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.

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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

[Rusty T]

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:

[Rusty T]

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?

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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

[Rusty T]

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

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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

[Rusty T]

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

[Rusty T]

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.

[Rusty T]

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 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.


Dear Crusader:

I may not be that smart and I am certainly not all knowing, but I know someone who is. His name is Jesus and he gives warning to the marjority who have disregarded God's Word and are counting on earning their salvation through religious and sacramental good works:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:22-23).

Crusader, how is it that so many Roman Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

Roman Catholics can ignore this question now, but what will they say when Jesus asks them the same question in person when they die and stand before Him for judgment?

What will we Christians say, who stood back and refused to say anything and warn those poor perishing religious people, trapped in false religion?

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

I may not be that smart and I am certainly not all knowing, but I know someone who is. His name is Jesus and he gives warning to the marjority who have disregarded God's Word and are counting on earning their salvation through religious and sacramental good works:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:22-23).

Crusader, how is it that so many Roman Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

Roman Catholics can ignore this question now, but what will they say when Jesus asks them the same question in person when they die and stand before Him for judgment?

What will we Christians say, who stood back and refused to say anything and warn those poor perishing religious people, trapped in false religion?

It seems to me, Jude, that if you are very concerned about those trapped in "false relgion," that you should be giving me a hand over on the World Relgions site where, daily, I exchange posts with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and others in false cultic worship systems.

Now, the Roman Catholics you have here on TWEB have expressed their faith in Christ; have told you that they trust Christ for their salvation. Of course you and I don't agree with all their doctrine, but we must respect their confession of faith.....Why?

Because, they believe in the Jesus of the Bible: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who became flesh, dwelt among us, went to the cross and atoned for our sins.

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unification Church, and a vast myriad of other cults (not to mention the Jews), deny Our Savior's Deity on some level, twist doctrine, and diminish the work of Christ.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have doctrines that I, a Protestant, disagree with. However, I respect their confession of faith, and I will engage them in debate, but never denying that they are Christians. In any case, try to put these words of the Apostle Paul into practice:



Romans 14:1-12


Don’t pass judgmentAccept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (NIV)

[Jude3b]

It seems to me, Jude, that if you are very concerned about those trapped in "false relgion," that you should be giving me a hand over on the World Relgions site where, daily, I exchange posts with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and others in false cultic worship systems.

Now, the Roman Catholics you have here on TWEB have expressed their faith in Christ; have told you that they trust Christ for their salvation. Of course you and I don't agree with all their doctrine, but we must respect their confession of faith.....Why?

Because, they believe in the Jesus of the Bible: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who became flesh, dwelt among us, went to the cross and atoned for our sins.

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unification Church, and a vast myriad of other cults (not to mention the Jews), deny Our Savior's Deity on some level, twist doctrine, and diminish the work of Christ.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have doctrines that I, a Protestant, disagree with. However, I respect their confession of faith, and I will engage them in debate, but never denying that they are Christians. In any case, try to put these words of the Apostle Paul into practice:



Romans 14:1-12


Don’t pass judgmentAccept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (NIV)










Dear Crusader:

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic system of religion, the Mormon system of religion, the JW system of religion, the Islamic system of religion, etc.???

Not much - when you consider what a CULT is and what CULTS have in common.

What do Islam, Mormonism and Roman Catholicism all have in common and what makes all three cults?

Simple answer - all Cults have a "religious works based system of salvation!"

So what is the difference between Romanism and all other Cults? Answer- Romanism is older than most and the largest Cult of all!

"...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4)

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic system of religion, the Mormon system of religion, the JW system of religion, the Islamic system of religion, etc.???

Not much - when you consider what a CULT is and what CULTS have in common.

What do Islam, Mormonism and Roman Catholicism all have in common and what makes all three cults?

Simple answer - all Cults have a "religious works based system of salvation!"

So what is the difference between Romanism and all other Cults? Answer- Romanism is older than most and the largest Cult of all!

"...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4)

Even the foremost Christian apologist, and pioneer in the field of cultism, Dr. Walter Martin, never taught that Roman Catholicism is a cult. Can you find me one respected Christian apologist today who states such a thing? We have disagreemets with Catholics, we shouldn't go around calling them "cultists." By the way, I noted that you state you are not a Protestant - would you mind sharing with me what type of denomination or group you are part of?

[Jude3b]

Even the foremost Christian apologist, and pioneer in the field of cultism, Dr. Walter Martin, never taught that Roman Catholicism is a cult. Can you find me one respected Christian apologist today who states such a thing? We have disagreemets with Catholics, we shouldn't go around calling them "cultists." By the way, I noted that you state you are not a Protestant - would you mind sharing with me what type of denomination or group you are part of?


Dear Crusader:

Please answer my question! What is the difference between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism, when viewed from the Cultic standpoint and a salvation by religious works basis?

Walter Martin wrote a lot about the Cultic practices of Romanism. I am not aware if he actually ever called the a Cult or not. He tended to be a bit more gentle that me.

Second- I am a Christian. I have been a Christian since the day Christ saved me on August 29, 1977 and delivered me from sin and false religion. I am not a member of any denomination. My membership is in the church of God - the body of Christ and Jesus himself placed me in his church the moment I was saved (see Acts 2:47).

By the way, if you are saved, you belong to the same church that I belong to! All true Christians belong to the same church. Its God's church - the body of Christ.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Jude3b]Dear Crusader:

Please answer my question! What is the difference between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism, when viewed from the Cultic standpoint and a salvation by religious works basis?

Walter Martin wrote a lot about the Cultic practices of Romanism. I am not aware if he actually ever called the a Cult or not. He tended to be a bit more gentle that me.

Second- I am a Christian. I have been a Christian since the day Christ saved me on August 29, 1977 and delivered me from sin and false religion. I am not a member of any denomination. My membership is in the church of God - the body of Christ and Jesus himself placed me in his church the moment I was saved (see Acts 2:47).

Crusader's Response:

When you say that your membership is in the "church of God," are you speaking of the denomination "Church of God," or some type of informal group? Also, I knew Dr. Martin personally, Jude, and he certainly did not say that the Roman Catholic Church was a cult. Could you tell me what writings of Dr. Martin you are referring to when you say that he "wrote a lot about the Cultic practices of Romanism?" I have all his books - and while he does at times mention the Roman Catholic Church, I can't remember him using the term, "cultic practices."

PS: The Body of Christ transcends denominational lines, I agree - but our love should transcend denominational lines as well.

[Krusader]

[
Crusader's Response to Jude:

When you say that your membership is in the "church of God," are you speaking of the denomination "Church of God," or some type of informal group? Also, I knew Dr. Martin personally, Jude, and he certainly did not say that the Roman Catholic Church was a cult. Could you tell me what writings of Dr. Martin you are referring to when you say that he "wrote a lot about the Cultic practices of Romanism?" I have all his books - and while he does at times mention the Roman Catholic Church, I can't remember him using the term, "cultic practices."

PS: The Body of Christ transcends denominational lines, I agree - but our love should transcend denominational lines as well. Also, Mormonism is a polytheistic cult with another Jesus and another gospel. Why not come over to the World Religions posts and check out their belief systems. They have nothing in common with Roman Catholicism. C

[1.61803399]

Crusader,
God Bless you for defending reason!

Jude: What are the marks of a cult?
Can you name even one?

Really, your evangelization through bludgeoning only gets you on ignore lists. Try this, write up a personal credo, a personal statement of faith and present that. Show through logic and reasoning why Catholics should abandon the way of their fathers and their faith to agree with you.

