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

[Moonwood]

You're missing the whole point if you think defending Catholic teachings is a good thing.

I could care less to argue if you do not know that for yourself.

You’re not actually engaging with anything I said. I’ve given historical and scriptural reasons for my position, and instead of addressing them, you’re shifting to personal remarks about what I “should already know.”

If you don’t want to discuss the history or the theology, that’s fine. But simply declaring that defending Catholic teaching is “missing the point” doesn’t answer any of the points I raised. It just ends the conversation on your side.

If you ever want to talk about the actual evidence or the early Church itself, I’m here for that. But I’m not going to argue against dismissive statements that don’t deal with the substance.

 

[GeneZ]

You’re not actually engaging with anything I said. I’ve given historical and scriptural reasons for my position, and instead of addressing them, you’re shifting to personal remarks about what I “should already know.”

If you don’t want to discuss the history or the theology, that’s fine. But simply declaring that defending Catholic teaching is “missing the point” doesn’t answer any of the points I raised. It just ends the conversation on your side.

If you ever want to talk about the actual evidence or the early Church itself, I’m here for that. But I’m not going to argue against dismissive statements that don’t deal with the substance.

You are trying to neuter a real problem that exists with the Catholic Church by giving a detached perspective that I have no interest in hearing.

If you think you are eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood? Be my guest.

 

[Moonwood]

You are trying to neuter a real problem that exists with the Catholic Church by giving a detached perspective that I have no interest in hearing.

If you think you are eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood? Be my guest.

You’re shifting away from the historical points I raised and into personal dismissals. Saying you have “no interest in hearing” a perspective doesn’t answer any of the evidence about how the early Church actually functioned.

And the Eucharist isn’t a side issue or a shock tactic — it’s simply what Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body… this is my blood.” You’re free to interpret that symbolically, but Catholics take Jesus at His word. That’s not the point I was making, though.

The point remains that the early Church was visible, organized, and apostolic, and the communities the apostles established didn’t vanish when Jerusalem fell. They continued under the leadership Jesus gave them, and that’s the historical continuity Catholics point to.

If you want to discuss the actual historical or scriptural claims, I’m here for that. But dismissing them because you dislike Catholic teaching doesn’t address the substance.

 

[Marvelloustime]

Praise the Lord this life is but a vapor but eternal life is forever .
Even so COME Lord Jesus .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

well if what anyone calls The abominations the RCC added in as polemics , lets just say i have a whole nother word for that .
And i already said the above part with the apostels and an organized visible church etc .
But that RCC was NOT OF IT . That a harlot and i wont be bending the knee to her or her all inclusive ecumenical peace
of anti christ . Moonwood , i truly pray TO GOD that none would either. I sure dont desire their destruction .
So i got work to do exposing her and all her protestant daughters and false religons she has merging under her
as one . So let us all take heed . Never sit under a harlot , for she is always f ull of deadly diseases
and her chambers are but death leading to death twice told . as in second death for sure and for certain .
I am glad we could clear this up my friend .

@amigo de christo

 

[GeneZ]

You’re shifting away from the historical points

Your attempts at historical points do nothing to change the current state of the Catholic Church.

 

[GeneZ]

The point remains that the early Church was visible, organized, and apostolic, and the communities the apostles established didn’t vanish when Jerusalem fell. They continued under the leadership Jesus gave them, and that’s the historical continuity Catholics point to.

It was because of the state of the church that Jerusalem fell.
It even suckered Paul into ending up in chains.

Hebrews 6:4-6 was commentary on the church at that time in Jerusalem.
It was the original mother church that preceded the Catholic Church.

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, ​

who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the ​

powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ​

To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.​

That was the fruit of the first organized church in its decline.
The RCC was no different and declined.

 

[Moonwood]

Your attempts at historical points do nothing to change the current state of the Catholic Church.

It was because of the state of the church that Jerusalem fell.
It even suckered Paul into ending up in chains.

Hebrews 6:4-6 was commentary on the church at that time in Jerusalem.
It was the original mother church that preceded the Catholic Church.

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, ​

who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the ​

powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ​

To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.​

That was the fruit of the first organized church in its decline.
The RCC was no different and declined.

