Mary a perpetual Virgin

[Jude3b]

How can Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children.

How can Romanism teach otherwise?

[Katholish]

Can you produce a quote from Scripture that explicitly states that Mary indeed gave birth to other children after the birth of Our Lord?

[Rubia Warren]

:popcorn:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

How can Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children.

How can Romanism teach otherwise?
As I recall, the bible doesn't even indicate that Mary was a virgin (by our modern understanding of the word) at the birth of Christ. Hebrew had two words that translate as "virgin" -- almeh (basically, an independent and/or unmarried woman), and btullah (a woman who has never known the touch of a man). The virgin references to Mary used the former term, describing her only as unmarried (which the Bible indicates that prior to Christ's birth, she and Joseph were not married). Not to mention that the Isaiah prophecy of the virgin birth (also uses "almeh") points to an event intended to be fulfilled a full 700 years before Christ was actually born, to be fulfilled during the reign of King Ahaz.

[Jude3b]

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? AND HIS BRETHREN, JAMES, AND JOSES, AND SIMON, AND JUDAS? (Matt 13:55).

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).

The Apostle Paul wrote: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the LORD'S BROTHER." (Gal. 1:19).

[rocketman]

Hello Jude. I see you are asking several questions of Roman Catholics here. I'll answer a few and let some other people tackle other issues.

Okay...why do we teach that Mary was a perpetual Virgin? Here we go...

1. We see in Ezekiel 44:2 that the Lord says the Ezekiel: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opend, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Now, unless you contest that Jesus is God, we can safely say that Jesus entered the world through Mary. The "gate" of Mary's womb must remain shut.

2. Your references to Jesus' "brothers" should be taken in consideration of the usage of the language...the word for "brother" in ancient Hebrew also means cousins. Now, you will of course probably say "Well, where's the proof that they WEREN'T brothers?" First, refer to John 19:25...we see there that Mary has a sister, Mary, wife of Clopas. Mary, wife of Clopas is mentioned with Mary Magdalene in the other Crucifixion accounts, sometimes called "the other Mary" by Matthew. Now turn to Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:47, where it states that James and Joseph (Joses) are the sons of Mary of Clopas.

3. Have you heard of books called the Protoevangeliums, such as those of Peter or James? These books, while not Biblical, do nevertheless contain some historical information that is useful in this study. (Side note: Have you ever wondered how we know who Mary's parents are [Anne and Joseph]? They aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible. But they are recorded in other places, notably the Protoevangeliums.) The Protoevangeliums state that Mary was dedicated as a Temple Virgin. Joseph was an older man who protected the temple virgins. If you go into a Catholic Church and see a statue of Joseph, you will see him holding a staff of lilies. Lilies were the mark of the temple guardians. We know this from these larely histroical works. Such protectors were said to be "betrothed" to the virgin they are entrusted to. Such "marriages" were used in ancient times. (FYI...the Church still sanctions such marriages today...they are called "Josephite" marriages...they are, however, exceedingly rare.)

4. Perhaps of most importance is looking at John 19:26-27 in which Jesus, while on the Cross, entrusts the care of Mary to John. Remember, Jewish society (and Middle Eastern society in general) is patriarchal, and to an extent resemble clans. If Jesus had brothers, the entrusting of Mary to another person would have been a grave disrespect to the rest of His family. It certainly would not be considered "Honoring thy father and mother." So why would Jesus entrust His mother to John? Because he had no brothers who would care for her.

[Jude3b]

Dear Rocketman: Thank you for a reasonable explanation as to why you state you believe the doctrine of Romanism that Mary is a perpetual Virgin.

First, Ezekiel 44:2, "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened..." The gate referred to here is the "east gate" and chapter 44 of Ezekiel deals with Rules of the temple. This "east gate" has, indeed long been completely sealed. Whatever reason the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem may have had for this action at the time, the most remarkable testimony of this verse is that "the Lord, the God of Israel, once entered in by it." That is, the Creator, Jehovah, the God of Israel, had become a man, that He might actually enter the temple through the eastgate, the gate through which Ezekiel had just seen the shekinah glory come into the house (Ezekiel 43:4).

Second, Jesus also had sisters born of Mary, besides the brothers (Mark 6:3).

Lastly, the verses of the Bible that state that Jesus had brothers and sisters so clearly contradict Catholic doctrine, that you my friend are left with but one choice. Accept the traditions of men and reject the Word of God. Or believe the Word of God as it is written: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy religious judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[rocketman]

Dear Rocketman: Thank you for a reasonable explanation as to why you state you believe the doctrine of Romanism that Mary is a perpetual Virgin.

First, Ezekiel 44:2, "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened..." The gate referred to here is the "east gate" and chapter 44 of Ezekiel deals with Rules of the temple. This "east gate" has, indeed long been completely sealed. Whatever reason the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem may have had for this action at the time, the most remarkable testimony of this verse is that "the Lord, the God of Israel, once entered in by it." That is, the Creator, Jehovah, the God of Israel, had become a man, that He might actually enter the temple through the eastgate, the gate through which Ezekiel had just seen the shekinah glory come into the house (Ezekiel 43:4).

Second, Jesus also had sisters born of Mary, besides the brothers (Mark 6:3).

Lastly, the verses of the Bible that state that Jesus had brothers and sisters so clearly contradict Catholic doctrine, that you my friend are left with but one choice. Accept the traditions of men and reject the Word of God. Or believe the Word of God as it is written: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy religious judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).

Sincerely, Jude 3b

The problem with your interp of Ezekiel is that the Lord did not become Man beofre the coming of Jesus, which is what your post appears to claim.

The problem of sisters is simply is covered by the same issue as brothers. They were cousins.

It is the English translation that is the problem. But look, Christians call themselves "brothers in Christ"...monks call each other brother...does that mean they are flesh and blood brothers? Of course not.

[Mujibur]

If Mary remained a virgin for life, would she not be violating God's law for husbands and wives to not withhold themselves from each other -

1 Cor 7:3-4
3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

[rocketman]

If Mary remained a virgin for life, would she not be violating God's law for husbands and wives to not withhold themselves from each other -

1 Cor 7:3-4
3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Mujibur...good point, and one that should be followed.

However, re-read point 3 that I enumerated in my first post of this thread...the "marriage" of Mary and Joseph was not a marriage in the usual sense. Paul is writing in Corinthians to people in conventional marriages.

[Mujibur]

Matthew 1:18 would seem to go against the argument for Mary's perpetual virginity as well when it states:

"18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit"

Why would Matthew say "before they came together" if they never came together? The point that he seems to be making is that one would assume that once the two got married they would "come together", but had not done so before she became pregnant with Jesus. If Mary was dedicated as a temple virgin, Matthew would have worded that differently to show that Mary was not violating her code as temple virgin.

Rocketman, the passage in the protoevangeliums concerning Mary's dedication as a virgin in the temple is not paralleled at all in the NT. Is there any biblical support for this position? Where does the bible indicate that this was not a conventional marriage?

[Katholish]

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? AND HIS BRETHREN, JAMES, AND JOSES, AND SIMON, AND JUDAS? (Matt 13:55).

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).

The Apostle Paul wrote: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the LORD'S BROTHER." (Gal. 1:19).

Clearly these passages do not explicitly state that Mary had other children, but your best claim can be that they imply it. For instance, if these were children of Joseph before he married the Mother of Christ, they would be called Christs Brethren and sisters, etc. So thus even from that it is clear it is not explicitly stating that they are Mary's offspring, however as the case is they are in fact cousins of Our Lord, and would also be called Brethen. The scriptures certainly do not deny that these children could have been cousins. An arguement from Scripture passages alone is inconclusive. Clearly the apostles would have known the degree to which they were relations of Christ, and it may also be deduced that the Apostlic fathers of the Church would have known, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias for instance. However, we have no writings from Polycarp, and Ignatius does not address the issue, and we only have a few fragments of the work of Papias. However, luck is on our side as in one of those few fragments Papias does address the issue.

This is from the 10th Fragment of Papias's works.
X.
(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

Here we have a first Century source, which affirms that these children in question were not the children of Mary, the Mother of God. Incidentally, Papias is described by St. Irenaeus of Lyon (early Church Father) as "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time".

Furthermore, we have the later Church Fathers explicitly uphold the doctrine of Mary's perpetual Virginity. St. Jerome in particular wrote an entire work on Mary's perpetual virginity against Helvidius. Here is where you may read the entire document: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

[Katholish]

Matthew 1:18 would seem to go against the argument for Mary's perpetual virginity as well when it states:

"18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit"

Why would Matthew say "before they came together" if they never came together? The point that he seems to be making is that one would assume that once the two got married they would "come together", but had not done so before she became pregnant with Jesus. If Mary was dedicated as a temple virgin, Matthew would have worded that differently to show that Mary was not violating her code as temple virgin.

Actually St. Jerome addresses that very point and as he says it better than I could, and certainly has more authority to say it then I, I will let him answer you. This quote is from "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary", and is preceeded by a scriptural quote, the same that you yourself cited.

4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says[2] "In sheol who shall give thee thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child.