What do you believe? (and "The Bible" is an insufficient answer)


I'm praying for you, you seem to have a lot of anger pent up.

Pax Christi!

BTW, Crusader: out of curiousity who was the Franciscan?

[Jude3b]

Crusader,
God Bless you for defending reason!

Jude: What are the marks of a cult?
Can you name even one?

Really, your evangelization through bludgeoning only gets you on ignore lists. Try this, write up a personal credo, a personal statement of faith and present that. Show through logic and reasoning why Catholics should abandon the way of their fathers and their faith to agree with you.

What do you believe? (and "The Bible" is an insufficient answer)


I'm praying for you, you seem to have a lot of anger pent up.




Pax Christi!

BTW, Crusader: out of curiousity who was the Franciscan?


Dear 1.61803399:


You asked me what are the marks of a Cult.

First- a Cult is a "religious system" and the number one mark for me is the one thing that every false religious system and cult that exists today has in common. That is a religious works based system of salvation.

Second- A leader that assumes God-like authority over its members, like we find in popery, which leads its members into faddish devotion.

Third- A Cult provides its members with an escape from reality. "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast..." (Rev. 17:3). The reality of the Word of God is set aside for the false reality of man-made traditions and doctrines of fallible religious men (the magisterium).

Fourth- A Cult that acknowledges Jesus Christ, will have a different Jesus. What do I mean by that? The Jesus of the Bible is an all-sufficient savior. He paid it all, when it comes to our salvation. The Religious cults will have a Jesus that can only do part of the saving, while the cult member must do the rest.


Personal Credo:

Having been born and raised a Roman Catholic, educated in Roman Catholic schools, served the Roman Catholic church in the mass for many years. I spent 27 years in the church of Rome. On August 29, 1977, I heard the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the very first time. I believed ON Christ and fully trusted Him and Him alone for salvation. I was born-again that day, delivered from sin and from false man made religion.

My personal creed is called the Holy Bible!

My ministry is to evangelize all the lost, especially those trapped in false religion. To "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


Since you want to suggest things that I should do, may I in turn suggest something for you to do, fair enough?

Since your eternal destiny rests in the hands of the Roman Catholic religion, it is vital that you learn how the official Roman Cathoic doctrines stack up against the Holy Scriptures. DO THEY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER? So, my request to you is this: Get a copy of the 803 page Roman Catholic Catechism and compare its teachings with the Holy Bible. You will be surprised at the difference if you are honest!

[1.61803399]

some definitions of cults:

Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.1

"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." 8

I specified that "the Holy Bible" falls short of a statement of what you believe. It is what you derive your beliefs from. You can use it to support almost anything. It is not your God (I hope). What do you believe?


While you may insist that I am dishonest... I have one (no two copies), I did, and I was surprised just how much scripture is used to support Catholic teaching!

I will stick with Petros, the rock, not your house on the sand.

Pax Christi.

[Krusader]

Crusader,
God Bless you for defending reason!

Jude: What are the marks of a cult?
Can you name even one?

Really, your evangelization through bludgeoning only gets you on ignore lists. Try this, write up a personal credo, a personal statement of faith and present that. Show through logic and reasoning why Catholics should abandon the way of their fathers and their faith to agree with you.

What do you believe? (and "The Bible" is an insufficient answer)


I'm praying for you, you seem to have a lot of anger pent up.

Pax Christi!

BTW, Crusader: out of curiousity who was the Franciscan?

The Franciscan priest (Fr. John) was the leader of a charismatic prayer group
in Newton, New Jersey. The charismatic revival broke out in the seminary/monastery there, and people from many denominations came to worship with their Catholic brothers and sisters. It was a beautiful time, and Fr. John was a very Christ-like man. He passed away about 20 years ago, but I still remember his kindness and gentle ways.

[Jude3b]

The Franciscan priest (Fr. John) was the leader of a charismatic prayer group
in Newton, New Jersey. The charismatic revival broke out in the seminary/monastery there, and people from many denominations came to worship with their Catholic brothers and sisters. It was a beautiful time, and Fr. John was a very Christ-like man. He passed away about 20 years ago, but I still remember his kindness and gentle ways.


Dear Crusader:

Just because a Roman Catholic is a nice person, that doesn't make the dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism correct. I know lots of Roman Catholics that are nice persons and do many charitable things. Many are nicer than some Christians I know. Thats not the point of this thread.

According to Jesus, the masses willingly accept false religious systems that lead to destruction, while few find true salvation that leads to heaven.

It is no different today, than when Jesus walked on earth. Back than a small minority followed Him. Most rejected His teachings and remained in the well established, socially popular religions. In other words, they rejected the truth so they could keep their religious traditions. Men are religious by nature and very happy when they are doing religious things to earn salvation.

What is the point?

While Jesus was preaching, one listener who began to comprehend the truth asked Jesus:

"Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:23-24)

That is an important question: Will Roman Catholics be saved? Will being a Roman Catholic help someone become a true Christian and go to heaven or not? Very important question, with eternal implications. That is what this thread is really about! Not about how nice some Charismatic priest is.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear 1.61803399:


You asked me what are the marks of a Cult.

First- a Cult is a "religious system" and the number one mark for me is the one thing that every false religious system and cult that exists today has in common. That is a religious works based system of salvation.

Second- A leader that assumes God-like authority over its members, like we find in popery, which leads its members into faddish devotion.

Third- A Cult provides its members with an escape from reality. "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast..." (Rev. 17:3). The reality of the Word of God is set aside for the false reality of man-made traditions and doctrines of fallible religious men (the magisterium).

Fourth- A Cult that acknowledges Jesus Christ, will have a different Jesus. What do I mean by that? The Jesus of the Bible is an all-sufficient savior. He paid it all, when it comes to our salvation. The Religious cults will have a Jesus that can only do part of the saving, while the cult member must do the rest.


Personal Credo:

Having been born and raised a Roman Catholic, educated in Roman Catholic schools, served the Roman Catholic church in the mass for many years. I spent 27 years in the church of Rome. On August 29, 1977, I heard the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the very first time. I believed ON Christ and fully trusted Him and Him alone for salvation. I was born-again that day, delivered from sin and from false man made religion.

My personal creed is called the Holy Bible!

My ministry is to evangelize all the lost, especially those trapped in false religion. To "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


Since you want to suggest things that I should do, may I in turn suggest something for you to do, fair enough?

Since your eternal destiny rests in the hands of the Roman Catholic religion, it is vital that you learn how the official Roman Cathoic doctrines stack up against the Holy Scriptures. DO THEY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER? So, my request to you is this: Get a copy of the 803 page Roman Catholic Catechism and compare its teachings with the Holy Bible. You will be surprised at the difference if you are honest!
MORE Garbage from CHRAM,

Even the "reformers" were staunch defenders of Mary:

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."
[Ulrich Zwingli; quoted in "Corpus Reformatorum" v. 1, p. 424]

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
[Matin Luther; "Sermons on John", chapters 1-4, 1537-39]

"{Mary 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."
[Martin Luther; sermon given on Christmas, 1531]

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God? thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."
[Martin Luther; "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God", 1527]

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

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor... Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
[John Calvin; quoted in "Corpus Reformatorum", v. 45, p. 348]

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

Just because a Roman Catholic is a nice person, that doesn't make the dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism correct. I know lots of Roman Catholics that are nice persons and do many charitable things. Many are nicer than some Christians I know. Thats not the point of this thread.