You’re making a theological leap that the text itself doesn’t support. Hebrews 6 isn’t a “commentary on the church in Jerusalem,” and it certainly isn’t a historical analysis of institutional decline. It’s a warning about apostasy directed at individual believers — not a declaration that the entire early Church had fallen away. If you read the whole epistle, the author is urging perseverance, not announcing that the Church has already collapsed.

And the idea that “Jerusalem fell because of the state of the church” simply isn’t historically accurate. Jerusalem fell because of the First Jewish–Roman War, a political and military conflict between Rome and various Jewish factions. The Christian community in Jerusalem wasn’t running the city, wasn’t directing its politics, and wasn’t responsible for the revolt. That’s not how any historian — Christian or secular — understands the destruction of Jerusalem.

As for Paul “being suckered,” that’s also not what the text shows. Paul willingly went to Jerusalem knowing the risks, because he believed his mission required it. Acts makes that explicit. You’re reading later frustration back into the narrative.

But even if I granted your entire interpretation for the sake of argument, it still wouldn’t touch the point I raised: the early Church didn’t vanish. The apostles didn’t disappear. The communities they founded didn’t dissolve. The Church continued to exist, teach, ordain, and preserve the faith — and that continuity is precisely what Catholics point to.

You’re trying to use your interpretation of a warning passage in Hebrews as a sweeping indictment of the entire early Church and then projecting that onto Catholicism. That’s not a historical argument. It’s a theological assertion.

If you want to talk about actual history — what the early Christian communities were, how they were structured, how they survived the fall of Jerusalem, and how apostolic leadership continued — I’m absolutely willing to do that. But saying “the RCC declined just like Jerusalem declined” isn’t an argument. It’s just a comparison you’re asserting without evidence.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You've been shown exactly where the bible says Jesus had siblings and where the bible says Mary and Joseph had sex.

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 12:46
Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19
Matthew 13:55-56
Mark 6:3

Nope.

FIRST of all - the is ZERO mention about "having sex" in ANY of these passages.

Secondly - YOU'VE already been shown that these Adelphoi are NOT the children of Jesus' Mother, Mary. They are the children of Maryy's Adelphe, the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus, who is also named "Mary".

As I exposed you before - you''re just another 21st century, English-speaking person who doesn't understand the langiuages and culture of a people from 2000 years ago. Justo do your hommework and you find the truth . . .

Your reasoning relys on me believing your claims about Greek translations which I don't. My Greek translation says they are talking about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. You only cast a tiny amount of doubt. It's far from being a refutation.

I've provided biblical evidence for my claim.
You have not provided any biblical evidence for your claim because there isn't any.

Which I have repeatedly debinked, using Scripture, History and Linguistic science.
I gave you TWO respected and reputable Greek sources - Strong's Greek Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon.

Now - it's time for YOU to show me your reputable scholarly linguistic source that states Adelphos can ONLY mean "brother of the SAME parents".
I'll wait right here for your well-researched answer . . .

I rest my case.

Yes, perhaps you should . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong and you know it.
You never answered my question,

No – YOU never answered MINE.

When I first responded to your false claims – I asked you to show me where the BIBLE says that Mary had other children. YOU and everybody else here has been dodging that challenge ever since . . .

Bread of Life used the Protoevangelium of James to prove what?
He has admitted it's not his belief that Joseph had children with another wife as the Protoevangelium makes this claim.
So why even bring up the Protevangelium of James document if you dont believe its factual historical evidence?

Bread of Life uses "historical evidence " as his evidence.
This "evidence" he himself admits is not his position.
Yet he uses it anyway to prove Mary never had children.

And this is yet another question I have repeatedly answered.

However, you keep repeating the question to DETRACT from the fact that you cannot answer MY question.

DODGING my challenge to show me where the Bible says that Mary ad other children doesn’t make the facts simply “go away” . . .

And to expose your LIES yet again – anybody can go back in the posts to see that I explicitly stated that I presented the Protoevangelium to show that the historical Early Church REJECTED the heretical claims against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Soooo, again – show me where the BIBLE says that Mary had other children . . .