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

[atpollard]

Where did this Man get all these things

Let's set the Catholics aside for a moment [since they have 'jumped the shark' with their mariology] and focus on Martin Luther (founder of the Lutheran Church and a giant during the Reformation). Luther would have argued (when he was alive) that "this man" got a lot of things wrong [Joseph was not Jesus father ... which was also whispered in certain circles - John 8:19, John 8:41]. There is a historical Tradition that Joseph had children from a first marriage - Jesus so-called "brothers". While I disagree with the conclusion, Luther would also note that Jesus left the care of Mary (His mother) to the Apostle John and not to his "brothers" (her 'alleged' children and Joseph's actual children).

I merely point out that, setting aside Catholic dogma about 'immaculate conceptions' and 'Queen of Heaven' added later, there is at least SOME support by non-Catholics and some biblical evidence to suggest that all is not as simple as we might like. This does not make ECF 'wives tales' true, it just means they deserve a bit of respect and should not be dismissed as "utter nonsense".

They are wrong, but they are not "nonsense".

 

[quietthinker]

...Mary died a virgin. ...​

virgin' on the ridiculous!​

 

[BreadOfLife]

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!

The fact is that there is ZERO Biblical evidence that Mary had a child other than Jesus.

Every time a new thread about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is created – the SAME evidence is presented and is routinely DEBUNKED. Let’s start with the word “Until”.
Matt. 1:25
But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Biblically-speaking, the work “Until” (Gr.-heos / Heb.-‘ad) does NOT necessarily point to a subsequent action.

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?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Did somebody find out AFTER this verse was written?

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?

Matt. 1:25 is simply stating that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations.

As for the “named” brethren of the Lord – they are shown to be the children of Mary’s kinswoman who was with her at the foot of the cross and her husband Clopas/Alphaeus.

As you might be aware – “Adelphoos” (brother) is used for MANY relationships other than uterine sibling.
It is also used for half-brother-cousin, uncle, nephew, friend, fellow believer, neighbor, etc.

As a matter of fact - there are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.

41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.

47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.

A whopping 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

There is not a SINGLE verse of Scripture that states MARY had other children.

 

[quietthinker]

The fact is that there is ZERO Biblical evidence that Mary had a child other than Jesus.

Every time a new thread about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is created – the SAME evidence is presented and is routinely DEBUNKED. Let’s start with the word “Until”.
Matt. 1:25
But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Biblically-speaking, the work “Until” (Gr.-heos / Heb.-‘ad) does NOT necessarily point to a subsequent action.

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?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Did somebody find out AFTER this verse was written?

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?

Matt. 1:25 is simply stating that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations.

As for the “named” brethren of the Lord – they are shown to be the children of Mary’s kinswoman who was with her at the foot of the cross and her husband Clopas/Alphaeus.

As you might be aware – “Adelphoos” (brother) is used for MANY relationships other than uterine sibling.
It is also used for half-brother-cousin, uncle, nephew, friend, fellow believer, neighbor, etc.

As a matter of fact - there are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.

41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.

47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.

A whopping 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

There is not a SINGLE verse of Scripture that states MARY had other children.

Your proof texting gets no traction BoL because the opposing view plays the same game. Of course stroking the ego is denied in favour of being God's mouth piece as it further reveals self focus.

 

[Titus]

The fact is that there is ZERO Biblical evidence that Mary had a child other than Jesus.

Every time a new thread about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is created – the SAME evidence is presented and is routinely DEBUNKED. Let’s start with the word “Until”.
Matt. 1:25
But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Biblically-speaking, the work “Until” (Gr.-heos / Heb.-‘ad) does NOT necessarily point to a subsequent action.

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?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Did somebody find out AFTER this verse was written?

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?

Matt. 1:25 is simply stating that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations.

As for the “named” brethren of the Lord – they are shown to be the children of Mary’s kinswoman who was with her at the foot of the cross and her husband Clopas/Alphaeus.

