The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum debate on Mary's Virginity

Since we are in the midst of some RCC interaction these days, I thought I would recommend a debate between Prof. Eric Svendsen(protestant) vs. Prof. Gerry Matatics(RCC).<br>“Did mary have other children”?<br>http://www.straitgate.com/svendsen/index.htm<br><br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't profess to understand the whole issue being discussed here, but as for Mary's virginity, it would seem to be for the most part a non issue, and really a lousy place to build a doctrine about Mary since the Bible is very clear that Jesus was born of a Virgin and that yes indeed Mary got married to Joseph. Surely as a married couple they had sex.<br> A lot of people don't really pick up on it though that Mary not only had Jesus, but she also had 4 other sons and at least 2 other daughters which survived at least into the time of Jesus's ministry. We can see them mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, and to a lesser extent in Matthew 12:46 and Mark 15:40. This doesn't compromise that she was a virgin when she had Jesus b/c the Bible clearly states that she became pregnant with Him a few months before her marriage to Joseph. Jesus was the first born, if you look at his life that becomes obvious. That He had other brothers and sisters is quite clear, even in the traditions about Jesus's disciples after He ascended into Heaven. If Jesus had been the only child of Mary and Joseph they would have looked rather wierd in their time, it's so much more logical that Mary had other kids, just after she had Jesus.<br><br><br>--------------------------------------- Read below at your own risk.--------------------------------------------------------------<br>Just to rant for a moment though, why is it that people have such a hard time believing that a virgin can get pregnant? I've known more than one girl who have their physical virginity but who've gotten pregnant, and if a young man can get a girl pregnant without penetration (which is still sex in any good definition of sex), then surely it is within the power of God who created all things to work a miracle as He said He would and He said He did to make a virgin pregnant. The fact that Mary had Jesus doesn't make her some super holy saint to be prayed too, it just means God sovereignly and wisely chose to use this particular girl to bring into the world the Messiah who had to experience life from birth to death. Read Hebrews 2:18 and 7:25 and meditate on that for awhile. <br>The only way I can see that someone can believe in Mary actually birthing God (The Almighty) is if they believe that that same God and Mary whom they pray to are incestouss sinners, and hey, Adam and Eve's kids and Abraham and Sarah and Lot and his daughters may have committed that, but I think that's a little bit below God. Such a view makes a man to worship a degenerate, the blind following the blind straight into a pit of falacy and sin.<br><br>In short, Mary birthed Jesus, being the mother of his physical body, she went on to live a fairly normal life and she died. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and He is the one we pray to and who makes intercession for us, forget praying to Marry, forget praying to a saint, forget praying to a Pope, forget praying to a priest, it doesn't work.<br><br>Zealous for the Truth,<br>-Brother Luke

Luke [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't mean to be rude, and I don't profess to understand the whole issue being discussed here, but as for Mary's virginity, it would seem to be for the most part a non issue, and really a lousy place to build a doctrine about Mary since the Bible is very clear that Jesus was born of a Virgin and that yes indeed Mary got married to Joseph</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>for the RCC surely it is not a "non issue". But just from this one doctrine, it can be easily seen how they prefer "traditions" over the scripture. The lenghts at which they go to teach this "dogma" just goes to show how they would do with any other. Matitics threw every trick and smokescream I think I have ever seen. Even went as so far to misquote Josephus dogmatically; in response Eric asked him to give him the correct citation for it after the debate. To my knowledge it never happened. James White even questioned him on this in the following debate. Initially,He basically try to pretend that He didn't know what White was referring to, and then tried to wiesel out. It was kind of funny, IMHO. But in any case, I thought the debate was good because it shows the tactics used by RCC apologists in defending their dogmas, which would be clearly seen as conflicting with scripture. Nevertheless, that does not stop them. I guess this will open up another can...[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos<br><br>

Luke,

Are you sure that these are words you should say? For the Bible clearly teaches "Mary actually birthing God (The Almighty)" in Isaiah 9:6. Luke 1:35, Rev. 1:8, etc. Please be very careful with your words, for if they are taken literally, they deny the Divinity of Jesus, leaving us without a Savior. I am guessing that you thought you were saying something else, but it looks like you ended up throwing out the baby--literally!--with the bathwater.