According to Jesus, the masses willingly accept false religious systems that lead to destruction, while few find true salvation that leads to heaven.

It is no different today, than when Jesus walked on earth. Back than a small minority followed Him. Most rejected His teachings and remained in the well established, socially popular religions. In other words, they rejected the truth so they could keep their religious traditions. Men are religious by nature and very happy when they are doing religious things to earn salvation.

What is the point?

While Jesus was preaching, one listener who began to comprehend the truth asked Jesus:

"Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:23-24)

That is an important question: Will Roman Catholics be saved? Will being a Roman Catholic help someone become a true Christian and go to heaven or not? Very important question, with eternal implications. That is what this thread is really about! Not about how nice some Charismatic priest is.

One could just as well ask, "Will Protestants be saved?" Remember in Acts when the question, "what must I do to be saved?" was asked. What was the answer?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:29-31.

This applies to both Catholics and Protestants, Jude.

By the way, that charismatic priest I spoke of - he was truly saved, and loved Jesus as much as any man I know.

[Jude3b]

One could just as well ask, "Will Protestants be saved?" Remember in Acts when the question, "what must I do to be saved?" was asked. What was the answer?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:29-31.

This applies to both Catholics and Protestants, Jude.

By the way, that charismatic priest I spoke of - he was truly saved, and loved Jesus as much as any man I know.


Dear Crusader:

Ok, you believe your charismatic priest was truly saved, and loved Jesus as much as any man you know.

That is entirely possible that he convinced you of that. May I ask you a few quesitions though?

(1) WHY DID HE REMAIN A ROMAN CATHOLIC, IF HE WAS TRULY SAVED, AND LOVED JESUS?

(2) Why have Tens of thousands of other former Roman Catholics, including myself, upon being saved - had to depart and separate from the false Religion of Romanism, according to Revelation 18:4? Remember, Jesus warned: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9).

(3) Is Roman Catholicism Biblical? Isn't it a religion comprised of traditions of men which violate scripture at ever turn? Do you care?

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (I Corinthians 10:14)

[Joe Gofish]

Dear 1.61803399:


You asked me what are the marks of a Cult.

First- a Cult is a "religious system" and the number one mark for me is the one thing that every false religious system and cult that exists today has in common. That is a religious works based system of salvation.

Second- A leader that assumes God-like authority over its members, like we find in popery, which leads its members into faddish devotion.

Third- A Cult provides its members with an escape from reality. "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast..." (Rev. 17:3). The reality of the Word of God is set aside for the false reality of man-made traditions and doctrines of fallible religious men (the magisterium).

Fourth- A Cult that acknowledges Jesus Christ, will have a different Jesus. What do I mean by that? The Jesus of the Bible is an all-sufficient savior. He paid it all, when it comes to our salvation. The Religious cults will have a Jesus that can only do part of the saving, while the cult member must do the rest.


Personal Credo:

Having been born and raised a Roman Catholic, educated in Roman Catholic schools, served the Roman Catholic church in the mass for many years. I spent 27 years in the church of Rome. On August 29, 1977, I heard the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the very first time. I believed ON Christ and fully trusted Him and Him alone for salvation. I was born-again that day, delivered from sin and from false man made religion.

My personal creed is called the Holy Bible!

My ministry is to evangelize all the lost, especially those trapped in false religion. To "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


Since you want to suggest things that I should do, may I in turn suggest something for you to do, fair enough?

Since your eternal destiny rests in the hands of the Roman Catholic religion, it is vital that you learn how the official Roman Cathoic doctrines stack up against the Holy Scriptures. DO THEY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER? So, my request to you is this: Get a copy of the 803 page Roman Catholic Catechism and compare its teachings with the Holy Bible. You will be surprised at the difference if you are honest!
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has
faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no
food for the day,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm,
and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the
body, what good is it?
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is
dead.
18 Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have
works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will
demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the
demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without
works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he
offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works,
and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and

he was called "the friend of God."
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by
faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also
justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent
them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also
faith without works is dead.

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

Ok, you believe your charismatic priest was truly saved, and loved Jesus as much as any man you know.

That is entirely possible that he convinced you of that. May I ask you a few quesitions though?

(1) WHY DID HE REMAIN A ROMAN CATHOLIC, IF HE WAS TRULY SAVED, AND LOVED JESUS?

(2) Why have Tens of thousands of other former Roman Catholics, including myself, upon being saved - had to depart and separate from the false Religion of Romanism, according to Revelation 18:4? Remember, Jesus warned: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9).

(3) Is Roman Catholicism Biblical? Isn't it a religion comprised of traditions of men which violate scripture at ever turn? Do you care?

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (I Corinthians 10:14)

Jude, do you also believe that Anglo-Catholics are lost and going to perdition? If so, then I suppose I should have fled from the Anglican Church when I was 28 (the year I was saved)! But, I did not, and God used me in many ways while I remained in my denomination.

Not everybody is like you, Jude. Let the Holy Spirit lead each believer. Some believers are in the Roman Catholic Church, some in the Protestant Churches, some in home churches. The Holy Spirit knows each man's heart.

Our job is not to make clones of ourselves - our job is to love the Lord Jesus and to fulfill our calling in Christ, whatever that might be. Wait on God, Jude - that's not easy, but it is Scriptural.

[Jude3b]

Jude, do you also believe that Anglo-Catholics are lost and going to perdition? If so, then I suppose I should have fled from the Anglican Church when I was 28 (the year I was saved)! But, I did not, and God used me in many ways while I remained in my denomination.

Not everybody is like you, Jude. Let the Holy Spirit lead each believer. Some believers are in the Roman Catholic Church, some in the Protestant Churches, some in home churches. The Holy Spirit knows each man's heart.

Our job is not to make clones of ourselves - our job is to love the Lord Jesus and to fulfill our calling in Christ, whatever that might be. Wait on God, Jude - that's not easy, but it is Scriptural.

Dear Crusader:

You are not answering my question, again your just voicing your opinion. I asked you a very reasonable question. Why did your friend who you say loved Jesus more than any one you have ever known, continue to remain in a false religion?

Why did you remain in a catholic church after you were saved? Didn't your realize they were teaching false doctrine? You eventually came out, didn't you? Or are you still part of the "unclean thing?"

[Chytraeus]

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

You started out fairly good. In discussions with the unorthodox we do not need to spend a lot of time on unessential points unless the unorthodox insist that we agree with them. Since there is no real unity on the table right now, they have no power to do that.

However, you conclude that we need to focus on what unites us rather than what devides us. This pretends that none of the issues that devide us are important ones. The ones you mentioned are very important, as a preson who really takes the Catholic doctrine to heart has no faith in Christ Jesus for their salvation, and are therefore eternally condemned. If we, who know the truth, stand aside and say nothing as these millions wander blindly into eternal hell fire, then we are just as guilty for their deaths as are those who taught them the false Christ stealing doctrine.

So, what my contention has always been with our friend Jude is that he gets all wound around the axil about unimportant details or actually attacks them in areas where they are right, while missing the big picture. Also, I have never heard of one person who was won over by being constantly bashed over the head and called a heritic. It is one thing to be interested in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel against heresy, it is another to do so in such a way there every person reading the posts feels personally insulted and condemned.