As you might be aware – “Adelphoos” (brother) is used for MANY relationships other than uterine sibling.
It is also used for half-brother-cousin, uncle, nephew, friend, fellow believer, neighbor, etc.

As a matter of fact - there are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.

41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.

47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.

A whopping 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

There is not a SINGLE verse of Scripture that states MARY had other children.

The main reason the catholics teach Mary never had children is to glorify her above that of a christian.
To put Mary on a pedestal as something to be prayed to and worshipped even though they will deny this.
There is overwhelming evidence catholics worship Mary pray to Mary.
This is why they don't want sex or children to be associated with Mary.
They view her as diety.

There is not a SINGLE verse of Scripture that states MARY had other children

Mark 6:3,
- Is this not the carpenter, the  Son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon And are not His(Jesus) sisters her with us


BreadofLife, you can claim these verses are not referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters but the context shows those names are the siblings of Jesus!

As for the “named” brethren of the Lord – they are shown to be the children of Mary’s kinswoman who was with her at the foot of the cross and her husband Clopas/Alphaeus

Well at least you tried BreadofLife.
In Mark 6:3 Mary's "kinswomen" is NOWHERE MENTIONED!
Only Mary and her Son and His brothers and sisters.
So your argument doesn't even apply to this verse.

Matt. 1:25 is simply stating that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations

NO sexual relationship between husband and wife?
Give the Bible verse where Joseph and Mary are commanded not to ever have sex?
I'll be waiting.
You cannot say they didn't because these verses can be understood as Joseph did know His wife Mary till Jesus' birth.

Matthew 1:24
- Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angel of the Lord commanded him...

What did the angel of the Lord command Joseph?
Answer,
Matthew 1:24, - ...did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife

Matthew 1:25 - and did not know her(sexual intercourse) till she had brought forth her firstborn son


Joseph did not have sex with Mary till she had given birth to Jesus.

This is what the text literally says.


Till she gave birth is her virginity.

Till the point of her Sons birth she was a virgin.

That is what the context shows the word till is referring to,

Virgin till her first birth

Matthew 1:25,
- and he did not know Mary till she had brought forth her first Son...

The verse clearly shows her virginity is till the first birth of her Son.

This can mean that her virginity was till the first birth.
It cannot mean that no sex or children came after her first birth.

That is adding a concept to the verse that is not found in the context of the verse.
Adding a preconceived catholic doctrine is all BreadofLife is doing.

Let's examine his other verses,

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.

The till in this verse is the day of her death.
Therefore the verse is implying no children till death.
No children till death means what it says, no children during her life.

The till in Mary's marriage is her first born Son.
These verses do not equate.

Next,

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day

The till is referring to the present day.
So the verse is implying Moses' sepulchre has not been found until that present day.
Nowhere can you interpret this verse to mean someone has found his grave.

The till in Matthew 1:25 is referring to Mary's first birth. She continued to live on past her first birth.
Therefore these verses do not equate.

Next,

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 until is referring to when the Father makes Jesus' enemies His footstool.
There is nothing stated that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father, therefore that would be an assumption not found in the text.

In Matthew 1:25 till is referring to the first birth of Mary. Therefore there is no assumption that Mary's virginity is till her first born Son.

These verses do not equate.

Mark 6:3 states Jesus had brothers and sisters.
With this knowledge it logically follows that Joseph knew his wife Mary sometime after her first born Son.
Matthew 1:25 only tells us how long Mary remained a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 does not teach she remained a virgin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your proof texting gets no traction BoL because the opposing view plays the same game. Of course stroking the ego is denied in favour of being God's mouth piece as it further reveals self focus.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd find any Biblical proof . . .

 

[Titus]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd find any Biblical proof . . .

Biblical proof is irrelevant to catholics.
Catholics teach there sectarian church is the authority not the Scriptures.

 

[face2face]

Mary had children with Joseph before she left this earth.

God knows where her grave is - He knows all of His.

