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

[Augustin56]

lol..

it was started in rome by Constantine

call it whatever you want it. I call it Rome

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained and appointed bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, himself, was captured by the Romans around 110 A.D. and was on the way to be martyred for the faith when he wrote to the Smyrneans. He refers to the "Catholic Church" not as if he were coining the term but in such a way as if he fully expected them to understand that of which he was writing.

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, started by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And it has continually splintered in the last 500 years to tens of thousands of man-made, different-believing denominations. That could hardly be considered the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave the Apostles!

The Catholic Church was in operation long, long before Constantine was born! Constantine stopped persecution of the Catholic Church by the Romans. In other words, he made it legal to practice the faith.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained and appointed bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, himself, was captured by the Romans around 110 A.D. and was on the way to be martyred for the faith when he wrote to the Smyrneans. He refers to the "Catholic Church" not as if he were coining the term but in such a way as if he fully expected them to understand that of which he was writing.

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, started by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And it has continually splintered in the last 500 years to tens of thousands of man-made, different-believing denominations. That could hardly be considered the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave the Apostles!

The Catholic Church was in operation long, long before Constantine was born! Constantine stopped persecution of the Catholic Church by the Romans. In other words, he made it legal to practice the faith.

My church started in acts.

I do not follow churches of men.

Sorry Bro. But if you want to follow a modern day religious church feel free.. The jews tried that. and when Christ came, they rejected him

Mark my word. you would reject him also. because he would reject your religion.

 

[Augustin56]

My church started in acts.

I do not follow churches of men.

Sorry Bro. But if you want to follow a modern day religious church feel free.. The jews tried that. and when Christ came, they rejected him

Mark my word. you would reject him also. because he would reject your religion.

There is absolutely no evidence of any Church other than the Catholic Church in the Bible. No, the name "Catholilc" isn't there. But it doesn't have to be. There was no other Church! There was but one Church in the beginning. Mot many. The Orthodox broke off in 1057 A.D. Protestantism began in the late 16th century.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

in this, Luke 10: 7 is called scripture

nice try, But Peter and paul were dead by the 4th century. Study the word of God. not the word of men

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

I can not remember when latin was the language in the US. yet it was not until recently they stopped reading in latin. I know many a catholic in my day that begged for reading in English..

again nice deflect though

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There is absolutely no evidence of any Church other than the Catholic Church in the Bible. No, the name "Catholilc" isn't there. But it doesn't have to be. There was no other Church! There was but one Church in the beginning. Mot many. The Orthodox broke off in 1057 A.D. Protestantism began in the late 16th century.

Lets see

the church in Rome

the church in Ephesus

the church in corinth

The church in Galatia

They were not called catholic churches. they were called the ekklesia (gatheiring) in the city

and they did not teach what the catholic church teaches.. The catholic church looks nothing like those churches started in acts.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is an asinine argument.

Oh for Pete's sake.

You know what Sigma.....

When you have a different bone to pick with me let me know.

YOU CANNOT prove your side anymore then we can prove ours but ours has common sense to it.


I think it to be equally asinine to use a word that was used in 990 BC and not the same way again until Mary birthed Jesus.

I am not referring to you but to the account in Mathew. Which is commonly thought to have been written around 70AD

Of course... you wont be interested in this but that near 1000 year span does not include the 400 years of silence....

You know The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testament, during which, so far as we know, God did not speak—no Scripture was written. The 400 years of silence began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah’s forerunner.

Say what you will about me and other Protestants.... I don't care.

I am finished with this subject, almost.

DID JOSEPH SIN? And before you answer that you better this about what he did for.......................

You have made him a Saint. But he was a flesh and blood man. With flesh and blood needs. What did he do for.....,

And your own Catechism still maintains "that end is gravely disordered and always wrong. " Is Masturbation Always Wrong?

Or did he have a daily diet of Salt Peter?

Now I am finished.

 

[Sigma]

YOU CANNOT prove your side anymore then we can prove ours but ours has common sense to it.

A fellow protestant of yours, @David in NJ, said: "That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born." "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

You and every other protestant I've spoken with agrees with him. Therefore, because you all think the word "till" is used to mean "till after," then you should also say the following: "that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:" “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

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

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

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

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 1:25, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGE???

