It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[Stranger]

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin has zero bearing on what my relationship with Christ is. I hadnt even considered it until someone brought it up on here. In the end, its really just a fun fact to know whether or not. The important thing is that she was a virgin upon conception with Christ. I will still sleep just as soundly. tonight as any other night.

"Just a fun fact to know". How old are you? And your a moderator?

Sleep well.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Ample evidence has been presented but you just ignore it. You prefer to try and sidestep into irrelevant diversions.

There hasn't been any evidence to ignore.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Also, i am noticing that Jesus' refute of Mary as His mother--3 times no less; a strong Witness, it seems to me--is steadfastly being ignored here. But perhaps your copy of the Bible does not include these?





don't you guys think that your own miserably failed experiment with celibacy gone whacko should be some kind of guide here?


You, nor anyone else, has replied to or refuted post #94. You have no case. I think it's to send you back to my ignorasium because now you are resorting to obscenities.

sorry, but wadr post 94 is TL;DR, and while i might be referring to obscenities, i don't think it's fair to say that i am resorting to them. I don't by any means suggest applying these to all Catholics, but nonetheless they are a manifestation that should be considered, imo. But in the end it seems to me that we are discussing peoples' beliefs here, and i don't think it can possibly be productive to grace, really.

After all, i do not reap from this doctrine, so my opinion about post 94 seems moot to me, but imo you might have started it on a different note, as several accusations and assumptions are in the opening paragraph,

You can see how liberal Protestant Modernism induces blindness. Proof texting won't work, history and the ECF won't work, logic and reasoning won't work, what the reformers taught won't work and defending the integrity of Christ won't work. We are often accused of false doctrines though it's never been proven, and here we have anti-Catholics supporting heresies invented in the 19th century. Will ironies ever cease?
***********************************************************

Using Scripture alone, to prove that...

and i'm curious how you might expect anything other than to foment more resistance to your idea, having started with such a blanket condemnation here on what is (ostensibly) a "Christian" (translation; "Protestant") website, where the inevitable reaction would be that you are swimming in false doctrines, etc., and the Reformation was (again, ostensibly) all about departing from the heresies of the "Orthodox" church. The Western one, btw, not the other ones.

I would much prefer to seek where we agree, and certainly there are plenty of subjects that might be discussed in that arena, yes?

 

[epostle1]

You have yet to prove that Mary and Joseph did not sleep with one another, Without an interview with either of them you cannot say they did or did not, Lots of married couples sleep with one another yet dont have children. So the children arguement proves absoluely nothing no matter how much you drag it on.

Post #162 proves Mary's perpetual virginity, and it has been ignored.

Finally I haven't addressed Luke 1:28 because I fail to see any reason to. It offers nothing in terms of whether Mary had chilren other than Jesus.

Luke 1:28 is a key verse supporting Mary's Immaculate Conception, which was taught by Martin Luther. He invented sola scriptura, so you pick and chose what you want.

Well, that is part of our discussion now. You indicated we discussed it many times before.

Wrong, God made her sinless. He didn't have to, but He did because it was fitting. Her sin-ness is a recent invention. "Only to elevate Mary to a level of adoration and worship." is typical prot cult bigotry and ignorance. Were Adam and Eve created sinners? No, so why is it so difficult to believe God would make Mary sinless to be the mother of the Messiah?

Note your phrase, "linguistic implications". There is absolutely nothing in "Kecharitomene" that says Mary was without sin. It doesn't matter if you translate it 'full of grace' or 'highly favoured' or what. It doesn't say Mary was without sin. The grace she was favoured with or full of, was from God. He bestowed it upon her. It wasn't in herself. She received it. From this, the Roman church wants to imply that Mary must have been sinless.

So you have made Mary sinless through a 'linguistic implication'. And if it doesn't say Mary was sinless, then why would anyone want to make Mary sinless, by implication. Only to elevate Mary to a level of adoration and worship.

Stranger

When you say (Ps.69:8) also is Israel, are you saying the woman in (Rev.12) is Israel?

In (Rev.12) Israel is represented through sign or symbol by the woman in heaven. Just as Satan is represented as the dragon and angels are represented as stars. This is Israel through sign and symbol.

Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1 are inseparable. They have 3 meanings.Mary as primary and Israel as secondary. Ark of the New Covenant is third. (Revelation 11:19. These are not the only verses in the Bible that have 3 meanings.

(Ps. 69:8) is not speaking of 'mother's children' through sign or symbol. It is a Messianic Psalm from David. Meaning that first of all it has meaning to David. David is describing what he is experiencing. But it also has meaning towards the coming Messiah because the Messiah Jesus Christ will experience this also. Thus, David is speaking about His mother's children, his own brothers. And likewise Jesus the Messiah will be speaking of His own 'mother's children'.

