Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus

[Grailhunter]

A "terrible case of denial" of what exactly?

I know you can read. If the Catholics are wrong about what all happened between 65 AD and 2000...tell us what did happen. Anybody can deny...that is easy. So if you think you know let's hear it.

 

[Philip James]

Why do you call her Holy?

Hello n2thelight,

Mary carried the Living Word in her womb. How could she NOT be Holy?!

The ark of the old covenant carried the Word written in stone. It was so Holy no man could touch it lest he die....

How much more Holy, the ark of the new covenant that carried the Word made flesh....

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[Dcopymope]

I know you can read. If the Catholics are wrong about what all happened between 65 AD and 2000...tell us what did happen. Anybody can deny...that is easy. So if you think you know let's hear it.

.......Well anybody can also pull a thousand verses out of their anus to confirm their own personal preconceived interpretations as well, like your pal just did a few posts back. Its real easy to do, since its based on flawed logic to start with. Proving such interpretation's to be true without a doubt, such as Mary being the queen of heaven is another thing entirely.

 

[Grailhunter]

.......Well anybody can also pull a thousand verses out of their anus to confirm their own personal preconceived interpretations as well, like your pal just did a few posts back. Its real easy to do, since its based on flawed logic to start with. Proving such interpretation's to be true without a doubt, such as Mary being the queen of heaven is another thing entirely.

So in other words you have no idea.

 

[Dcopymope]

So in other words you have no idea.

......We have nothing to prove to you. That burden is on you.

 

[Grailhunter]

......We have nothing to prove to you. That burden is on you.

lol Is that a cop out I am seeing? Come on, if your going to play with the big boys you have to do better than that!

 

[Dcopymope]

lol Is that a cop out I am seeing? Come on, if your going to play with the big boys you have to do better than that!

.....Better than what, deifying Mary as the heavenly Queen? What a joke.

 

[Paul Christensen]

So in other words you have no idea.

No. We know exactly, but we don't believe the RCC doctrine about it, and we never will.

 

[Paul Christensen]

.....Better than what, deifying Mary as the heavenly Queen? What a joke.

It's making her the fourth person in the trinity!
Jesus even put her in second place when He said that his mother and brothers were those who believe in Him! So Jesus Himself doesn't believe that His mother is anyone more than just another spirit in Paradise awaiting the resurrection of the converted along with all the others. There is only one Person at the throne of God making intercession for the believers - Jesus Christ.

This twaddle about Mary becoming a perpetual virgin and being caught up into heaven without dying like a normal person is mere fiction to coincide with Constantine's pagan worship of the imaginary "Queen of Heaven".

I feel sorry for the ones here who are using much of their time and energy making long, involved posts to try and justify their fictional doctrines, because hardly anyone will take the time to read, much less believe them.

 

[Grailhunter]

@Paul Christensen @Dcopymope @Taken
In a debate you know your winning if you can't get a straight answer from your opponent.
Ok guys, pool your heads together...put on your thinking caps!
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it. I can copy and paste all day.

 

[Dcopymope]

It's making her the fourth person in the trinity!
Jesus even put her in second place when He said that his mother and brothers were those who believe in Him! So Jesus Himself doesn't believe that His mother is anyone more than just another spirit in Paradise awaiting the resurrection of the converted along with all the others. There is only one Person at the throne of God making intercession for the believers - Jesus Christ.

This twaddle about Mary becoming a perpetual virgin and being caught up into heaven without dying like a normal person is mere fiction to coincide with Constantine's pagan worship of the imaginary "Queen of Heaven".

I feel sorry for the ones here who are using much of their time and energy making long, involved posts to try and justify their fictional doctrines, because hardly anyone will take the time to read, much less believe them.

Yep, and the fact is, the whole argument falls apart on the basis of the complete lack of prophecy that would conclusively prove that Mary is the "queen intercessor". The new testament is the old testament revealed, so if new testament scripture does not conclusively reveal all those old testament verses proponents of this theory will pull out of thin air about Mary becoming the "heavenly queen intercessor", then such a belief has no foundation to stand on.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yep, and the fact is, the whole argument falls apart on the basis of the complete lack of prophecy that would conclusively prove that Mary is the "queen intercessor". The new testament is the old testament revealed, so if new testament scripture does not conclusively reveal all those old testament verses proponents of this theory will pull out of thin air about Mary becoming the "heavenly queen intercessor", then such a belief has no foundation to stand on.

