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

[Illuminator]

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

Yup. So you admit you stand for nothing and fall for anything, just like you fall for that post-enlightenment era nonsense about Mary that the early reformers never taught.
By the way, the Protoevangelium of James that you rant about is not official church teaching, it's history. You have little or no connection with the historic church of the 2nd century so you fill in the gaps with deified opinions.

 

[Illuminator]

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.

Not exactly. All the early reformers never questioned Mary's perpetual virginity. Not a single Protestant church on the planet before the enlightenment era denied Mary's perpetual virginity. The denial is a recent man made tradition; diabolical because it diminishes the uniqueness of the incarnation. Not only that, such recent innovations reduces the mother of Jesus to a re-useable incubator.
I have to wonder if anti-Mary Christians have dysfunctional mothers rendering them incapable of understanding the Divine Maternity.
There is no verse that says Jesus loved His mother so Bible worshippers think they don't need to either.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness.
Titus peppers his posts with one baseless lie after another, evidence of anti-Catholic psychosis.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[Illuminator]

 

[Titus]

Yup. So you admit you stand for nothing and fall for anything

You think you have proven Mary was a virgin till death?
You Catholics have already been refuted.
You cannot give scripture that Mary died a virgin, that is why you post unbiblical writings from uninspired men.
That's all you have for your made up lies about Mary and her husband.
You and all catholics will answer to God on judgment day for your perversion of the Holy word of God.

just like you fall for that post-enlightenment era nonsense about Mary that the early reformers never taught.

Post enlightenment is nonsense!!!!

I haven't fallen for anything!
My beliefs are the apostles teaching! Acts 2:42

Jesus established His church in 33ad

Way, Way, Way before the abomination known as the catholic church was formed.

Catholicism was never christianity. It is a government formed religion of the Roman government.

The church I'm a member of was established by Jesus in the first century. Romans 16:16
Before your church which was formed by the help of apostate elders and roman officials, Christians and the Lords church was already well established by God.

Catholics claim that they are the church you read about in the new testament is another lie of many.

Protoevangelium of James that you rant about is not official church teaching, it's history

Correct, that's why it is holds no truth whatsoever. It is trash written by a liar.

You have little or no connection with the historic church of the 2nd century

I'm a member of the new testament church that was established in 33ad.

You are not in Gods house.
To this day no catholic has ever been a member of the Lords church.
Never were, never will be.

The only way to be in the Lords church is to renounce catholicism and become a christian.

 

[Illuminator]

Catholicism was never christianity. It is a government formed religion of the Roman government.

If that's true you should have no problem proving which ecumenical council was ruled by pagan emperors, which is impossible. You have no evidence of such a hateful assertion, just regurgitations of anti-Protestant anti-trinitarian liars like Alexander Hislop and legions of anti-Christian anti-trinitarians. You also cannot name any martyr of the second or third centuries because you are so sadly divorced from the early church. On top of that you have no Judaic roots.
You still haven't explained your deviation of reformist teachings about Mary, mainly because you are ignorant of the history of your false anti-Catholic inventions. You are another anti-Protestant Hislopite and a waste of screen space.
Titus will be ignored.

 

[Marymog]

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

Soooo your Catholic?

Protestant: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth

 

[Titus]

just regurgitations of anti-Protestant anti-trinitarian liars like Alexander Hislop and legions of anti-Christian anti-trinitarians

Since I am a Bible believing Christian unlike you.
I strongly believe in the Godhead, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Catholics are anti-christs by thier rejection of Jesus' teachings.
And their additions to the word of God.

True Christians only speak the oracles of God, 1Peter 4:11.
Catholics speak the traditions of men, example: Protevangelium.

If that's true you should have no problem proving which ecumenical council was ruled by pagan emperors, which is impossible

Rome adopted christianity as the state religion by the work of Constantine.

Problem is Constantine perverted christianity. This was the beginning of the formation of what we now know as the catholic church.

Constantine never even obeyed the gospel. He lived his life ruling as the authority over the churches of Christ. Which no man has the right/authority from God to do.
Constantine was a rebellious man that had certain reasons for his affinity with christianity.

What we know historically of Constantine:

Constantine never obeyed the gospel that Peter preached in Acts 2:38 to repent and be immersed in water for the purpose of forgiveness of ones sins against God.
He claimed to be Christian but never submitted to obedience to Christs gospel.

