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

[BreadOfLife]

Israel is not the Mother of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Explain your statement concerning James.

Stranger

Who is the "Woman" in Rev. 12 who gives birth to the one who will rule with an iron rod??
As an anti-Catholic - no matter how you answer this question - you lose.

So - WHO is the Woman??

 

[Stranger]

And this is just another angry, ignorant rant.
We don't "worship" Mary and you know it. That is simply a lie of your own concoction.

As for Mary's sinlessness NOT being in Scripture - I have educated you on this many times before.
Luke 1:28 calls her "Kecharitomene." Here we have Scriptural proof of her sinlessness.

Your move . . .

I don't remember any discussion about Mary's sinlessness. There is nothing in (Luke 1:28) to indicate any sinlessness.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Who is the "Woman" in Rev. 12 who gives birth to the one who will rule with an iron rod??
As an anti-Catholic - no matter how you answer this question - you lose.

So - WHO is the Woman??

The woman represented in (Rev. 12) is Israel. The mother In (Ps. 69:8) is not Israel but the Messiah's mother, Mary.


And explain your statement concerning James.


Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Actually the truth is that you have failed to disprove our evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary; indeed you have avoided it..

And I'm not following your rabbit trails.

There is no evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary. None. You have created it. And want to believe it.

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

There is no evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary. None. You have created it. And want to believe it.

Stranger

You have been presented with lots of evidence. You just won't engage with it.

You prefer to try and lay rabbit trails to divert the discussion. Not that it's possible to have a discussion with you.

Well, it's my bed time over here.

Good night.

 

[mjrhealth]

See this whole topic has absolutly nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Gloryfying Mary, for they cannot prove any of it, but need reason to worship, what the bible cals "teh Queen of Heaven". Its Jesus that saves not Mary, its because of what Christ did, thant men are saved not Mary, She did not die on that cross for men she did not lay down her life for us, she did not suffer, nor did she take on sin. How againg, Jesus gets left out and His Glory stolen.

 

[mjrhealth]

I have no use for liars and charlatans like the cult leaders over at your aggressivechristianity.net.

Yes BOL go back there, they may have an anger management page and even talk about truth and not twisting scripture, Seems this is how you respond to the truth, Just like it says, the Truth hurts, doesnt it???

 

[FHII]

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.

Your response did not match what you quoted me as saying, but I remember what you are referring to.

I never said any scholar or historian claimed they believed they were led by the spirit. I said I believed they were. I believe Jerome, Irenaeus and yes, even the Catholic Church was inspired to put the Bible together. Likewise I believe the scholars King James commissioned were inspired in translating it into English. If you wish, I can give you everyone of their names and which part they played.

I believe this due to the Bible saying he would never leave us, that his word will stand forever and that the scripture was written for those on whom the end of the world would come. If you don't agree: fine.

But that has very little to do with our topic.

As for the early Church Fathers... Well, none of the earliest Church Fathers agreed or said Mary remained a virgin. Matthew didn't. Mark didn't. Neither did Luke, John, Peter, Paul and her own son James didn't either! In fact, they showed that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Of course, you aren't speaking of those folks.As much as I enjoy reading the folks you are talking about, when they say something contrary to the Bible, I will flat out reject it. When they say something not supported by the Bible, I look at it with a skeptical eye.

In other words I don't put as much stock in them as you do. Their belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin is not supported by the Bible. I at least have about a dozen verses to hang my beliefs on.

Others in this thread have attempted to show this theory (at Mary remained a virgin) with the Bible, but frankly I am not convinced by any of them. There is too much assuming going on without Biblical confirmation.

Do I think they were lying? No, I think they were wrong. Good Christians? By all means... But that doesn't mean they were always right.

You mentioned Martin Luther and John Calvin. Do you believe they were always right? I therefore would not be wrong to believe any other could be wrong also.

 

[Stranger]

You have been presented with lots of evidence. You just won't engage with it.

You prefer to try and lay rabbit trails to divert the discussion. Not that it's possible to have a discussion with you.

Well, it's my bed time over here.

Good night.

No, you presented no evidence for the Mary's perpetual virginity. All you have done is try and change what the Scripture says, as you admitted, when it shows that Mary had other children. In other words there are no Scriptures that indicate in any way, that Mary remained a virgin. And, I have engaged in your discussions. It is you that said you won't engage in the discussion. Not me.

It is all about Mary. Thus I have laid no rabbit trail. It is just a trail you don't want to go down because it proves what the Romanists have done with Mary. Elevated her to a place of worship. Born without sin. Gives virgin birth. Remains a perpetual virgin. Does not die. And that is just the beginning. These things are not the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of the 'mother and child cult' that has infected the Roman church.

