Perpetual virginity of Mary!

Spurgeon's Girl said:

It is creepy. It's like the Catholic fascination for dead bodies. They bury and rebury them and on and on and on. Ritual nonsense.

Click to expand...

Let's try to be respectful even when we disagree with people.

Spurgeon's Girl said:

????? I don't believe that Paul was a gnostic either.!

Click to expand...

Augustine, Calvin and Spurgeon were Gnostics. Spurgeon had a false "gospel."

Jane_Doe22 said:

I'm wondering why you're putting in so much effort when you know she's never going to see your position as being part of God's Truths of Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Because there may be people following this thread who are open to both biblical and extra-biblical arguments.

Incidentally, In post #312 I put forward several scriptural arguments, including one (point 8) which demonstrated from scripture, that James
& Joseph were not brothers of Jesus. But she ignored that.

In post #386 I said I would ignore her in future.

BTW Spurgeon's Girl is only Sola Scriptura when it suits her.

Candidus said:

Augustine, Calvin and Spurgeon were Gnostics. Spurgeon had a false "gospel."

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Mungo said:

Because there may be people following this thread who are open to both biblical and extra-biblical arguments.

Incidentally, In post #312 I put forward several scriptural arguments, including one (point 8) which demonstrated from scripture, that James
& Joseph were not brothers of Jesus. But she ignored that.

Click to expand...

For the $0.02 it's worth, I really dislike the term "Biblical". I find it's much more productive to talk about "what's flat out stated in the Bible" and "what is in line with the Bible" as being two clearer topics.

Mungo said:

Because there may be people following this thread who are open to both biblical and extra-biblical arguments.

Incidentally, In post #312 I put forward several scriptural arguments, including one (point 8) which demonstrated from scripture, that James
& Joseph were not brothers of Jesus. But she ignored that.

In post #386 I said I would ignore her in future.

BTW Spurgeon's Girl is only Sola Scriptura when it suits her.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing about putting someone on ignore. Anyone can see it. If they quote it, well, you get the idea.

On the boards that I frequent, gossip is not allowed and I doubt seriously that it is allowed here either.

I answered all of your objections by pointing out what is true. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. You offered speculation that is not supported by the Bible.

I did read the 386 post that was edited. Enough said.

You are right about one thing, I am Sola Scriptura. I am also



Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, and not by Popes and Councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Martin Luther (paraphrase)

Mungo said:

And you cannot prove that Mary did have other children.

Click to expand...

Yes we can. The Bible says Jesus had brothers. That's all the proof I need. Rejecting what the Bible says, in my opinion. only proves that the Catholic church will go to any lengths to avoid the scriptures that Jesus meant for us to read.

Mungo said:

Because there may be people following this thread who are open to both biblical and extra-biblical arguments.

Incidentally, In post #312 I put forward several scriptural arguments, including one (point 8) which demonstrated from scripture, that James
& Joseph were not brothers of Jesus. But she ignored that.

In post #386 I said I would ignore her in future.

BTW Spurgeon's Girl is only Sola Scriptura when it suits her.

Click to expand...

I ignored nothing. I said that you presented speculation. But if you want more, lets see if I am right, or wrong. Here is your post.
Red Bolding mine.

Mungo said:

8. Finally there indications in scripture that the brothers and sisters referred to in Mt 13:55 (and the equivalent in other gospels) are not Jesus brothers in any genetic sense.

Click to expand...

Indications are not facts. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. What kind of statement is this?

Mungo said:

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses [Joseph], and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Click to expand...

My name is Katie, how many Katie's are there in the world? How many James, Josephs and Mary's? Are you seriously trying to say that Mary the Mother of Jesus was not present at the crucifixion?

John 19:25-26 says that Mary, the mother of Jesus was at the cross.

This is more woulda, shoulda, coulda. None of it says that Jesus did not have siblings. It's simply guess-work.

Mungo said:

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that you made a typo at your at Matthew 26:56. I'm sure you meant to say Matthew 27:56

Mungo said:

John says “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas (let's call her Mary Clopas) Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

Click to expand...

Another coulda, shoulda, woulda. The facts are that these are guesses.

Mungo said:

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.

Click to expand...

Poor Eusebius is working hard to come up with any explanation, contrary to the clear teaching of scriptures. It's more guesswork, speculation, and wishful thinking.

Mungo said:

In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.

Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.

Click to expand...

Probably is not a convincing word, given that the Bible says that Jesus had brothers.

All of this musing, guessing, indicating. probably, and could be's, and speculations cannot overcome the certainty of what the Bible says.

We are left to wonder why all of this is necessary? Why is the fact that Jesus has brothers a threat to the Catholic church? There can only be ONE reason. You need it to defend another Catholic doctrine that is untrue. Mary was a sinner. Get over it.

