Built On The Wrong Apostle

Some of the many heresies of Catholicism. None of these are Biblical. They are all the result of an evil organization altering things to fit their agenda. Many are outright lies, such as Mary always being a virgin. The RCC even altered their Bible to make that appear true.

1- Prayers for the dead
2- Veneration of angels and dead saints
3- The mass
4- Worship of Mary
5- Mary as "Mother of God"
6- Purgatory
7- Latin imposed as language of worship and prayer
8- Prayer to Mary and dead saints
9- The Papacy
10- Peter as first pope
11- Kissing of pope's feet
12- Worship of cross, images, and relics
13- Holy water
14- Canonization of dead saints
15- Fasting on Fridays and during Lent
16- Mass is a sacrifice
17- Priesthood
18- Celibacy of priesthood
19- Rosary
20- Inquisition
21- Sale of indulgences
22- Transubstantiation
23- Confession of sins to priest
24- Adoration of the wafer
25- Scapular
26- Seven sacraments
27- Tradition has equal authority as Bible
28- Added apocryphal books to canon
29- Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as official creed
30- Immaculate conception of Mary
31- Papal infallibility
32- Assumption of Mary
33- Mary died a virgin
34- Use of the title "Father"
35- Only members of RCC are saved
36- Salvation by works
37- Sign of the cross
38- Extreme Unction
39- Mary as Mediatrix
40- Mary as Advocate
41- The RCC replacing Israel

Ac28 said:

Some of the many heresies of Catholicism. None of these are Biblical. They are all the result of an evil organization altering things to fit their agenda. Many are outright lies, such as Mary always being a virgin. The RCC even altered their Bible to make that appear true.

1- Prayers for the dead
2- Veneration of angels and dead saints
3- The mass
4- Worship of Mary
5- Mary as "Mother of God"
6- Purgatory
7- Latin imposed as language of worship and prayer
8- Prayer to Mary and dead saints
9- The Papacy
10- Peter as first pope
11- Kissing of pope's feet
12- Worship of cross, images, and relics
13- Holy water
14- Canonization of dead saints
15- Fasting on Fridays and during Lent
16- Mass is a sacrifice
17- Priesthood
18- Celibacy of priesthood
19- Rosary
20- Inquisition
21- Sale of indulgences
22- Transubstantiation
23- Confession of sins to priest
24- Adoration of the wafer
25- Scapular
26- Seven sacraments
27- Tradition has equal authority as Bible
28- Added apocryphal books to canon
29- Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as official creed
30- Immaculate conception of Mary
31- Papal infallibility
32- Assumption of Mary
33- Mary died a virgin
34- Use of the title "Father"
35- Only members of RCC are saved
36- Salvation by works
37- Sign of the cross
38- Extreme Unction
39- Mary as Mediatrix
40- Mary as Advocate
41- The RCC replacing Israel

Click to expand...

This WOULD be a funny post - if not so tragically ignorant and stupid.

ALL of the points marked in RED are either false accusations or can be substantiated by Sacred Scripture.
This means that YOU have posted a litany of lies . . .

For starters, #'s 1, 2, 8 &14 ALL speak of "dead" saints.
How can they be "dead" when the Bible tells us that they are MORE live than YOU are because they have been made perfect in Christ??

Regarding prayers for the dead - in 2 Macc. 42-46, we see that Judas Maccabeus prays for the men of his army, killed in battle. Verse 44 says, “… for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.”

As for the "selling" of indulgences - the Church never promoted this. It was an abuse by a few men, including Johan Tetzel in Germany. As a matter of fact - I challenge you to find ONE single document, declaration or decree from the Catholic Church that did anything other than CONDEMN the sale of indulgences.

As for Jesus - He IS God (Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, John 20:28, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, John 8:58, John 20:28, 2 Cor. 4:4, Philip. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13).

Jesus had a Mother and her name is Mary (Luke 1:27). Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus - who is GOD.
She is therefore, the Mother of GOD - God the Son - NOT the Trinity.

The Bible NEVER tells us that Mary had ANY children other than Jesus.
I challenge you to produce the Chapter and Verse that says she did.