Say what you will about me and other Protestants.... I don't care.

I know you don't care. You care about believing what you want to believe, not what's been shown to be True to you. However, I do care about the Truth, and I care about you, and thus I will continue to show you the Truth.

DID JOSEPH SIN? And before you answer that you better this about what he did for.......................

You have made him a Saint. But he was a flesh and blood man. With flesh and blood needs. What did he do for.....,

And your own Catechism still maintains "that end is gravely disordered and always wrong. " Is Masturbation Always Wrong?

Or did he have a daily diet of Salt Peter?

If you're asking if Joseph masterbated, no he didn't.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

A fellow protestant of yours, @David in NJ, said: "That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born." "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

You and every other protestant I've spoken with agrees with him. Therefore, because you all think the word "till" is used to mean "till after," then you should also say the following: "that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:" “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

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

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

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

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 1:25, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGE???



I know you don't care. You care about believing what you want to believe, not what's been shown to be True to you. However, I do care about the Truth, and I care about you, and thus I will continue to show you the Truth.



If you're asking if Joseph masterbated, no he didn't.

He was a man.

How did he get relief?

 

[Sigma]

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

I shouldn't care about how you said that you don't care about your having admitted to inserting the word "after" into Matt. 1:25 that wasn't originally there, and thus change the context of the verse??? A word which, again, wasn't there in the original language used, nor in any of the English translations you listed in post #393. Um, no, I'm not going to just not care that you willfully change the context of a verse to make it support what you want to believe.

He was a man.

How did he get relief?

And, I'm a woman. I'm single, abstinent, and I don't masterbate. If I get married, I still wouldn't want to masterbate or do any other unholy acts. How is this accomplished? By my having a will to be holy and the act of God's Grace to help me accomplish His will of physical holiness, just as with Joseph and others.

YOU CANNOT prove your side anymore then we can prove ours but ours has common sense to it.

A fellow protestant of yours, @David in NJ, said: "That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born." "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

You and every other protestant I've spoken with agrees with him. Therefore, because you all think the word "till" is used to mean "till after," then you should also say the following: "that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:" “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

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

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

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

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 1:25, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGE???

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

And, I'm a woman. I'm abstinent and I don't masterbate. How is this accomplished? By my having a will to be holy and the act of God's Grace to help me accomplish His will of physical holiness, just as with Joseph and others.



A fellow protestant of yours, @David in NJ, said: "That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born." "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

You and every other protestant I've spoken with agrees with him. Therefore, because you all think the word "till" is used to mean "till after," then you should also say the following: "that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:" “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

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

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

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

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 1:25, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGE???

You are a woman. And abstinent.

So am I.

Men have different needs than women do. And enough on this subject. Just think about that.

Now... once again... Look at the varied translations below. All Catholic.
Especially look at the New Catholic Bible wording...............

FROM Matthew - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online

Mathew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;

25 he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

This is from a Catholic bible. Does this actually say to you that they did not have intercourse
after ??????

Another:
FROM Books of the Bible ( The US Conference of Catholic Bishops choice)

Mathew 1:24-25

24When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.l

This does not say one word about what happened after she bore a son, and He was named Jesus, and after her purification days.

PURIFICATION OF MARY - Why Both Mary And Joseph Needed Purification

What is meant by “their purification” (Luke 2:22)?
The purification of Mary and Joseph. Mary was ceremonially unclean after having given birth and Joseph was also ceremonially unclean for having touched Mary while she was bleeding, so the Jewish law required the purification of Mary, as well as Joseph.

How long did their purification require?
The purification of Mary required forty days: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived and borne a son, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed’ ” (Leviticus 12:1-4). The purification of Joseph required less than one day: “If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 15:19). So as a couple, “the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed” (Luke 2:22) forty days - the longer of the two - after Mary gave birth to Jesus.

AND

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[j] and he named him Jesus.

Again no mention of what happened after this or her purification period.

YET ANOTHER

New Catholic Bible (NCB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

New Catholic Bible
24 When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, 25 but he engaged in no marital relations[i] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

Still read to you that he engaged in no marital relations.... ever?

FINALLY:

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Official Catholic Version with Search.