 

[face2face]

When Mary is raised, she will be horrified and disgusted by the things imagined by vain minds. God's wrath will be directed toward such blasphemies.

 

[Titus]

When Mary is raised, she will be horrified and disgusted by the things imagined by vain minds. God's wrath will be directed toward such blasphemies.

Amen ,Amen, Amen !!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Biblical proof is irrelevant to catholics.
Catholics teach there sectarian church is the authority not the Scriptures.

Actually, that's a LIE.
But it sounds like you're comfortable with lying . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The main reason the catholics teach Mary never had children is to glorify her above that of a christian.
To put Mary on a pedestal as something to be prayed to and worshipped even though they will deny this.
There is overwhelming evidence catholics worship Mary pray to Mary.
This is why they don't want sex or children to be associated with Mary.
They view her as diety.

WRONG.

The Church has never viewed Mary as a deity.
That would be idolatry, which the Church has always condemned.

The Church holds to Scripture and Sacred Tradition when it comes to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Mark 6:3,
- Is this not the carpenter, the  Son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon And are not His(Jesus) sisters her with us


BreadofLife, you can claim these verses are not referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters but the context shows those names are the siblings of Jesus!

WRONG.

James and Joses are shown to relatives of Jesus and the children of the other Mary standing near the cross who is Mary’s Adelphe and the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25).

Well at least you tried BreadofLife.
In Mark 6:3 Mary's "kinswomen" is NOWHERE MENTIONED!
Only Mary and her Son and His brothers and sisters.
So your argument doesn't even apply to this verse.

What does the Bible have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

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, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

NO sexual relationship between husband and wife?
Give the Bible verse where Joseph and Mary are commanded not to ever have sex?
I'll be waiting.
You cannot say they didn't because these verses can be understood as Joseph did know His wife Mary till Jesus' birth.

Matthew 1:24
- Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angel of the Lord commanded him...

What did the angel of the Lord command Joseph?
Answer,
Matthew 1:24, - ...did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife

Matthew 1:25 - and did not know her(sexual intercourse) till she had brought forth her firstborn son

Joseph did not have sex with Mary till she had given birth to Jesus.

This is what the text literally says.

Till she gave birth is her virginity.

Till the point of her Sons birth she was a virgin.

That is what the context shows the word till is referring to,

Virgin till her first birth

Matthew 1:25,
- and he did not know Mary till she had brought forth her first Son...

The verse clearly shows her virginity is till the first birth of her Son.

This can mean that her virginity was till the first birth.
It cannot mean that no sex or children came after her first birth.

That is adding a concept to the verse that is not found in the context of the verse.
Adding a preconceived catholic doctrine is all BreadofLife is doing.

Let's examine his other verses,

And yet I showed you several other passages that use the word Until (heos/’ad) – and NONE of them revealed a subsequent action.

YOUR problem is in attempting to apply 21st century English to a language and culture from 2000 years ago.

The till in this verse is the day of her death.
Therefore the verse is implying no children till death.
No children till death means what it says, no children during her life.

The till in Mary's marriage is her first born Son.
These verses do not equate.

Next,

WRONG.
Once again – you are trying to force 21st century English into the mix . . .

In the Jewish culture – “Firstborn” does NOT imply multiple children.

It simply refers to the one who “opened the womb” of the mother. An only-child is just as much a “Firstborn” as the eldest sibling.

The till is referring to the present day.
So the verse is implying Moses' sepulchre has not been found until that present day.
Nowhere can you interpret this verse to mean someone has found his grave.

The till in Matthew 1:25 is referring to Mary's first birth. She continued to live on past her first birth.
Therefore these verses do not equate.

Next,

The until is referring to when the Father makes Jesus' enemies His footstool.
There is nothing stated that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father, therefore that would be an assumption not found in the text.

In Matthew 1:25 till is referring to the first birth of Mary. Therefore there is no assumption that Mary's virginity is till her first born Son.

These verses do not equate.