I'll go down the rest of your list with you if you'd like - but I just thought I'd expose these lies first . . .

Hello @Bread of Life,

Mary was indeed the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and as He was God, it can be said that she was the Mother of God, but it is not the terminology of Scripture, so is better not used.

* The fact that our Lord Jesus Christ has brothers and sisters is recorded in Scripture:-

'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at Him.'
(Mar 6:3)

'But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother.'
(Gal 1:19)

* You have a zeal for the Roman Catholic Church, my friend, but it appears to be at the expense of truth.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

charity said:

Hello @Bread of Life,

Mary was indeed the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and as He was God, it can be said that she was the Mother of God, but it is not the terminology of Scripture, so is better not used.

* The fact that our Lord Jesus Christ has brothers and sisters is recorded in Scripture:-

'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at Him.'
(Mar 6:3)

'But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother.'
(Gal 1:19)

* You have a zeal for the Roman Catholic Church, my friend, but it appears to be at the expense of truth.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

First of all - if she IS the mother of God - then it is not only fitting, but PROPER to call her that.
The Bible doesn't use the terms "Trinity" or "Incarnation" - but these are commonly-used terms in Christianity.

Secondly - I never said that the bible didn't say that Jesus had "Adelphoi" (brethren). It DOES.
HOWEVER - Adelphos(oi) can be used for uterine brother, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, nephew, neighbor, felloe countryman, fellow believer, etc.

Mary is never recorded in the NT as having ANY other children.

Mark 6:3, which you quoted is an interesting passage. Was Mary (mother of Jesus) their mother??
NOT according to the crucifixion accounts:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s SISTER (Adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph (Joses) to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). We KNOW that they aren't sisters because they have the same first name - so they are some other relation - just like James and Joses are some relation to Jesus OTHER than uterine siblings.

I have a zeal for Christ, who is Truth itself (John 14:6) - and His Church is the FULLNESS of Him (Eph. 1:22-23).

BreadOfLife said:

First of all - if she IS the mother of God - then it is not only fitting, but PROPER to call her that.
The Bible doesn't use the terms "Trinity" or "Incarnation" - but these are commonly-used terms in Christianity.

Secondly - I never said that the bible didn't say that Jesus had "Adelphoi" (brethren). It DOES.
HOWEVER - Adelphos(oi) can be used for uterine brother, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, nephew, neighbor, felloe countryman, fellow believer, etc.

Mary is never recorded in the NT as having ANY other children.

Mark 6:3, which you quoted is an interesting passage. Was Mary (mother of Jesus) their mother??
NOT according to the crucifixion accounts:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s SISTER (Adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph (Joses) to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). We KNOW that they aren't sisters because they have the same first name - so they are some other relation - just like James and Joses are some relation to Jesus OTHER than uterine siblings.

I have a zeal for Christ, who is Truth itself (John 14:6) - and His Church is the FULLNESS of Him (Eph. 1:22-23).

Click to expand...

I thought that was a well laid out post.
They are much more enjoyable to read when your not "on a rant".

I've always been of the persuasion that Jesus did have siblings...( not that it is life or death to me either way) ...but actually I thought your argument here was a good one.

HOWEVER - Adelphos(oi) can be used for uterine brother, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, nephew, neighbor, felloe countryman, fellow believer, etc.

Click to expand...

I am aware of that, and in time past I checked it out. It seems that all their "brother and sisters" could well be cousins or uncles etc...

Anyway, I just wanted to but-in here, and say I liked it all, Interesting.

charity said:

'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at Him.'
(Mar 6:3)

Click to expand...

brothers is obviously not being used colloquially there i guess

bbyrd009 said:

brothers is obviously not being used colloquially there i guess

Click to expand...

Of the 344 times we see the use of the word "brother" (Adelphos(oi) in the NT, we see that . . .

- There are only 41 cases (12%) where it clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
- There are 47 cases (14%) where it may or may not refer to a family sibling:
- HOWEVER - there are 256 cases (74%) where it cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

Them's pretty strong odds . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Them's pretty strong odds . . .