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Roman Catholic Bible Verses, Search Scriptures, Challoner Footnotes.

drbo.org

Douay-Rheims Bible Online~ official Catholic Version with search
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Now, you are not going to change your mind, and I do not want you to.

There is enough within the four corners of the Holy Book that is barely touched upon... such as Mary's purification... and my personal belief is because what is not told is not at all important to the fact that Christ Jesus finally was here.

We are told that on the 8th day Jesus was circumcised. That is important

We are also told in Luke they brought Jesus to Jerusalem after the purification to present Him to to God the Father. That is important.

We are even told about Jesus changing water into wine at the wedding when His mother asked Him to but there is no where in the four corners of the Holy Bible that tells us
how she was involved in the wedding, or what her daytimes were like while Joseph was
making a living....

IOW We are told about Jesus... NOT his folks.

Once he was born we hear of his parents being parents... like when he disappeared and they were frantic until they found him in the temple... but nothing of them personally.

 

[Augustin56]

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

in this, Luke 10: 7 is called scripture

nice try, But Peter and paul were dead by the 4th century. Study the word of God. not the word of men

I can not remember when latin was the language in the US. yet it was not until recently they stopped reading in latin. I know many a catholic in my day that begged for reading in English..

again nice deflect though

FYI, when the New Testament refers to "Scriptures" it is refering to the Old Testament, not the New Testament, because the New Testament was not considered Scripture yet. The New Testament was not decided until the late 4th century.

Nice try, though...

 

[Augustin56]

Lets see

the church in Rome

the church in Ephesus

the church in corinth

The church in Galatia

They were not called catholic churches. they were called the ekklesia (gatheiring) in the city

and they did not teach what the catholic church teaches.. The catholic church looks nothing like those churches started in acts.

Those were all part of the Catholic Church. The "church in Rome", "the church in Ephesus", etc. were referring to locations not different Churches/demonimations. They all believed the same thing and recognized the same beliefs and practices, as well as the authority given the Church by Christ.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

FYI, when the New Testament refers to "Scriptures" it is refering to the Old Testament, not the New Testament, because the New Testament was not considered Scripture yet. The New Testament was not decided until the late 4th century.

Nice try, though...

lol. Do you even read the word of God?

1. peter mentiones PAULS writing and called them scripture

Did Paul write the OT?

2. Paul mentioned the words of Luke, which was written in the NT gospel of luke

Which means your supposed first pope considered pauls writings scripture

and paul, the apostle to the gentiles, considered the gospel of luke to be scripture

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Those were all part of the Catholic Church. The "church in Rome", "the church in Ephesus", etc. were referring to locations not different Churches/demonimations. They all believed the same thing and recognized the same beliefs and practices, as well as the authority given the Church by Christ.

They did not follow the catholic teachings.. so they would not have been part of that church.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Those were all part of the Catholic Church. The "church in Rome", "the church in Ephesus", etc. were referring to locations not different Churches/demonimations. They all believed the same thing and recognized the same beliefs and practices, as well as the authority given the Church by Christ.

I agree with this. They all believed the same thing because Jesus sent out his Disciples with instructions on what to teach and there was no Cnn/Fox to disagree with what they were teaching. It was pretty universal to those who heard and accepted. PRAISE God for that.

However,,,,, and not to start another debate on this... please read the following copy from the link and note what
is bolded and red.

I provide this simply for information and no other reason.

When did the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity start?​

Bible Question:​

We just finished reading your excellent article on “How Many Brothers did Jesus Have?” When did this belief begin in the church since several of the reformers including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley all held to the perpetual virginity dogma?

Bible Answer:​

The earliest evidence for the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin occurs in the writings of the early church father Jerome[1] who was born in A.D. 347 and died about A.D. 419. Prior to Jerome there is no evidence that the early church taught anything other than the scriptural record – that Jesus had siblings: flesh and blood brothers and sisters. Some have claimed that Origen was the first early father who wrote that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but a close examination of his statement reveals that is not true.

And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.[2]

His statement was simply that Jesus’ mother was a virgin, and not that she was a perpetual virgin.