Tell me, how could Mary be born without sin without her mother being a virgin also? So, was Mary's mother without sin? Did she remain a perpetual virgin also? Did she die. I know, these questions are too deep. Too much. Easier to claim someone is diverting rather than answering.

All discussions have rabbit trails. If one is knowledgeable in the subject he will be able too discuss the rabbit trails. Personally, I believe you are knowledgeable in these rabbit trails and for that reason do not want to discuss them. Because you know that they prove the guilt of the Roman church in their elevation of Mary to worship status without any Scripture to support.

Stranger

 

[FHII]

No, you presented no evidence for the Mary's perpetual virginity. All you have done is try and change what the Scripture says, as you admitted, when it shows that Mary had other children. In other words there are no Scriptures that indicate in any way, that Mary remained a virgin. And, I have engaged in your discussions. It is you that said you won't engage in the discussion. Not me.

It is all about Mary. Thus I have laid no rabbit trail. It is just a trail you don't want to go down because it proves what the Romanists have done with Mary. Elevated her to a place of worship. Born without sin. Gives virgin birth. Remains a perpetual virgin. Does not die. And that is just the beginning. These things are not the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of the 'mother and child cult' that has infected the Roman church.

Tell me, how could Mary be born without sin without her mother being a virgin also? So, was Mary's mother without sin? Did she remain a perpetual virgin also? Did she die. I know, these questions are too deep. Too much. Easier to claim someone is diverting rather than answering.

All discussions have rabbit trails. If one is knowledgeable in the subject he will be able too discuss the rabbit trails. Personally, I believe you are knowledgeable in these rabbit trails and for that reason do not want to discuss them. Because you know that they prove the guilt of the Roman church in their elevation of Mary to worship status without any Scripture to support.

Stranger

Stranger has cut to the chase on why this is really important. I abosulety do not think Joseph brought James, Joses, Simon and Judas and 2+ sisters with him into his marriage to Mary. But even if it were so I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The problem is ALL the supposed claims about Mary. To Stranger's list I would add the practice of the Rosary where you chant Mary's name 14 times before throwing in a praise Jesus and praise God. I've also heard of Mary being a co redeemer with Jesus. I can't say anyone here thinks that, but I have heard of that.

So what am I to think with what I see going on? There are some that are angry at the accusation that they worship Mary, but for a second... JUST TRY to see what folks like me see! Yes, I am trying to see it through your eyes too, but I don't.

Mary should be appreciated, Peter and Paul followed and learned from but Jesus worshipped.

So you folks who say you don't worship Mary but do all these things... Can you really blame us for being skeptical about your beliefs?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't remember any discussion about Mary's sinlessness. There is nothing in (Luke 1:28) to indicate any sinlessness.
Stranger

NO discussion aboiut mary's sinlessness??

Ummmm, in post #140 - YOU made the following statement:
"So, we have a sinless Mary. Which is never stated in Scripture."
You have a very bad memory..

As for Luke 1:28 - I already pointed out where it talks about her sinlessness.
Your ignorance of the linguistic implications of her God-given title of "Kecharitomene" is where we find it.

Actually - it's not ignorance anymore because I've explained this to you more than once.
Now, it's just rejection of God's word . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The woman represented in (Rev. 12) is Israel. The mother In (Ps. 69:8) is not Israel but the Messiah's mother, Mary.

And explain your statement concerning James.

Stranger

The mother in Psalm 69:8 is also Israel.

As for James - Psalm 69:8 says the following:
"I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother's children;"

This is talking about Israel, who rejected Him.
If it was talking about the supposed children of Mary, it wouldn't make sense because - James became the Bishop of Jerusalem.

Really - you can't be this dense . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

See this whole topic has absolutly nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Gloryfying Mary, for they cannot prove any of it, but need reason to worship, what the bible cals "teh Queen of Heaven". Its Jesus that saves not Mary, its because of what Christ did, thant men are saved not Mary, She did not die on that cross for men she did not lay down her life for us, she did not suffer, nor did she take on sin. How againg, Jesus gets left out and His Glory stolen.

It has nothing to do with glorifying Mary.
Mary's importance in the Gospel is solely because of God and her cooperation with HIS grace.

Maybe, you should stop listening to those wacky "Generals" over at "aggressivechristianity.net" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes BOL go back there, they may have an anger management page and even talk about truth and not twisting scripture, Seems this is how you respond to the truth, Just like it says, the Truth hurts, doesnt it???

The truth doesn't hurt. Who told you that?
Was it your little cult over at aggressivechristianity.net??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your response did not match what you quoted me as saying, but I remember what you are referring to.