Click to expand...

brothers is pretty obviously not being used colloquially there though, BoL.
i forget how that intrudes on RCC dogma tbh, prolly something about Perpetual Virginity or some other...such
(unless those bros were Jo's from another mother i guess)

but really we can take the "brothers" argument a step further imo, in 22I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one, which does ignore the PV question, but hopefully is conciliatory otherwise.

Imo Scripture intentionally downplays Jesus the person and His blood relatives (and indeed His entire heritage and apparent nation) for a good reason, and PV only directs us back into it, imo similar to the vain notion of celebrating Jesus' birthday, etc, wadr

bbyrd009 said:

brothers is pretty obviously not being used colloquially there though, BoL.
i forget how that intrudes on RCC dogma tbh, prolly something about Perpetual Virginity or some other...such
(unless those bros were Jo's from another mother i guess)

but really we can take the "brothers" argument a step further imo, in 22I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one, which does ignore the PV question, but hopefully is conciliatory otherwise.

Imo Scripture intentionally downplays Jesus the person and His blood relatives (and indeed His entire heritage and apparent nation) for a good reason, and PV only directs us back into it, imo similar to the vain notion of celebrating Jesus' birthday, etc, wadr

Click to expand...

Sorry, pal - you can't get away from Scripture on this matter.

Like I said - even where Scripture NAMES these so-called siblings of Jesus - it later shows them to be the children of another woman - and NOT the Mother of Jesus.

I have never heard a good argument against this fact.
The weight of evidence is on the Catholic side . . .

BreadOfLife said:

it later shows them to be the children of another woman - and NOT the Mother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

ah, interesting, i remember y'all posting that now. Pretty common names, but i'm not arguing. You might post the ref, the vv again, ty
seems like i remember a valid argument against this "other woman" too, for these "same kids," but i forget what it is.
(tbh imo it's a distraction from Christ, is what it is)

bbyrd009 said:

i remember a valid argument against this "other woman" too, for these "same kids," but i forget what it is.
(tbh imo it's a distraction from Christ, is what it is)

Click to expand...

Now THAT is wisdom right there.
Amen.
( though I do often enjoy BOL's posts when he is just chatting and not ranting..it is worth the read. Plus it is not negative when he has good arguments. )

bbyrd009 said:

ah, interesting, i remember y'all posting that now. Pretty common names, but i'm not arguing. You might post the ref, the vv again, ty
seems like i remember a valid argument against this "other woman" too, for these "same kids," but i forget what it is.
(tbh imo it's a distraction from Christ, is what it is)

Click to expand...

And falsely claiming that He had siblings - without any real evidence ISN'T a distraction from Christ??

If you have a valid argument against the "other" Mary - then let's have it . . .

BreadOfLife said:

And falsely claiming that He had siblings - without any real evidence ISN'T a distraction from Christ??

If you have a valid argument against the "other" Mary - then let's have it . . .

Click to expand...

oh, nah, it rly is a non-issue to me. i know there is some refute to that is all, but tbh imo those differences are likely making a statement, and there is prolly some value in comparing the two Marys, a la "The Magdalene denotes the cultivated city of humanity but the Nazarene denotes the wilderness," something like that; i am more inclined to take them together now rather than try to separate them, at least for purposes of reflection; Mary in diff aspects or whatever
Mary/Miriam (Nobse) Obstinacy (Stubbornness)
(Jones) Their Rebellion
hmm
(Abarim) Myrrhs or rather Occasions That Call For Myrrh
Bitter Waters or Waters Of Strength.
Myrrhs or rather Wedding Nights

bbyrd009 said:

oh, nah, it rly is a non-issue to me. i know there is some refute to that is all, but tbh imo those differences are likely making a statement, and there is prolly some value in comparing the two Marys, a la "The Magdalene denotes the cultivated city of humanity but the Nazarene denotes the wilderness," something like that; i am more inclined to take them together now rather than try to separate them, at least for purposes of reflection; Mary in diff aspects or whatever
Mary/Miriam (Nobse) Obstinacy (Stubbornness)
(Jones) Their Rebellion
hmm
(Abarim) Myrrhs or rather Occasions That Call For Myrrh
Bitter Waters or Waters Of Strength.
Myrrhs or rather Wedding Nights

Click to expand...