Christ only condemned the Pharisees during the last year of his earthly ministry. Until then He was fairly gentle with them, guiding, proding, teaching. But when they began to plot to have him put to death, He knew that they would not be taught the truth, so He pronounced the 7 woes against them. Jude opens with condemnations and says that he is doing so in love and following the example of Christ. He is self-decived.

[Jude3b]

You started out fairly good. In discussions with the unorthodox we do not need to spend a lot of time on unessential points unless the unorthodox insist that we agree with them. Since there is no real unity on the table right now, they have no power to do that.

However, you conclude that we need to focus on what unites us rather than what devides us. This pretends that none of the issues that devide us are important ones. The ones you mentioned are very important, as a preson who really takes the Catholic doctrine to heart has no faith in Christ Jesus for their salvation, and are therefore eternally condemned. If we, who know the truth, stand aside and say nothing as these millions wander blindly into eternal hell fire, then we are just as guilty for their deaths as are those who taught them the false Christ stealing doctrine.

So, what my contention has always been with our friend Jude is that he gets all wound around the axil about unimportant details or actually attacks them in areas where they are right, while missing the big picture. Also, I have never heard of one person who was won over by being constantly bashed over the head and called a heritic. It is one thing to be interested in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel against heresy, it is another to do so in such a way there every person reading the posts feels personally insulted and condemned.

Christ only condemned the Pharisees during the last year of his earthly ministry. Until then He was fairly gentle with them, guiding, proding, teaching. But when they began to plot to have him put to death, He knew that they would not be taught the truth, so He pronounced the 7 woes against them. Jude opens with condemnations and says that he is doing so in love and following the example of Christ. He is self-decived.



Dear Chytraeus:

Do you really consider me to be hateful towards the Roman Catholics, because I tell them the truth? Perhaps it is you who are deceived about the intents of my heart.

You and Crusader and many others insist that I am against Roman Catholics. I am not! I Love Roman Catholics and I have cried my heart out to God for their salvation. I pray for them, do you?

I present - Jesus Christ and His Gospel here on TWEB and that is the only message that can spare Roman Catholics (and all people - you and I included!) from an eternity in the lake of fire. THAT's NOT HATE! THAT's TRUE LOVE!

I want all Roman Catholics to receive the gift of eternal life. I want them to be set free from from the false religion that enslaves them. That's not hate! That's true love!

I want all Roman Catholics to experience the joy and peace that only the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can give. That's not hate! That's true love!

Roman Catholics have an enemy and its not me. His name is Satan and a lot of religious people who work for him. He hates you and me and them and wants all of us and them to burn in hell forever.

Satan knows that to devour someone, he must keep them from obeying God's Word. That is why he invented Roman Catholicism and every other religion! How? First, he creates a religion, complete with all the religious trappings to make it appear authentic.

Nex't he formulates unbiblical doctrines that members must perform. People become so busy obeying the rituals, traditions, rules, sacraments and doctrines of their religion, that often they never find Christ.

On the Issue of Mary being a perpetual Virgin: Here is why it is so significant:

Satan's religions denigrate Jesus Christ. The devil hates Jesus and knows that He is the only way to heaven (see John 14:6). Therefore, Satan will create false doctrines about Mary, so that he can keep people's eyes off the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, Satan's plan has worked like a charm for him, when it comes to Romanism. Please don't underestimate Satan. He is the master deceiver, intent on taking everyone he can to Hell! (See Rev. 12:9).

Please Chytraeus, Crusader and all Roman Catholics reading this post:

DON'T LET THE DEVIL DECEIVE YOU ANY LONGER. HE IS YOUR REAL ENEMY, NOT ME!

Satan is using religion to keep everyone he can away from Jesus Christ and His Word. Please don't let him keep you away any longer.

Turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set you free.

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5-6)

From, the Roman Catholic lover...

[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?

What bible are you reading ?? Please give me the chapter and verse that said Mary gave birth to other Children.
Thats not what the Bible has to sayiTS THE bIBLE ACCORDING TO JUDE,Just like the JW with their Bible according to Russell

[Jude3b]

Jude, do you also believe that Anglo-Catholics are lost and going to perdition? If so, then I suppose I should have fled from the Anglican Church when I was 28 (the year I was saved)! But, I did not, and God used me in many ways while I remained in my denomination.

Not everybody is like you, Jude. Let the Holy Spirit lead each believer. Some believers are in the Roman Catholic Church, some in the Protestant Churches, some in home churches. The Holy Spirit knows each man's heart.

Our job is not to make clones of ourselves - our job is to love the Lord Jesus and to fulfill our calling in Christ, whatever that might be. Wait on God, Jude - that's not easy, but it is Scriptural.


Dear Crusader:

A person is lost unles Jesus Christ is their personal Lord and Savior. Religion cannot save anyone and often will keep people from seeing the true Savior. I do not know if the Anglo-Catholics you are referring to are saved or not. Only God knows their hearts, I don't.

The only question I would have for them is this: If they are truly saved, why are they remaining "Anglo-Catholics?"

[Joe Gofish]

Dear 1.61803399:


You asked me what are the marks of a Cult.

First- a Cult is a "religious system" and the number one mark for me is the one thing that every false religious system and cult that exists today has in common. That is a religious works based system of salvation.

Second- A leader that assumes God-like authority over its members, like we find in popery, which leads its members into faddish devotion.

Third- A Cult provides its members with an escape from reality. "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast..." (Rev. 17:3). The reality of the Word of God is set aside for the false reality of man-made traditions and doctrines of fallible religious men (the magisterium).

Fourth- A Cult that acknowledges Jesus Christ, will have a different Jesus. What do I mean by that? The Jesus of the Bible is an all-sufficient savior. He paid it all, when it comes to our salvation. The Religious cults will have a Jesus that can only do part of the saving, while the cult member must do the rest.


Personal Credo:

Having been born and raised a Roman Catholic, educated in Roman Catholic schools, served the Roman Catholic church in the mass for many years. I spent 27 years in the church of Rome. On August 29, 1977, I heard the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the very first time. I believed ON Christ and fully trusted Him and Him alone for salvation. I was born-again that day, delivered from sin and from false man made religion.

My personal creed is called the Holy Bible!

My ministry is to evangelize all the lost, especially those trapped in false religion. To "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


Since you want to suggest things that I should do, may I in turn suggest something for you to do, fair enough?

Since your eternal destiny rests in the hands of the Roman Catholic religion, it is vital that you learn how the official Roman Cathoic doctrines stack up against the Holy Scriptures. DO THEY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER? So, my request to you is this: Get a copy of the 803 page Roman Catholic Catechism and compare its teachings with the Holy Bible. You will be surprised at the difference if you are honest!
You know it is very funny that the reformers all believe what the CC has been teaching about Mary,and for 1500 years all of Christianity did also believe thats Ulrich Zwingli,John Calvin and Martin Luther all believe the same things about Mary,
And this screwball JUDE will tell you he believe Calvin "once saved always saved" but will not believe any thing else the man has to say,but then he does the some thing with the Bible he picks and chooses

[Joe Gofish]

Jude, do you also believe that Anglo-Catholics are lost and going to perdition? If so, then I suppose I should have fled from the Anglican Church when I was 28 (the year I was saved)! But, I did not, and God used me in many ways while I remained in my denomination.

Not everybody is like you, Jude. Let the Holy Spirit lead each believer. Some believers are in the Roman Catholic Church, some in the Protestant Churches, some in home churches. The Holy Spirit knows each man's heart.

