as the ones you mention: by intelligent people thinking rationally about stuff and working it out, logically and clearly, using their brains and not their knees, their reason and not their faith.

To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind.  My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever:  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Since you like quotes so much, here's one for the collection: "Keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brains fall out."

Sd to say, you are one of those who would have condemned the likes of Galileo.  But I would expect such an answer.  We know nothing, and to rule out anything is pure arrogance.

[ad_orientem]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!

Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.

Is it anything to do with me?

You, of course.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

There is no faith in science, scientists don't have faith in their work, here's a truth for you, scientists put their trousers on just like me, one leg after the other.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Sd to say, you are one of those who would have condemned the likes of Galileo.

Really now? Galileo was a scientist and a thinking man - who did the condemning?

We know nothing

You may not, but other people are not similarly handicapped.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Shaker,

There is no faith in science, scientists don't have faith in their work, here's a truth for you, scientists put their trousers on just like me, one leg after the other.

Gonnagle.

I put both legs in one pant the other day.  I bet plenty of scientists, and others, do that as well!   

[jjohnjil]

What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood.  If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.

Unfortunately, for you jj, it isn't "all rubbish from start to finish".  There is a considerable amount of historical fact in the Bible, in the same way that there is a considerable amount of poetry, theology and revelation.  To assume that 'it's all rubbish from start to finish' is to actually show your lack of education. 

Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently.  You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.

You could have equally started this paragraph with word 'society', jj.

I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain.  Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.

You must ask yourself, would you risk it?

This anaology points out just how blind you are yourself.  When you add the other assertions you've provided in this post, tht blindness becomes even more apparent.  I suspect its a confirmation bias blindness.

Of course there's a lot of historical fact in the Bible, Hope, just as there is in Shakespeare and Dickens!  Most writers add known facts to try to make their story believable, but that says nothing to substantiate your claim that the 'miracle' happenings are anything but fictional!  Unfortunately for you, it shows your education was sadly inhibited by your confirmation bias!

There were no assertions in that post, I was telling Ippy that it was the way I see it, not the way it is!  In fact I was trying to show him that it isn't that theists are ignorant or stupid, any more than smokers are when they try to convince themselves that smoking does you no harm.  It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to change the habits of a lifetime.

And yes, you could say I have a confirmation bas, because everything I see, read and experience leads me to the conclusion that the Bible was written purely to keep people in order.  We now have laws, fines and imprisonment as our sticks and a reasonable peaceful life as our carrot!

. 

[Anchorman]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

-
Nope.
It's to do with it not being in Scripture.
Anything else might well be considered heresy in some quarters.

While you're looking for Scripture to justify your'perpetual virgin' theory, find similar scriptures which justify icons, statues, etc.
Thanks.

[ad_orientem]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

-
Nope.
It's to do with it not being in Scripture.
Anything else might well be considered heresy in some quarters.

Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.

[Anchorman]

Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.

[Hope]

Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but in my experience, sola scriptura integrally ties the life of the church to scripture.  Hence, ideas like perpetual virginity are tested against scripture - as per instructions in scripture - and found to be wanting.

[ad_orientem]

Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.

That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/

[ad_orientem]

Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but in my experience, sola scriptura integrally ties the life of the church to scripture.  Hence, ideas like perpetual virginity are tested against scripture - as per instructions in scripture - and found to be wanting.

Nonsense. Each person merely becomes their own pope. Each person interprets scripture according to his own whims (for even heretics "prove" their doctrines using scripture) rather than collectively guarding the faith that has been handed down.

[Anchorman]

Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.

That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/

-
You know, ad_o, there's an organisation based in Brooklyn - the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as 'Jehovah Witnessess', who argue exactly the same way as you. They issue doctrine which, they claim, is from 'Holy Spirit' (or 'dynamic energy' - you takes your money...)
Why should the casual reader accept ypur stance rather than theirs?
Wouldn't a careful reading of a good translation of Scripture back up one stance or t'other?
Yet you refuse to show any such Scripture that backs a 'perpetual virgin' claim, simply returning to what the church, rather than the document on which it is supposed to be based, says.

[ippy]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!

Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.

Bonkers all the three of you, this stuff is all absolutely inconsequential drivel.

ippy

[Alien]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.

Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?

[ad_orientem]

Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.

That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/

-
You know, ad_o, there's an organisation based in Brooklyn - the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as 'Jehovah Witnessess', who argue exactly the same way as you. They issue doctrine which, they claim, is from 'Holy Spirit' (or 'dynamic energy' - you takes your money...)
Why should the casual reader accept your stance rather than theirs?
Wouldn't a careful reading of a good translation of Scripture back up one stance or t'other?
Yet you refuse to show any such Scripture that backs a 'perpetual virgin' claim, simply returning to what the church, rather than the document on which it is supposed to be based, says.

The Church isn't founded on the scriptures. It is founded on the Incarnation. If you think you separate the scriptures from the life of the Church then, quite frankly, you're mad. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos doesn't need to be explicit in the scriptures because it is already implicit in figures (the Ark of the Covenant) and the natural consequence of the Incarnation itself.

As for the authority of the Church, I'll throw it right back at you. Why should I accept your stance above the Church? Why should I accept personal opinion above the mind of the Church? As I said, even heretics use the scriptures to "prove" their doctrines so there must be an authority that can judge which one is actually orthodox and which one is heterodox. You accept the Creed yet reject the authority on which formulated it. It's no good just saying you accept it just because it's scriptural. Who says so? Ever heard of Arius? Sola scriptura is a joke.