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

[BreadOfLife]

Claiming that the scripture (Mat 1:25) doesn't really mean what it says due to language and cultural barriers is not an arguement I am going to accept. We had scholars long ago translate the scriptures. I believe they were inspired by God and got it correct. Given that the Bible lists Jesus's brothers and sisters I stand by this verse meaning that after Jesus's birth Mary had other children.

You listed Psa 110:1 and I believe 3 other verses that quoted that verse. I did address that verse. I noted that going through the meaning of that is beyond the scope of this conversation and potentially would derail the conversation. Again, review what I said and you will see once his enemies are made his footstool something will happen.

Take Peter's sermon in Acts 2. It says, "... For David is not ascended into heaven, but he saith the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand..."

I think by now David has entered heaven or paradise by now... Jesus conquered death and something happened. Certainly, as I suggested there was a change when Jesus conquered death

Maybe thats not it and it has to do with Armageddon and Jesus bringing his army... But I seriously doubt things are going or have remained the same after the enemies are under him.

As for your questions, don't take this personally because its not meant to be taken personally: i will no longer answer loaded questions or questions meant for entrapment. If you have a statement to make, say it. If you actually have a question because you don't know somethin, ask it in sincerity.

As much as I appreciate the Socratic method of debates, it must br used properly. So, if you want me to comment on a thought you have, by all means try again.

But I am no longer playing that game.

[SIZE=11.5pt]So, you won’t answer the questions I asked because you feel they’re “loaded”? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]I think they are valid questions. They were asked in sincerity and I’m not playing a game. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]If the position that Mary had other children is so Scripturally sound – they why don’t the Early Church writings show any evidence of this view? Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously teach that Jesus was her only child?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]Finally – you made the following statement:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]“We had scholars long ago translate the scriptures. I believe they were inspired by God and got it correct.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]What “scholars” are you talking about?
The first scholar to translate the Scripture was St. Jerome – and he taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]Jerome[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord NOT AS BEING SONS OF MARY but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).[/SIZE]

 

[FHII]

[SIZE=11.5pt]Jerome[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord NOT AS BEING SONS OF MARY but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).[/SIZE]

He didn't translate it into English. Furthermore, whatever his personal beliefs are should not have a bearing on his work as a translator.

 

[bbyrd009]

If you can't follow a reasoned, logical and evidence based argument then perhaps you should consider what you here here for - imo and wadr of course.

yes, so iow i am once again being dismissed, it appears, because you cannot even logically deal with my post.

if you cannot see that you are forcing a perspective that simply writing "And Joseph did not have relations with Mary" period, full stop, would have supported, then i suggest maybe that we should examine logic itself for the conclusions that one may be led to accept lol. Anything can be made to mean anything, it seems to me, by your reasoning.

 

[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?

 

[bbyrd009]

So what i am hearing is "If God Himself came down and told me that Mary had sex (and liked it ), i still would not listen."

 

[bbyrd009]

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

He didn't translate it into English. Furthermore, whatever his personal beliefs are should not have a bearing on his work as a translator.

Then which “scholars” are you talking about who translated the Scriptures did so by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Frankly - I've never even heard any Protestant scholars or historians make this claim. The only ones who were "inspired" were the writers of the Bible.

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingili, Philip Melanchton, John Calvin, John Wesley - they all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Why would you call it a "miserably failed experiment"??
That ranks up there with many of your other ignorant remarks.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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?

When did Jesus "refute" Mary as His mother??
Care to back that up with Scripture??

 

[Stranger]

Mt 1:25 doesn't say Mary had other children - see post #79

Sure it does. I saw in #79 where your popular method of inteprtations is, "it doesn't mean what it says". Therefore you acknowledge that (Matt. 1:25) does say Mary sex after the virgin birth. But, we just can't believe what it says, according to the Roman method.

Then couple that with, (Ps.69:8) "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Compare that to (John 7:3-5) "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea,that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.....For neither did his brethren believe in him." The brethren are Christ's mothers children.

These verses prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary had sex after the virgin birth and begat sinful children. Which, as I said before, takes nothing away from Mary as she was a sinner herself.