Our job is not to make clones of ourselves - our job is to love the Lord Jesus and to fulfill our calling in Christ, whatever that might be. Wait on God, Jude - that's not easy, but it is Scriptural.
First of all Jude cannot send any one to hell,people send themself to hell not a scewball with the handle of JUDE,Not one church can send a person to hell.
JUDE just thinks he is a god.
Belonging to the Catholic church ,the baptist or the Luthern will not send any one to hell.

[Chytraeus]

Dear Chytraeus:

Do you really consider me to be hateful towards the Roman Catholics, because I tell them the truth? Perhaps it is you who are deceived about the intents of my heart.

You and Crusader and many others insist that I am against Roman Catholics. I am not! I Love Roman Catholics and I have cried my heart out to God for their salvation. I pray for them, do you?

Yes, I not only pray for individual Catholics, I pray for the whole church. You say that you are not their enemy, but the devil is. I agree with you. However, you have unwittingly been used as a tool of the devil. Through your ranting he makes the Gospel stink in the noses of the Roman Catholics who read them. Like Jack Trick, you rant and bash endlessly about every little doctrine you think they have wrong, while missing the really important points.

It is not important wheather or not anyone believes that Mary was perpetually a virgin. What matters is that the Roman church has called her the Queen of heaven, co-mediatrix, and are even considering giving her the title co-redemtrix. Now, those things are important, for as you have correctly pointed out, for we have only one mediator, Christ Jesus, and heaven only has a King, not a queen. Certainly only Christ is Redeemer.

However, in order to win anyone over, you have to learn from the lessons of Luther. He tended to argue as you do, with strong language and occasional name calling when someone appeared to be very resistant to plain logic. As a result he alienated all those he sought to win over. No one has ever agnolized and prayed for the conversion of Roman Catholics like Luther, but also no one was more unsuitable for convincing any of them of their error. The more he argued the more entrenched they became in their positions. I see the same happening with you on this site on a regular basis.

Also, in your arguing against all things Roman Catholic, you call ungodly and unbiblical several things that are actually quite godly and biblical, just because the Roman Catholics do it. A thing does not become unbiblical just because a church with errors does it. They would not be a church if they did not have some things right, and it has been my argument that they do. But you seem to think that everything they do is wrong, and that is where you go wrong.

[Jude3b]

Yes, I not only pray for individual Catholics, I pray for the whole church. You say that you are not their enemy, but the devil is. I agree with you. However, you have unwittingly been used as a tool of the devil. Through your ranting he makes the Gospel stink in the noses of the Roman Catholics who read them. Like Jack Trick, you rant and bash endlessly about every little doctrine you think they have wrong, while missing the really important points.

It is not important wheather or not anyone believes that Mary was perpetually a virgin. What matters is that the Roman church has called her the Queen of heaven, co-mediatrix, and are even considering giving her the title co-redemtrix. Now, those things are important, for as you have correctly pointed out, for we have only one mediator, Christ Jesus, and heaven only has a King, not a queen. Certainly only Christ is Redeemer.

However, in order to win anyone over, you have to learn from the lessons of Luther. He tended to argue as you do, with strong language and occasional name calling when someone appeared to be very resistant to plain logic. As a result he alienated all those he sought to win over. No one has ever agnolized and prayed for the conversion of Roman Catholics like Luther, but also no one was more unsuitable for convincing any of them of their error. The more he argued the more entrenched they became in their positions. I see the same happening with you on this site on a regular basis.

Also, in your arguing against all things Roman Catholic, you call ungodly and unbiblical several things that are actually quite godly and biblical, just because the Roman Catholics do it. A thing does not become unbiblical just because a church with errors does it. They would not be a church if they did not have some things right, and it has been my argument that they do. But you seem to think that everything they do is wrong, and that is where you go wrong.


Dear Chytraeus:

Thank you for your post. I can tell you speak the things you do out of Love and concern and I appreciate that.

We do however disagree on some things. I do not see Roman Catholicism as a valid church and I really don't believe anyone who truly spends time reading and studying the Bible, the church of God - the body of Christ - the ekklesia, could come to any other conclusion. Rather, than being a valid church - Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit - created by Satan to confuse people and steep them in false religion. It is comprised of traditions of religious fallible men which violate scripture at every turn, instead of the reality of Jesus Christ and HIS one and only true church - the church of God -the body of Christ.

As far as my majoring on minors, in your opinion. Any Roman Catholic doctrine that helps to make an idol out of Romanism - instead of leading someone to the truth of the Gospel of Christ, is not a minor issue. Romanism has a whole Catechism full of false doctrine. It is full of an endless list of complicated and often confusing rules which all Roman Catholics must perform and follow, in order to please their religion and be a good Roman Catholic. The Bible, on the other hand, is simple, straightforward, consistent and easy to understand and leads men to Christ.

In comparing me to the former Roman Catholic - Martin Luther: you state he could not convince any of the errors of Romanism and the truth of the Gospel. I really have to disagree with that one. Gosh, He is one of the leaders of the Reformation and there is a whole Protestant denomination named after him. How many Lutherans are there anyway?

[Chytraeus]

Well, we are two of the five largest "denominations" in the US. Of course, since the largest one is still unsure if God really wrote the Bible and if He really meant the things He said against sexual immorality, I'm not sure they still count. We are the second largest group of Christians in the world, second only to the Roman Catholics.

However, most of those who were first called Lutherans were close friends, students, and lay people. It seems that in the early years a fair number of priests and theological teachers believed as Luther did, but he never converted a Bishop or a Cardinal. In fact, this caused a crisis for the Evangelicals, as they called themselves, when they were excommunicated by the Pope. They had held to the belief that only Bishops could ordain priests, and now they had no Bishops who would ordain new priests. This crisis lead Luther to realize that there was no biblical distinction between bishops, as the term was used in his day, and ordinary priests. In fact, Luther soon came to understand that the so-called Bishops were less biblical than the priests, since they never preached the Gospel and rarely administered any sacrament other than ordination (although they presided over all baptisms and eucharistic celebrations).

That is beside the point, but the fact is, the more vehement Luther got, the more insulting he got, the less he was able to get through to any of them. They shut him off as an uneducated oaf with a foul temper and an uncouth pen and mouth. His zeal was well intended, but the softer spoken Melenchthon was more tolerable. It is no accident of history that Luther actually penned very few of the doctrinal statements used by the Lutheran Churches today. His softer spoken friend, Phillip Melenchthon wrote most of the early ones, and Martin Chemnitz and David Chytraeus, considered moderates in their day, wrote the later ones.

You are an extremist, and are seen as such by those you argue with. As such, you will hardly ever win those arguments, for you will be shut out long before you have ever made your point. Also, you have a problem with really paying attention to the arguments made against you. Instead of dealing with the actual beliefs of those people, you deal with the straw men you have created in your mind.

Again, there is nothing in the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary that contradicts the Gospel. It is entirely possible to believe that Mary was always a virgin and still trust in Christ alone for salvation. Nearly all the early reformers believed in the eternal virginity of Mary, but they did not pray to her, did not call her the queen of heaven, did not pay reverence to her.

Last week I was watching an apologetic show on Catholic Television that hoasted several prominant converts to Catholicism. In dealing with the position given to Mary in the RC church, they almost all presented a very misleading falsehood. They claimed that the position given to Mary in the RCC was as the best example of what a Christian should be like. She was submissive to the will of God for her, even though it meant that she would be rediculed and slandered as an adulteris. We should also be submissive to the will of God even if it means that we will lose our good reputations among our friends. She carried the incarnate God in her womb, and we should carry Christ in our lives. They went on to give other examples of how Mary embodies all that we should strive to be as Christians.

