False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Sigma]

Post #417 has been edited (again) for your assistance - Please refer back to Post #417 - Thank You

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

 

[David in NJ]

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

It is much more peaceful to submit to what God has said rather then try and avoid it and/or make excuses.

"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

a.) Joseph took Mary to be his wife as ordained by God.
b.) Mary was pregnant with child(from the Holy Spirit) before Joseph knew(sexual relations) Mary.
c.) God told Joseph to continue with Mary in holy matrimony.
d.) Joseph obeyed God and after(till) Jesus was born, he and Mary knew each other = God given and approved sexual intercourse
e.) God blessed Joseph and Mary in their marriage and added to them children of their own.

 

[Sigma]

It is much more peaceful to submit to what God has said rather then try and avoid it and/or make excuses.

You said, not God, the following:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

 

[David in NJ]

It is much more peaceful to submit to what God has said rather then try and avoid it and/or make excuses.

"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

a.) Joseph took Mary to be his wife as ordained by God.
b.) Mary was pregnant with child(from the Holy Spirit) before Joseph knew(sexual relations) Mary.
c.) God told Joseph to continue with Mary in holy matrimony.
d.) Joseph obeyed God and after/till Jesus was born, he and Mary knew each other = God given and approved sexual intercourse

You said, not God, the following:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B
Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"
What occurred from Point A to Point B?

 

[Sigma]

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B
Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"
What occurred from Point A to Point B?

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

 

[David in NJ]

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

How are you going to graduate if you s-till refuse the 5th Grade question?

 

[Sigma]

How are you going to graduate if you s-till refuse the 5th Grade question?

You said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

and therefore because you think the word "till" is used to mean "till after", then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why you won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low" to do that.

 

[Cassandra]

I do not believe that it is - but i am not reporting it since he obviously had a melt down = "he who is without sin cast the first stone"

i have had similiar meltdowns on the highway.

Yes, but I think we need to be mindful of the stones we throw.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

With regard to the office of Pope, that was established by Christ Himself in Matt. 16:18-19, especially 19, which says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.



Rella, quick question. Are you Orthodox? Or do you belong to one of the thousands of Protestant sects? Just curious.

An extremely long debate can be had on Pope Frankie "over the supremacy of the Pope."

You do believe that the pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, correct? While Orthodox Christians view the pope as a human being.

Do you remember when Frankie said the " statement that "relationship with Jesus is dangerous and harmful"?
( see:Did the Pope Condemn Personal Relationships with Jesus?)

This was from a Catholic source as to not be accused of providing a source that would be too common... or anti=Catholic

It goes on to say

We are able to live this journey not only because of others, but together with others. In the Church there is no “do it yourself,” there are no “free agents.” How many times did Pope Benedict describe the Church as an ecclesial “we”! At times one hears someone say: “I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, but I don’t care about the Church.” How many times have we heard this? And this is not good. There are those who believe they can maintain a personal, direct, and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside the communion and the mediation of the Church. These are dangerous and harmful temptations. These are, as the great Paul VI said, absurd dichotomies. It is true that walking together is challenging, and at times can be tiring: it can happen that some brother or some sister creates difficulties, or shocks us. . . . But the Lord entrusted his message of salvation to a few human beings, to us all, to a few witnesses; and it is in our brothers and in our sisters, with their gifts and limitations, that he comes to meet us and make himself known. And this is what it means to belong to the Church. Remember this well: to be Christian means belonging to the Church. The first name is “Christian,” the last name is “belonging to the Church” (General Audience, Wednesday, 25 June 2014).

And another Catholic Source

Why did the Pope said it is dangerous to have a personal relationship with Jesus?

www.askacatholic.com

Hi, guys —

• Why did the Pope said it is dangerous to have a personal relationship with Jesus?

Here's a quote:

Pope Francis described as dangerous the temptation to believe that one can have a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the Church.

I know he was trying to say that we should not go-it-alone and we should use the Church to further our efforts in developing our relationship with Jesus, but it certainly has caused a lot of uproar!!

______________________

Before I go on with anymore comments I need to ask you to show me the scriptures that say we ought not approach Jesus on our own... which almost says we should not seek him for any reason... including our eternities..... I need to see it in writing. That it needs be a group effort.....

But look how Frankie countered himself....