It is known Constantine received baptism and "communion" on his death bed at the hands of an Arian bishop , Eusebius of Nicodema.

The new testament gospel clearly teaches God does not save you from your sins until you submit all to God. Thus the first step to becoming a christian requires belief, confession, repentance and baptism in water. Constantine lived his life as a supposed Christian without obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see the character of this man was in reality rebellion towards God. He claimed of himself what God if still in the flesh at this time in history would have rejected as one of His children.
The audacity to make appoint oneself an authority in the church while never submitting to the gospel says all we need to know of the first man to begin the origins of the catholic church.

The Tragic Influence of Constantine upon the true church of God:

The church fell away from the new testament pattern laid out by Gods chosen apostles by the influence of men like Constantine. Not that he was the only one but he had the most power over other men to shape the church, mold the church by his hands into what he deemed "truth"

Note: Not all churches of Christ submitted to the Roman officials sinful statements of faith and decrees upon the church.
Since Christ established His church there will always be faithful Christians that do not submit to cultural beliefs of thier present society like the catholic church has always done.

Cont.
More evidence men like Constantine were not men of God but servants of satan.

The church became corrupt because of Constantine and his brethren.
The influence of Constantine upon the church caused true Christians to go into apostasy.
Instead of holding to the new testament pattern of sound words.
Many christians chose to give up their independence(church autonomy) and began to rely upon the HEAD OF THE STATE FOR THE CHURCHES ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY!!!

The leaders(Elders) of once sound local churches seemed too concerned with present problems to see the danger in these developments.

Constantine selected the city of Byzantium later called Constantinople in 324 to be rebuilt as his capital.
Constantine had planned for the new city to be the center of government for the church as well as for the empire of Rome!!!!
Elaborate churches were built and the false bishop exalted to a place of prominence!!!

This goes against the apostles doctrine we read about in the new testament.
New testament churches of God were always self-governing (autonomous) by their own local elders appointed in each local church. Catholics have to this day unbiblical control over every local church by one self governing head. The true Head of the true church is Christ. Catholic churches head is never Jesus but a man.

Paul commands every local church appoint elders/bishops(same thing) so the churches will be autonomous. This is Gods wisdom in order that one church that becomes corrupted by wolves in sheep clothing cannot have authority over other churches and corrupt them also.

Acts 20:29-30,
- Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock(local church) among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers(elders) to shepard the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in(men like Constantine) among you not sparring the flock.
Also from among yourselves men will rise up speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Acts 14:23,
- So when they(apostles) appointed elders in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed

Catholicism never was the true church of Christ and never will be.
The Catholics love to make this false claim about their church.
The Lords church was well established before Rome adopted it's new reformation of the church which was a perversion of new testament christianity.

Later others rebelled against the catholic church and made another reform of not the true church of Christ but a new re- formation of the apostate catholic church.

The pro-test and re-formation of the catholic church was never about getting back to the new testament pattern and simply copying the church found in the new testament but men were motivated to reform catholicism into their ideal form of religion.

Folks need to desperately learn Christ's church did not begin in Europe among white men!!!
These movements came much more recently in history.

You still haven't explained your deviation of reformist teachings about Mary

I teach zero reformed doctrine!!!
Your false doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has already been refuted, post #25

 

[BreadOfLife]

You think you have proven Mary was a virgin till death?
You Catholics have already been refuted.
You cannot give scripture that Mary died a virgin, that is why you post unbiblical writings from uninspired men.
That's all you have for your made up lies about Mary and her husband.
You and all catholics will answer to God on judgment day for your perversion of the Holy word of God.

Conversely - YOU have't provided a SHRED of evidence - Biblical or hstorical - that Mary didn't remain a virgin.
Jesus established His church in 33ad

Way, Way, Way before the abomination known as the catholic church was formed.

Catholicism was never christianity. It is a government formed religion of the Roman government.

Interesting . . . .

So, can you tell me WHEN the Catholic Church came about then?
What year?? I'll makje it easier for you -
What decade??
Century??

Can you give me the name of the document, declaration or decree that promulgated the Catholic Church?
WHO started it?

I didn't think so . . .

The church I'm a member of was established by Jesus in the first century. Romans 16:16
Before your church which was formed by the help of apostate elders and roman officials, Christians and the Lords church was already well established by God.

