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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
WRONG.

In the examples I listed - not only do the Early Church Fathers quote the 2nd century documents Against Helvidius and the Protoevangelium of James - the "Reformers" did as well.

Question:
If your Protestant Fathers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity - why don't YOU??

If they were wrong about Mary - what ELSE were they wrong about??
"If your Protestant Fathers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity - why don't YOU??"

Two reasons:

(1) I can't see how this issue, "ever virgin", is very important in the Bible. So I'm simply neutral whether or not she had other children. You may be exactly correct about the early church fathers, as I did not research that subject well.

(2) I, along with many Protestants, do not believe our "Protestant Fathers" were even close to being infallible. We don't necessarily hold to everything they say, but try to use the 66 books of Scripture to examine all things. (I'm not saying your church teaches that all Fathers were infallible)
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
well, they sure quote them over the Book, to a fault it seems
BreadOfLife said:
Let's see . . . .
Jerome, who is called the "greatest" Scripture scholar who ever lived believed in the Perpetual virginity.
But YOU, an obscure, angry, ignorant anti-Catholic forum poster are more qualified that Jerome??

Ummmm, I don't think so.
i don't know this Jerome guy, and i have no Book in my Bible written by him.

Jerome "We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock"
now imo Jerome had his hat on backward, and this can all be refuted, starting at the 4th word, by a 12 year old reading Scripture, and of course Catholic priests don't marry, so he is in a sense condemning marriage. He even goes so far as to say "As for myself," apropos of nothing, iow he offers no Scriptural support for his position--because he cannot--and the only question that remains is why anyone considers him a scholar of the Bible, being that i don't hear him quoting any Bible.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
bbyrd009 said:
and i gotta ask why this person is continually allowed to break forum protocol and rules and deliberately belittle every poster he interacts with. Why isn't BoL getting at least a time-out? Is the point of allowing him to call all and sundry whatever name suits him to make the RCC look bad? Because while that certainly is the case, imo it sets a poor precedent. I am not anti-Catholic, but it seems as if heathens are allowed to run amok in here, wadr. Who wants to post in this climate?
WOW! What a hypocrite. You are one of the worst rule breakers on this forum. A troll and flamer - and a liar saying you are not anti-catholic.

If the mods enforced the rules around here you would be first overboard - imo of course. The little imo makes any insult OK doesn't it bbyrd009?

You say "really, it is not; it is the elevation of a human to the status of God, it is goddess worship"
BreadOfLife asks 'Explain to me how Mary remaining a virgin is "goddess worship"'

Do you explain? NO. You just go on to make more inane and ignorant.comments.

You ask "Who wants to post in this climate?" Are you referring to your posts?
Well I'm not sure I do with the way you post
 

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
WOW! What a hypocrite. You are one of the worst rule breakers on this forum. A troll and flamer - and a liar saying you are not anti-catholic.

If the mods enforced the rules around here you would be first overboard - imo of course. The little imo makes any insult OK doesn't it bbyrd009?

You say "really, it is not; it is the elevation of a human to the status of God, it is goddess worship"
BreadOfLife asks 'Explain to me how Mary remaining a virgin is "goddess worship"'

Do you explain? NO. You just go on to make more inane and ignorant.comments.

You ask "Who wants to post in this climate?" Are you referring to your posts?
Well I'm not sure I do with the way you post
Are you Orthodox? (Eastern, Russian, etc) If so, would you respond to a topic I may post, if allowed, about the 2nd Council of Nicaea? Not sure if it is allowed here.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
and a liar saying you are not anti-catholic.
No one here is Anti Catholic, maybe anti catholism, should not people protest against that what opposes God in every way.

Do we have to go back down this path to no where again

Get back on tack this isnt about catholics
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
I'm not twisting anything.
Go to the original Greek and pull out your concordance and lexicon and you'll see that the Catholic position on Luke 1:34 is correct.

I already gave you the BIBLICAL definition of "Firstborn" (Exod. 13:1-2).
Are you saying the God is a liar??
You gave the Romanist position. It doesn't say at all what you want it to say. Which means you have to twist it, as you do.

No, you gave me your definition of 'firstborn'. All I asked was is there anytime the 'firstborn' word is used in Scripture where there were not others born afterward?