Thanks for that confused and ignorant rant.
However - you didn't shed one single ray of light in opposition to the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Thanks for that confused and ignorant rant.
However - you didn't shed one single ray of light in opposition to the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin . . .

Click to expand...

Mary does not need to be made into Supergirl and added to the Pantheon in order for me to accept Christ as Lord; but neither am i very interested in disproving Mary's (most likely nonexistent) PV to someone who requires it to lend Christ legitimacy, even if their goal is to worship imo Nehushtan, and light candles and bow and scrape to an effigy of Jesus. Gotta start somewhere right. So i might even use it as a device, but i would be transitioning believers out of it about the same time they heard that storks do not deliver babies tbh

All i would be doing in reflecting upon Mary as barren, essentially, is adding to my Pantheon, at least as near as i can tell?
Not even considering the assumptions i must make at Matthew 1:25; i mean you basically have to mistranslate that v in order to hold your pov. "Joseph did not know Mary until" becomes "Joseph did not know Mary. ever." by, basically, some more sleight-of-hand, right. The Bible is now not making dialectic statements to reveal deeper spiritual truths, but being deceptive strictly to cause division, unless some model of an otherwise barren Mary as symbolic mother of all those who will be accepted could be suggested.

Besides being unsupported in Scripture--in the sense that Eve had Seth, but also Cain, right--there is no practical point, iow.
monogenes and even pantokrator are strictly of ritual benefit, right (not even counting that they are prolly misinterpreted, "monogenes" especially); unless you have an observation there that i can't see.
@amadeus might i guess.

so not only is Mary's PV symbolically bereft--except maybe as a sign of the barrenness of...ha well i don't even have to say what of, do i--it is also Scripturally unfounded, and not just in one spot, but more than one spot, many hints that this perspective of Mary is not what Scripture is seeking to portray, much better support for my 'confused and ignorant' perspectives of a Proto-Mary that speaks to us about where we came from, at least imo

bbyrd009 said:

Mary does not need to be made into Supergirl and added to the Pantheon in order for me to accept Christ as Lord; but neither am i very interested in disproving Mary's (most likely nonexistent) PV to someone who requires it to lend Christ legitimacy, even if their goal is to worship imo Nehushtan, and light candles and bow and scrape to an effigy of Jesus. Gotta start somewhere right. So i might even use it as a device, but i would be transitioning believers out of it about the same time they heard that storks do not deliver babies tbh

All i would be doing in reflecting upon Mary as barren, essentially, is adding to my Pantheon, at least as near as i can tell?
Not even considering the assumptions i must make at Matthew 1:25; i mean you basically have to mistranslate that v in order to hold your pov. "Joseph did not know Mary until" becomes "Joseph did not know Mary. ever." by, basically, some more sleight-of-hand, right. The Bible is now not making dialectic statements to reveal deeper spiritual truths, but being deceptive strictly to cause division, unless some model of an otherwise barren Mary as symbolic mother of all those who will be accepted could be suggested.

Besides being unsupported in Scripture--in the sense that Eve had Seth, but also Cain, right--there is no practical point, iow.
monogenes and even pantokrator are strictly of ritual benefit, right (not even counting that they are prolly misinterpreted, "monogenes" especially); unless you have an observation there that i can't see.
@amadeus might i guess.

so not only is Mary's PV symbolically bereft--except maybe as a sign of the barrenness of...ha well i don't even have to say what of, do i--it is also Scripturally unfounded, and not just in one spot, but more than one spot, many hints that this perspective of Mary is not what Scripture is seeking to portray, much better support for my 'confused and ignorant' perspectives of a Proto-Mary that speaks to us about where we came from, at least imo

Click to expand...

There are so MANY things wrong with what you've just said that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Let's start with your first comments in RED.

First of all - NOBODY is trying to make Mary into a "supergirl". In fact this comment of yours goes FAR in revealing how little you know of OT Type vs. NT Fulfillment. Allow me to educate you.

