If you considered scripture evidence, which you obviously don’t, then there is ample evidence.
Why Do Catholics Say That Mary Remained a Virgin!
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The scripture evidence points directly at Catholicism, that believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Lord said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
The Orthodox literally separate themselves from the Church over one word in the Creed; filioque, it means "[and from] the Son", in reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit. But we agree about everything else.
You Protestants agree on the Resurrection of Christ, we agree on the Trinity, and on many other things, but diametrically disagree about first of all the Eucharist, or similarly, Mass.
Like with the Old Covenant, the New Covenant has its liturgy. We don't just repeat the Eucharist however, as if it's just a tradition or custom or habit, we believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
We are "partakers of the Lord's table" (1Co10:21), and you are not.
Which there is exactly zero evidence for. I've believed for years, as I intimated in the opening post, that this doctrine falsifies the Catholic version of Christianity. This sort of contrivance only serves to cement that belief. All you've said here is that you don't care if there's any biblical evidence for the belief. You'll find some sort of way to preserve your pet doctrines whether they are consistent with scripture or not.
This is so laughably ridiculous that I'm actually glad you said it!
It seems every defense of this Catholic dogma serves as its own best refutation.
Where is the evidence for such a tradition? Where is there any record of any Apostle ever teaching anything even similar to the idea that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life?
Were Matthew and Mark not an Apostles? If they believe this dogma wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect at least one of them to have inserted some sort of clarification when they mention Christ's brothers and sisters?
Paul was an Apostle and he too makes mention of "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19) and yet nothing at all by way of avoiding any confusion about him being Mary's son.
So where is the evidence that any of the Apostles taught such a thing?
Is there any or is it the same people that want you to believe it that are telling you that the Apostles taught it.
That's an idiotic reason to believe such a thing. God's word does not get its authority from men.
But leaving that aside, if you accept the Bible as God's word then why do you not form your doctrine from it rather than the reverse? You admitedly take doctrines of men and conform your understanding of God's word to it. How is that not backward?
Absolute lunatic insanity.
If you accepted only those traditions that were not in conflict with God's word, it might be fine but you have it backward and intentionally so.
It is impossible to understand how such an transparently obvious error can persist.
Accept that it does and you go right on your merry way performing whatever mental contortions you have to perform to rationalize away the clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Well, why not answer my question then?
What is it that compels the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity? Her virginity prior to Christ's birth makes perfect sense and is clearly taught in Scripture but after He was born there is no need for her to remain a virgin and the bible is flatly obvious about the existence of Jesus' siblings and so why even bother forming such a doctrine in the first place?
Clete
P.S. This was an excellent post, by the way! Thank you for engaging the discussion!
You're posts are fine. What I'm trying to elicit is fewer one liners and more substance. One liners have their place but don't you have something more to say than one sentence?
Right Divider
Body part
No, it does NOT (not matter how many times you make that assertion).
Like most of Churchianity, you have no idea what that actually means. It's about JUDGES. Here is the fuller passage:
These refers to THIS:
And also THIS:
¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. The Roman Catholic Eucharist is a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus, which scripture says only happened once, and we take the Lord’s supper to remember that single sacrifice by Jesus. Men who add to or take from scripture have a promise from God that He will judge them accordingly.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
1st Corinthians chapter 10, starting at verse 17 for context:
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
If you eat of the sacrifices offered on an altar, then you are partakers of that altar. The Jews did it in Jerusalem, and pagans did it too. People who ate food sacrificed on altars were partakers of those altars.
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
The perpetual sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered on the Lord's table, which is an altar.20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
I am not guilty of 'taking from' Sacred Scripture, not I.
If you guys want to discuss the Eucharist, something that is the very definition of biblically indefensible dogma, then please do it somewhere other than on a thread that is supposed to be about the biblically indefensible dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Idolater,
If you desire to believe that the bible doesn't mean what it seems to mean when it talks about Jesus' siblings and insist, without evidence, that these siblings were all older children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, then that seems to me to require more than simply a religious desire to believe that Mary remained a virgin forever.
What line of reasoning compels such a treatment of scripture? Is there any such line of reasoning?
Idolater,
If you desire to believe that the bible doesn't mean what it seems to mean when it talks about Jesus' siblings and insist, without evidence, that these siblings were all older children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, then that seems to me to require more than simply a religious desire to believe that Mary remained a virgin forever.
What line of reasoning compels such a treatment of scripture? Is there any such line of reasoning?
Right Divider
Body part
The body of Christ has no altar. That's your man-made religion making a mess of things.
You are guilty of “ adding to “ scripture.