Other early church fathers taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin also. At first this might appear impressive and decisive, but a closer examination reveals that the early church writers who held this viewpoint wrote after A.D. 300 and not during the first, second, or even the third centuries. This is important since the Roman Catholic church began to emerge as an organization sometime around A.D. 300. This strongly implies that the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity started with the Roman Catholic Church.

It is also important to notice that Luther, Calvin, and Wesley came out of the Roman Catholic Church and, consequently, some of their theology had Roman Catholic leanings. This could explain why Luther[3], Calvin[4], Zwingli[5] and John Wesley[6] believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and others point back to the writings of the early church fathers and use their writings as authoritative truth in determining the meaning of the scriptural passages. But that approach assumes the writings of these mortal men are inspired. The truth is they are not. Only the Bible is inspired. Look at the following passage regarding Mary’s children.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. Mark 6:3 (NAS95S)
The passage says that Mary had other children and the names are provided. Some of the early church fathers and current Roman Catholic theologians say that the passage refers to the spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus. We are told to understand these names in a figurative way.

If so, how are we supposed to understand the following passage?

Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For not even His brothers were believing in Him. John 7:2-5 (NAS95S)
Are we supposed to assume that these brothers, who did not believe in Jesus at that time, are in some way spiritual brothers? A close examination of the passage makes it very clear that these “brothers” are not spiritual brothers and sisters in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church and some early church fathers would want us to believe. These brothers did not believe in Jesus. If they did not believe in Jesus, then they cannot be spiritual brothers. It is very clear that they are Jesus’ flesh and blood brothers.

The names of Jesus’ brothers are given in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Here is the Mark passage:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. Mark 6:3 (NAS95S)
In John 2:12 we discover that Jesus and His mother are accompanied by His brothers and His disciples to the wedding at Cana in Galilee.

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days. John 2:12 (NAS95S)
It is important to note that “brothers” is not included with “disciples” in a general sense. Instead they are called out separately because they were Jesus’ siblings and they did not believe in Jesus yet. Later, at least two of His brothers came to faith.

I have left off their conclusion because it differs from yours. That is fine.

I just wanted to show that Jerome was the earliest writer of Mary's perpetual virginity but not until sometime in the late 300s AD

It could be right but came into being at a time long after what is commonly thought, That is worth knowing.

 

[Sigma]

You are a woman. And abstinent.

So am I.

Men have different needs than women do. And enough on this subject. Just think about that.

Sex and masterbation isn't a "need," Satan disguises the sin of lust of the flesh as a "natural need" to lead souls into sin. It's not that men have different needs than women, they're just weaker to Satan's temptation of lust of the flesh, which both women and men are tempted by, and when not resisted becomes a sin.

Sexual intercourse is a means in which a man, woman, and God come together to co-create new life together. After the man and woman conceive, God infuses the soul. It should be seen as a holy privilege and act, not as an opportunity to please oneself or another out of lust, but rather out of pure love and obedience to God, who intended sex for the sole purpose of procreation between a man and woman joined together as one under Him. And, not everyone is meant to procreate, like Joseph and Mary.

Now... once again... Look at the varied translations below. All Catholic.
Especially look at the New Catholic Bible wording...............

FROM Matthew - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online

Mathew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;

25 he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

This is from a Catholic bible. Does this actually say to you that they did not have intercourse
after ??????

Another:
FROM Books of the Bible ( The US Conference of Catholic Bishops choice)

Mathew 1:24-25

24When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.l

This does not say one word about what happened after she bore a son, and He was named Jesus, and after her purification days.

PURIFICATION OF MARY - Why Both Mary And Joseph Needed Purification

AND

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[j] and he named him Jesus.

Again no mention of what happened after this or her purification period.

YET ANOTHER

New Catholic Bible (NCB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

New Catholic Bible
24 When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, 25 but he engaged in no marital relations[i] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

Still read to you that he engaged in no marital relations.... ever?

FINALLY:

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Official Catholic Version with Search.

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Roman Catholic Bible Verses, Search Scriptures, Challoner Footnotes.

drbo.org

Douay-Rheims Bible Online~ official Catholic Version with search
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Now, you are not going to change your mind, and I do not want you to.

There is enough within the four corners of the Holy Book that is barely touched upon... such as Mary's purification... and my personal belief is because what is not told is not at all important to the fact that Christ Jesus finally was here.