David is taking about the pain of being alienated from his family. Imposing a a foreshadow where none exists is bible twisting. David was not scorned and mocked by his brothers, and neither did Jesus so called brothers. Try reading Psalm 69 in context. Jesus' "mother's children" are found in Revelation 12:17 which is rather difficult to force fit into your agenda. Biological brothers of Jesus is anti-biblical, as shown in Post #162 that you ran from.

Christ's brothers did believe on Him after the resurrection. Makes perfect sense.

Stranger

Christs' biological brothers is a lie from the pit of hell.

By the way... You missed the point I was making. Again, with so much emphasis placed on Mary you shouldn't be surprised when people believe you worship Mary.

Ignorance, bigotry prejudice and gross misrepresentation doesn't surprise me at all. It's the the religion of the anti-Catholic. I see it everyday.

There hasn't been any evidence to ignore.

Stranger

What a joke. You ignored post #162 and then you say this???

 

[FHII]

And as far as I'm concerned - if you simply disagree, then I have no problem with you.
I only have a problem with the other 98% of Protestants who make up lies and fairy tales about what they THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

Fair enough.

I've said all I want to say except for one thing. Amd this is directed to you BOL, as it concerns statements you have made. I am going on memory and not going back to find actual statements (too unwieldy on a cell phone. My apologies if I get it wrong).

Over the conversation I remember we as a community discussing that "brothers" could be countrymen, cousins, family members otherwise or step brothers. I propose they were half brothers. I am speaking of James, Simon, Joses and Judas and at least two sisters.

So who exactly do you believe them to be? Is it your belief they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage? You've put that theory forth. Or were they cousins or otherwise?

I have no intention to comment on your answer. I am simply looking for clarification on what you believe, or at least suspect.

Other than that, i don't have much more to add to this conversation. I will clarify anything I have said or entertain questions as long as they aren't loaded or meant for entrapment.

So if anyone has a question... Ask wisely.

 

[mjrhealth]

Post #162 proves Mary's perpetual virginity, and it has been ignored.

Proves nothing, your arguement is about children, there are lots of childless couples who have sex, Did you ask her. Excuse me Mary did you sleep with Joseph. ?? Again has no bearing on anything, trying to justfy teh worhip of another idol, No where any where does it say tha tMary aand Josehp did not sleep with one aniother. Not anywhere, But you could make it up if you like.

Mar_6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fair enough.

I've said all I want to say except for one thing. Amd this is directed to you BOL, as it concerns statements you have made. I am going on memory and not going back to find actual statements (too unwieldy on a cell phone. My apologies if I get it wrong).

Over the conversation I remember we as a community discussing that "brothers" could be countrymen, cousins, family members otherwise or step brothers. I propose they were half brothers. I am speaking of James, Simon, Joses and Judas and at least two sisters.

So who exactly do you believe them to be? Is it your belief they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage? You've put that theory forth. Or were they cousins or otherwise?

I have no intention to comment on your answer. I am simply looking for clarification on what you believe, or at least suspect.

Other than that, i don't have much more to add to this conversation. I will clarify anything I have said or entertain questions as long as they aren't loaded or meant for entrapment.

So if anyone has a question... Ask wisely.

Actually - I spoke about them earlier in the thread.
James and Joses are said to be the children of the "other" Mary at the foot of the cross.

This Mary is said to be the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus. Are we to assume that they are uterine sisters? Hardly, because they have the same name.
They were probably some other relation (cousin, in-laws, related by marriages, etc.).

What do the Scriptures 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".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Proves nothing, your arguement is about children, there are lots of childless couples who have sex, Did you ask her. Excuse me Mary did you sleep with Joseph. ?? Again has no bearing on anything, trying to justfy teh worhip of another idol, No where any where does it say tha tMary aand Josehp did not sleep with one aniother. Not anywhere, But you could make it up if you like.

Mar_6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Not only has your argument about Mark 6:3 been squashed repeatedly - you didn't read through Kepha31's entire post (#162).

I just destroyed your position yet again in post #187 . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Were Adam and Eve created sinners? No, so why is it so difficult to believe God would make Mary sinless to be the mother of the Messiah?

Did A&E sin? yes. So why is it so difficult etcetc? Plus, seems like you are going to run into your own logic here, if you carry this out much further, because now Christ is not descended from Man on either side, but two Gods, now? Also, reflect on the exchange "Woman, what has that to do with Me?" So now you got gods arguing/sparring with each other, a la Mt Olympus or something?

