Perpetual virginity of Mary!

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Oh give me a break! You care more about Sam Rutherford's opinions than you do about 2000 years of consistent teaching. No legitimate council ever deviated from what Jesus said. What is asserted is never proven.

Oh, ok tell me that these are not scriptural texts: John 6:38- “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.” Is this Sam Rutherford opinion? Question, If Jesus is God, who sent him down from heaven? And why did Jesus yield to the will of that person?

Another text: John 7:16 Jesus said: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." Is this text Sam Rutherford opinion too. Some other questions,
Did Jesus teach his own ideas? He said that his teachings belong to the One who sent him didn't he? That makes me wonder: ‘Who sent Jesus? And who gave him the truths he taught?’ Wouldn’t that One be greater than Jesus? After all, isn't the sender superior to the one who is sent?

Still another text, John 14:28: “You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” is this text also Sam Rutherford opinion? Based on that verse, how would you say Jesus viewed himself in relation to the Father? It looks to me Jesus view God as his superior?

Another text, Matthew 28:18 says: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” Is this also Sam Rutherford opinion?
Did Jesus say in this scripture that he always had all authority? I ask because I've always believed that God has always had all authority. So why did Jesus say all authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to him? The True God has always had all authority in heaven and on Earth? Since people are saying Jesus is God but Jesus said he was given more authority who gave him more authority? God? But people are saying Jesus is God.

You know if I wanted to teach someone that two people are equal, to illustrate that point I think I would use the illustration of Two brothers? Perhaps identical twins? But Jesus referred to God as the Father and to himself as the Son. It seems to me the message Jesus is conveying is that he is describing one individual as being older and having more authority than himself.

If a person can come up with such a fitting illustration of equality, that of brothers or twins. I certainly believe if Jesus really was God, I think that Jesus, as the Great Teacher, would have thought of the same comparison or an even clearer example of equality if that was what Jesus was teaching. But, instead, he used the terms “Father” and “Son” to describe his relationship with God, not one of equality.

If Jesus truly is God, I would expect that Jesus’ disciples would have plainly said so.
Yet, nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of their teaching that. On the contrary, notice what one of Jesus’ early followers, the apostle Paul, wrote. At Philippians 2:9, he describes what God did after Jesus’ death and resurrection: “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” According to this verse, God exalted him to a superior position?
But if Jesus is equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God? How could anyone be superior to God?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I 100% agree that Catholicism does not preach the worship of Mary, and is a very Christian faith. I studied Catholicism intensively for a long time -- actually going to Masses, reading CCC, asking priests and other knowledgeable Catholics questions as they came up.

However, some individual Catholics do fall into the trap of putting such extreme attention to Mary that it is not longer veneration and instead worship -- particularly when it comes as with downplaying attention to Christ. Theefaith appears to be in that situation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Your denials make discussion with you IMPOSSIBLE. Sorry, the Bible did not fall from the sky!

Your pride makes discussion impossible, the Bible was completed long before any councils pauls writings were even called scripture,

 

[amigo de christo]

So god is incapable?

scripture was around long before any council did anything

I had no idea the police was gonna find me that fast . you gotta hide me till the eliminator leaves . SHH
dont let them know i am here . You be blessed my friend .

 

[amigo de christo]

Now let the glorious Lord be praised . I am out for the night . You all are loved and will be prayed for as well .
Good night my friends .

 

[Bobby Jo]

I 100% agree that Catholicism does not preach the worship of Mary, and is a very Christian faith. I studied Catholicism intensively for a long time -- actually going to Masses, reading CCC, asking priests and other knowledgeable Catholics questions as they came up.

However, some individual Catholics do fall into the trap of putting such extreme attention to Mary that it is not longer veneration and instead worship -- particularly when it comes as with downplaying attention to Christ. Theefaith appears to be in that situation.

NICELY PUT!

Bobby Jo

 

[Illuminator]

I 100% agree that Catholicism does not preach the worship of Mary, and is a very Christian faith. I studied Catholicism intensively for a long time -- actually going to Masses, reading CCC, asking priests and other knowledgeable Catholics questions as they came up.

However, some individual Catholics do fall into the trap of putting such extreme attention to Mary that it is not longer veneration and instead worship -- particularly when it comes as with downplaying attention to Christ. Theefaith appears to be in that situation.

It's true there are total nut cases in the Church, just as you have total nut cases that put their elders and prophets on pedestals. Honoring heroes of the faith (Heb. 11) whose life in Christ is exemplary is not putting them on pedestals. St. Paul instructs his followers to be like him as he is like Christ. That's not worship either.