Also, in reference to your sentence beginning "I've known more than one ...", let me urge you to refrain from making such statements, in light of Ephesians 5:12. It may be possible, and sometimes necessary, to publicly discuss sinful practices, but rarely in a non-pastoral setting, and never in reference to particular individuals. Your statement claims private knowledge of particular people indulging in particular activity--a knowledge which you should not have, much less publicly display. Rather, "keep the marriage bed pure"! In addition to all this, you should be aware that the area of sexual immortality abounds in more boastful lying by its promoters than any other area of life, so is hardly a good foundation for a doctrinal statement.

Dear Paul, I thank you for your kind post and I understand what you're saying, at least I think I do. I guess to be honest I posted a little off topic b/c I feel that the issue of Mary's virginity is very obvious and it's rather stupid to question it, the Bible clearly teaches that Mary was a virgin. The Bible also teaches that Christ is 100 percent God and 100 percent man, this I have no trouble with, its even more clear that He lived life and had a physical form and after the resurrection He ascended into Heaven. What I was trying to say is probably better expressed in that I do not believe that Mary created God, but rather that it was God who used one of His creations (mary) to birth His son and that this does not make Mary greater than God as some are known to say. Heaven forbid it that I should ever say something so heretical as that Jesus is not God, that is against all that I know and believe.<br> In addition, about my other statement, I'm sorry if I offended you, I do not mean to say something out of turn, but I often feel free and feel the necessity to deal with things in as forward a manner as possible. Some things one is forced to learn by being an openly Christian public high school student, did I want to know, no, do I know, yes, and I don't deny that. I fully understand your discomfort about sexuality, it's a topic of a rather taboo nature to most Christians, but to me it would seem that I have liberty and that the Bible does deal with sex, and going to college now it's not as though I don't have to have a knowledgeable standard, nevertheless, I apologize and (while making no promises) I will try to refrain from such things if they are unnecessary, for your sake. I agree, such statements are often boastful and are often lude and crude and are most certainly not the good ground for a doctrinal statement.<br><br><br>Dear Carlos, I appreciate your post as well, I wasn't able to get into the debate and hear it, and as I said to Paul, I wish I'd been more on topic, but I felt rather passionette about the subject. I find the idea of someone basing their beliefs on dogma and not upon the Bible to be rather uninformed and ignorant. And if one will say that they are a Christian and will base their beliefs on the Bible then they must understand that the Bible is clear about the Virgin birth and that Mary had kids after she had Jesus.<br><br>I thank you both for your post, bless you.<br><br>-Brother Luke<br>

BrimstonePreacha,

I must admit that I have always had serious problems with the statement, made by both Rome, the Orthodox Church and some of the Reformers, that Mary was the "Mother of God". I am, however, more than privy to the differences each group held to that phrase. However, I still have a strong aversion to referring to Mary as the "Mother of God", for on the surface, one could easily understand it to mean that Mary "birthed" God, which is clearly a blasphemous and offensive statement, both to the Lord and to my intellect. I do think there are more appropriate ways to express Mary giving birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who was God incarnate. So, I can certainly sympathize with your consternation and wanting to discuss this topic of Mary's virginity. But, isn't the issue really between Rome, who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity and the biblical teaching that she was only a virgin up to the birth of the Lord Christ? Rome has never denied Mary's virginity but has propagated the superstitious tradition that she remained a virgin after Christ's birth.

As to the other matter which Paul_S admonished for, I have no comment.

In His Grace,

I was reading something in Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, pages 345-346, where he says that it's ridiculous to say, as Rome does, that Mary took a VOW of perpetual virginity, but he also argues that those who say that she definitely did not remain a virgin the rest of her life are presuming too much. He makes Romish arguments against saying that Jesus' brothers and sisters were cousins, too. I was surprised at that.