Here is the problem. What they said about Mary is entirely true, she is the finest example of what we should all be as Christians. If that was all that the RCC did, then there would be no problem with their doctrine of Mary. There would even be no problem if they continued to claim that she was always a virgin and had no other children. But they claim that she is a mediator to whom we should go to interceed with her Son, because He is too fearsome to come to himself. They do not believe that Jesus has humbled himself to be as one of us in all things, so they need some one who is more like us than He is to mediate between us and Him. They also give her the position of co-redeemer, since salvatio would not be possible if she had not given her "fiat." That is, she had to say, "Let it be to your handmaiden as you have said," in oder for the Christ to be conceived in her womb. They deny that the Word of God spoken to her by the angel Gabriel was effective to bring about the very thing it spoke of, the incarnation of the Father's eternal Son in her womb, so they place the word of Mary over the Word of God. They also call her the queen of heaven and the mother of all believers, making her not only a symbol of the eternal Chruch of God, but elevating the type over the anit-type. Mary is certainly a type of the Chruch, but it is the Church that is the Bride of Christ, and if heaven is to have a queen, it would be the Church, not Mary who typified it in so many ways.

This is what I mean about majoring in minors. The perpetual virginity is very insignificant compared to these false teachings. And what is worse, these false teachings are being misrepresented by those who promote the RCC to American Christians to seem less significant than they are. A few years ago the RCC celebrated the "Year of the Eucharist" which caused the production of a number of very well written theologies of the Eucharist. But for every good one, there was one that encouraged us to see the Eucharist through the eyes of Mary, the Mother of the Church. Rather, see the Eucharist through they eyes of the Church, our true Mother, for, as Augustine said, whoever does not have the Church for his mother does not have God for his Father.

Please let this one die a quiet death and deal with some of those, much more serious false teachings. Is it not reasonable to think that the woman who realized she had borne in her womb the very Son of God would never want that space to be inhabited by any lesser son? Would you ever use the sanctuary of your church for a dance party or a fast food restaurant? I know of some churches who do not really believe in holiness or the presence of God in worship who will allow their sanctuaries to be used for so-called Christian Rock concerts, but I hope that you are not of their ilk. I would never think of using the chalice from which I receive the eucharistic wine for drinking beer or Coke. One should not take a bath in the baptismal font.

This is not to say that I believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin, but I can understand that many who believe she was do not do so out of reverance for Mary, but out of reverance for Christ, that the womb used for housing the Son of God should never be used for pleasure or for birthing lesser sons. In painting such large strokes you condemn those who revere the Lord along with those who worship Mary, and you make no distinction. You do the same thing in your arguments against a sacramental understanding of baptism and the eucharist. Because the Catholics call the sacraments works performed by man, you assume that all who call them sacraments believe the same thing. No matter how many times I have told you that I believe they are works of God, you still argue that they cannot fogive me of my sins because salvation is by faith and not by works. That argument just does not work against me, since I do not believe they are works, but they are divine actions of God, who alone saves me. But you cannot see the distinction and keep arguing against the same straw man.

I pray that you would learn to let the Word of God alone shape your doctrine, and not reason, and certainly not distaste for the Roman Catholic church. Believe what the Bible says about things, and not just what seems to be possible.

[Jude3b]

Well, we are two of the five largest "denominations" in the US. Of course, since the largest one is still unsure if God really wrote the Bible and if He really meant the things He said against sexual immorality, I'm not sure they still count. We are the second largest group of Christians in the world, second only to the Roman Catholics.

However, most of those who were first called Lutherans were close friends, students, and lay people. It seems that in the early years a fair number of priests and theological teachers believed as Luther did, but he never converted a Bishop or a Cardinal. In fact, this caused a crisis for the Evangelicals, as they called themselves, when they were excommunicated by the Pope. They had held to the belief that only Bishops could ordain priests, and now they had no Bishops who would ordain new priests. This crisis lead Luther to realize that there was no biblical distinction between bishops, as the term was used in his day, and ordinary priests. In fact, Luther soon came to understand that the so-called Bishops were less biblical than the priests, since they never preached the Gospel and rarely administered any sacrament other than ordination (although they presided over all baptisms and eucharistic celebrations).

That is beside the point, but the fact is, the more vehement Luther got, the more insulting he got, the less he was able to get through to any of them. They shut him off as an uneducated oaf with a foul temper and an uncouth pen and mouth. His zeal was well intended, but the softer spoken Melenchthon was more tolerable. It is no accident of history that Luther actually penned very few of the doctrinal statements used by the Lutheran Churches today. His softer spoken friend, Phillip Melenchthon wrote most of the early ones, and Martin Chemnitz and David Chytraeus, considered moderates in their day, wrote the later ones.

You are an extremist, and are seen as such by those you argue with. As such, you will hardly ever win those arguments, for you will be shut out long before you have ever made your point. Also, you have a problem with really paying attention to the arguments made against you. Instead of dealing with the actual beliefs of those people, you deal with the straw men you have created in your mind.

Again, there is nothing in the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary that contradicts the Gospel. It is entirely possible to believe that Mary was always a virgin and still trust in Christ alone for salvation. Nearly all the early reformers believed in the eternal virginity of Mary, but they did not pray to her, did not call her the queen of heaven, did not pay reverence to her.

Last week I was watching an apologetic show on Catholic Television that hoasted several prominant converts to Catholicism. In dealing with the position given to Mary in the RC church, they almost all presented a very misleading falsehood. They claimed that the position given to Mary in the RCC was as the best example of what a Christian should be like. She was submissive to the will of God for her, even though it meant that she would be rediculed and slandered as an adulteris. We should also be submissive to the will of God even if it means that we will lose our good reputations among our friends. She carried the incarnate God in her womb, and we should carry Christ in our lives. They went on to give other examples of how Mary embodies all that we should strive to be as Christians.

Here is the problem. What they said about Mary is entirely true, she is the finest example of what we should all be as Christians. If that was all that the RCC did, then there would be no problem with their doctrine of Mary. There would even be no problem if they continued to claim that she was always a virgin and had no other children. But they claim that she is a mediator to whom we should go to interceed with her Son, because He is too fearsome to come to himself. They do not believe that Jesus has humbled himself to be as one of us in all things, so they need some one who is more like us than He is to mediate between us and Him. They also give her the position of co-redeemer, since salvatio would not be possible if she had not given her "fiat." That is, she had to say, "Let it be to your handmaiden as you have said," in oder for the Christ to be conceived in her womb. They deny that the Word of God spoken to her by the angel Gabriel was effective to bring about the very thing it spoke of, the incarnation of the Father's eternal Son in her womb, so they place the word of Mary over the Word of God. They also call her the queen of heaven and the mother of all believers, making her not only a symbol of the eternal Chruch of God, but elevating the type over the anit-type. Mary is certainly a type of the Chruch, but it is the Church that is the Bride of Christ, and if heaven is to have a queen, it would be the Church, not Mary who typified it in so many ways.

This is what I mean about majoring in minors. The perpetual virginity is very insignificant compared to these false teachings. And what is worse, these false teachings are being misrepresented by those who promote the RCC to American Christians to seem less significant than they are. A few years ago the RCC celebrated the "Year of the Eucharist" which caused the production of a number of very well written theologies of the Eucharist. But for every good one, there was one that encouraged us to see the Eucharist through the eyes of Mary, the Mother of the Church. Rather, see the Eucharist through they eyes of the Church, our true Mother, for, as Augustine said, whoever does not have the Church for his mother does not have God for his Father.