[rocketman]

Danke for the support, Katholish.

Mujibur, no there is no strictly Biblical support for my hypothesis concerning the Protoevangeliums. We do not see it in the Bible. But, let us remember, just because a book of Biblical times is not inspired does not mean that it doesn't contain some historical facts. The Letter of Jude in the NT refers to one of the Apostles being sawed in two, but this is nowhere in the OT. It comes from the pseudopigraphical Ascension of Isaiah. There is also the books of the Maccabees. You deny their canonicity, and such debate is for another time and place, but they do have historical merit. The 3rd Book of the Maccabees (rejected by Protestants and Catholics) speaks of the problems of Alexandrian Jews.

Also, let us remember that the narrative of the Gospels are centered almost exclusively on Jesus. And, let us remember that only two of the Gospels even concern themselves with his birth. Mark and John both pick up with John the Baptist and the Baptism of the Lord. Luke is the only Gospel that relates the Visitation by Gabriel. For the most part, the overriding concern of the Gospels is Jesus' public ministry throughout Israel in the years precding His death and Crucifixion. The lack of comment on Mary though should not imply that they knew nothing of her life. Abscence of evidence in the Bible should not be construed to be evidence of abscence. But the fact is, the focus of the Gospels is not on Mary's life but Jesus', as it should be.

In reality, there is no reason not to consider the Protoevangeliums as being historically false, unless there is some verifiable, conclusive, outside evidence that conflicts with them. If you can demonstrate such, I will gladly re-examine my position concerning them. But until then, there is no reason to distrust the them.

[Mujibur]

Actually St. Jerome addresses that very point and as he says it better than I could, and certainly has more authority to say it then I, I will let him answer you. This quote is from "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary", and is preceeded by a scriptural quote, the same that you yourself cited.

His justification doesn't hold water though. His examples (Paul being put in fetters before going to Spain, sailing to Africa before dining in harbour, Helvidius dying before repenting) all assume that the action that was not committed was a logical step for them to take. If Mary was a temple virgin and meant to remain that way, there would be no reason to say "before they came together" because nobody would expect them to. St. Jerome's examples do not require that the person go and complete the interrupted action afterward, but they do imply that one would have expected them to in the first place. If the sailor had no intention of dining in the harbour or if nobody expected him to, it would not have been mentioned. Therefore, the fact that Matthew mentioned it suggests that his readers would have expected Mary and Joseph to sleep together as a married couple - not the case if the marriage was not a conventional marriage as you argue.

[rocketman]

Just a quick thought...why does "come together" automatically imply sexual intercourse? For example, me and a friend of mine may "come together" (I.e., meet together, or go together) to do something, like bowling. The sense in the Bible may very well be (and this is how I take it) "before Joseph was officially designated as a protector for her", at which point they would have come together, in what is now called a Josephite marriage. Which would also explain why he originally wished to leave Mary after she became pregnant...in his eyes, she wasn't a virgin anymore.

[tizzidale]

Therefore, the fact that Matthew mentioned it suggests that his readers would have expected Mary and Joseph to sleep together as a married couple - not the case if the marriage was not a conventional marriage as you argue.

Okay, you need to read some opinions other than your own. I have in front of me several versions of the Bible and Protestant commentaries. The NRSV for example translates Matt 1:18 as "lived together." This is supported by commentaries such as Adam Clarke's Commentary. In fact, reading the opinions of several Protestant commentators, most of them agreed that this verse was talking of the actual "living together" after espousement. It is saying nothing of their sexual relationship or the lack thereof.

And by the way, Catholics are not alone in their assessment of the Virginity of Mary. The Orthodox Church agrees with them on this point.

tizzi

[Mujibur]

Just a quick thought...why does "come together" automatically imply sexual intercourse? For example, me and a friend of mine may "come together" (I.e., meet together, or go together) to do something, like bowling.

You would have to study the Greek meaning to know for sure, and look at other cases where it is used. Your reasoning is like those who argue that the men in Sodom wanting to "know" the visitors meant that they wanted to meet them, not have sex with them. It is putting modern meaning into the words to fit your argument.

[rocketman]

You would have to study the Greek meaning to know for sure, and look at other cases where it is used. Your reasoning is like those who argue that the men in Sodom wanting to "know" the visitors meant that they wanted to meet them, not have sex with them. It is putting modern meaning into the words to fit your argument.


Point conceded for now. I do not know enough Greek to counter that, and your reference to Sodom is a good point. Doesn't mean I agree with you, but I do acknowledge your argument.

Will get back to you when I can...I have a 2:00 class.

[tizzidale]

The thing is, that Mujibar didn't examine the Greek in reference here either. Mathew 1:8 is clearly talking about the "coming together" of the end of espousment. This is not a reference to their "consumation" sexually, but rather their physically living together. I'm no Greek scholar, but it seems you would rather point out other's ignorance while concealing your own.

sunerchomai - this phrase is used ONCE in the NT to indicate sexual relationships in I Corinthians. As I pointed out earlier, the phrase can mean to physically come together - not necessarily sexually. In fact, this is how it is used ever other time in the New Testament. Family Bible Notes, People's New Testament Commentary, The Fourfold Gospel, and others all note that this verse is talking about "living together".

[rocketman]

Thanks tizzi for the clarification of that matter.

[AcousticJS]

A much better verse to suggest that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is actually a few verses after Matt 1:18. It's Matt 1:25, which says in the Analytical-Literal Translation

and he was not knowing her [fig., was not having sexual relations with her] until she gave birth to her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

or in the International Standard Version:

He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

I haven't the time or energy to do an exhaustive search of everywhere this word is used in the Gospels. The Greek word is 'ginosko', and is defined by Thayers as meaning

Thayer Definition:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
2a) to understand
2b) to know
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4) to become acquainted with, to know

I think that 3 is the most likely interpretation of this use of the word 'ginosko', since the context is quite clearly marriage where it would make most sense for Matthew to be talking about a natural part of the marriage bond. From my Protestant perspective, to assume that Matthew means otherwise is really begging the question as to whether Matthew is wanting to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary or not. If he isn't, then you have to ask the question why this verse must mean 'moved in together' rather than the more usual and natural understanding of sexual relations.

In short, I believe that perpetual virginity needs to be put upon this text, rather than read out of it.

Not too sure why this is in comparative religions though, since I do not see this as a doctrine that will damn either way if people belive otherwise. I don't believe it's right, but I believe it's within the realms of orthodox (in other words, not heretical - I'm not talking Orthodox here) Christian belief.

God bless
Jon

[spl_cadet]

Regarding Matthew 1:25

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

[tizzidale]

Geneva Bible Notes:

The word "till", in the Hebrew language, gives us to understand that a thing will not come to pass in time to come: as Michal had no children "till" her death day, 2Sa 6:23. And in the last chapter of this evangelist: Behold, I am with you "till" the end of the world.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary

The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mt 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as LIGHTFOOT says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.

John Wesley

It cannot be inferred from hence, that he knew her afterward: no more than it can be inferred from that expression, 2Sa 6:23, "Michal had no child till the day of her death, that she had children afterward." Nor do the words that follow, the first-born son, alter the case. For there are abundance of places, wherein the term first born is used, though there were no subsequent children. Lu 2:7.

William Burkett's Notes

It is piously believed, though not positively in scripture asserted,that the Virgin had no other child but our Savior: it is a very probable opinion, though not an infallible article of faith, as the Church of Rome would make it: for the word until signifies in scripture as much as never. . . . So the words following, Her first-born son, do not imply that she had any child after, but that she had none before. That child which first opened the womb, is usually in scripture called the first-born, though there was no other born after.

These are just some opinions of Protestant commentators. I'm sure that the majority would disagree, but there are variances of opinion among those that do not hold to Mary's perpetual virginity.

tizzi

[One Bad Pig]

In the whole grand scheme of things, how important is this conversation? It can be seen that the Biblical presentation is inconclusive either way. Does 'perpetual virginity' make Mary somehow better than us? :no: Is sex the "original sin"? :no: Would it have made Mary 'dirty'? :no: Mary is no better/worse than any other person indwelt by the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.
:outtie:

[tizzidale]

In the whole grand scheme of things, how important is this conversation?
Very.
It can be seen that the Biblical presentation is inconclusive either way. Does 'perpetual virginity' make Mary somehow better than us?
The Orthodox & Catholic understanding of Mary may differ, but they both venerate her and honor her, as Holy Scripture said she would be. The Theotokos is not to be worshiped, but she is not considered a mere instrument that was used and is now discarded.

Is sex the "original sin"?
That is not the question.

Would it have made Mary 'dirty'?[QUOTE]
You just mentioned above that the scripture is inconclusive. Why push the matter, then?

[QUOTE]Mary is no better/worse than any other person indwelt by the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.

The God-bearer should be venerated, honored, revered, and her prayers should be coveted.

tizzi

[Mujibur]

The Theotokos is not to be worshiped, but she is not considered a mere instrument that was used and is now discarded.