Mark 6:3 states Jesus had brothers and sisters.
With this knowledge it logically follows that Joseph knew his wife Mary sometime after her first born Son.
Matthew 1:25 only tells us how long Mary remained a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 does not teach she remained a virgin.

Matt. 1:25 is silent on the matter.

YOUR main problem here is the 16th century man-made invention that is Sola Scriptura. The only thing YOU consider valid is the wittten Word. Scripture itself tells us that the Oral teachings of the Apostles are ON PAR with the written Word:

2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Take heed, friend.
That’s the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul’s pen . . .

 

[quietthinker]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd find any Biblical proof . . .

BoL, you don't seem to get it. You want biblical proof? haha....that's laughable; you wouldn't believe even if one rose from the dead and you want biblical proof? ....as if that'd make a difference!

 

[Titus]

again – you are trying to force 21st century English into the mix . . .

In the Jewish culture – “Firstborn” does NOT imply multiple children.

Strawman tactics!!!! I never said firstborn implies multiple children. Nice try.
This shows your lack of comprehension or you are just a liar. I'm guessing the latter.

2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Take heed, friend.
That’s the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul’s pen . . .

Since you have intentionally misrepresented what I have said, you are no friend of mine.

Now to your claim that the catholic church has traditions that ALL must subject themselves to.

First nowhere does Paul or any apostle say the catholic churches traditions are to be kept.
In fact the catholic church did not exist when Paul wrote his epistle to the Thessalonians.

So what is Paul really teaching?

2Thessalonians 2:15,
- Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or OUR(Apostles)epistle.

Nowhere does Paul teach the traditions of men are to be kept by the churches of Christ.
Catholic tradition is NOT the apostles teaching!!!!
Therefore it was never approved by God.
Catholic church tradition is in fact the doctrines of men, doctrines of demons the apostles warned us about,
It is well established historical tradition of the catholic church that they forbid priests and their nuns from marrying.
Of course their traditions change because their doctrines change over time.

1Timothy 4:1,
- Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith(apostles teaching) giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


The traditions Paul is teaching christians must holdfast to are the apostles doctrine
Acts 2:42,
- And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

This is the traditions Paul is teaching in 1Thessalonians 2:15.

It is also a doctrine of the catholic church that the apostles are still in existence today.
Another false doctrine known as apostolic succession.

This too is nowhere taught by any of the apostles.
It is another doctrine of demons.

Paul said no other doctrine other than the apostles are to be obeyed!
Galatians 1:8,
- but if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be ACCURSED.

The gospel of the catholics is cursed by God!
Their traditions are accursed!

The Church has never viewed Mary as a deity.
That would be idolatry, which the Church has always condemned

Better stop praying to a women then!
Why pray to Mary?
Give new testament Scripture that teaches Christians are to pray to Mary?
You teach the doctrines of demons!
I have seen with my own eyes catholics bow down to idols, statues of Mary!
Here recently in Boston, a large multitude of catholics bowed down before a carved image of Mary.
You do practise idolatry. It matters not what you say. The evidence against you is overwhelming!

Actually, that's a LIE.
But it sounds like you're comfortable with lying

The above quote was reacting to my claim that the catholic church teaches they have authority over the Holy Bible.
This is pathetic for BreadofLife to accuse me of lying.

It was BreadofLife himself that taught me the catholic church denies sola scriptura.

So he is the liar trying to deceive others into believing the catholics hold the Bible as the ONLY authority on the true doctrine of Christ.
He has already admitted to me that the catholic church has authority over the Bible.

That is why they make the claim they can teach new latter day revelation that goes against the Bible.
As an example accepting homosexuality that the catholic church is moving in this direction.

Pope Francis is in support of same sex marriage.
Directly going against the apostles teaching!

BreadofLife knows this but yet calls me a liar.
Coming from a catholic it means nothing.
The catholics have zero credibility.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL, you don't seem to get it. You want biblical proof? haha....that's laughable; you wouldn't believe even if one rose from the dead and you want biblical proof? ....as if that'd make a difference!