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/04/08/pope-relationship-with-jesus-is-our-own-personal-love-story/

Vatican City, Apr 8, 2018 / 04:20 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On the Second Sunday of Easter, also known as Divine Mercy Sunday, Pope Francis said that our relationship with God is a personal one, filled with his love and mercy, where we proclaim like St. Thomas: “My Lord and my God!”

“To enter into Jesus’ wounds is to contemplate the boundless love flowing from his heart. It is to realize that his heart beats for me, for you, for each one of us,” the pope said April 8.

So, I side with the Orthodox on his being a human being and as such...he IS subject to error....

I believe over the years that the office of the Papacy has wandered far afield from what was Christs original intent. But, admittedly I cant prove it , I only observe.

Now... In answer to your " Are you Orthodox? Or do you belong to one of the thousands of Protestant sects?"

I am a Christian who only follows Jesus and is “born again” by the Spirit of God.

Do I belong to a sect of any kind..... LOL... not in the way you mean for I belong to God. God the Father,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit... The Godhead. (NO more talk about this)

I could be Orthodox... but then which one.... Globally, there are 15 self-governing churches among the Eastern Orthodox, while the Oriental Orthodox, including the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians and Assyrians, have their own churches. Most of the denominations in both groups have institutional churches in the U.S., with the Greek Orthodox Church being the largest.

I could be Protestant.

And I could be Messianic (while listed under Protestantism is not of the same caliber.

I am a blend of all. For there is No church that is 100% right and No church that is 100% wrong.
And I seek only that which is right.

Do I pay my tithes and offering to any specific church? Yes, but I am no longer of all of their beliefs.

And that is all you need to know about me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Church founded by Christ is a teaching/preaching Church. The fullness of Divine Revelation was given to the Apostles orally, and passed on to their successors orally for the first few centuries. Remember, the vast majority of people were illiterate for about the first 19 centuries. SOME of what was taught orally was eventually written down, but not all. And it wasn't decided to be Scripture until the late 4th century. The vast, vast majority of early Christians weren't going around reading and interpreting Scripture. They were listening to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, teach orally about Jesus and His message.

The true church was established by Christ.

We see Paul's letters already called scripture in Peter's writings

As for illiteracy. Coming from a catholic as an excuse to support this view is prety funny. Considering the catholic church used latin readings for centuries. even though most people could not speak latin.

 

[Augustin56]

The true church was established by Christ.

We see Paul's letters already called scripture in Peter's writings

As for illiteracy. Coming from a catholic as an excuse to support this view is prety funny. Considering the catholic church used latin readings for centuries. even though most people could not speak latin.

I agree. The true Church was founded by Christ.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

Paul's letters weren't considered "Scripture" until the late 4th century, when the 27 books of the New Testament were deemed worthy of being Scripture out of the over 300 that they reviewed/analyzed at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. It is by the authority Christ gave the Catholic Church that you have a New Testament today. God didn't reach a Big Divine Hand out of the clouds and hand a Bible to King James.

Anyone who has studied history on a serious level would know that the common language of commerce and literature in Europe and the Mediterranean area was Latin for several centuries. Before that, it was Greek.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree. The true Church was founded by Christ.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

Paul's letters weren't considered "Scripture" until the late 4th century, when the 27 books of the New Testament were deemed worthy of being Scripture out of the over 300 that they reviewed/analyzed at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. It is by the authority Christ gave the Catholic Church that you have a New Testament today. God didn't reach a Big Divine Hand out of the clouds and hand a Bible to King James.

Anyone who has studied history on a serious level would know that the common language of commerce and literature in Europe and the Mediterranean area was Latin for several centuries. Before that, it was Greek.

lol

Anyone who studied the word would know the church that calls itself the roman catholic church was not founded by God or by Peter..

If they were the true church, Scripture would support them. it does not. Many pagan doctrines instituted by the roman church is not biblical.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You have no idea how many of your protestants ignored my posts when backed into a corner they couldnt escape. All I've been doing for weeks is be patient, replying to question and argument, addressing every falsehood, and giving my all in every reply without dishonesty, without adding words to verses that arent there, lying, etc. You literally just admitted to taking Matt. 1:25 out of context and saying you don't care about that. Zero integrity. And yet you want me to answer you?? Give me a good reason for staying engaged with you if theres gonna be a double standard and no integrity

What is wrong with you.