We are told that on the 8th day Jesus was circumcised. That is important

We are also told in Luke they brought Jesus to Jerusalem after the purification to present Him to to God the Father. That is important.

We are even told about Jesus changing water into wine at the wedding when His mother asked Him to but there is no where in the four corners of the Holy Bible that tells us
how she was involved in the wedding, or what her daytimes were like while Joseph was
making a living....

IOW We are told about Jesus... NOT his folks.

Once he was born we hear of his parents being parents... like when he disappeared and they were frantic until they found him in the temple... but nothing of them personally.

Again, nowhere in the original language, nor in any of the English translations you cite, does it say in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin.

In other words, Matthew is strictly pointing out that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary during a certain period, not indicating whether he did or didn't after a certain point, to dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a Virgin. If in verse 25 Matthew was referring to Joseph's sexual activity post-Jesus's birth, how does that reinforce that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, and born of the Virgin Mary, which is the context of the passage??? It doesn't, which is why Matthew only focused on what didn't occur pre-Jesus's birth. But, please...explain to me HOW that explanation lacks "common sense."

YOU and OTHER protestants insert the word "after" after the word "til" into the verse Matt. 1:25, a word which isn't in the original language used, nor in any of the English translations you cite, in order to say that Joseph had sex after Jesus's birth. You all are CHANGING THE VERSE, and thus are CHANGING THE MEANING OF IT, in order to FORCE WHAT YOU'D RATHER BELIEVE.

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

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

 

[Taken]

There is absolutely no evidence of any Church other than the Catholic Church in the Bible. No, the name "Catholilc" isn't there. But it doesn't have to be. There was no other Church! There was but one Church in the beginning. Mot many. The Orthodox broke off in 1057 A.D. Protestantism began in the late 16th century.

Not so!

THE CHURCH…IS expressly Called BY Jesus …..MY CHURCH.

Matt 16:
[18] And I (JESUS) say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus is THE HEAD, THE WORD, THE BODY of His Church.
Christ is THE POWER, THE SPIRIT of His Church.

Tents, Homes, Buildings, Synagogues,were BUILT, STANDING And SPEAKING and PREACHING the Word of God, WITHIN those structures ( and also A Temple) LONG before ANY building was called a CHURCH.

Wherever The Word of God is being PREACHED, HEARD, RECEIVED…Jesus’ Church IS IN Service, IN a STRUCTURE, OR NOT.

Jesus Himself, Preached IN Streets, IN Fields, IN Homes, IN Courtyards, IN Synagogues,
BUT NEVER IN A BUILDING CALLED …
A CHURCH!

Jesus Himself Taught His Jewish Disciples to go and Preach IN Synagogues and TO: Israels Jews FIRST, then the other Tribesmen of Israel…and LASTLY the Gentiles.

The WORD of God, ie. JESUS Himself, Taught MEN, WHO BELIEVED Gods Word, TO SPREAD THE WORD OF GOD, Where ever they went, traveled, TO whomever was WILLING TO HEAR the Word of God, that BY WORD OF MOUTH, the WHOLE WORLD, where ever they were, WOULD HEAR the Word of God.

A GENTILE man, BELIEVING the Word of God, selected the term CATHOLIC, (meaning universal,) AS an interpretation of Christ Jesus’ MEANING for the WHOLE WORLD to HEAR the Word of God.

Believing men, began purchasing, erecting BUILDINGS, CALLING THEM “A CHURCH”, and ANNOUNCING, anyone WILLING to Hear the Word of God, were welcome to come and Hear.

The EARLY Church “BUILDINGS”, were simply called A CHURCH, identified BY the CITY in which such CHURCH was Located.

In Consideration OF the masses of People…
Being Curious, being interested and BEING ILLITERATE…They BLINDLY TRUSTED that that which they DID HEAR….WAS completely TRUE.
(BLINDLY TRUSTING? Meaning, being ILLITERATE, they had NO WAY to VERIFY IN Scripture, WHAT they were HEARING and being TAUGHT.)

The Tribesmen / Jews had a long HISTORY of teaching CHILDREN to READ, and LEARN the Word of God.