The Old Testament does not say a lot of things...
It does not say anything about Mary's divine assignments
It does not say anything about God impregnating a woman that was betrothed. That called adultery.
It does not say anything about Christ's bloodline to David being through His mother.
The word Christian does not appear in the Old Testament.
The fact the Christ was crucified and has not returned in 2000 years is not a prophecy.
The fact that the Protestants have fractured Christ's Church into more than 30,000 denominations was not prophesied.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yep, and the fact is, the whole argument falls apart on the basis of the complete lack of prophecy that would conclusively prove that Mary is the "queen intercessor". The new testament is the old testament revealed, so if new testament scripture does not conclusively reveal all those old testament verses proponents of this theory will pull out of thin air about Mary becoming the "heavenly queen intercessor", then such a belief has no foundation to stand on.

The problem is, and I found it on the other forum I was a member, is that RCC members seemed not to want to have a respectful open discussion, but merely wanted to use the forum as a soap-box for their views; as we have seen with the repeated very long posts here. These forums are for discussion and debate between Christians. I note that there is only one designation here: "Christian" and there is no distinction between different denominations or faith groups. I think this is good because it doesn't split the forum up into party lines. So the forum is not for extended preaching of any particular doctrine to try and proselytise members into adopting the doctrines of their particular religious party.

What I have discovered with interacting with Roman Catholics is that either opposing views are attacked and those who write them are abused, and when they can't answer reasonable Scripture-based questions they report the posts, bleating that members are "flaming" their particular brand of Christian faith; or members are subjected to long homilies of RCC doctrine which should be written into the blog section where such extended preaching is appropriate.

 

[Grailhunter]

The problem is, and I found it on the other forum I was a member, is that RCC members seemed not to want to have a respectful open discussion, but merely wanted to use the forum as a soap-box for their views; as we have seen with the repeated very long posts here. These forums are for discussion and debate between Christians. I note that there is only one designation here: "Christian" and there is no distinction between different denominations or faith groups. I think this is good because it doesn't split the forum up into party lines. So the forum is not for extended preaching of any particular doctrine to try and proselytise members into adopting the doctrines of their particular religious party.

What I have discovered iwith interracting with Roman Catholics is that either opposing views are attacked and those who write them are abused, and when they can't answer reasonable Scripture-based questions they report the posts, bleating that members are "flaming" their particular brand of Christian faith; or members are subjected to long homilies of RCC doctrine which should be written into the blog section where such extended preaching is appropriate.

I am not Catholic and none of that is happening here. I am asking you a simple question.

 

[Dcopymope]

The problem is, and I found it on the other forum I was a member, is that RCC members seemed not to want to have a respectful open discussion, but merely wanted to use the forum as a soap-box for their views; as we have seen with the repeated very long posts here. These forums are for discussion and debate between Christians. I note that there is only one designation here: "Christian" and there is no distinction between different denominations or faith groups. I think this is good because it doesn't split the forum up into party lines. So the forum is not for extended preaching of any particular doctrine to try and proselytise members into adopting the doctrines of their particular religious party.

What I have discovered with interacting with Roman Catholics is that either opposing views are attacked and those who write them are abused, and when they can't answer reasonable Scripture-based questions they report the posts, bleating that members are "flaming" their particular brand of Christian faith; or members are subjected to long homilies of RCC doctrine which should be written into the blog section where such extended preaching is appropriate.

When you look at the post history of catholic members, and the Mary worshipers, you would think there only reason for existing is to defend their church doctrine. Its the only thing they ever talk about, most of them. I'm of the belief that one shouldn't have to defend their faith so vehemently if they truly believe it was any good to begin with.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Fair enough. It was just that another member's very long involved posts were one-sided homilies that should have been in the Blog section, because they left no room for discussion. I don't have much patience for a whole lot of complicated twaddle where the Scripture has been twisted right out of context to mean something it doesn't mean at all.

However, I will try to answer what you have said in the quote below:

The Old Testament does not say a lot of things...
It does not say anything about Mary's divine assignments

The writers of the OT didn't know about Mary. All Isaiah had revealed to him was that a virgin would conceive and the Messiah would be born. We must remember that the OT prophets wrote exactly what they received by revelation from God, no more, no less.

It does not say anything about God impregnating a woman that was betrothed. That called adultery.