Who is considering Mary a mere instrument that was used and discarded? What is the importance of her perpetual virginity? If she had other children after Jesus with Joseph, would that make her any less appropriate as the woman who bore the Christ?

[tizzidale]

Mujibur:
Who is considering Mary a mere instrument that was used and discarded? What is the importance of her perpetual virginity? If she had other children after Jesus with Joseph, would that make her any less appropriate as the woman who bore the Christ?

Why is it important that she is not? It has been a church teaching for centuries, yet you seem to cast it off as "unimportant". Obviously it is not.

[Mujibur]

Why is it important that she is not? It has been a church teaching for centuries, yet you seem to cast it off as "unimportant". Obviously it is not.

I was not implying that it is important that she is not a perpetual virgin, just that the prophesies only stated that Jesus would be born of a virgin. They don't say that she had to remain a virgin. Her virginity at the time of Jesus' birth however is crucial for our salvation because it shows that Jesus was not merely a man. I don't see how her having or not having other children after Jesus is important to the blessing she received.

It has been a teaching in the Catholic and Orthodox church, not Protestant. They did not see it as important.

[tizzidale]

It has been a teaching in the Catholic and Orthodox church, not Protestant. They did not see it as important.

Uhm, the Protestant church was born of the Catholic church, and it (the Catholic Church) from the Orthodox Church (I know I would get an argument here). In fact, Martin Luther himself believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Martin Luther
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.

Martin Luther, Christmas Sermon 1531
She is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

Not only Luther, but John Calvin as well . . .
John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.

Calvin on Mary's due honor
To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.

[Mujibur]

Jesus did not seem to see Mary in a more elevated position than the rest of humanity when she and his brothers (or cousins) came to see Jesus while he was teaching.

"46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[7]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:46-50

[tizzidale]

So, you totally ignore that your previous point was obliterated? It's on to the next assertion, eh?

[tizzidale]

Jesus did not seem to see Mary in a more elevated position than the rest of humanity when she and his brothers (or cousins) came to see Jesus while he was teaching. . . .Matthew 12:46-50

Ever hear of rhetoric. Let's look at Luke 14:25-26 for a comparison.

Lu 14:25 ¶ Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, 26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Is Jesus using rhetoric to make a very important point? Yes. Should we take this literally? That we should hate our mother and father? This from the Very God who says, "Honor thy Father and thy Mother"?

Matthew 12:46-50 is similar in construct. Using rhetoric to illustrate the importance of the personal relationship between Christ and His believers. Do you think that the Very God who commanded us to honor our Mothers would neglect to do so to His?

tizzi

[Mujibur]

Matthew 12:46-50 is similar in construct. Using rhetoric to illustrate the importance of the personal relationship between Christ and His believers. Do you think that the Very God who commanded us to honor our Mothers would neglect to do so to His? tizzi

I agree that Matthew 12:46-50 is rhetorical. Obviously He was not denying that Mary was His mother or dishonouring her. My point was that if Mary was held in a higher regard than the rest of humanity and she came to speak to Him, would He not stop His speaking for a moment and hear what she had to say? Instead, He finds it more important to continue with His lesson before He goes and speaks with her. This would suggest that although He honoured her as His mother, she did not hold a higher place than His ministry to everybody else.

[tizzidale]

This would suggest that although He honoured her as His mother, she did not hold a higher place than His ministry to everybody else.

Of course she didn't hold a higher place than His ministry. I do not believe anyone would say she did.

tizzi

[Mujibur]

So, you totally ignore that your previous point was obliterated? It's on to the next assertion, eh?

I didn't mean there have not been any protestants that believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. However, it is not a concept that is held to be important or agreed to in many protestant churches today - at least not in the denominations that I have attended: Baptist, Pentecostal, Mennonite, Anglican.

[tizzidale]

I didn't mean there have not been any protestants that believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. However, it is not a concept that is held to be important or agreed to in many protestant churches today - at least not in the denominations that I have attended: Baptist, Pentecostal, Mennonite, Anglican.

It's good to know you were only talking about the Protestantism that you've experienced, and not the Protestantism of history.

tizzi

[Mujibur]

It's good to know you were only talking about the Protestantism that you've experienced, and not the Protestantism of history.
tizzi

How many protestant denominations do you know of that teach of Mary's perpetual virginity?

Your support for this extra special position for Mary and her perpetual virginity is all from fallible men though. Is there any support in the bible for this position, or is it quiet on this and therefore the catholic church has to look to tradition to support this view?

Just because some church leaders have believed in a doctrine does not necessarily make it right, unless it is supported clearly by scripture. That is the danger of relying on fallible men.

[tizzidale]

Mujibur, we have come to the point in the debate - concerning sola scriptura -that I cannot accept and you cannot live without.

If you feel that the Church (and I do not mean the Catholic Church) doesn't have something to teach Christianity, then in my opinion you are mistaken.

[Mujibur]

Mujibur, we have come to the point in the debate - concerning sola scriptura -that I cannot accept and you cannot live without.

If you feel that the Church (and I do not mean the Catholic Church) doesn't have something to teach Christianity, then in my opinion you are mistaken.

Yeah, I guess our debate has come down to sola scriptura, so I guess that would mean we are at an impasse in that regard. I did not in any way mean that the Church (whether Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox) doesn't have something to teach Christianity. If I gave that impression, then I apologize because it was not what I was saying.

In the end though, our differing views do come down to scripture alone, or scripture plus tradition,IMO. I was just wanting to know what the reasons behind the importance of Mary's perpetual virginity are. One Bad Pig asked how important this question was in the grand scheme of things and you said "very" so I was wondering why.

[Jude3b]

Dear Rocketman: "before they came together" and why does it imply sexual intercourse?

When you read the context of the passages - it becomes very clear that is what is implied. You may also check out the original greek of this passage.

Another verse to dispute Mary being a perpetual Virgin is Matthew 1:25 which talks about "her firstborn son:" - when someone is a "firstborn" that implies that there is a "secondborn" and maybe a "thirdborn," etc.

Why do Roman Catholics go to extremes to state that Scripture doesn't mean that or it doesn't state that. The Bible states Jesus had brothers and sisters. Romanism calls them cousins! Our friend gives a very clear verse showing that Mary and Joseph fully intended to consumate their marriage, which is what the Bible clearly indicates in numerous places and yet Romanism and its followers would rather twist the verses and pretend they mean or state something else. DOES IT NOT BOTHER YOU, THAT YOU CANNOT ACCEPT WHAT THE BIBLE STATES???? Only the words of fallible men, representing Rome can be trusted??

Mary Worship developed out of the old worship of the pagan mother goddess. In pagan religions of the ancient world, the mother was worshipped as much (or more) than her son! But Roman Catholicism -showing the influence that paganism has had in its development - in many ways exalts the MOTHER also.

True Christianity teaches that the Lord Jesus - and He alone - is the way, the truth, and the life; only He can forgive sin; only He, of all earth's creatures, has ever lived a life that was never stained with sin; and HE is to be worshipped - never his mother.

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Jude, why should we bother answering you, when you repeat the same falsehood (Mary is worshipped) that has been corrected time and time again?

[Sheepdog]

As I recall, the bible doesn't even indicate that Mary was a virgin (by our modern understanding of the word) at the birth of Christ. Hebrew had two words that translate as "virgin" -- almeh (basically, an independent and/or unmarried woman), and btullah (a woman who has never known the touch of a man). The virgin references to Mary used the former term, describing her only as unmarried (which the Bible indicates that prior to Christ's birth, she and Joseph were not married). Not to mention that the Isaiah prophecy of the virgin birth (also uses "almeh") points to an event intended to be fulfilled a full 700 years before Christ was actually born, to be fulfilled during the reign of King Ahaz.

pssst: the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

[Sheepdog]

Clearly these passages do not explicitly state that Mary had other children, but your best claim can be that they imply it. For instance, if these were children of Joseph before he married the Mother of Christ, they would be called Christs Brethren and sisters, etc. So thus even from that it is clear it is not explicitly stating that they are Mary's offspring, however as the case is they are in fact cousins of Our Lord, and would also be called Brethen.

unfortunately for you, that may be true of Hebrew or Aramaic (i'm not sore of even that), but not necessarily the Greek. if "cousins" was meant, then anepsioi would have been used, not adelphos. In fact, Paul knows and uses the term for cousin elsewhere (Col. 4:10), so why didn't he use that term in Gal. 1:19 or 1Cor. 9:5?

and besides, they wouldn't be cousins, but half-brothers. but that assumes Joseph was married before, but you have no evidence in favor of that either, do you?

This is from the 10th Fragment of Papias's works.

X.
(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

Here we have a first Century source, which affirms that these children in question were not the children of Mary, the Mother of God. Incidentally, Papias is described by St. Irenaeus of Lyon (early Church Father) as "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time".

but, James, Joseph, and Simon were quite common names in those days, but perhaps you have a point here. well, you would, at least, had it not been that the forth name, Thaddeus, is wrong (Jude or Judas, cf. Matt. 13:55). At best you have no case, and at worst Papias is all messed up (i'm going with the former possibility).