Please let this one die a quiet death and deal with some of those, much more serious false teachings. Is it not reasonable to think that the woman who realized she had borne in her womb the very Son of God would never want that space to be inhabited by any lesser son? Would you ever use the sanctuary of your church for a dance party or a fast food restaurant? I know of some churches who do not really believe in holiness or the presence of God in worship who will allow their sanctuaries to be used for so-called Christian Rock concerts, but I hope that you are not of their ilk. I would never think of using the chalice from which I receive the eucharistic wine for drinking beer or Coke. One should not take a bath in the baptismal font.

This is not to say that I believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin, but I can understand that many who believe she was do not do so out of reverance for Mary, but out of reverance for Christ, that the womb used for housing the Son of God should never be used for pleasure or for birthing lesser sons. In painting such large strokes you condemn those who revere the Lord along with those who worship Mary, and you make no distinction. You do the same thing in your arguments against a sacramental understanding of baptism and the eucharist. Because the Catholics call the sacraments works performed by man, you assume that all who call them sacraments believe the same thing. No matter how many times I have told you that I believe they are works of God, you still argue that they cannot fogive me of my sins because salvation is by faith and not by works. That argument just does not work against me, since I do not believe they are works, but they are divine actions of God, who alone saves me. But you cannot see the distinction and keep arguing against the same straw man.

I pray that you would learn to let the Word of God alone shape your doctrine, and not reason, and certainly not distaste for the Roman Catholic church. Believe what the Bible says about things, and not just what seems to be possible.


Dear Chytraeus:

Well, you covered a lot of territory.

Nevertheless, you somewhat remind me of something my wife once said to me:

I told her, "Our problem is that we're just not communicating."

She responded: "I don't want to discuss it!"

SO,

I will not make this a long post. Just a short comment about Romanism and its sin of Maryolatry.

I would like to note that the Mary of the Bible, the Mary of the 1st century A.D., the Mary of the church of God - the body of Christ, was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah.

The Mary of the 20th and 21st century seems to be a goddess created by the Roman Catholic religion.

A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic religion teaches about her will reveal two very different Marys.

MARY IS NOT the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman.

In closing, I will continue to challenge any teaching of Roman Catholicism on any subject that cannot be backed up by the Word of God. If it cannot be supported by the Scriptures, it is a false doctrine. False Doctrines do not lead men to Christ. They distract men and lead them into a false religion that will only take them to a Devil's Hell.

[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?

We know that all JUDE does is rant and rave and will never answer a question so lets try one more time, JUDE Please give me the chapter and verse that said Mary give birth to other children beside Jesus.
I KNOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ BUT THE BIBLE NEVER SAID MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN Unless to are still talking about the Bible according to JUDE which I do not beliebe,just like I do not believe the Bible according to Russell.
I will be waiting for your answer

[Jude3b]

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.


Dear Mujibur:

So, what Protestant churches teach that Mary is a perpetual Virgin? Certainly they are not Bible based denominations, because that doctrine is not taught in the Bible.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Mujibur:

So, what Protestant churches teach that Mary is a perpetual Virgin? Certainly they are not Bible based denominations, because that doctrine is not taught in the Bible.
Sorry JUDE but once again I do not see your answer to my question,WHY,why can you not answer a question because you are WRONG.
The bible never said Marry give birth to other Children and if Jesus had other brothers why did Jesus tell JOHN to watch over His mother and not one of His brothers,unless the gospel of JUDE thinks Jesus went against Jewish Law. I "d love to be there when you tell Jesus how you bash His mother and His Church.
ANSWER THE QUESTION ???????????????????????????? IF YOU CAN

[Jude3b]

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.

Dear Anthony:


Do you have any Bible verses that tell us that Mary is a perpetual Virgin?

Do you have any Bible verses to indicate that she never had any additional children after Jesus, by her husband Joseph?

Do you have any Bible verses to indicate that Mary would never consumate here marriage with her husband Joseph and that she would never really be a wife to him, in the normal physical way?

[1.61803399]

Dear Anthony:


Do you have any Bible verses that tell us that Mary is a perpetual Virgin?

Do you have any Bible verses to indicate that she never had any additional children after Jesus, by her husband Joseph?

Do you have any Bible verses to indicate that Mary would never consumate here marriage with her husband Joseph and that she would never really be a wife to him, in the normal physical way?

And are you dodging Joe's request for a direct verse saying that Mary had children?

I should be a dentist, at least you know the tooth will eventually come out!

Statio IV
Iesus fit perdolenti Matri obvius
V. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R. Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Considera qualis fuerit, in hac via, Filii et Matris occursus. Iesus et Maria se mutuo aspexerunt, mutuique eorum aspectus, fuerunt totidem sagittae, quibus amantia eorum pectora transverberabantur.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Chytraeus:

Thank you for your post. I can tell you speak the things you do out of Love and concern and I appreciate that.

We do however disagree on some things. I do not see Roman Catholicism as a valid church and I really don't believe anyone who truly spends time reading and studying the Bible, the church of God - the body of Christ - the ekklesia, could come to any other conclusion. Rather, than being a valid church - Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit - created by Satan to confuse people and steep them in false religion. It is comprised of traditions of religious fallible men which violate scripture at every turn, instead of the reality of Jesus Christ and HIS one and only true church - the church of God -the body of Christ.

As far as my majoring on minors, in your opinion. Any Roman Catholic doctrine that helps to make an idol out of Romanism - instead of leading someone to the truth of the Gospel of Christ, is not a minor issue. Romanism has a whole Catechism full of false doctrine. It is full of an endless list of complicated and often confusing rules which all Roman Catholics must perform and follow, in order to please their religion and be a good Roman Catholic. The Bible, on the other hand, is simple, straightforward, consistent and easy to understand and leads men to Christ.

In comparing me to the former Roman Catholic - Martin Luther: you state he could not convince any of the errors of Romanism and the truth of the Gospel. I really have to disagree with that one. Gosh, He is one of the leaders of the Reformation and there is a whole Protestant denomination named after him. How many Lutherans are there anyway?
Then JUDE why do you not believe in what Luther,Calvin and Zwingli had to say about Mary the Mother of God. When you say you are confused you are right on the money

[Jude3b]

And are you dodging Joe's request for a direct verse saying that Mary had children?

I should be a dentist, at least you know the tooth will eventually come out!

Statio IV
Iesus fit perdolenti Matri obvius
V. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R. Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Considera qualis fuerit, in hac via, Filii et Matris occursus. Iesus et Maria se mutuo aspexerunt, mutuique eorum aspectus, fuerunt totidem sagittae, quibus amantia eorum pectora transverberabantur.

Dear 1/61803399:

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)

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Mark 6:3).

These verses so clearly indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was married to Joseph. He was a real man and she was a real woman. Married people in that culture would consumate their marriage with sex and often that would lead to having children.

Would it logical for Mary to deny Joseph the rights of a Husband in the Marriage? Is there a single verse in all the Bible to indicate that Mary and Joseph would never consumate their marriage?

Would it be logical for the Bible to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and make up a story that Mary and Joseph never had children? Is there a single verse anywhere in the Bible that would indicate that they never had children?