No. That is the Mormon view of Mary's pregnancy - that the Father came down and had sex with her, resulting in the pregnancy. The Scripture says that the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her. The virgin birth was a miracle and not because of a sexual act, so it wasn't adultery at all. The virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be our sinless substitute for sin, because the seed of the earthly father bore the "sin line" that made ordinary people sinners. The conception and birth of Jesus had to avoid that, otherwise He couldn't have been the perfect Lamb of God, and therefore none of us could be saved.

It does not say anything about Christ's bloodline to David being through His mother.

The blood line was through Joseph, and that is why they had to go to Bethlehem for the Roman census, and also fulfil the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.

The word Christian does not appear in the Old Testament.

The word "Christian" was actually a derogatory word given to believers who appeared to be "little Christs". Over time the Christian identification became an acceptable way of describing believers. It is the same with the first Methodists. That was the unbelievers' nickname for those believers because of their strict "method" of achieving holiness. It is also similar to the symbol of the cross of Christ. In Roman times the cross stood for the most despised, lowest of the low person who deserved to be put to death that way. It was a symbol of shame and degradation, but now it is the symbol of Christian faith and devotion to Christ.

The fact the Christ was crucified and has not returned in 2000 years is not a prophecy.

The thing about prophecy is that there is no actual time limit to it. Joel's prophecy concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit didn't come to pass for 800 years. Isaiah's prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah didn't come to pass for several hundred years as well. There are many prophecies still to be fulfilled, but upon careful study of the prophecies and subsequent history when they were fulfilled, we will see that the fulfilled prophecies came to pass in accurate detail. So if the already fulfilled prophecies were accurate in their fulfilment, then we can have confidence that the future ones will come to pass in the same way.

The fact that the Protestants have fractured Christ's Church into more than 30,000 denominations was not prophesied.

Most mainstream Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics view the church as those who have received Christ as Saviour and who are born again, and not the man-made denominational structures. Therefore the church is not the building or the denomination, but the people who fellowship in them. It is the RCC, LDS, and JWs who link their faith with their "only true church". So you will find that in the majority of Protestant denominations the essentials of the gospel of Christ are the same, and any differences are to do with history, culture, tradition, and styles of worship which are not prerequisites to genuine conversion to Christ.

 

[Paul Christensen]

When you look at the post history of catholic members, and the Mary worshipers, you would think there only reason for existing is to defend their church doctrine. Its the only thing they ever talk about, most of them. I'm of the belief that one shouldn't have to defend their faith so vehemently if they truly believe it was any good to begin with.

The gospel of Christ is very simple really:
1. We are hopeless sinners deserving of hell.
2. Jesus died on the cross to take upon Himself the penalty for our sin.
3. He rose again from the dead to give us eternal life.
4. We receive Him as our Saviour and Lord.
5. We show by our actions that we are truly converted to Christ.
6. We fellowship with other believers to worship God together, learn from and encourage each other, and show a testimony to the world that Jesus Christ is really alive and the unsaved will be saved if they believe the preaching of the gospel.

Everything else added to that is the result of tradition, culture, different styles of worship, and things added to ensure that things are done decently and in order.

All the other fictional stuff added to the simple gospel in the Council of Trent which are put forward as either being equal to or superceding Scripture is either non-binding on believers, or is just superstitious and pagan falsehood designed to replace a simple faith in Christ with a whole lot of religious clap trap and has nothing to do with genuine Christian faith.

Because of the stranglehold the RCC had on the church for so many centuries, most Protestant churches are still bound in some way to the echoes of it in their orders of worship. For example, clergy.laity - not found in the early church until around the fourth century; set liturgy - not found in the early church; architectural buildings - not found until Constantine had pagan temples converted to Christian places of worship; priests - not found in the early church, but brought in after Constantine to replace the leadership of elders and deacons in the church; an overall prelate having supreme authority over the church (either Anglican, RCC, or Eastern Orthodox) - not found in the early church; one-man-band ministry performing at the front with the congregation sitting passive like wooden statutes - not found in the early church.

So, the echoes still exist to such an extent, that there are very few fellowship gatherings that have any resemblance to what the early church was really like - informal fellowship meetings in homes or rented rooms, under the leadership of recognised appointed elders and deacons, with every member contributing to the service.

 

[Grailhunter]

Fair enough. It was just that another member's very long involved posts were one-sided homilies that should have been in the Blog section, because they left no room for discussion. I don't have much patience for a whole lot of complicated twaddle where the Scripture has been twisted right out of context to mean something it doesn't mean at all.