WRONG.

YOURS was extablished by mere MEN after the 16th century,

The only way to be in the Lords church is to renounce catholicism and become a christian.

Catholics were the very FIRST Christians.

As the Apostle John's lifelong student, Ignatius of Antioch wrote -
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

"Follow your Bishop"
"OBEY your clergu"
"The sole EUCHARIST"
Geee - WHAT Church does that sound like??

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

WRONG.

If you are indeed a Christian and you are NOT a Catholic or Orthodox Christian - then you are a Protestant.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Disctionary
: a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

 

[Illuminator]

Titus is a Hislopite who cannot be reasoned with.

Alexander Hislop was a Scottish clergyman who wrote a book called "Two Babylons" in 1853.(the same era and the same country the SDA and Jw's were founded)

The basic thesis of the book was to prove that Catholicism was related to the worship of Nimrod, his nymphomaniac wife Semiramis, and their son, Tammuz (who was supposedly a reincarnation of Nimrod). By extension, Protestants are also implicated in this mixture of paganism and Christianity by many Hislopites, especially the aforementioned cults.

Generally, the accusations relate specifically to Christm
as and Easter when it comes to criticisms leveled at Protestants, but include a wide variety of Catholic specific practices when these criticisms are leveled against Catholics.

As a former Armstrongite, Hislop's book Two Babylons was very important to forming my prejudices against
Catholicism and Protestants of all types. Armstrongites rejected the Christianity of all believers outside of their organization.

Alexander Hislop was probably one of the worst scholars that I've ever read. He tries to connect all of paganism to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, and then connect that system to the Catholic Church. The logic he uses is abominable, and he misquotes references in order to make his claims. He is academically dishonest and his work has no credibility.

For instance, Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even live in the same century, so I think that rendered the possibility of them having a child pretty much to nill...I think reproduction requires two partners who exist at the same time. He claims that the Roman Catholic version of Mary was actually Semiramis, which is pretty hard to believe since Mary is considered to be a perpetual virgin and Semiramis was a nymphomaniac with many lovers. He believed that Nimrod was an ugly black man, which suggests some racial overtones, and also isn't provable due to the scant information available about Nimrod. He claims that the Babylonians practiced confession like Catholics do, but the reference he gives actually relates to Greece and not Babylon. He taught that church steeples are actually phallic symbols (the male sex organ) and that church bells actually relate to testicles. I can remember believing this as an Armstrongite. I was taught that Protestants and Catholics were basically giving God the finger through these steeples attached to their churches.

Hislop claimed that all pagan religion came from Nimrod and Semiramis worship. The logic he used involved finding a similarity between one pagan god and Nimrod (usually based on some poor correlation), and then finding a similarity between that pagan god and another pagan god, and assuming they were both Nimrod. By using this "method", he connected many pagan gods from all over the world to Nimrod.

The logic would be something like this:

Bill wears a red shirt and blue jeans.
Bob wears a red shirt and khakis.
Jim wears a green shirt and khakis.

Conclusion: Jim is Bill.

That's pretty much the logic Alexander Hislop used, the same warped logic Titus uses.

BEWARE OF ALEXANDER HISLOP AND HISLOPITES ON THE FORUM

A lot of the anti-Christmas, anti-Easter, anti-Roman Catholic remarks on the forums come from Hislopites, who believe the teachings of Alexander Hislop, or were indoctrinated by individuals influenced by Hislop's writings. I am definitely not pro-Roman Catholic Church, but my discussions with...

christianchat.com

The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology​

This article first appeared in the volume 22, number 2 (2000) issue of the Christian Research Journal. It exposes Titus's sick accusations.

 

[Marymog]

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!!!

Using the bible can you name Mary's other children AND quote me a passage that says Mary had other children?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Catholic doctrine. Mary's perpetual virginity
Some Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed also hold to this unbiblical doctrine.

Lol....Sooooo a majority of Christians adhere to a well-documented 2,000-year doctrine of Christianity and it is unbiblical because the MINORITY says it is unbiblical??????????? Huh.....????

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The "Roman" Pagan Goddess Diana was a perpetual Virgin.