I said " I don't care about that." And you should not either

So quit telling me that I ignored you on anything.....

You use this diversion to side step anything anyone else shows you about your own misinterpretations .

I know you are sprinkled as a baby in the Catholic form of baptism..... I have been to that for my moms Godson

How do you rationalize what is said in Mark 16:16 In the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Bible...

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

YOU KNOW... every reference in any bible is always by immersion.... #1

YOU KNOW... every reference to chilodren and babied being baptised is no where to be found in the bible. #2.

If you claim to believe in Mark 16:16 as literal then all else your church has you doing is for nought.

And if you dont believe in Mark 16:16 as literal... then you are denying the inspired words of God. (No matter who put that into the longer ending)

Either way it is you, yourself take things out of context... but doesn't that matter if it does not apply to Mary.

It does not matter if Mary did or did not remain a virgin..... That will have zero effect on your or my salvation.

If Mathew truly wrote Chapter 1 vs 25 in those words.... he was the one that was stupid. A

And put this in your pipe and smoke it for a while. If that verse was God inspired, and God wanted the word till used there... I believe God intends for confusion among his people which all started at Babel.

You keep bringing up Micah as some sort of proof that the use of the word till makes an end to things.
You do realize Samuel 2 was written approximately 1000 years before the birth of Jesus.
So we have a 1000 year span to assure us that the word till makes and end to things... for Mary

I gave you many alternate bible transleations for this verse. (13 that I could find) See reply #393.

You are aware that other then Koine Greek the common language in parts back then was Aramaic.
Jesus was fluent in Aramaic also.

One of my alternative translations from above ... which would have been written about the time
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua.

Have you read the Hebrew translation of Mathew...? According to the earliest Christian tradition, Matthew was written in Hebrew.

The link is here... Hebrew Gospel of Matthew | HebrewGospels.com

The verse is translated

24. When yoseph arose from his dream he did according as El commanded him. So he took his wife- but did not know her until she gave birth to the son, and he called his name Yeshua.

Believe as you wish... for you will anyway, but this reads as if he knew his wife at some point.

 

[Marymog]

lol

Anyone who studied the word would know the church that calls itself the roman catholic church was not founded by God or by Peter..

If they were the true church, Scripture would support them. it does not. Many pagan doctrines instituted by the roman church is not biblical.

And Scripture supports YOUR church?

 

[Marymog]

The largest sectarian religion that professes to be christian, teaches Mary mother of Jesus never had sexual relations with her husband Joseph after the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew 1:23-25,
- Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a Son and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is translated God with us.

- Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angel of the Lord commanded him took to his wife,
and did not KNOW HER till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Galatians 1:19,
- Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained with him fifteen days.
- But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords BROTHER.

Mary had children with Joseph before she left this earth. Jesus had siblings. Paul says so in Galatians 1:19.
Mary lost her virginity to her husband as God intended.

I would appreciate others to quote passages that show Jesus had siblings.
There are more than the ones I quoted above.
But one only needs one passage that says Jesus had a brother named James to refute the false doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
How many times does God need to say something for it to be true? Once!

Deny Scripture and the 2,000 year teaching of Christianity all you want....it doesn't change the truth.

At no point and at no time does Scripture EVER call Jesus's "brothers" the children of Mary. James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus. After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

I know you will deny these FACTS....but for 500 years that is where Protestantism has led Christianity. To the point of denying facts/truth

 

[Marymog]

The "Roman" Pagan Goddess Diana was a perpetual Virgin.

Acts 19:27​

​

27 ""So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worships.""​

​

""" much of her ethos [beliefs & practices] was transferred to the Virgin Mary. Both figures enjoyed major sanctuaries at Ephesus in 5ad" (Encyclopedia of Gods, Jordan, p. 26). By taking over Diana's Temple as a church for Mary in Ephesus and declaring her "Mother of God" , the Catholic church simply borrowed and adapted ancient traditions"""​

-​

View attachment 33765​

​

That is a beautiful statue dedicated in the memory of the Mother of God. Where is that?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

The "Roman" Pagan Goddess Diana was a perpetual Virgin.