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

yes, so iow i am once again being dismissed, it appears, because you cannot even logically deal with my post.

if you cannot see that you are forcing a perspective that simply writing "And Joseph did not have relations with Mary" period, full stop, would have supported, then i suggest maybe that we should examine logic itself for the conclusions that one may be led to accept lol. Anything can be made to mean anything, it seems to me, by your reasoning.

If I can't deal with your post it's because of a lack of structure and logical thought and any evidence to back up your imos and wadrs.

It's just stream of unconsciousness writing.

 

[Mungo]

Sure it does. I saw in #79 where your popular method of inteprtations is, "it doesn't mean what it says". Therefore you acknowledge that (Matt. 1:25) does say Mary sex after the virgin birth. But, we just can't believe what it says, according to the Roman method.

You are like someone with their fingers in their ears shouting "I'm not listening".

What post #79 shows is that it means exactly what it says - not your illiterate interpretation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure it does. I saw in #79 where your popular method of inteprtations is, "it doesn't mean what it says". Therefore you acknowledge that (Matt. 1:25) does say Mary sex after the virgin birth. But, we just can't believe what it says, according to the Roman method.

Then couple that with, (Ps.69:8) "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Compare that to (John 7:3-5) "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea,that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.....For neither did his brethren believe in him." The brethren are Christ's mothers children.

These verses prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary had sex after the virgin birth and begat sinful children. Which, as I said before, takes nothing away from Mary as she was a sinner herself.

Stranger

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt"??

That's about the most dishonest thing you've said so far.
Not even the most virulent anti-Catholic with half a brain would make such an asinine statement.

No - as we've shown - the weight of Scripture, Tradition and testimonies from YOUR Protestant Fathers all point to the fact that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

 

[Stranger]

Scripture does not teach plainly against it. It is not a false elevation of Mary.

When you accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary you are accusing them of blasphemy.

When the Roman church says things about Mary which elevate her to worship status, contrary to the Scripture, then Scripture plainly teaches against it.

Was Mary a sinner?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I've told you in the post.

Try reading it.

I did read it. And I responded to what you said by saying that the virgin birth does all that you are wanting 'perpetual virginity' to do.

Perpetual virginity doesn't affirm the holiness of the Lord Jesus. The virgin birth does. Perpetual virginity doesn't affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus. The virgin birth does. The virgin birth alone bears witness to the uniqueness of Christ, and His holiness, and His Deity.

The perpetual virginity of Mary does nothing but bring adoration, and praise to Mary. It adds nothing to Christ, indeed it takes away from Christ.

Again, I ask,since Mary was a sinner when she gave birth to Christ, why is it unfitting for her to give birth to sinners?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

If I can't deal with your post it's because of a lack of structure and logical thought and any evidence to back up your imos and wadrs.

It's just stream of unconsciousness writing.

"the truth can walk naked, but a lie always needs to be dressed."

you can't see the sense in your pov being invalidated by adding to "And Joseph did not have relations with Mary?"
that contains no logic in your opinion? How 'bout Christ denying Mary 3 times then? Too convoluted for you, is it?
ok, have a good one, and best of luck with all that then. I'm sure it makes sense to you, and that is after all the standard you should respect.

 

[Stranger]

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt"??

That's about the most dishonest thing you've said so far.
Not even the most virulent anti-Catholic with half a brain would make such an asinine statement.

No - as we've shown - the weight of Scripture, Tradition and testimonies from YOUR Protestant Fathers all point to the fact that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

Read again. "My mothers children" (Ps.69:8)

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

I did read it. And I responded to what you said by saying that the virgin birth does all that you are wanting 'perpetual virginity' to do.

Perpetual virginity doesn't affirm the holiness of the Lord Jesus. The virgin birth does. Perpetual virginity doesn't affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus. The virgin birth does. The virgin birth alone bears witness to the uniqueness of Christ, and His holiness, and His Deity.

The answers were given in kepha's post #23 - which you never replied to

 

[Stranger]

You are like someone with their fingers in their ears shouting "I'm not listening".

What post #79 shows is that it means exactly what it says - not your illiterate interpretation.

You're the one that said that (Matt.1:25) doesn't mean what it says. Which can only mean it says Mary had sex and children after the virgin birth of Christ.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The answers were given in kepha's post #23 - which you never replied to

Im talking to you. Are you saying your answers are inadequate? To which I would agree.

You didn't answer my question. Was Mary a sinner?

Stranger