The Gentiles have a short HISTORY of teaching CHILDREN to READ, even into modern times, and THESE DAYS.

The Gentiles busied themselves BUILDING “Churches”…identifying the BUILDINGS, by What ever NAME “they” CHOOSE.
And “IDENTIFYING” their “DOCTRINE” by a DESCRIPTIVE NAME of their CHOOSING. (Which is simply a “DENOMINATIONAL NAME”.) AND members OF THEIR CHURCH, being CALLED, the SAME as the descriptive denomination.

A select group of men CHOSE the TERM “CATHOLIC” as “their” Churches denominational Identity. That ALL about the world, where ever a CHURCH was erected, It WOULD be CALLED…CATHOLIC…the members would be CALLED…CATHOLICS…and the Pastorial Teachers/ Clerics/ Preachers/ would be CALLED:
Priests and Addressed as Father.

FOR CENTURIES, illiterate men FOLLOWED the CATHOLIC Protocol, even unto this day, men illiterate or not.

However SOME MEN, having Learned to READ, having taken advantage of their ability to READ, and READING, VERIFYING, IN SCRIPTURE, a Multitude of things THEY WERE TAUGHT “IN Catholic Churches, BY Catholic clerics”….
AND FOUND BOLD FACE DISCREPANCIES.

And THAT ONE specific example (of Catholic Doctrine TEACHING and DOING) IS: Verified IN Scripture as AGAINST Gods Word…

Matt 23:
[9] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


* Some men, continued to remain a Catholic Church member.
** Some men, simply left the Catholic Church to seek a Church that which could be VERIFIED with Scripture as True Teaching of the Word of God.
* Some men, Challenged the high Council of the Catholic Church. And IF and WHEN gained an Audience WITH the high Council, were met with DENIAL of any Conflict with Scripture, then booted out of the Catholic Association and their membership revoked.

THAT ^^ SCENARIO Has been REPEATED through-out the History of ManKIND.

Men have Deflected from NUMEROUS “Denominal name identified” Churches, and Started or SOUGHT what they believe IS IN LINE with Scriptural Doctrinal Teaching…
And So WHAT?

Which is more NOBLE? Men continually SEEKING the TRUTH….or Men calling themselves BY the SAME membership NAME, while BLINDLY hearing and following and agreeing and doing…While Not Verifying according to Gods written Word?

Scripture itself TELLS YOU…

Acts 17:
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Catholics certainly DO spread their Doctrine of their churches across the world.

So do others, by what ever NAME they Call their Church and their Denomination and their’s as well having Doctrines of men.

And so do others, by what ever NAME they Call their church and their Denomination and expressly have the Doctrine of Christ Jesus.

FREEWILL, for each individual to CHOOSE.

Jesus’ CHURCH, IS HIS. His Church Belongs to NO MAN. His Church is NOT a man-made Structure. His Church is WITHIN a man WHO, has become a Member of His Church;
By, through, of HIM, According to HIS WAY.



Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Ghada]

How many times does God need to say something for it to be true? Once!

This is absolutely true. And some Christians never get it. IU have found that in any Bible debate, God always has at least one or two 'proof' verses that ought end the debate, if God is honestly taken at His own words.

Another one for you:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Joseph did not know his wife Mary, only until after Jesus' birth.

 

[Ghada]

Sex and masterbation isn't a "need," Satan disguises the sin of lust of the flesh as a "natural need" to lead souls into sin.

Neither is any form of entertainment on earth.

It's not that men have different needs than women, they're just weaker to Satan's temptation of lust of the flesh, which both women and men are tempted by,

If you are implying women don't masturbate as much as men, then as Leonidas would say, "Clearly you don't know our women..."

 

[Augustin56]

This is absolutely true. And some Christians never get it. IU have found that in any Bible debate, God always has at least one or two 'proof' verses that ought end the debate, if God is honestly taken at His own words.

Another one for you:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Joseph did not know his wife Mary, only until after Jesus' birth.

I'm not sure where you got your translation of Matt. 1:25, but it is clearly faulty. You, or someone else, added the word "only."

Even so, the Bible wasn't written in English, nor was it written within our cultural norms. The word until used back in Jesus' day, did not imply that something happened after. The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.