If you’re bowing out of the discussion – message received.

If not – provide the Biblical proof . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Strawman tactics!!!! I never said firstborn implies multiple children. Nice try.
This shows your lack of comprehension or you are just a liar. I'm guessing the latter.

Ummmmm- YOU’RE the one who brought it up, hypocrote.
YOU said:

“The till in Mary's marriage is her first born Son.”

I merely schooled you on what “firstborn” means . . .

Since you have intentionally misrepresented what I have said, you are no friend of mine.

Now to your claim that the catholic church has traditions that ALL must subject themselves to.

First nowhere does Paul or any apostle say the catholic churches traditions are to be kept.
In fact the catholic church did not exist when Paul wrote his epistle to the Thessalonians.

So what is Paul really teaching?

2Thessalonians 2:15,
- Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or OUR(Apostles)epistle.

Nowhere does Paul teach the traditions of men are to be kept by the churches of Christ.
Catholic tradition is NOT the apostles teaching!!!!
Therefore it was never approved by God.
Catholic church tradition is in fact the doctrines of men, doctrines of demons the apostles warned us about,
It is well established historical tradition of the catholic church that they forbid priests and their nuns from marrying.
Of course their traditions change because their doctrines change over time.

Gee – WHICH idiotic statement should I debink first??

First of all – the Catholic Church has NEVER changed a SINGLE doctrine.
I challenge you to name ONE.

Secondly – Priests CAN marry in the Church. The Church is comprised of some TWENTY Liturgical Rites. In the Eastern Rites, we have married priests. It is only in the Latin Rite that the discipline of celibacy is observed.

1Timothy 4:1,
- Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith(apostles teaching) giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

WOW.
Even some ignorant atheists understand that this passage is about the Gnostic heretics and NOT the Catholic Church.

It was the Gnostics that -
Forbade marriage for everyone
Abstained from certain foods
Considered ALL possessions and wealth as “evil”

Ho your homework, son . . .

The traditions Paul is teaching christians must holdfast to are the apostles doctrine
Acts 2:42,
- And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

This is the traditions Paul is teaching in 1Thessalonians 2:15.

Precisely – and NOT only what is written.

Their ORAL teachings as well (2 Thess. 2:15). This renders your false Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as 100% unbiblical.

I’ll give you one right off the top of my head:
Infant Baptism.

This is attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers as an “Apostolic teaching”. So Protestant rejection of Infant Baptism is a rejection of Apostolic teaching.

It is also a doctrine of the catholic church that the apostles are still in existence today.
Another false doctrine known as apostolic succession.

This too is nowhere taught by any of the apostles.
It is another doctrine of demons.

Paul said no other doctrine other than the apostles are to be obeyed!
Galatians 1:8,
- but if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be ACCURSED.

The gospel of the catholics is cursed by God!
Their traditions are accursed!

What is “accursed” is condenning Christ’s Church.

Apostolic Tradition is a Biblical doctrine that starts in Acts 1, when the Apostles and inner circle gather to choose a successor for Judas.

Peter quotes the Psalms when he says:
Acts 1:20
“Let another take his office.”

The Greek word used here for “office” is “Bishopric” (Episkppay).
The Bishops ARE the Successors to the Apostles.

Better stop praying to a women then!
Why pray to Mary?
Give new testament Scripture that teaches Christians are to pray to Mary?
You teach the doctrines of demons!
I have seen with my own eyes catholics bow down to idols, statues of Mary!
Here recently in Boston, a large multitude of catholics bowed down before a carved image of Mary.
You do practise idolatry. It matters not what you say. The evidence against you is overwhelming!

In your abject ignorance, you are clueless of what “PRAY” means.
Allow me to educate you . . .

“Pray” simply means to ASK, to ENTREAD, too make a REQUEST.
In fact, “worship” is a SECONDARY definition. It is legal, juridical language that is used in police reports and court documents.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Full Definition of pray
transitive verb
1: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea<pray be careful>
2: to get or bring by praying
intransitive verb
1: to make a request in a humble manner
2: to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

I ASK my fiends to pray for me who are members of the Bosy of Christ.