You don't worship Paul, that would be just as ridiculous as Catholics worshipping Mary. We call her "Blessed" because it is a biblical command, not a boast, and not a sentimental request. Mary gave birth the The Living Word, the anti-Mary Christians can't even admit she was a Living Temple, the living Daughter of Zion, The Spouse of the Holy Spirit, the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant because they play down or ignore Old Testament types and prophecies.

All of these titles glorify Christ, not Mary, if you could lower your prejudice long enough to see what the Church REALLY teaches. Catholicism is post Messiah Judaism, our "elder brother" whom we have not theologically disowned.

But you give more honor to Paul because he wrote more, which doesn't make sense. BLESSED is almost completely censored from your hymns, sermons and literature by people claiming to follow the Bible while accusing Catholics of not. That's not hypocrisy, it's ignorance.

 

[Illuminator]

Matt. 15:4; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2-3 Exodus 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16 – we are instructed to honor our father and mother.

Luke 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

At what age is a 1st century Jew, even a Rabbi, no longer required to be subject to his parents?

We are to strive to be like Christ, but not that???

 

[Mungo]

Autocorrect it should say deity, but I am sure if you were honest you would have seen this,

your attitude sucks dude, get over yourself

then explain how Mary having sex as god instituted with her husband after Jesus died would take away from his deity,

I, and other here, have already done that a6t great length.
Go back and read the posts.

 

[Mungo]

It was decided in scripture, we do not need some counsel to decide what is true

Yes we do, otherwise it's just one person's personal and fallible interpretation against another's.

 

[Mungo]

Yes you go beyond what is written even though the scriptures tell us not to.

Where, and what particular "written" does scripture tell us not to go beyond?

 

[Mungo]

Yes like I said you go by what imperfect humans say and believe not what God's Holy Spirit inspired men to write down. Just as this council didn't care what Jesus himself about his relationship with his Father.

Imperfect human beings guided by the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth (John 16:13)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I, and other here, have already done that a6t great length.
Go back and read the posts.

I have read the posts. And read the same things I have been reading for years. And still am not convinced.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes we do, otherwise it's just one person's personal and fallible interpretation against another's.

Nope

because what you have is their interpretation, you listening to men. When the Bible is clear. It speaks for itself, and if fully capable of teaching the man of God in all ways.

 

[Mungo]

I have read the posts. And read the same things I have been reading for years. And still am not convinced.

Then there is no point in continuing.

 

[Illuminator]

I have read the posts. And read the same things I have been reading for years. And still am not convinced.

You can't be "convinced" of anything if you refuse to be enlightened. Look again at post #148 and answer the simple question; try not to run so fast.

 

[Mungo]

Nope
because what you have is their interpretation, you listening to men.

They are the men, or rather their successors that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth (John 16). So when they come together as a body Jesus guarantees that the Holy Spirit, speaking though them, we be taught the truth, just as happened in the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

When the Bible is clear. It speaks for itself, and if fully capable of teaching the man of God in all ways.

If the Bible was clear and spoke for itself we would not have these endless arguments.

This where Martin Luther and the other reformers went wrong. They thought they could reject the teaching authority of the Church and start from scratch with just the Bible. And that is why Protestantism has fractured into thousands of denominations with many opposing doctrines.

“From the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant Baptism, Ordination, and the function of civil authority…… By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Word, “This is My Body” was published at Ingolstadt, Germany.”
(A Biblical Defence of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Then there is no point in continuing.

Yep ya won’t listen anyway

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You can't be "convinced" of anything if you refuse to be enlightened. Look again at post #148 and answer the simple question; try not to run so fast.

Same can be said for you

that’s the problem with many Catholics. They are so convinced they were taught right and have so deep faith in their popes they could not see and error if it looked them in the face (note I said most)

post 148? Al men are to be subject to their parents until they leave and become one with a wife

that has no bearing on this discussion so is nonsensical. Just another way to excuse a false belief system

 

[Illuminator]

Your pride makes discussion impossible, the Bible was completed long before any councils pauls writings were even called scripture,

That is a belief that has not one shred of evidence to support it. I would like you to cite one PROTESTANT source that agrees with this myth.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon

Sources for New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
1) J. D. Douglas, editor, New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 edition, 194-198.

2) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 232, 300, 309-10, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069.

3) Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12, 117-125.