So yes, it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible to believe, with all due respect. It even effectively contradicts Scripture imo, not that those who confess in the dark to people they call "father" seem to have much problem with that.

sorry Richard, this would not quote right, post 184

Christs' biological brothers is a lie from the pit of hell.

then Christ cannot avail us, if He did not come from human stock, seems to me. And His disinheritance of His biological mother, Mary--which you will not even address; some more abundantly familiar behavior--and the rest of His biological family is made moot. 3 times. We are reduced to reading the Iliad or the Odyssey, and trying to puzzle out the doings of gods, imo. I don't understand why Catholics don't just write their own Book? Oh ya, they already have, even changed Commandments to suit themselves--the problem here is that they hypocritically chose to call it "Bible."

 

[bbyrd009]

i feel for humble, honest Catholics here, i honestly do; but thank God, i say, that the RCC is being perceived now for what it really is.

ps i can direct anyone interested to several ex-church properties that may be had for $1, in the Flint and Detroit areas, at least one of them, a Protestant church in Flint, quite pristine. Prolly 20k square feet, beautifully landscaped, all the amenities.

 

[Born_Again]

"Just a fun fact to know". How old are you? And your a moderator?

Sleep well.

Stranger

What is wrong with you? Your responses are just goading anymore if anything. My age is irrelevant.

• Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Christianity Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand."

You need to take this a little more seriously.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did A&E sin? yes. So why is it so difficult etcetc? Plus, seems like you are going to run into your own logic here, if you carry this out much further, because now Christ is not descended from Man on either side, but two Gods, now? Also, reflect on the exchange "Woman, what has that to do with Me?" So now you got gods arguing/sparring with each other, a la Mt Olympus or something?

So yes, it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible to believe, with all due respect. It even effectively contradicts Scripture imo, not that those who confess in the dark to people they call "father" seem to have much problem with that.

sorry Richard, this would not quote right, post 184

then Christ cannot avail us, if He did not come from human stock, seems to me. And His disinheritance of His biological mother, Mary--which you will not even address; some more abundantly familiar behavior--and the rest of His biological family is made moot. 3 times. We are reduced to reading the Iliad or the Odyssey, and trying to puzzle out the doings of gods, imo. I don't understand why Catholics don't just write their own Book? Oh ya, they already have, even changed Commandments to suit themselves--the problem here is that they hypocritically chose to call it "Bible."

And YOU ignored MY question - Where in Scripture did Jesus "disinherit" His mother??

As for the comparison between Adam & Eve and Mary - there is NO comparison.
Adam and Eve were born sinless but later sinned
Mary was born sinless and never sinned. HOW, you ask??

Mary was "Kecharitomene" - Adam & Ever were not.
The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

Kecharitomene is not a mere description here. It is used as a TITLE.
The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, favored one” - he said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

I've explained this repeatedly but it has fallen on deaf, anti-Catholic ears.

 

[bbyrd009]

And YOU ignored MY question - Where in Scripture did Jesus "disinherit" His mother??

oh, sorry--actually what happened there is i ignored you ignoring me posting the 3 verses earlier. The ones that quote Christ revealing who His spiritual family are; "...these are my mothers, and brothers, and sisters."

Adam and Eve were born sinless but later sinned

So, just like you, you mean.

Mary was born sinless and never sinned.

this is what happens when you let other people with an agenda interpret your Bible for you, i guess. Look, you are welcome to believe this if you like BoL, but it is not Christian, and i hope you understand that i am not too inclined to pay much doctrinal heed to anyone who worships other gods, ok? Btw how is Ishtar doing, i guess you just had a bacchanalia to her? Still giving your kids cavities? And indoctrinating them into the fertility rites? Gee, i wonder why your church is melting? But fwiw i assert that you can believe whatever you like, ok, i also have no objection. I don't even think these are "salvation" issues anymore, as i once did. God does not judge like we do, and Scripture makes this plain. You maybe reveal yourself more in your lack of humility, but then i am hardly the shining example there myself. See that no good can come from this thread, imo. You are quite likely a thoughtful person who seeks God, and are put in the position of feeling like you have to defend your beliefs, and this is specifically condemned in Scripture. So, blessings to you, and be well.

 

[Stranger]

What is wrong with you? Your responses are just goading anymore if anything. My age is irrelevant.

• Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Christianity Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand."

You need to take this a little more seriously.

You speak of doctrine or 'false doctrine' as just a 'fun fact to know'.

Then you tell me to 'take this a little more seriously'. The reason you're upset is because I take it very seriously. It's not fun. It's not games. It affects what people believe about God and Jesus Christ. It affects their walk of salvation. But that is not important to you. You just want to have fun.

God, Christ, Christianity, is not fun. It is serious.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Because that is the testimony of Scripture.

What you should be asking is , 'what is the purpose of Mary being a perpetual virgin?', as taught by the Roman church.

Stranger

Hello Stranger,

Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, John Wesley Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer supported perpetual virginity. They weren't Roman Catholic.

MANY Protestant and Orthodox churches teach perpetual virginity.

To NOT believe in her perpetual virginity is out of the norm and puts anyone who denies 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the matter in the minority.