Acts 19:27​

​

27 ""So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worships.""​

​

""" much of her ethos [beliefs & practices] was transferred to the Virgin Mary. Both figures enjoyed major sanctuaries at Ephesus in 5ad" (Encyclopedia of Gods, Jordan, p. 26). By taking over Diana's Temple as a church for Mary in Ephesus and declaring her "Mother of God" , the Catholic church simply borrowed and adapted ancient traditions"""​

-​

View attachment 33765​

​

That is a beautiful statue to recognize and respect The Mother of God. I am willing to bet it made Jesus happy that men were building a statue to honor her. Where is that at?

 

[Marymog]

You think you have proven Mary was a virgin till death?
You Catholics have already been refuted.
You cannot give scripture that Mary died a virgin, that is why you post unbiblical writings from uninspired men.
That's all you have for your made up lies about Mary and her husband.
You and all catholics will answer to God on judgment day for your perversion of the Holy word of God.

You have it backwards Titus.

Via Scripture and ancient historical Christian writings, it was "proven" that Mary was a virgin until death.

It wasn't until 1,600 years AFTER the death of Christ that some uninspired men who fell away from The Church refuted that teaching and lied to the flock. Their perversion of Scripture and Christian tradition possibly cost them eternal salvation.

See how you have your facts backwards?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Joseph and Mary were married which includes GOD GIVEN SEXUAL RELATIONS for reproduction.

Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born = For a man to know his wife means sexual relation

New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

English Standard Version
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Berean Standard Bible
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.

Berean Literal Bible
But he did not know her until she had brought forth a Son, and he called His name Jesus.

King James Bible
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

New King James Version
and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.

NASB 1995
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

NASB 1977
and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Legacy Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Amplified Bible
but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The LORD is salvation).

Christian Standard Bible
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.

The United States Conference of Bishops post the following in their obvious bible of choice. Can't get more Catholic then this.

Matthew, CHAPTER 1

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

Mathew 1:25 25He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.l

Catholic Online

Matthew - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online

1 Roll of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham: 2 Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob, Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah fathered Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Ram,

www.catholic.org

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

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You have it backwards Titus.

Via Scripture and ancient historical Christian writings, it was "proven" that Mary was a virgin until death.

It wasn't until 1,600 years AFTER the death of Christ that some uninspired men who fell away from The Church refuted that teaching and lied to the flock. Their perversion of Scripture and Christian tradition possibly cost them eternal salvation.

See how you have your facts backwards?

Your Catholic Bishops say differently...

The United States Conference of Bishops post the following in their obvious bible of choice. Can't get more Catholic then this.

Matthew, CHAPTER 1​

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org
Mathew 1:25 25He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.l

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You have it backwards Titus.

Via Scripture and ancient historical Christian writings, it was "proven" that Mary was a virgin until death.

It wasn't until 1,600 years AFTER the death of Christ that some uninspired men who fell away from The Church refuted that teaching and lied to the flock. Their perversion of Scripture and Christian tradition possibly cost them eternal salvation.

See how you have your facts backwards?

Provide the scripture and the historical Christian writings please

 

[Marymog]

Provide the scripture and the historical Christian writings please

Hello Rella,

Show me anywhere in Scripture where it calls Mary anything other than a virgin!!! Scripture calls her a virgin and NEVER says that she has other children. Sooooo the onerous is on YOU, not me, to prove that Scripture says she had other children!!!

In regard to historical Christian writings surely as a Christian you know your own Christian history?????????????

Infancy Gospel of James

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Your Catholic Bishops say differently...

The United States Conference of Bishops post the following in their obvious bible of choice. Can't get more Catholic then this.

Thanks Rella for this opportunity to teach you and your fellow Protestants your Christian History.

It is not true that my "Catholic Bishops say differently". Here is the teaching of The Church:

Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. Here are some biblical examples:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

Some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.” Does this mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

Now I suspect that YOU, Rella, are referring to this line in that link you provided: The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. Soooooo The Church does NOT teach different than Scripture.

I challenge you to give me, from Scripture, the names of Mary's other Children!!!

Now in regard to what Christianity has taught in regard to Mary and her perpetual virginity from a non catholic source:

Which church father first taught the perpetual virginity of Mary?


For you see Rella, YOUR Christian history starts in the 16th century when men protested the 1,500 year teaching of The Church. My Christian History started with the Apostolic Fathers.

Have you ever read the Apostolic/church Fathers?

Curious Mary