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Only the "Romanists"??
Time for a historical spanking . . .
Martin Luther
Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)


Ulrich Zwingili
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”



(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

John Calvin
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned."
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)


"[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

"Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


Hilary of [SIZE=10pt]Poitiers[/SIZE]

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).


Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).


Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).


Jerome

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]).

Why do YOU believe differently than your Protestant Fathers listed above??
Well,these are not the early church. And those Reformers your mentioned were Romanists before. And there are some reformers in there, if you're honest in your quotes. But you have to remember, Luther had other things, baggage, from the Romanist Church that he did not let go of. Which is why there were anabaptists. So, if indeed these reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then they were wrong. They were right in pulling away from the Romanist Church but were wrong in hanging on to some things. Many didn't go far enough.

I am not like a Romanist who must believe everything the Roman Church believes. I believe the Bible. If the Reformers are in line with it, then I am in agreement. If they are not, then I am not in agreement.

Again I ask, why is it so important to have Mary a perpetual virgin, when Scripture say she was not. Why is it necessary?

Stranger
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Comes down to this

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
\
Whaich is what this is all about, nothing to do with God, every thing to do with the "churches" dostrines.

This bit

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
The Orthodox believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Early Church:

Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Epiphanius
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only- begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Epiphanius
"And to holy Mary 'Virgin' is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Panacea Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 374/377]).

Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 381-392]).

Jerome
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 19 {al. 21} [A.D. 383]).

Augustine
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

Augustine
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary, was born God; and confessing each substance, we accept, in the light of pious faith, that his humanity and his divinity are united inseparably." (Document of Amendment 3 [ca. A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria
"Jesus did not first come into being as a simple man, before the union and communion of God in him; but the Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her child-bearing." (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [ca. A.D. 430]).

Peter Chrysologus
"Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s giving birth are just like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven. Hers is by divine power, theirs by human weakness. . . . A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains." (Sermons 117 [A.D. 432]).

Leo I
"Christ was begotten in a new kind of nativity, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without concupiscence of paternal flesh, without injury to maternal integrity. . . . His origin is different but his nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained." (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 461]).

Council of Constantinople (553)

“If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.” (Capitual II)

As to the reformers:

[SIZE=11pt]Martin Luther:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]6 p. 510[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt].) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]John Calvin:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Matthew[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] 1:22-25[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], published 1562.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Ulrich Zwingli:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.) [/SIZE]
All of the Reformers were Romanists before. Thus they were infected with the Roman doctrine. And many did not go far enough in the separation of doctrine. So if these did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, they were wrong.

See, a Protestant is not forced to believe some doctrine just because the reformers did. The Bible.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
bbyrd009 said:
well i hope you understand that in light of Scripture that obviously--to most people--translates that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born--and undoubtedly liked it--as well as the many supporting passages that mentions Jesus' "mother and brothers and sisters" which become "cousins" only by the most extreme distortions of Scripture, i don't feel compelled to explain the spiritual implications of elevating Mary to Godhood, wadr. I'm still trying to get a handle how this was even perpetrated upon you, tbh. Aren't the sinless defined as "God" or "gods?" Regardless of how you might choose to hold your mouth there? Could you explain the difference? Ty

John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin, and i note that Scripture had no probs making that clear...
Really??
Show me where the Bible calls John the Baptism the "cousin" (anepsios) of Jesus.
It DOESN'T. All it says about Elizabeth is that she was Mary's "Kinswoman" (soong-ghen-ace).

Stop claiming things about Scripture that you have NO grasp of.
Learn what they mean instead.

As for Mary's Perpetual virginity not being true - NOBODY taught this until the last few hundred years - not even your Protestant Fathers, as I have amply shown.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tabletalk said:
"If your Protestant Fathers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity - why don't YOU??"

Two reasons:

(1) I can't see how this issue, "ever virgin", is very important in the Bible. So I'm simply neutral whether or not she had other children. You may be exactly correct about the early church fathers, as I did not research that subject well.

(2) I, along with many Protestants, do not believe our "Protestant Fathers" were even close to being infallible. We don't necessarily hold to everything they say, but try to use the 66 books of Scripture to examine all things. (I'm not saying your church teaches that all Fathers were infallible)
And you're right. Not all the Church Fathers were right about everything.
I'm talking about a general and unanimous consensus on this issue (Perpetual Virginity).