Furthermore, we have the later Church Fathers explicitly uphold the doctrine of Mary's perpetual Virginity. St. Jerome in particular wrote an entire work on Mary's perpetual virginity against Helvidius. Here is where you may read the entire document: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

as insightful as they may be, one must read with a grain of discernment, as we would with any other noncanonical Christian writer. at best this proves that the perpetual virginity myth started early, but whether or not it started with the Bible writers has yet to be established.

[Sheepdog]

Hello Jude. I see you are asking several questions of Roman Catholics here. I'll answer a few and let some other people tackle other issues.

Okay...why do we teach that Mary was a perpetual Virgin? Here we go...

1. We see in Ezekiel 44:2 that the Lord says the Ezekiel: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opend, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Now, unless you contest that Jesus is God, we can safely say that Jesus entered the world through Mary. The "gate" of Mary's womb must remain shut.

i'm glad that isn't your strongest point, because i have never seen a worse stretching of a Scripture passage -- and i've dealt with J's Witnesses and Mormons! how, pray tell, does that passage actually apply to Mary?

2. Your references to Jesus' "brothers" should be taken in consideration of the usage of the language...the word for "brother" in ancient Hebrew also means cousins. Now, you will of course probably say "Well, where's the proof that they WEREN'T brothers?" First, refer to John 19:25...we see there that Mary has a sister, Mary, wife of Clopas. Mary, wife of Clopas is mentioned with Mary Magdalene in the other Crucifixion accounts, sometimes called "the other Mary" by Matthew. Now turn to Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:47, where it states that James and Joseph (Joses) are the sons of Mary of Clopas.

on the usage of "brother" as "cousin," you show me an original NT written in Hebrew and you'll have a case. But, we are using the Greek, which has a distinct word for cousin. Paul shows knowledge of the distinction between the terms, as he uses "cousin" elsewhere (Col. 4:10), yet brother (Gal. 1:19, 1Cor. 9:5) in reference to a "brothers" of Jesus.

as far as Mary of Clopas is concerned, it's likely she was mother of James the disciple of Jesus, rather than his brother. (see Katholish's quote of Papias: "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph," compared to Matthew 10:3 (a list of the 12): ...James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus. You will also note that the "brothers of Jesus" passages list a Judas or Jude, not a Thaddaeus.). this isn't far fetched, since James and Joseph aparently were common names in that time.

3. Have you heard of books called the Protoevangeliums, such as those of Peter or James? These books, while not Biblical, do nevertheless contain some historical information that is useful in this study.

but how reliable is this historical information? they might be worth studying, but in light of the above, i am left to wonder.

4. Perhaps of most importance is looking at John 19:26-27 in which Jesus, while on the Cross, entrusts the care of Mary to John. Remember, Jewish society (and Middle Eastern society in general) is patriarchal, and to an extent resemble clans. If Jesus had brothers, the entrusting of Mary to another person would have been a grave disrespect to the rest of His family. [quote]

But, at the time it is clear that His brothers didn't believe in him, see John 7:3-5. Perhaps this tension is what prompted Jesus to look beyond his own brothers to another to be her caretaker.

[quote]It certainly would not be considered "Honoring thy father and mother."

how so? it would not be honoring to the brothers, but not to his mother or Joseph (though, some suggest Joseph might have passed away before this time).

[Sheepdog]

In reality, there is no reason not to consider the Protoevangeliums as being historically false, unless there is some verifiable, conclusive, outside evidence that conflicts with them. If you can demonstrate such, I will gladly re-examine my position concerning them. But until then, there is no reason to distrust the them.

i expressed what might be indirect evidence against (if Mary and Joseph indeed had more children that is). but assuming your double negative was a mistake (you don't believe the Protoevangeliums are false right?), i think historical studies should go the other way: historical documents should be verified reliable by external evidence whenever possible. otherwise you will have to allow obviously dubious texts (e.g., ones that describe the actions of the Roman gods, etc.) to be historically accurate texts.

[Jude3b]

Dear SpL: You can be fancy with your words and maybe you don't personally worship Mary, but many Roman Catholics do.

I am sure that you are aware that for a number of years there has been an effort on the part of some Rome Catholics to get the present Pope to declare Mary co-redeemer with Christ. The last report I saw, there had been more than three million Roman Catholics that had signed a petitition to the Pope to this end. Obviously these Roman Catholics "worship Mary" - Peter, who was not a Pope would not agree with these modern day Mary worshippers (Acts 4:8-12).

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Jude3b]

Dear Sheepdog: It is contrary to the Scriptures to say that Mary was "ever a virgin," that she was not a wife to her husband. For her to refuse to be would be contrary to the Word of God, and I do not believe she was. The Word does teach that Joseph did not have sexual relations with his wife until after Jesus was born: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: AND KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE had brought forth her FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:24, 25). Jesus was her "first born son" but evidently not her only son! We find four men referred to by name as Jesus' brothers, besides sisters who are not named. - (See Matthew 13:55, 56, and Mark 6:3).

Will you accept the Bible as true, or insist on following Roman tradition?

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[tizzidale]

Sheepdog, concerning Col. 4:10 ANEPSIOS, is this a word for "cousin" or "sister's son"? Just wondering. If it is a word for a specific cousin relationship - such as the son of my sister - then it may not have applied in Galations and 1 Corinthians. Thanks for the info if you know it.

tizzi

[tizzidale]

Also, as ar as Galatians is concerned, it is apparent from the context that Paul is speaking about an Apostle - one of the twelve. The fact that there are only two Jameses listed in the Apostles we have - James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. James of Zebedee was killed early in the church's history. The only one that Paul could be speaking of is James of Alphaeus - the cousin of Jesus.

[Anthony Wales]

Jesus says in John chapter 8 that the truth will set us free. Surely, therefore, finding out the truth on every matter, including the perpetual virginity of Mary, is important.

I am a Catholic and believe it, and I think it makes a significant difference in devotion. It also makes a difference on the way we view sex - e.g. if a human being can be a perfect virgin it can give people hope that (with God's help) they can be chaste as well.

The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds call her the 'Virgin Mary' to as though this is her proper title. It would be odd for this to be her title in the Creeds (accepted and proclaimed by all Christians) if she was not always a virgin.

God bless,
Anthony.

[One Bad Pig]

Very.
because ?



The Orthodox & Catholic understanding of Mary may differ, but they both venerate her and honor her, as Holy Scripture said she would be. The Theotokos is not to be worshiped, but she is not considered a mere instrument that was used and is now discarded.
Actually, scripture says she would be called blessed (Luke 1:42-43). Jesus rebukes a woman who effusively praises His mother (Luke 11:27-28), saying that those who keep His word should be praised instead. I never said I consider Mary a discarded instrument. From Acts 1:14, we see that she was a disciple; from Acts 2, we see the implication that she was present on Pentecost when the Spirit descended on them. I have nothing against her, and look forward to meeting her in eternity.

You say that Mary should not be worshipped, but you sing hymns to her, and pray to her, and light candles for her, and carry about her image. To me, that looks a lot like worship.


You just mentioned above that the scripture is inconclusive. Why push the matter, then?
I'm just trying to figure out why it is so important that Mary was immaculately conceived and perpetually virgin.


The God-bearer should be venerated, honored, revered, and her prayers should be coveted.

You do realize she died almost 20 centuries ago? That there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ? Mary's already gone to her reward. Let her rest!

Sorry, I just can't conceive that prayers to dead people could have any meaning.

[tizzidale]

You do realize she died almost 20 centuries ago? That there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ? Mary's already gone to her reward. Let her rest!

To the Orthodox (and Catholic I'm sure) mind, there is continuity with those that have passed (gone asleep) in the faith and those that are presently alive. We ask them to pray for us, as we would ask anyone else.

[One Bad Pig]

Jesus says in John chapter 8 that the truth will set us free. Surely, therefore, finding out the truth on every matter, including the perpetual virginity of Mary, is important.

I am a Catholic and believe it, and I think it makes a significant difference in devotion. It also makes a difference on the way we view sex - e.g. if a human being can be a perfect virgin it can give people hope that (with God's help) they can be chaste as well.
Actually, people have been chastely serving the Lord since at least the time of the Judges (Jepthah's daughter was given up for life-long service to God). I plan on remaining chaste until marriage (whether or not marriage happens), and I'm not a Catholic.



The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds call her the 'Virgin Mary' to as though this is her proper title. It would be odd for this to be her title in the Creeds (accepted and proclaimed by all Christians) if she was not always a virgin.

As far as I recall, these creeds are merely affirming the Virgin Birth. However, as a Baptist I hold to no creed whatsoever.