However, I will try to answer what you have said in the quote below:


The writers of the OT didn't know about Mary. All Isaiah had revealed to him was that a virgin would conceive and the Messiah would be born. We must remember that the OT prophets wrote exactly what they received by revelation from God, no more, no less.

No. That is the Mormon view of Mary's pregnancy - that the Father came down and had sex with her, resulting in the pregnancy. The Scripture says that the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her. The virgin birth was a miracle and not because of a sexual act, so it wasn't adultery at all. The virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be our sinless substitute for sin, because the seed of the earthly father bore the "sin line" that made ordinary people sinners. The conception and birth of Jesus had to avoid that, otherwise He couldn't have been the perfect Lamb of God, and therefore none of us could be saved.

The blood line was through Joseph, and that is why they had to go to Bethlehem for the Roman census, and also fulfil the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.

The word "Christian" was actually a derogatory word given to believers who appeared to be "little Christs". Over time the Christian identification became an acceptable way of describing believers. It is the same with the first Methodists. That was the unbelievers' nickname for those believers because of their strict "method" of achieving holiness. It is also similar to the symbol of the cross of Christ. In Roman times the cross stood for the most despised, lowest of the low person who deserved to be put to death that way. It was a symbol of shame and degradation, but now it is the symbol of Christian faith and devotion to Christ.

The thing about prophecy is that there is no actual time limit to it. Joel's prophecy concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit didn't come to pass for 800 years. Isaiah's prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah didn't come to pass for several hundred years as well. There are many prophecies still to be fulfilled, but upon careful study of the prophecies and subsequent history when they were fulfilled, we will see that the fulfilled prophecies came to pass in accurate detail. So if the already fulfilled prophecies were accurate in their fulfilment, then we can have confidence that the future ones will come to pass in the same way.

Most mainstream Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics view the church as those who have received Christ as Saviour and who are born again, and not the man-made denominational structures. Therefore the church is not the building or the denomination, but the people who fellowship in them. It is the RCC, LDS, and JWs who link their faith with their "only true church". So you will find that in the majority of Protestant denominations the essentials of the gospel of Christ are the same, and any differences are to do with history, culture, tradition, and styles of worship which are not prerequisites to genuine conversion to Christ.

No. That is the Mormon view of Mary's pregnancy - that the Father came down and had sex with her, resulting in the pregnancy. The Scripture says that the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her.
I am not pressing the issue now. Point being...end result she was impregnated by someone other than Joseph.
Begot...is defined in the scriptures....conceived is defined in the scriptures....son is defined in the scriptures. No miraculous words used in the scriptures....no transporter to zap Him in. But I do not really care.

The bloodline was through Joseph,
You funny...Joseph was not His father....no prophecy about step-son, but if you do not care about prophecy, that is your
issue.

The thing about prophecy is that there is no actual time limit to it.
You said a mouthful there, all of the Apostles in the NT thought they were living in the last days....their bad. That is an important point of understanding. How many other things did they get wrong? But the OT has rules regarding prophecies and what happened did not play out anything like the sequence told in prophecies.

Most mainstream Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics view the church as those who have received Christ as Saviour and who are born again, and not the man-made denominational structures.
Please show me a denomination that does not have a man's name as who founded it. The name of some of them are the name of the man that started it. You can tap dance on that all you want and historically we can look up the man's name that started the denomination...with Bible in hand...with no historical connection to the early Church. The are organizations that start up 1500 plus years after Christ.

The word Christian does not appear in the Old Testament.
The word "Christian" was actually a derogatory word given to believers who appeared to be "little Christs".
This is an irrelevant statement. The point is that the whole scenario were pagans take the reins of the Church is that last thing prophesied in the OT.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again
@Paul Christensen @Dcopymope @Taken
In a debate you know your winning if you can't get a straight answer from your opponent.
Ok guys, pool your heads together...put on your thinking caps!
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it. I can copy and paste all day.

 

[Taken]

@Paul Christensen @Dcopymope @Taken
In a debate you know your winning if you can't get a straight answer from your opponent.
Ok guys, pool your heads together...put on your thinking caps!
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it. I can copy and paste all day.

I have no need to use a Carnal Mind and collaborate with other men, to know where My Lord God Almighty IS and Why.

Matt 12:
[50] ...my Father which is in heaven...

John 14:
[20]...I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

John 14:
[23] Jesus ... said ...my Father ... we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Glory to God,
Taken