Acts 19:27​

​

27 ""So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worships.""​

​

""" much of her ethos [beliefs & practices] was transferred to the Virgin Mary. Both figures enjoyed major sanctuaries at Ephesus in 5ad" (Encyclopedia of Gods, Jordan, p. 26). By taking over Diana's Temple as a church for Mary in Ephesus and declaring her "Mother of God" , the Catholic church simply borrowed and adapted ancient traditions"""​

-​

View attachment 33765​

​

"perpetual virgin".

When did the Catholic Church declare Mary's perpetual virginity?

"" 553

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 gave her the title "Aeiparthenos", meaning Perpetual Virgin, and at the Lateran Synod of 649 Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ.""

And what is also interesting about that is that the Pagan Goddess DIANA is also the "perpetual virgin"..

JUST FOR INFORMATION

I brought these two forward because I received an email this AM from the Biblical Archeology Society and while admittedly they are selling a product, or trying to since the subject of this email is Artemus/Diana and referencing 1 Timothy 2:15 (NO... I am not buying or reading this. )

Yes, I realize this thread is all about Mary's perpetual virginity. (BOY.... there is a whole lot on that on both sides ~had an article yesterday I was going to post today and I have lost it)

Anyway,

I thought some would be interested in seeing it. (my email) As I had not realized that she would have been important enough or worthy enough to actually make much ado that would have a book written about her effect on Paul's writings...

So further looking has the Artemis mentioned in the book of Acts was a deity—a localized goddess of the Ephesians—but she bore the same name (Latinized as “Diana”) as the goddess of Greek mythology. Her temple in Ephesus was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The Ephesian Artemis was considered a “queen of heaven” deity emphasizing fertility, virginity, and the protection of childbearing.

SO WHY WAS PAUL EVEN INCLUDING HER IN HIS WRITINGS?

And this Ephesian Artemis/Diana

​

Some Christians think Paul's reference to "saved through childbearing" in 1 Timothy 2:15 means that women are slated primarily for delivering and raising children. But Sandra Glahn thinks that we have misunderstood Paul by misunderstanding the context to which he wrote. A key to reading and applying 1 Timothy, Glahn argues, lies in getting to know a mysterious figure who haunts the letter: the goddess Artemis. Combining spiritual autobiography, scholarly exploration, and new research on Artemis, Glahn's new book Nobody's Mother lays a biblical foundation for men and women serving side by side in the church. This insightful book features:

• groundbreaking research and new data about Artemis of the Ephesians • essential background information unveiling the cult of Artemis and how early Christians related to it • faithful biblical interpretation applied to conflicting models of God's view of women

 

[Sigma]

I said " I don't care about that." And you should not either

I shouldn't care about how you said you don't care about your having admitted to having inserted the word "after" into Matt. 1:25 that wasn't originally there, and thus changes the context of it??? A word which, again, wasn't there in the original language used, nor in any of the English translations you listed in post #393. Um, no, I'm just not going to not care when I see inaccuracy and dishonesty.

You use this diversion to side step anything anyone else shows you about your own misinterpretations .

A fellow protestant of yours, @David in NJ, said:

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

You and every other protestant I've spoken with agrees with him. Therefore, because you all think the word "till" is used to mean "till after, then you should also say the following:

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You know why none of you have and won't? Because you'd have to admit you're wrong about your interpretation of how "till" is used in Matt. 1:25 to a Catholic, which you don't wanna do. You'd rather stick to stupid logic, be inconsistent, and persist in the sin of pride, rather than "stoop so low"" to do that.

You don't consider the context of Matt. 1:20-24, where Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not whether or not Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the the world...

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:

"Following Matthew speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the tidbit: 'And Joseph finally got to have sex after the birth of the Savior unto the world..." (Matt. 1:25)

That is an asinine argument.

 

[Augustin56]

lol

Anyone who studied the word would know the church that calls itself the roman catholic church was not founded by God or by Peter..

If they were the true church, Scripture would support them. it does not. Many pagan doctrines instituted by the roman church is not biblical.

LOL

Anyone who knew what they were talking about would know that the official name of the Catholic Church is not the "Roman Catholic Church." The "Roman" part was started by the Anglicans as a polemic.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

LOL

Anyone who knew what they were talking about would know that the official name of the Catholic Church is not the "Roman Catholic Church." The "Roman" part was started by the Anglicans as a polemic.

lol..

it was started in rome by Constantine

call it whatever you want it. I call it Rome