I ASK those in Heaven to pray for me who are ALSO members of the Bosy of Christ.
Di someone kin them OUT of the Body? I didn’t get the memo.

The Bible shows the Elders in Heaven interceding on our behalf by TAKING our prayers to god (Rev. 5:8).

I’ve got news for you:
YOU have prayed to ME several times on this thread.

The above quote was reacting to my claim that the catholic church teaches they have authority over the Holy Bible.
This is pathetic for BreadofLife to accuse me of lying.

It was BreadofLife himself that taught me the catholic church denies sola scriptura.

So he is the liar trying to deceive others into believing the catholics hold the Bible as the ONLY authority on the true doctrine of Christ.
He has already admitted to me that the catholic church has authority over the Bible.

That is why they make the claim they can teach new latter day revelation that goes against the Bible.
As an example accepting homosexuality that the catholic church is moving in this direction.

Pope Francis is in support of same sex marriage.
Directly going against the apostles teaching!

BreadofLife knows this but yet calls me a liar.
Coming from a catholic it means nothing.
The catholics have zero credibility.

If you actually KNEW your Bible – which you obviously DON;’T – you would know that what you just claimed is a LIE.

As to YOUR claim that the Bible as the ONLY authority on the true doctrine of Christ –
The BIBLE says of Christ’s Church:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

He told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER THEY bound or loosed on earth would also be bound or loosed in Heaven.

One thing the Bible NEVER teaches is that the Bible is our SOLE Authority.
Sola Scriptura the 16th century invention of your Protestant Fathers.

Finally – neither Pope Francis not the Catholic church teaches that Homosexual marriage is even possible. It has ALWAYS been condemned by the Church.

 

[Marymog]

I wasn't aware anyone taught that Mary had no children after Jesus.

The teachings in the Protoevangelium of James, that was written around 145AD, said she was a virgin ....It was the Protestant Revolt over 1,300 years later that started teaching otherwise.

 

[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!

You crack me up Titus. You start off your post with a disgusting dig at The Church without recognizing that some of your own Protestant brethren (Lutheran's, Angelicins etc) also teach what Scripture teaches....Mary was a virgin before and AFTER the birth of Christ. Sooooo according to you any Protestant denomination that teaches that Mary had only one child.....that denomination only professes to be Christian?

With that said, you and your ilk are in the minority and reject what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years. @BreadOfLife has already excoriated your theory.......or should I say the theory your Protestant men have taught you.

 

[Titus]

You crack me up Titus. You start off your post with a disgusting dig at The Church without recognizing that some of your own Protestant brethren (Lutheran's, Angelicins etc) also teach what Scripture teaches....Mary was a virgin before and AFTER the birth of Christ. Sooooo according to you any Protestant denomination that teaches that Mary had only one child.....that denomination only professes to be Christian?

With that said, you and your ilk are in the minority and reject what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years. @BreadOfLife has already excoriated your theory.......or should I say the theory your Protestant men have taught you.

I'm not protestant.
Never been, never will be.

 

[Titus]

I wasn't aware anyone taught that Mary had no children after Jesus.

Hello again!
Catholics never can use the Bible to show us thier doctrines like Mary's perpetual virginity.
Catholics always use outside sources as "evidence" for thier false doctrines.

They cannot find catholic church doctrine in the Bible. This is why they try to deceive the ignorant by using historical figures that were untrustworthy false teachers.

PROTEVANGELIUM: History

The Protevangelium of James is NON-CANONICAL!!!!
Also, UN-AUTHENTIC!!!!

The Protevangelium modified  perverted the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke!!!!

The author of the Protevangelium called himself "James" his true identity is uncertain!!!

The author is NOT INSPIRED!!!

Conclusion: The Protevangelium and those who use it as a source of authority to indoctrinate the Biblically illiterate belong only in one place.

The nearest trash can!!!