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

[Stranger]

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.

(Luke 1:36) "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth,...."

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

"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)

tabletalk, on 14 Apr 2017 - 3:27 PM, said:
"If your Protestant Fathers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity - why don't YOU??"
Two reasons:
Quote

(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.

The issue is only important when the doctrine is attacked by Modernist liars, and modern day Helvidian heretics, or by anti-Christian rebels who think they have a case against both Protestants and Catholics.

(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

You are missing the point. The "Protestant Fathers" rejected a long list of Catholic distinctives, but they did not reject the perpetual virginity of Mary. WHY? Because the doctrine is unquestionable? Even for rebellious anti-Catholic reformers? Why have a minority of Protestants adopted a view that is 100 years old? Because it is fashionable?

Luke 1:35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

We know who the Father of Jesus Christ is: The Holy Spirit.
Therefore it is not a stretch to title Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
If Mary's true Husband is the Holy Spirit, then sex with a man outside that relationship is adultery.
The penalty for adultery is death. Leviticus 20:10
The only way out of this logic is to deny the spousal relationship Mary had with the Holy Spirit, leading to numerous Christological heresies.

​Mary having other children diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation, trivializes the role of the mother of the Redeemer, can only be forced out of scripture with eisegesis, and for those reasons, IMO, is a doctrine of demons.

 

[mjrhealth]

Religious charlatans like your cult, aggressivechristianity.org DO offend me because they offend God.

You really need to take a deep good look at your religion and where it comes from before you start slinging mud around, Cults really you are an angry man, you are teh son of your chruch, out to kill and murdrer all that oppose it. What has Marys post virginty got ot do with anythimg. Not a thing, just another church doctrine made out to be scripture to defend teh worship of "another" idol.

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Who cares waht God thinks, your doctries say its OK,

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And on it goes.

 

[lforrest]

As expected nothing edifying is coming from this ecumenical discussion. Just mutual condemnation of the opposing view.

This topic is being closed.