The "purpose" of her being a perpetual virgin is because Mary and Joseph were entrusted with raising the Son of God. Their marriage could not have been an ordinary marriage because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.

Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God, the father of her son. Mary’s perpetual virginity was a great example of virtue because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus and the father of her son, God.

I guess the best way to put it is that Mary did not have an extramarital affair with Joseph. She was devoted to the father of her son with whom she was very much in love with.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[lforrest]

You speak of doctrine or 'false doctrine' as just a 'fun fact to know'.

Then you tell me to 'take this a little more seriously'. The reason you're upset is because I take it very seriously. It's not fun. It's not games. It affects what people believe about God and Jesus Christ. It affects their walk of salvation. But that is not important to you. You just want to have fun.

God, Christ, Christianity, is not fun. It is serious.

Stranger

I consider it the responsibility of the hearer to judge the merit of a challenge to their beliefs. By not being serious with the presentation it eliminates any appeal to authority. If someone here were actually to change their beliefs it would only be the result of a God driven process, not because so and so told them so.

Bankers wear suits so you will trust them with your money. I want people to trust in God instead of me.

 

[bbyrd009]

You speak of doctrine or 'false doctrine' as just a 'fun fact to know'.

Then you tell me to 'take this a little more seriously'. The reason you're upset is because I take it very seriously. It's not fun. It's not games. It affects what people believe about God and Jesus Christ. It affects their walk of salvation. But that is not important to you. You just want to have fun.

God, Christ, Christianity, is not fun. It is serious.

Stranger

well, that escalated quickly

 

[bbyrd009]

Hello Stranger,

Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, John Wesley Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer supported perpetual virginity. They weren't Roman Catholic.

MANY Protestant and Orthodox churches teach perpetual virginity.

To NOT believe in her perpetual virginity is out of the norm and puts anyone who denies 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the matter in the minority.

The "purpose" of her being a perpetual virgin is because Mary and Joseph were entrusted with raising the Son of God. Their marriage could not have been an ordinary marriage because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.

Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God, the father of her son. Mary’s perpetual virginity was a great example of virtue because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus and the father of her son, God.

I guess the best way to put it is that Mary did not have an extramarital affair with Joseph. She was devoted to the father of her son with whom she was very much in love with.

Respectfully, Mary

um, then why did Jesus disown Mary, again? ty

 

[mjrhealth]

Mary was born sinless and never sinned.

I guess Mary didnt need Jesus than?? And the bible lied because Mary was also sinless, not only Jesus, and Mary could of gone to teh cross and done the same thing because she was perfect, and Jesus birth was a waste of Gods time, and His suffering for us pointless.

 

[Stranger]

Hello Stranger,

Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, John Wesley Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer supported perpetual virginity. They weren't Roman Catholic.

MANY Protestant and Orthodox churches teach perpetual virginity.

To NOT believe in her perpetual virginity is out of the norm and puts anyone who denies 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the matter in the minority.

The "purpose" of her being a perpetual virgin is because Mary and Joseph were entrusted with raising the Son of God. Their marriage could not have been an ordinary marriage because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.

Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God, the father of her son. Mary’s perpetual virginity was a great example of virtue because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus and the father of her son, God.

I guess the best way to put it is that Mary did not have an extramarital affair with Joseph. She was devoted to the father of her son with whom she was very much in love with.

Respectfully, Mary

Hello Mary

The reformers you name were part of the Roman church before they were reformers. If they were not part of the Roman church before then they were not reformers. If they were not part of the Protestant movement then they were not reformers. In other words, the Church of England could be Roman at times or Protestant at times, depending on who the King or Queen was. The Church of England is really not Protestant. It simply put the King of England over the church there instead of the Pope.

My point is that these were affected by the Roman church also. And if they still believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then they were holding on to a Roman doctrine that the should not be holding to.

I agree that Mary and Joseph's marriage would not be a normal one. But that would be because of the 'virgin birth', not the perpetual virginity of Mary. To ask Mary and Joseph to remain virgins and be married would be abnormal and cruel. To indicate that if Mary had relations with Joseph would be infidelity on her part is a serious charge, and not founded in Scripture. They were married. The bed is undefiled.

If God wanted Mary to be a perpetual virgin, then why Joseph. What greater way to show perpetual virginity then to never be married and have a virgin born Son, and continue to never be married.

And, how are you going to prove that Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph when Scripture never says so? Are you saying a man and a woman lie in the same bed every night and control their sexual desires and say no every night? And that, when they were in love with each other?

So, now, you attribute adultry to Mary and Joseph for having sex and other children. Because Scripture says they had other children.

It seems to me that you are saying Mary is either 'divine' or a 'whore'. And I say that respectfully. The virgin birth alone supplies all that God needs in His salvation plan. To add more to that is to bring Mary to place God never intended.

Stranger