Marymog said:

Hi Candidus,

I have heard that term "Biblical Christianity" thrown around on this forum a whole lot but no one that preaches it agrees with what "it" is. Can you tell me what Christianity would look like today if we were all 'Biblical Christians'?

(Would there be no church buildings? No church hierarchy? If you believe baptism saves it's ok if you believe it doesn't save that's ok? Abortion and Gay marriage are acceptable? etc. etc.)

Curious Mary

Click to expand...

Actually, Jesus did most of his speaking in the temples, the homes other people and in the streets.

Jesus said what about the hierarchy? His teachings demolished the hierarchy.

Baptism does not save as the thief on the cross proves. But I have no problem if you believe otherwise.

I'm trying very hard to keep a straight-face at your last comment.

Abortion is a grievous sin and the Pope recently said so, yet he aligns himself with organizations that promote it. How many of your Priests have promoted Joe Biden and his shameful actions?


Homosexuality is sinful, yet the Pope knew about disgraced Theodore McCarrick and allowed it to go on.

Mungo said:

Here are 8 points to consider.
1. There is no genealogy in the Bible that goes past Jesus.

2. Nowhere does the Bible say that Mary had other children.

3. There are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

Secondly the word brother can be used in a very loose sense. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.

Click to expand...

1. Genealogies are not significant since the Birth of Jesus. the New Testament makes no ado about genealogy beyond the Birth of Christ. In Romans chapters 3-4, Paul writes that the only genealogy that matters is our spiritual connection to Abraham by faith. That we are not saved by genealogy of being born a Jew.

2. Wrong! It states that brothers and sisters accompanied Mary. Your argument is that since the Bible does not detail the birth of other children besides Jesus and John the Baptist, that Peter, John, Paul, and Luke were never born because the Bible does not detail it.

3. Yes, there are different kinds of "brethren." What you establish is that the Greek usage of that description is not exacting, and can mean different types of "brethren" apart from genetic familial relationships. Yet, it does not prove in the least that such relationships exist! Nor does your argument prove that when it speaks of Mary coming with His brothers and sisters, that this cannot be His half-brothers and half-sisters by birth from His mother!

Candidus said:

May I ask for something on the flip-side?

Would a Biblical Church be a plush building of status and wealth, while the majority of those that give to support this luxury, live in poverty? Would it have a Fascist/Autocratic hierarchy? Would a Biblical Church gloss over homosexuality and pedophilia in their own ranks and sanction its continuance? Would a Biblical Church invent its own unique and unbiblical positions such as Popes and nuns? Sell indulgences? Persecute, imprison, torture and murder anyone who does not believe as their Fascist Leader orders?

What would a Biblical Christianity look like? It is not hard to identify what it wouldn't look like.

Click to expand...

Hi Candidus,


Soooooo a Biblical Church would not have "plush buildings of status and wealth", would not sanction homosexuality and pedophilia, sell indulgences, Persecute, imprison, torture and murder anyone who does not believe as their Fascist Leader orders. But you can't tell me what a "Biblical Church" IS????

That's what I thought would happen.......and you came thru kiddo!!

Spurgeon's Girl said:

Where EXACTLY does the Bible state that Mary was born without sin? Where oh where is it? You folks keep saying that, but no one has ever shown me that from the scripture. This is simply more 'made-up' doctrine without any scripture to back it up.

Click to expand...

The last time i read it , in quite a few places , romans three , pslams fourteen , fifty three , ecclesiatics seven v twenty .
IT says ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of GOD .
ONLY JESUS was perfect . OH they go on and on about how mary had to have a perfect vessel .
YET the bible is clear that even JESUS was in the same flesh as we are , YET without sin .
IF JESUS was made in the same likness of flesh we all are , THEN why is mary the only one not born with that kind of temple aka body
aka flesh . As usual they exalt mary way above the position of merely being blessed . They exalt her to a god like status .
AND that is so scary .

Spurgeon's Girl said:

Jesus said what about the hierarchy? His teachings demolished the hierarchy.

Click to expand...

Ummm......You tell me. What did Jesus say about hierarchy? I don't see anywhere that he demolished hierarchy! I see where he SUPPORTED hierarchy!

Jesus said: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do

Mary

Spurgeon's Girl said:

Anything is possible. But... since the scriptures record the truth of the siblings of Jesus, I'm going with scripture instead of speculation.

Click to expand...

IF JESUS was made in the same likeness of sinful flesh as was all mankind . As the author of hebrews clearly states ,
then again the question remains , HOW come mary had some kind of different flesh .
JESUS had to be born in the same flesh as we were , SO as HE could overcome HE who had the power of death
AND SET all who do beleive IN HIM free . mary was born in the same flesh as were we all .
SHE is blessed , because GOD chose her to birth CHRIST .
WHEN Folks , as you already know , Go about trying to change things , it never bodes well at all .