[One Bad Pig]

To the Orthodox (and Catholic I'm sure) mind, there is continuity with those that have passed (gone asleep) in the faith and those that are presently alive. We ask them to pray for us, as we would ask anyone else.
Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Jude3b]

The only reason for supposing that Mary was a perpetual virgin is that Roman Catholic tradition tries to make Mary sinless and perfect and so a fit mediator to go between a sinner and Christ.
Psalm 69: 8 & 9 is definite evidence that the mother of Jesus had other children. These other children, were the children of Mary and Joseph.
Don't expect a Roman Catholic to accept the clear Word of God, they prefer to worship the idol of Romanism, the anti - christ.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

Jude unfortunately I don't think you can definitely say that it proves anything. As I can't really say I'm definite either, but it's what I implictly believe. There are other ways of interpreting things. I am Catholic and I do not "worship" Mary. We merely pay homage to her as the mother of Jesus. Also as a female I can look to Mary as a role model. As a woman so devoted to God that she agreed to bear his son. She trust in him implictly. That is truly amazing to me.

Yes I do believe she was a virgin, we also believe that since she was born without original sin. Hence why she was the vessel for Jesus.

[Jude3b]

Dear Twilly Spree: Thank you for your comments. As far as Mary being sinless from birth. I am aware, as an ex Roman Catholic myself that Romanism teaches that Mary never sinned. However, one must deny the Bible and be willing to place the teachings of Rome above the teachings of God in order to do so. I for one could not do that. After receiving Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, along with that came my responsibility to listen to Him and obey His Word. When clear teachings of the Word show that teachings of religons are false (and not only Romanism) - I simply must obey God and not the false teachings of false relgionists.
Now, back to Mary being sinless from birth. It is good that you observe Mary as a role model. She certainly is an excellent one, for sure. Nevertheless, aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23). All includes Mary. Notice the Bible does not say "all have sinned, except Mary."
Please Twilly consider that Mary knew she needed a Savior. Mary herself admits that she was a sinner. "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in GOD MY SAVIOUR." (Luke 1:46-47)
Roman Catholic tradition wants you to believe that Mary was sinless from birth, but God's Word says she wasn't. Who will you believe???
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

Dear Jude,
Please don't talk down to me like I'm 10.
Sincerely, Twilly

[Jude3b]

How was my response treating you like your 10? Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

I know what I believe, and I know it is right. Don't talk down to me as if I don't understand my own faith system. You my friend have problems. If you plan on "converting" people just do it elsewhere, I'm tired of it.

[Benedict]

Psalm 69: 8 & 9 is definite evidence that the mother of Jesus had other children. These other children, were the children of Mary and Joseph.

Jude, Psalm 69 does not literally transfer over to our Lord. "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee." Psalm 69:5

[Jude3b]

In other words, "DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS, MY MIND IS MADE UP"

[Benedict]

In other words, "DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS, MY MIND IS MADE UP"

To which I would answer, "As for me, far be it from me to sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you and to teach you the good and right way." The facts will keep coming your way.

[Sheepdog]

Dear Sheepdog: It is contrary to the Scriptures to say that Mary was "ever a virgin," that she was not a wife to her husband. For her to refuse to be would be contrary to the Word of God, and I do not believe she was. The Word does teach that Joseph did not have sexual relations with his wife until after Jesus was born: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: AND KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE had brought forth her FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:24, 25). Jesus was her "first born son" but evidently not her only son! We find four men referred to by name as Jesus' brothers, besides sisters who are not named. - (See Matthew 13:55, 56, and Mark 6:3).

Will you accept the Bible as true, or insist on following Roman tradition?

what the heck were you responding to? i don't affirm the perpetual virgin theory, and in fact i agree that it is likely she had children after Jesus. i also believe she was a virgin before.

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog, concerning Col. 4:10 ANEPSIOS, is this a word for "cousin" or "sister's son"? Just wondering. If it is a word for a specific cousin relationship - such as the son of my sister - then it may not have applied in Galations and 1 Corinthians. Thanks for the info if you know it.
from what i looked at regarding this term, it only was broadened to also mean niece/nephew later on, and several sources only list "cousin" as the proper definition here.

you can probably thank the KJV for goofing it up here. even the NJKV renders the term "cousin"

[Sheepdog]

Also, as ar as Galatians is concerned, it is apparent from the context that Paul is speaking about an Apostle - one of the twelve. The fact that there are only two Jameses listed in the Apostles we have - James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. James of Zebedee was killed early in the church's history. The only one that Paul could be speaking of is James of Alphaeus - the cousin of Jesus.
except that assumes that "apostle" is only a technical term for one of the Twelve. it is possible, however, that it was also an early term for the general leadership in the church. Rom. 16:7 as well as 1Cor. 12:28 would seem to suggest this. Also:

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Here is strong evidence for a non-Twelve James, perhaps an apostle without a capital "A." First, this James is mentioned exclusively from the Twelve (it is not mentioned which James, implying that it is well known who this James is; if he was Jesus brother, that could account for this). Second, we see Paul mentioning "all the apostles" after "the twelve," implying that there are in fact more than 12 apostles in a looser sense.

in fact the original Greek for "apostle" means "delegate or ambassador." this isn't a technical term that was made up for the Church's purposes, but also has a "common" meaning.

[Jude3b]

Dear Sheepdog:
Sorry, I must have read the posts and got the names mixed up, while I was formulating my response.
Do you have an opinion on the pagan connection? I mean there is an amazing resemblance between the Mary of Roman Catholicism and pagan dieties that were worshipped in Old Testament times.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Dear Sheepdog:
Sorry, I must have read the posts and got the names mixed up, while I was formulating my response.
Do you have an opinion on the pagan connection? I mean there is an amazing resemblance between the Mary of Roman Catholicism and pagan dieties that were worshipped in Old Testament times.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

The resemblence is the same as that between the Trinity and the Hindu "Trinity" :ahem:

[Sheepdog]

Dear Sheepdog:
Sorry, I must have read the posts and got the names mixed up, while I was formulating my response.
Do you have an opinion on the pagan connection? I mean there is an amazing resemblance between the Mary of Roman Catholicism and pagan dieties that were worshipped in Old Testament times.
Sincerely, Jude 3b
not a problem, it happens. out of respect for the Catholics here i won't respond directly (and because i haven't actually read into this idea either). although, i'd imagine that if a pagan saw how Mary had been venerated, they would very likely get the impression the RCCers worship her as a goddess.

or how about a very recent convert from paganism? i'd think the "meat sacrificed to idols" passage would be relevant here.

[spl_cadet]

not a problem, it happens. out of respect for the Catholics here i won't respond directly (and because i haven't actually read into this idea either). although, i'd imagine that if a pagan saw how Mary had been venerated, they would very likely get the impression the RCCers worship her as a goddess.

or how about a very recent convert from paganism? i'd think the "meat sacrificed to idols" passage would be relevant here.

I happen to know a rather recent convert from Wicca, who's in RCIA right now actually. She never got the idea that Mary is a goddess or anything like that.

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism contends that at Mary's death, the Lord took her up into heaven and gave her the title, "Queen over all things" (The Catechism page 252, #966)

Roman Catholic doctrine and the Word of God don't agree. Scripture not only never teaches such a doctrine, it condems it. (see Jeremiah 44:9, 17 and Jeremiah 7:18)

[Twilly Spree]

Jeremiah 44:9 - Nothing to do with Mary
Jeremiah 44:17 - Not Mary, nor related to Mary.
Jeremiah 7:18 - Yeah, again not Mary.

We don't present offering to Mary, we don't bow down at her feet. You've got the whole thing all mixed up in your head there Jude.

[Jude3b]

Has Roman Catholicism handed down the same pagan rituals that infuriated God in Jeremiah 7:18, and 44:17???
It is remarkable that Romanism and the Cathechism insist that God gave Mary a name so often used by false goddesses (Catechism Page 252, #966)

[Jude3b]

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:19)

[Christy]

Mary's other children could of been Joseph's. So they could be his brothers and sisters from adoption.

[Jude3b]

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).

Did Joseph have a second wife? Did Joseph also remain a virgin and have an immaculate conception for all of Mary's other children?

Accept the Word of God: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

[Jude3b]

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).

Did Joseph have a second wife? Did Joseph also remain a virgin and have an immaculate conception for all of Mary's other children?

Accept the Word of God: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

Was Mary this mystical "ever-virgin" or wasn't she? Our choice is the same. Accept the traditions of men and reject the Word of God. Or believe God's Word and reject the traditions of men.

[Jude3b]

It should be disconcerting to all Roman Catholics that the Mary of their religion more closely resembles a pagan deity that the Mary of the Bible.

[Cordel]

The three most relevant doctrinal facts regardings Miriam are: (1) she had never known a man when the angel appeared to her and (2) the Holy Spirit would come upon her and she would conceive in her womb the Son of God -



NIV Luke 1:31-35 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." 34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.



(3) she did not know a man until after Yeshua was born -



NIV Matthew 1:20-25 But after he (Yoseph) had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us." 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.



Douay Matthew 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.



Was Miriam known by Yoseph after Yeshua was born? Based upon the upon scriptures it would certainly seem so.



If then Miriam and Yoseph became one flesh, would not YHWH bless their union with children? Based upon other text mentioning Yeshua's brother and sisters it would seem so.