Mary is the NT fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant. Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the NT . . .

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

As for your use of Matt 1:25 to explain the idea that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin - this is based on an ignorance of Scripture as well.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus? The Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is you anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Finally, Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very revealing about her intention to remain a virgin:

Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.

BreadOfLife said:

no intention of having marital relations

Click to expand...

ppl having no intention of marital relations getting married, BoL?



see, your presumptions are just apparently built on presumptions, that just don't add up to me wadr.
in fact the presumptions are evident in the fruit of the est'd church, wadr, the cloistering, barrenness, perversion, etc.

but Catholics accept the church as a whore, while i have probs there too, so...really it is apples to oranges, imo, Catholicism is to Christianity as night is to day, to me anyway. Different Bible, different culture, everything. On the far side of an obvious Boundary Stone from me, who accepts Moses' Decalogue. Not even something i should attempt to judge, iow

bbyrd009 said:

................................

All i would be doing in reflecting upon Mary as barren, essentially, is adding to my Pantheon, at least as near as i can tell?
Not even considering the assumptions i must make at Matthew 1:25; i mean you basically have to mistranslate that v in order to hold your pov. "Joseph did not know Mary until" becomes "Joseph did not know Mary. ever." by, basically, some more sleight-of-hand, right. The Bible is now not making dialectic statements to reveal deeper spiritual truths, but being deceptive strictly to cause division, unless some model of an otherwise barren Mary as symbolic mother of all those who will be accepted could be suggested.

Besides being unsupported in Scripture--in the sense that Eve had Seth, but also Cain, right--there is no practical point, iow.
monogenes and even pantokrator are strictly of ritual benefit, right (not even counting that they are prolly misinterpreted, "monogenes" especially); unless you have an observation there that i can't see.
@amadeus might i guess.

so not only is Mary's PV symbolically bereft--except maybe as a sign of the barrenness of...ha well i don't even have to say what of, do i--it is also Scripturally unfounded, and not just in one spot, but more than one spot, many hints that this perspective of Mary is not what Scripture is seeking to portray, much better support for my 'confused and ignorant' perspectives of a Proto-Mary that speaks to us about where we came from, at least imo

Click to expand...

Why should Mary not continue to bear children rather than becoming "barren" after the birth of Jesus. What does God expect from people? Why is Mary to be different than other women who become wives?

Throughout the scriptures we find types and shadows of that which be realized in the fulfillment of prophecies with regard to the Messiah. Why would it or should it be different with Mary, the mother of the Messiah? I know that considering the Catholic established view on this that my entering into this discussion will not change the minds of anyone. But perhaps they [the Catholics here] can at least clear up the matter a bit. If it were important for believers to see Mary as forever virgin, where is the clear type or shadow of this found in the OT?

That Jesus needed to be the first born is something built upon many types or shadows in the OT. The first born were always important among God's people as well as among others.

Consider why it was so important to Leah and to Rachel to have additional children after they had that first child by Jacob. In the case of Rachel when she was seemingly barren while Leah was having children, she thought that having a child even through a surrogate mother would remove her reproach, so she gave one of her personal maids to Jacob. Similarly when Leah, even though she has already born 4 sons for Jacob, she gave her maid to her husband to bear yet more children.

Was the desire of both Rachel and Leah to bear children and then to bear even more children simply a local custom or was it something that God wanted?

amadeus said:

where is the clear type or shadow of this found in the OT?

Click to expand...

exactly

bbyrd009 said:

ppl having no intention of marital relations getting married, BoL?

see, your presumptions are just apparently built on presumptions, that just don't add up to me wadr.

Click to expand...

No they're NOT.

The idea that Mary had no intention of having marital relations because she was a consecrated Temple Virgin is based on a tradition that goes all the way back to the 1st century. The document, The Protoevangelium oif James makes this point very clear.

It's funny - I've heard anti-Catholic evangelists like John MacArthur decry this document as a "forgery" - yet he uses it to name Mary's parents Anna and Joachim. This document is the ONLY source for their names, which aren't in Scripture.

This is anything BUT a "presumption" of mine . . .