Spurgeon's Girl said:

Perhaps the Catholic Church might want to invest in the genealogy records. Lacking that, the book known as the Holy Bible says this:

Mark 6:3

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 13:55-56

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 3:31-32

31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”

Galatians 1:19

19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Yep Jesus had brothers, the Bible tells me so. Once again, the entire issue of Mary's perpetual virginity proves to be more "made-up" dogma without a scintilla of scripture to support it.

Click to expand...

Do you ever wonder WHY paul , john nor any other writer of the new testament
When writing all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD , never said , EXCEPT MARY OF COURSE .
Do you ever wonder WHY that was not written in the canon . A hint , CAUSE ONLY JESUS never SINNED .

When writing to the hebrews even we see only the mention that JESUS never sinned .
One would think if mary had never sinned , it might have been included at least once.
INSTEAD these scriptures are made clear . ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen SHORT of the GLORY OF GOD .
YOU know when paul wrote that , one would have thought , HE would have said OH but that excludes mary .
But he didnt . Fact is the only name i ever hear that never once sinned , WAS JESUS .
HOPE that helps .

Spurgeon's Girl said:

Baptism does not save as the thief on the cross proves. But I have no problem if you believe otherwise.

Click to expand...

1 Peter 3:21 specifically says baptism does save you and other verses support that vs sooooo I will believe Scripture and not you.

The thief on the cross was saved thru grace which is ALSO what The Church and Scripture teaches. If one has an opportunity to be water baptized they should just like Scripture says (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 22:16 Acts 10;48 etc etc) They had time to do get baptized, the thief didn't. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

The Church teaches, practices and believes Scripture. Do you?

Being righteous according to the law , includes the fact that if one sinned they made and did the necessary things for repentance .
IT dont mean the john nor his wife , nor mary had ever not sinned once .
IT means they simply walked righteously according to the pattern the law set .
JESUS alone FULLFILLED the entire law himself , FOR ALL . And why , CAUSE ALL HAVE SINNED and ALL have fallen short .
HE was going to have to walk righteously his whole life , then become the ultimate sacrfice for ALL those sins
THAT he never once comitted , so that ALL WHO DO BELEIVE IN HIM WOULD BE SAVED .
That does include HIS OWN MOTHER . I gaurantee that mary was saved , DUE TO WHAT CHRIST DID .
BLESSED SHE IS . INDEED BLESSED SHE IS . But let us exalt no man to up to the status that belongs to CHRIST ALONE .
ITS HIS NAME that is BLESSED above ALL NAMES , that are in heaven , earth and beneath the earth .
IT never said MARY was given the name above all names and blessed above all . IT says JESUS .
IT does SAY MARY IS BLESSED and i beleive exalted perhaps above all women , due to she carried the child .
SO blessed she is and may all say so . But lets not exalt her out of measure above CHRIST . CAUSE that is some real scary stuff .
mary gonna judge that church , as will peter , and all the apostles and all the saints .

Marymog said:

1 Peter 3:21 specifically says baptism does save you and other verses support that vs sooooo I will believe Scripture and not you.

The thief on the cross was saved thru grace which is ALSO what The Church and Scripture teaches. If one has an opportunity to be water baptized they should just like Scripture says (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 22:16 Acts 10;48 etc etc) They had time to do get baptized, the thief didn't. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

The Church teaches, practices and believes Scripture. Do you?

Click to expand...

Well you got on part right . ANYONE who is able to get baptized , MUST DO SO . if the early church did it . WE DO IT .
As for other things Rome teaches , i suggest we start making void any of those teaches which are contrary to the truth .
There are many of them . But i do not have the time to list them all . My prayers are for you .
There once was a man, i beleive his name was mennos . He could not quite figure out why
the beloved catholic church , HIS OWN church whom he loved , was persecuting this group for re baptizing believers .
SO he , being determined to find out why , WENT right into the holy scrips .
SEE mennos confessed that he had not really been a big reader of the scriptures .
SO he began to diligently read , to seek and to pray .
WOULD you like to hear his words . HE said , as i studied
and poured over the scriptures to determine what wrong these people were doing , that had the church , aka catholic church
persecuting them . HE said this , and the more i learned i realized
OH DEAR its not them who had been duped , ITS BEEN US . YEP . ITS WHY I TELL FOLKS READ THOSE BIBLES
and pray TO GOD . cause It wasnt the ones ROME was persecuting who were in error , IT WAS ROME . IT STILL IS TODAY .
PLease return to scrips only and learn them well . I will be praying for you my friend .

And ps , lets not get so offended over things . My goodness folks have called me anti christ and son of perdtion
And i never got offended at them . wrong as they were .
IF anyone is saying something simply test it and dont get so upset about things .