What central doctrinal fact are we to learn from Miriam and Yoseph being highlighted at the beginning of Matthew's and Luke’s Gospels - obviously that Yeshua was born of a virgin in keeping with the prophecy in Isaiah’ 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”



That Miriam and Yoseph trusted YHWH obviously provides us as a good example for leading a life of obedience, but it does not provide sufficient grounds for adding the teaching of men to the Gospel. This adding to God’s word was the very point of Yeshua’s condemnation of the Pharisees who believed their teachings superseded God’s doctrines –



Matthew 15:9 “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”



Matthew 23:13-39 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 14 [ ] 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. 23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices— mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law— justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’"



If the teachings which venerate Miriam ( immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, queen of heaven ) are valid doctrines, one must ask - Are they set forth in any of the books of the New Testament? The answer is no - not only are they not set forth in a straight forward manner, they are not even hinted at even in the cosmological writings of John nor the theological writing of Paul.



Consequently we must return to the words of Yeshua –



“Matthew 15:9 “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”



Matthew 15:14 “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

[Chytraeus]

How can Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children.

How can Romanism teach otherwise?

Jude3b, don't you have anything better to do with your time than to bash the poor Catholics? Do you think that God is going to give you a special medal in heaven because you humiliated more Catholics than anyone else?

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a moot point. Not only do the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox believe it, but so do many Anglicans, Episcopaleans and Lutherans. For all I know, some Reformed may even believe it (but I doubt it). No doctrine of Christ is going to stand or fall if Mary is shown to have been a virgin until her death.

Now, the teaching that Mary is a co-redemtrix, that is a problem, for Scripture tells us that there is just One mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus. Is Mary to be honored? Of course she is, for she was the chosen intrument for carrying in her body the incarnate infant Christ. Does she bare the title, Mother of God? Absolutely, for this title was given her not to elevate her, but to prove that the child she bore in her womb, gave birth to, gave suck to, and changed the diapers of was none other than the Creator of the universe. A mother made and redeemed by her own Child is a mystery that we will never fully comprehend. But to call her the queen of heaven, to pray to her, and to worship her as a co-redeemer, that is stealing from God and giving to Mary that which God never gave her.

Once again, Jude3b, you have missed the Camel while going after the fly. Your hatred of Catholics is well known. Why don't you find something to love instead for a while? Then maybe you won't be so blind to the camels.

[Jude3b]

Jude3b, don't you have anything better to do with your time than to bash the poor Catholics? Do you think that God is going to give you a special medal in heaven because you humiliated more Catholics than anyone else?

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a moot point. Not only do the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox believe it, but so do many Anglicans, Episcopaleans and Lutherans. For all I know, some Reformed may even believe it (but I doubt it). No doctrine of Christ is going to stand or fall if Mary is shown to have been a virgin until her death.

Now, the teaching that Mary is a co-redemtrix, that is a problem, for Scripture tells us that there is just One mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus. Is Mary to be honored? Of course she is, for she was the chosen intrument for carrying in her body the incarnate infant Christ. Does she bare the title, Mother of God? Absolutely, for this title was given her not to elevate her, but to prove that the child she bore in her womb, gave birth to, gave suck to, and changed the diapers of was none other than the Creator of the universe. A mother made and redeemed by her own Child is a mystery that we will never fully comprehend. But to call her the queen of heaven, to pray to her, and to worship her as a co-redeemer, that is stealing from God and giving to Mary that which God never gave her.

Once again, Jude3b, you have missed the Camel while going after the fly. Your hatred of Catholics is well known. Why don't you find something to love instead for a while? Then maybe you won't be so blind to the camels.



I do not bash poor Roman Catholics, as you accuse me of doing.

I share the Word of God with them, in the hopes of seeing some saved and delivered from that evil counterfeit religion, that lies to them and gives them a false Gospel, which will only lead them to the Devil's hell. I Love Roman Catholics and want to see them all get saved and go to heaven.

[Chytraeus]

I do not bash poor Roman Catholics, as you accuse me of doing.

I share the Word of God with them, in the hopes of seeing some saved and delivered from that evil counterfeit religion, that lies to them and gives them a false Gospel, which will only lead them to the Devil's hell. I Love Roman Catholics and want to see them all get saved and go to heaven.
Wow! If what you do is love, I'd hate to see how you treat your enemies.

[Jude3b]

Wow! If what you do is love, I'd hate to see how you treat your enemies.


Dear Chytraeus:

How do you love?

Is it love to never tell someone the truth? Is it love to allow someone to think that they can earn heaven by being religious, or by belonging to the Roman Catholic sect? Would that be love, for me not to tell them the truth?

[Jude3b]

I agree that Matthew 12:46-50 is rhetorical. Obviously He was not denying that Mary was His mother or dishonouring her. My point was that if Mary was held in a higher regard than the rest of humanity and she came to speak to Him, would He not stop His speaking for a moment and hear what she had to say? Instead, He finds it more important to continue with His lesson before He goes and speaks with her. This would suggest that although He honoured her as His mother, she did not hold a higher place than His ministry to everybody else.

Dear Mujibur:

I have to agree with you. Your statement is quite logical and seems right on.

Roman Catholicism tells the world, "Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." (Page 252, 969).

Romanism gives her four specific titles. Are they correct?

Why does the word of God say?

About Advocate:

"... If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" (I John 2:1) So, Jesus is our Advocate!

About Helper:

"Behold God is mine helper..." (Psalm 54:4). So, God is our Helper!

Aboout Benefactress: The Bible does not mention that any one is a "benefactress."

Mediatrix:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (I Tim. 2:5) So, Jesus is our Mediator!

Why does Roman Catholicism make this stuff up?

[Joe Gofish]

How can Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children.

How can Romanism teach otherwise?
JUDE Please give me the Bible verse that said Mary gave birth to other children ?

[Joe Gofish]

JUDE Please give me the Bible verse that said Mary gave birth to other children ?

Why did Jesus Christ give His mother to Saint John in John 19:27?

5. Why did He not give her to one of His "siblings"? Jewish law would have demanded it.

[Jude3b]

JUDE Please give me the Bible verse that said Mary gave birth to other children ?


Dear Joe GoFish:

Please give me the Bible verse that says Mary did not give birth to other children and that Mary never consumated her Marriage to her husband Joseph. Where are those verses????

Here is a verse that shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Is it logical to assume that Mary never consumated her marriage with Joseph and yet Jesus had brothers and sisters????

"Is not this the carpenter, THE SON OF MARY, THE BROTHER OF JAMES, AND JOSES, AND OF JUDA, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Chytraeus:

How do you love?

Is it love to never tell someone the truth? Is it love to allow someone to think that they can earn heaven by being religious, or by belonging to the Roman Catholic sect? Would that be love, for me not to tell them the truth?
MY PEOPLE (JUDE) ARE DESTROYED FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE hosea 4:6)

[Joe Gofish]

Jude3b, don't you have anything better to do with your time than to bash the poor Catholics? Do you think that God is going to give you a special medal in heaven because you humiliated more Catholics than anyone else?

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a moot point. Not only do the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox believe it, but so do many Anglicans, Episcopaleans and Lutherans. For all I know, some Reformed may even believe it (but I doubt it). No doctrine of Christ is going to stand or fall if Mary is shown to have been a virgin until her death.

Now, the teaching that Mary is a co-redemtrix, that is a problem, for Scripture tells us that there is just One mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus. Is Mary to be honored? Of course she is, for she was the chosen intrument for carrying in her body the incarnate infant Christ. Does she bare the title, Mother of God? Absolutely, for this title was given her not to elevate her, but to prove that the child she bore in her womb, gave birth to, gave suck to, and changed the diapers of was none other than the Creator of the universe. A mother made and redeemed by her own Child is a mystery that we will never fully comprehend. But to call her the queen of heaven, to pray to her, and to worship her as a co-redeemer, that is stealing from God and giving to Mary that which God never gave her.

Once again, Jude3b, you have missed the Camel while going after the fly. Your hatred of Catholics is well known. Why don't you find something to love instead for a while? Then maybe you won't be so blind to the camels.
Jude I ask you to show us from the Bible that Mary gave birth to other children.

Please try answering just one questions,you can't. Did you ever stop and THINK maybe they are Joseph children from another marriage.
And have you ever stopped to THINK that you have 27 years up in smoke,27years what a slow learner

[Jude3b]

MY PEOPLE (JUDE) ARE DESTROYED FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE hosea 4:6)


Dear Joe GoFish:

That is a great verse of Scripture and one worth quoting in full:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)

Joe, when people lack knowledge of God, it is because they have rejected the knowledge of the Word of God that has already been given to them, which could have led them to God. On the other hand, those who will take heed unto the Word of God will be rewarded: "Unto you that hear shall more be given." (Mark 4:24).

Joe, I encourage to read your Bible and believe it. It will lead you to the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and He will take you to heaven.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe GoFish:

Please give me the Bible verse that says Mary did not give birth to other children and that Mary never consumated her Marriage to her husband Joseph. Where are those verses????

Here is a verse that shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Is it logical to assume that Mary never consumated her marriage with Joseph and yet Jesus had brothers and sisters????