I never said any scholar or historian claimed they believed they were led by the spirit. I said I believed they were. I believe Jerome, Irenaeus and yes, even the Catholic Church was inspired to put the Bible together. Likewise I believe the scholars King James commissioned were inspired in translating it into English. If you wish, I can give you everyone of their names and which part they played.

I believe this due to the Bible saying he would never leave us, that his word will stand forever and that the scripture was written for those on whom the end of the world would come. If you don't agree: fine.

But that has very little to do with our topic.

As for the early Church Fathers... Well, none of the earliest Church Fathers agreed or said Mary remained a virgin. Matthew didn't. Mark didn't. Neither did Luke, John, Peter, Paul and her own son James didn't either! In fact, they showed that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Of course, you aren't speaking of those folks.As much as I enjoy reading the folks you are talking about, when they say something contrary to the Bible, I will flat out reject it. When they say something not supported by the Bible, I look at it with a skeptical eye.

In other words I don't put as much stock in them as you do. Their belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin is not supported by the Bible. I at least have about a dozen verses to hang my beliefs on.

Others in this thread have attempted to show this theory (at Mary remained a virgin) with the Bible, but frankly I am not convinced by any of them. There is too much assuming going on without Biblical confirmation.

Do I think they were lying? No, I think they were wrong. Good Christians? By all means... But that doesn't mean they were always right.

You mentioned Martin Luther and John Calvin. Do you believe they were always right? I therefore would not be wrong to believe any other could be wrong also.

No offense, but EVERY one of the scholars you just mentioned - even the Protestant ones - were FAR more learned in the Scriptures that you are.
Not ONE of them was "convinced" as you about Mary having other children. Even Luther and Calvin who hated the Church never parted from the belief in her perpetual virginity - which is not "contrary" to Scripture.

But YOU - a poster on an obscure little internet forum know better they they did, I guess.
Unfortunately, you haven't been able to show this from Scripture . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Stranger has cut to the chase on why this is really important. I abosulety do not think Joseph brought James, Joses, Simon and Judas and 2+ sisters with him into his marriage to Mary. But even if it were so I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The problem is ALL the supposed claims about Mary. To Stranger's list I would add the practice of the Rosary where you chant Mary's name 14 times before throwing in a praise Jesus and praise God. I've also heard of Mary being a co redeemer with Jesus. I can't say anyone here thinks that, but I have heard of that.

So what am I to think with what I see going on? There are some that are angry at the accusation that they worship Mary, but for a second... JUST TRY to see what folks like me see! Yes, I am trying to see it through your eyes too, but I don't.

Mary should be appreciated, Peter and Paul followed and learned from but Jesus worshipped.

So you folks who say you don't worship Mary but do all these things... Can you really blame us for being skeptical about your beliefs?

Mary's name is "chanted" 14 times in the Rosary??
What planet are you from?? You started out discussing this rationally and charitably - unlike Stranger and his minion mrhealth - but now you
re just being dishonest. Mary's name is never "chanted" in the Rosary. She is asked to Pray for us.

Secondly - your statement "I abosulety do not think Joseph brought James, Joses, Simon and . . ." just shows your lack of faith in what God can do. What do you base this on besides your own opinion??

As for calling Mary a "Co-Redeemer" - we are ALL supposed to be "Co-Redeemers" in a sense.
This is what Paul talks about in Col 1:24, when he says:
"Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."
He talks about uas being "CO-WORKERS" (sunergos) with God.

Finally - not ONE of you has been able to address Mary's God-given title of "Kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.
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.”

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” or, "Hail, favored one."
He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

 

[mjrhealth]

The truth doesn't hurt. Who told you that?
Was it your little cult over at aggressivechristianity.net??

You must own teh webiste keep promoting it, it that the best you can do, or would you prefer a stake and wood. Its illeagle now.

 

[mjrhealth]

Not ONE of them was "convinced" as you about Mary having other children. Even Luther and Calvin who hated the Church never parted from the belief in her perpetual virginity - which is not "contrary" to Scripture

Sorry, scripture does not say Mary was a perpetual virgin, Not anywhere. Why is it that youu need Her to be?? Doesnt change a thing, just propmets Mary and takes away teh golry from Jesus

I shall have no othe rGods before, and teh Idol thing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, scripture does not say Mary was a perpetual virgin, Not anywhere. Why is it that youu need Her to be?? Doesnt change a thing, just propmets Mary and takes away teh golry from Jesus

I shall have no othe rGods before, and teh Idol thing.

Wouldn't make a bit of difference to me personally if Mary had other children.
It matters to GOD and His Word - so it matters to me.

It's a shame His Word doesn't matter to you . . .

 

[epostle1]

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.

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?

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."

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

"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.

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.