As for "ever virgin" being important in Scripture. you would have to understand the Type that was the Ark of the Covenant and the Fulfillment that is Mary, the Ark of the NEW Covenant. Here are a few Scriptural comparisons of type and fulfillment:

a.) "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
b.) "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

a.) When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing for joy” before the Lord (2 Sam. 6:14)
b.) When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

a.) The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
b.) Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

a.) The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
b.) Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
You gave the Romanist position. It doesn't say at all what you want it to say. Which means you have to twist it, as you do.

No, you gave me your definition of 'firstborn'. All I asked was is there anytime the 'firstborn' word is used in Scripture where there were not others born afterward?

Stranger
Ummmm, the Biblical definition of Firstborn is sufficient - even to a child.

And, I don't even know what a "Romanist" is.
Your blind ignorance is confusing you again . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
Well,these are not the early church. And those Reformers your mentioned were Romanists before. And there are some reformers in there, if you're honest in your quotes. But you have to remember, Luther had other things, baggage, from the Romanist Church that he did not let go of. Which is why there were anabaptists. So, if indeed these reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then they were wrong. They were right in pulling away from the Romanist Church but were wrong in hanging on to some things. Many didn't go far enough.

I am not like a Romanist who must believe everything the Roman Church believes. I believe the Bible. If the Reformers are in line with it, then I am in agreement. If they are not, then I am not in agreement.

Again I ask, why is it so important to have Mary a perpetual virgin, when Scripture say she was not. Why is it necessary?

Stranger
Every quote I listed is from an Early Church Father.
Even the most virulent Protestant scholars acknowledge them as ECFs.

again - nobody ever accused YOU of being a scholar . . .

As for why you can't figure out why Mary's Perpetual Virginity is important to Scripture - I suggest you read post #91.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Comes down to this

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
\
Whaich is what this is all about, nothing to do with God, every thing to do with the "churches" dostrines.

This bit

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Said the guy who belongs to the cult of "aggressivechristianity.org" led by "Generals" . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
All of the Reformers were Romanists before. Thus they were infected with the Roman doctrine. And many did not go far enough in the separation of doctrine. So if these did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, they were wrong.

See, a Protestant is not forced to believe some doctrine just because the reformers did. The Bible.

Stranger
You're right.
You guys just splinter off from each other until you have what we have today:
Almost 50,000 disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions who ALL teach different invented doctrines yet ALL claim to have the "Truth."

What a mess . . .
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Said the guy who belongs to the cult of "aggressivechristianity.org" led by "Generals" . . .
Is that teh worst you can do BOL, as it says

Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

So offended by teh truth, you should look for it, it is not in your churches doctrines.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Is that teh worst you can do BOL, as it says

Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

So offended by teh truth, you should look for it, it is not in your churches doctrines.
The truth never offends me.
Religious charlatans like your cult, aggressivechristianity.org DO offend me because they offend God.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Every quote I listed is from an Early Church Father.
Even the most virulent Protestant scholars acknowledge them as ECFs.

again - nobody ever accused YOU of being a scholar . . .

As for why you can't figure out why Mary's Perpetual Virginity is important to Scripture - I suggest you read post #91.
You can call them 'early church fathers' if you want. They are not the 'early Church'. The early Church knew nothing of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Concerning post #91, nothing is said of why Mary's perpetual virginity is important. Nothing. And much of what is said is miss-represented. So, again, why is Mary's perpetual virginity important to the Roman Church?

You're correct. No one has ever accused me of being a scholar. Or a Pharisee either.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
You're right.
You guys just splinter off from each other until you have what we have today:
Almost 50,000 disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions who ALL teach different invented doctrines yet ALL claim to have the "Truth."

What a mess . . .
Well, at least we got away from the mess that is the Roman church. And as a result have preserved the truth of the Scriptures and faith in Christ for some 600 years.

And at least we got away from the accepted doctrine of the Roman faith that was and has deteriorated into apostasy and blasphemy.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Ummmm, the Biblical definition of Firstborn is sufficient - even to a child.

And, I don't even know what a "Romanist" is.
Your blind ignorance is confusing you again . . .
Again, I ask, was there anytime in Scripture where the term 'firstborn' was used and there were not others born to them?

Stranger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.