"Is not this the carpenter, THE SON OF MARY, THE BROTHER OF JAMES, AND JOSES, AND OF JUDA, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3).
Your the one running your mouth so please proff what you are saying,you can't.The bible does not tell us Mary gave birth to any one but Jesus.
You do a lot of ranting and raving but you neaver give any facts,WHY.
NOT ALL IS IT THE BIBLE. tHE BIBLE IT SELF WILL TELL YOU THAT BUT IT DOES NOT SAY MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANY ONE BUT JESUS.aGAIN YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE OR YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL ANOTHER LIE.Give us some facts.Show me from the Bible that Mary give birth to other Children,She may of had other children but she did not give birth to them,they may have been Joseph children from another marriage or show me that she gave birth to other children,you can't your just a anti-catholic bigot

[Jude3b]

Your the one running your mouth so please proff what you are saying,you can't.The bible does not tell us Mary gave birth to any one but Jesus.
You do a lot of ranting and raving but you neaver give any facts,WHY.
NOT ALL IS IT THE BIBLE. tHE BIBLE IT SELF WILL TELL YOU THAT BUT IT DOES NOT SAY MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANY ONE BUT JESUS.aGAIN YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE OR YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL ANOTHER LIE.Give us some facts.Show me from the Bible that Mary give birth to other Children,She may of had other children but she did not give birth to them,they may have been Joseph children from another marriage or show me that she gave birth to other children,you can't your just a anti-catholic bigot


Dear Joe GoFish:

Simple question:

IS IT LOGICAL THAT MARY AND JOSEPH WOULD BE MARRIED FOR MANY YEARS AND NEVER EVER CONSUMATE THEIR MARRIAGE? Where is even one verse of scripture that indicates that?

Is it logical to assume that the brothers of Jesus and the sisters of Jesus were not the children of Mary and Joseph, when they were married for many years? Where is even one verse of scripture to indicate that Mary and Joseph never had children together?

[Jude3b]

Your the one running your mouth so please proff what you are saying,you can't.The bible does not tell us Mary gave birth to any one but Jesus.
You do a lot of ranting and raving but you neaver give any facts,WHY.
NOT ALL IS IT THE BIBLE. tHE BIBLE IT SELF WILL TELL YOU THAT BUT IT DOES NOT SAY MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANY ONE BUT JESUS.aGAIN YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE OR YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL ANOTHER LIE.Give us some facts.Show me from the Bible that Mary give birth to other Children,She may of had other children but she did not give birth to them,they may have been Joseph children from another marriage or show me that she gave birth to other children,you can't your just a anti-catholic bigot


Dear Joe GoFish:

Simple question:

IS IT LOGICAL THAT MARY AND JOSEPH WOULD BE MARRIED FOR MANY YEARS AND NEVER EVER CONSUMATE THEIR MARRIAGE? Where is even one verse of scripture that indicates that?

Is it logical to assume that the brothers of Jesus and the sisters of Jesus were not the children of Mary and Joseph, when they were married for many years? Where is even one verse of scripture to indicate that Mary and Joseph never had children together?

[Jude3b]

what the heck were you responding to? i don't affirm the perpetual virgin theory, and in fact i agree that it is likely she had children after Jesus. i also believe she was a virgin before.


Dear Master Sheepdog:

My mistake, I must have misread you. Glad to see you believe the Bible.

[Krusader]

Dear Master Sheepdog:

My mistake, I must have misread you. Glad to see you believe the Bible.

Jude3b: Hi. You know, Jude, whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth is not a salvation matter. Christians can have honest disagreements about that issue. For instance, after I was saved I held to the view of Mary's perpetual virginity for many years. Only recently have I begun to see that Mary probably did have a normal relationship with Joseph (marital) after Christ's birth. And I've been a Christian for a long time.

I don't think its necessary to challenge Roman Catholics about non-salvation issues at every turn, because the fact is, the Roman Church does uphold core Christian doctrine, such as:

The Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Salvation through Christ's Atonement
The Personal Second Coming

Now, I share with you a real distaste for some Catholic doctrines (invocation of the saints, bordering on worship; matters related to exactly what it means to be saved by grace through faith; the infallibility of the Pope, etc.) But, I am always mindful of the fact that the Lord God did pour out His Spirit on the Roman Catholics in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70's and 80's. In fact, one of the most Christ-like men I ever had the real pleasure of meeting was a Charismatic Roman Catholic priest (a Franciscan).

So, what can I say other than this, brother - try concentrating on what unites us, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Crusader

[roboticist]

Jude3b: Hi. You know, Jude, whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth is not a salvation matter. Christians can have honest disagreements about that issue. For instance, after I was saved I held to the view of Mary's perpetual virginity for many years. Only recently have I begun to see that Mary probably did have a normal relationship with Joseph (marital) after Christ's birth. And I've been a Christian for a long time.

I don't think its necessary to challenge Roman Catholics about non-salvation issues at every turn, because the fact is, the Roman Church does uphold core Christian doctrine, such as:

The Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Salvation through Christ's Atonement
The Personal Second Coming

Now, I share with you a real distaste for some Catholic doctrines (invocation of the saints, bordering on worship; matters related to exactly what it means to be saved by grace through faith; the infallibility of the Pope, etc.) But, I am always mindful of the fact that the Lord God did pour out His Spirit on the Roman Catholics in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70's and 80's. In fact, one of the most Christ-like men I ever had the real pleasure of meeting was a Charismatic Roman Catholic priest (a Franciscan).

So, what can I say other than this, brother - try concentrating on what unites us, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Crusader

Amen, amen, and Amen.




How do you love?

Is it love to never tell someone the truth? Is it love to allow someone to think that they can earn heaven by being religious, or by belonging to the Roman Catholic sect? Would that be love, for me not to tell them the truth?



You're missing the point, Jude, because you set up a false dichotomy here, because though there is but one Truth, there are many ways to present that truth. You don't have to be insulting and obnoxious in order to be "truthful". At times, yes, the Gospel cuts to the heart and convicts--but that is the job of the Spirit, not of you. Your job is to share God's "good news", and the fact is that you spend about 90% of your posts, from what I can tell, talking about how evil Catholicism is and how mindless are its followers, and only about 10% presenting the Gospel of Christ.

I've met many people like you since getting saved, and I'm not going to lie that I'm probably more annoyed with you than I should be with a brother. But the fact is that you can tell your nextdoor neighbor, the abortion doctor, "Abortion is wrong, and here is why..." in a loving manner. Or, you can follow the typical Jude method, and paint graffiti on his house saying, "YOU AER A MURDREING KILLER AND WILL GO TO HELL". :wink: That is a bit of exaggeration, but really not too much, considering how...passionate you get sometimes. At times, Jesus resorted to harsh language, against men like the Pharisees (because, as the religious leaders, they were purposefully misleading people). But when talking to the "average man", Jesus did not do this. He saved the adulteress from stoning, telling her simply to live her life without sin; He did not berate the Samaritan woman, who had been divorced five times and was living in sin; He ate and spent time with sinners and tax collectors in a relaxed setting. Jesus came with harsh words for religious officials who were knowingly misleading, but He came with nothing but kindness and love when presenting the Gospel to everyday men and women. You would do well to follow such a model.

[stabalizer]

This idea that Mary remained a virgin is absurd.

I"m sorry I feel so strong about it so I'll only post once

1) first, without being crude, Mary's virginity terminated, (biologically) at the birth of Jesus. (No need for medical analysis here)

2) It's absurd to have read where Mary has found favor with God before Jesus' birth and then imply God wouldn't bless that family with additional children after Jesus' birth.

3) Would God assign Joeseph to a life of perpetual masturbation? (or Mary for that matter) or a secret life in the red light disrict?

Do I need to go further? God I hate religion.

Quit defending church doctrine, Jesus can defend His own word. Please!

[Krusader]

This idea that Mary remained a virgin is absurd.

I"m sorry I feel so strong about it so I'll only post once

1) first, without being crude, Mary's virginity terminated, (biologically) at the birth of Jesus. (No need for medical analysis here)

2) It's absurd to have read where Mary has found favor with God before Jesus' birth and then imply God wouldn't bless that family with additional children after Jesus' birth.

3) Would God assign Joeseph to a life of perpetual masturbation? (or Mary for that matter) or a secret life in the red light disrict?

Do I need to go further? God I hate religion.

Quit defending church doctrine, Jesus can defend His own word. Please!

Does one become more of a Christian by denying the perpetual virginity of Mary? Does on become less of a Christian by believing in it?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved - I don't see anything in there about one's attitude toward Mary.

I think, "God I hate religion," is a bad witness!

[Jude3b]

Jude3b: Hi. You know, Jude, whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth is not a salvation matter. Christians can have honest disagreements about that issue. For instance, after I was saved I held to the view of Mary's perpetual virginity for many years. Only recently have I begun to see that Mary probably did have a normal relationship with Joseph (marital) after Christ's birth. And I've been a Christian for a long time.

I don't think its necessary to challenge Roman Catholics about non-salvation issues at every turn, because the fact is, the Roman Church does uphold core Christian doctrine, such as:

The Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Salvation through Christ's Atonement
The Personal Second Coming

Now, I share with you a real distaste for some Catholic doctrines (invocation of the saints, bordering on worship; matters related to exactly what it means to be saved by grace through faith; the infallibility of the Pope, etc.) But, I am always mindful of the fact that the Lord God did pour out His Spirit on the Roman Catholics in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70's and 80's. In fact, one of the most Christ-like men I ever had the real pleasure of meeting was a Charismatic Roman Catholic priest (a Franciscan).

So, what can I say other than this, brother - try concentrating on what unites us, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Crusader


Dear Crusader:

Thank you for your post. I am certain you are simply trying to be a peacemaker, and that is good. Jesus said you will be blessed for that.

I agree with much of what you have written, but strongly disagree with the statement that Roman Catholics believe the same thing about:

"SALVATION THROUGH CHIRST'S ATONEMENT"

that Christians believe.

What is your basis for such a statement? If it that were true, why would I bother to even post here on TWEB and try to share the Gospel with the relgious Roman Catholics?

Oh, maybe you will tell me, "they believe in Jesus." JESUS WHO? Gosh, the Devil believes in Jesus, and he ain't saved! What Jesus do they believe in?

The Jesus of most of the followers of Roman Catholicism is not the same Jesus that true Christians believe in and upon. Many Romanists have a "sacramental" Jesus and a "wafer god!"

Romanism teaches its followers that sacraments are necessary for salvation:

"The Church (speaking of the Roman Catholic religion) afirms that for believers the SACRAMENTS of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION." (The Roman Catholic Catechism, page 292, #1129).

What are Roman Catholic sacraments?

"There are seven sacraments in the (Roman Catholic) Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony." (The Roman Catholic Catechism page 289, #1113).

The 7 sacraments of Romanism are NOTHING MORE THAN A SERIES OF GOOD WORKS. A Romanist must do these 7 sacraments to "Earn" any possiblity of salvation after a burnoff in a fictious place called purgatory, but maybe not for long if you have relatives rich enough to buy you out of there early, by use of indulgences.

May I remind all seekers of Truth, here on TWEB and you also Crusader that:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED in His sight..." (Romans 3:20).

The Jesus of the Bible is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9). It's not a religion - it's the LORD JESUS!

[stabalizer]

Does one become more of a Christian by denying the perpetual virginity of Mary? Does on become less of a Christian by believing in it?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved - I don't see anything in there about one's attitude toward Mary.

I think, "God I hate religion," is a bad witness!

Perpetual virginity has nothing to do with one's attitude towards Mary, what's wrong with it is it's another stone in the foundation for Mary worship, which isn't scriptural (False doctrine) You can defend catholic doctrine if you like but Denominational sparring doesn't save either.

Religion; the world isn't lacking for religions Count them!

One becomes a Christian through obedience to God's Word, not a fairy tale or cunningly devised fable.

There's only ONE mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.

oops! I posted twice, sorry.

[Krusader]

Perpetual virginity has nothing to do with one's attitude towards Mary, what's wrong with it is it's another stone in the foundation for Mary worship, which isn't scriptural (False doctrine) You can defend catholic doctrine if you like but Denominational sparring doesn't save either.

Religion; the world isn't lacking for religions Count them!

One becomes a Christian through obedience to God's Word, not a fairy tale or cunningly devised fable.

There's only ONE mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.

oops! I posted twice, sorry.

Actually, I don't defend that particular Catholic doctrine - I just don't see the point of arguing about it. Isn't it more productive to discuss salvation and the Work of Christ then focusing on something that is so divisive. Can't you trust the Holy Spirit to straighten out erroneous doctrine after a person is saved?

[Jude3b]

Perpetual virginity has nothing to do with one's attitude towards Mary, what's wrong with it is it's another stone in the foundation for Mary worship, which isn't scriptural (False doctrine) You can defend catholic doctrine if you like but Denominational sparring doesn't save either.

Religion; the world isn't lacking for religions Count them!

One becomes a Christian through obedience to God's Word, not a fairy tale or cunningly devised fable.

There's only ONE mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.

oops! I posted twice, sorry.

Dear stabalizer:

WELL SAID!

[stabalizer]

Actually, I don't defend that particular Catholic doctrine - I just don't see the point of arguing about it. Isn't it more productive to discuss salvation and the Work of Christ then focusing on something that is so divisive. Can't you trust the Holy Spirit to straighten out erroneous doctrine after a person is saved?

You're correct, and yes one should trust that unction from the holy one.

That particular doctrine has nothing to do with actual salvation. I must clairfy here also, I believe in honoring and a blessing to the Mother of our Lord, but not worship nor invocation. I'm not a sacramentalist. I just believe scripture will do it's perfect work only if you let it , and by that one must glean from scripture continually. ( even as a child).

If I sounded harsh, I ask your forgiveness. In Jesus' name.

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

Thank you for your post. I am certain you are simply trying to be a peacemaker, and that is good. Jesus said you will be blessed for that.

I agree with much of what you have written, but strongly disagree with the statement that Roman Catholics believe the same thing about:

"SALVATION THROUGH CHIRST'S ATONEMENT"

that Christians believe.

What is your basis for such a statement? If it that were true, why would I bother to even post here on TWEB and try to share the Gospel with the relgious Roman Catholics?

Oh, maybe you will tell me, "they believe in Jesus." JESUS WHO? Gosh, the Devil believes in Jesus, and he ain't saved! What Jesus do they believe in?

The Jesus of most of the followers of Roman Catholicism is not the same Jesus that true Christians believe in and upon. Many Romanists have a "sacramental" Jesus and a "wafer god!"

Romanism teaches its followers that sacraments are necessary for salvation:

"The Church (speaking of the Roman Catholic religion) afirms that for believers the SACRAMENTS of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION." (The Roman Catholic Catechism, page 292, #1129).

What are Roman Catholic sacraments?

"There are seven sacraments in the (Roman Catholic) Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony." (The Roman Catholic Catechism page 289, #1113).

The 7 sacraments of Romanism are NOTHING MORE THAN A SERIES OF GOOD WORKS. A Romanist must do these 7 sacraments to "Earn" any possiblity of salvation after a burnoff in a fictious place called purgatory, but maybe not for long if you have relatives rich enough to buy you out of there early, by use of indulgences.

May I remind all seekers of Truth, here on TWEB and you also Crusader that:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED in His sight..." (Romans 3:20).

The Jesus of the Bible is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9). It's not a religion - it's the LORD JESUS!

Jude, I well understand where you're coming from. However, please be aware that believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament does not mean you believe in a "waifer" Jesus. Do you know that the Reformer, John Calvin, believed in a modified real presence in the sacrament? - and Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation (that Jesus was physically present with the elements?). Anglicans, at least many of them, share with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, although they would modify the Catholic doctrine somewhat.

I don't think you need to equate "sacraments" with "works." Sacramental and liturgical worship existed among the very earliest Christians. You might find it intersting to read some of the early church documents describing the worship of the early church. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water, Jude3b. Liturgy and Sacramental worship is an expression of faith in Christ (and I know its been abused, but that still doesn't negate its effective use by Christians as a means of worship and as an expression of faith).

Look Jude, I became a Christian when I was 28 and remained in a sacramental and liturgical setting until I was 49. I now go to a more evangelical Church - does that make me more of a Christian? You know, Jude, if you can pick up a copy of "The Holy Spirit and You," by the late Dennis Bennett, review what Dennis has to say there about denominations, and how God has used them for His glory.

I have shared the Gospel with many Roman Catholics, some of whom I have led to personal faith in Christ. Never once have I told them to leave the Roman Church. I leave that in the Hands of the Holy Spirit - for He places us where He wants us. The fact is, that many of those Roman Catholics I spoke to have eventually ended up in other churches - but not because I sent them there. And, many stayed where they were - but they still are my fellow believers in Christ.

But I do thank the Lord for your honesty and zeal, and thank you for your input.

[Jude3b]

Jude, I well understand where you're coming from. However, please be aware that believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament does not mean you believe in a "waifer" Jesus. Do you know that the Reformer, John Calvin, believed in a modified real presence in the sacrament? - and Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation (that Jesus was physically present with the elements?). Anglicans, at least many of them, share with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, although they would modify the Catholic doctrine somewhat.

I don't think you need to equate "sacraments" with "works." Sacramental and liturgical worship existed among the very earliest Christians. You might find it intersting to read some of the early church documents describing the worship of the early church. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water, Jude3b. Liturgy and Sacramental worship is an expression of faith in Christ (and I know its been abused, but that still doesn't negate its effective use by Christians as a means of worship and as an expression of faith).

Look Jude, I became a Christian when I was 28 and remained in a sacramental and liturgical setting until I was 49. I now go to a more evangelical Church - does that make me more of a Christian? You know, Jude, if you can pick up a copy of "The Holy Spirit and You," by the late Dennis Bennett, review what Dennis has to say there about denominations, and how God has used them for His glory.

I have shared the Gospel with many Roman Catholics, some of whom I have led to personal faith in Christ. Never once have I told them to leave the Roman Church. I leave that in the Hands of the Holy Spiri