Is there a single verse anywhere in the Bible that would indicate that the Mary of the Bible is the same woman as the Perpetual Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic religion?

[1.61803399]

Dear 1/61803399:

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)

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Mark 6:3).

These verses so clearly indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was married to Joseph. He was a real man and she was a real woman. Married people in that ure would consumate their marriage with and often that would lead to having children.

Would it logical for Mary to deny Joseph the rights of a Husband in the Marriage? Is there a single verse in all the Bible to indicate that Mary and Joseph would never consumate their marriage?

Would it be logical for the Bible to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and make up a story that Mary and Joseph never had children? Is there a single verse anywhere in the Bible that would indicate that they never had children?

Is there a single verse anywhere in the Bible that would indicate that the Mary of the Bible is the same woman as the Perpetual Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic religion?

Allow me to work through your post in reverse.
any passage to indicate Mary... Lk 1:48, "and all generations will call me blessed"

Your posts do not state that these are Mary's children. It may be unBiblical, but you are unable to prove it to be directly contrary to Scripture. I have little hope of convinving you of anything, but for those reading I will explain why the Church holds as truth Mary's perpetual virginity.

Early tradition of the Church (first century) held that Mary had taken a vow of virginty 'for the sake of the kingdom'. Marriage to a widower or other upright man to act as protector was not uncommon for those in such a state. Therefore it is quite possible that this marriage was never consumated.

Alternatively; we can consider that for God to indwell in His creation, the creature that bore Him must be free from ALL stain. (hence Virgin Birth and Mary's Immaculate conception) What man would be worthy to share that womb, the very womb of the Incarnation? What man could have a right to that body in any way, that, through the Holy Spirit, conceived and nurtured our Lord?

Or again, from a more casusal approach; If you grew up in the same house of someone who claimed to be God incarnate, as a sibling, you would do your utmost to keep him quiet, would you not? His blasphemy could get him killed, and if he attracted the attention of the Romans, the whole family could be in jepordy.

Or from the cross; on the cross He gave care of Mary to John. John was the youngest of the Twelve and not even one of His 'brothers'. In the familial system, this would be disowning His 'brothers' (and Joseph, were he alive). It would fall to the oldest remaining son to provide for his mother, but here He is giving her to another's care. He also gives John to her care saying "Woman behold your son", another insult to any 'brothers'. All these obligations would have extended to Joseph's sons if they were raised with Jesus, so the 'brothers' are A) Joseph's grown sons at the time of the nativity, or B) relatives of the same generation as Christ, cousins.

c

Statio XI
Iesus clavis affigitur cruci
V. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R. Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Considera quomodo Iesus in crucem coniciatur, et extensis brachiis, vitam suam in sacrificium pro nostra salute aeterno Patri offerat. Carnifices clavis eum affigunt, dein erigunt crucem, et infami patibulo suffixum saevae morti permittunt.

[Jude3b]

Allow me to work through your post in reverse.
any passage to indicate Mary... Lk 1:48, "and all generations will call me blessed"

Your posts do not state that these are Mary's children. It may be unBiblical, but you are unable to prove it to be directly contrary to Scripture. I have little hope of convinving you of anything, but for those reading I will explain why the Church holds as truth Mary's perpetual virginity.

Early tradition of the Church (first century) held that Mary had taken a vow of virginty 'for the sake of the kingdom'. Marriage to a widower or other upright man to act as protector was not uncommon for those in such a state. Therefore it is quite possible that this marriage was never consumated.

Alternatively; we can consider that for God to indwell in His creation, the creature that bore Him must be free from ALL stain. (hence Virgin Birth and Mary's Immaculate conception) What man would be worthy to share that womb, the very womb of the Incarnation? What man could have a right to that body in any way, that, through the Holy Spirit, conceived and nurtured our Lord?

Or again, from a more casusal approach; If you grew up in the same house of someone who claimed to be God incarnate, as a sibling, you would do your utmost to keep him quiet, would you not? His blasphemy could get him killed, and if he attracted the attention of the Romans, the whole family could be in jepordy.

Or from the cross; on the cross He gave care of Mary to John. John was the youngest of the Twelve and not even one of His 'brothers'. In the familial system, this would be disowning His 'brothers' (and Joseph, were he alive). It would fall to the oldest remaining son to provide for his mother, but here He is giving her to another's care. He also gives John to her care saying "Woman behold your son", another insult to any 'brothers'. All these obligations would have extended to Joseph's sons if they were raised with Jesus, so the 'brothers' are A) Joseph's grown sons at the time of the nativity, or B) relatives of the same generation as Christ, cousins.

c

Statio XI
Iesus clavis affigitur cruci
V. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R. Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Considera quomodo Iesus in crucem coniciatur, et extensis brachiis, vitam suam in sacrificium pro nostra salute aeterno Patri offerat. Carnifices clavis eum affigunt, dein erigunt crucem, et infami patibulo suffixum saevae morti permittunt.


Amazing, all that opinion without one verse of scripture to back any of it up.

Have you no fear of God. Just make up stuff, adding and taking away from His Word and denying the clear teachings of the Word?

Since you are so very much into opinions that violate the Word of God, please explain:

1) Why is glory stolen from Jesus and given to Mary in the Roman Catholic religion?

2) If Mary is a perpetual virgin, why didn't God tell us that in His Word?

3) Was Mary sinless from Birth as Romanism teaches? If yes, why did Mary rejoice that God was her Saviour? Why does God's Word tell us that Mary was a sinner, when Romanism tells us she wasn't? (see Ecclesiastes 7:20 and Romans 5:12).

[Joe Gofish]

Yes, I not only pray for individual Catholics, I pray for the whole church. You say that you are not their enemy, but the devil is. I agree with you. However, you have unwittingly been used as a tool of the devil. Through your ranting he makes the Gospel stink in the noses of the Roman Catholics who read them. Like Jack Trick, you rant and bash endlessly about every little doctrine you think they have wrong, while missing the really important points.

It is not important wheather or not anyone believes that Mary was perpetually a virgin. What matters is that the Roman church has called her the Queen of heaven, co-mediatrix, and are even considering giving her the title co-redemtrix. Now, those things are important, for as you have correctly pointed out, for we have only one mediator, Christ Jesus, and heaven only has a King, not a queen. Certainly only Christ is Redeemer.

However, in order to win anyone over, you have to learn from the lessons of Luther. He tended to argue as you do, with strong language and occasional name calling when someone appeared to be very resistant to plain logic. As a result he alienated all those he sought to win over. No one has ever agnolized and prayed for the conversion of Roman Catholics like Luther, but also no one was more unsuitable for convincing any of them of their error. The more he argued the more entrenched they became in their positions. I see the same happening with you on this site on a regular basis.

Also, in your arguing against all things Roman Catholic, you call ungodly and unbiblical several things that are actually quite godly and biblical, just because the Roman Catholics do it. A thing does not become unbiblical just because a church with errors does it. They would not be a church if they did not have some things right, and it has been my argument that they do. But you seem to think that everything they do is wrong, and that is where you go wrong.
JUDE tells the truth just like the JW tell the truth,with the JW its the gospel acording to Russell and with JUde its the gospel according to Jude.
In fact I think Jude can twist the bible more then Russell.

[Jude3b]

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.


Dear Anthony:

If you really seek to know truth, why don't you consider reading the Bible first, instead of consulting the doctrines and creeds of religion?

[Jubilate Deo]

I recall reading in this thread that someone said that Catholics approach Mary as a Mediatrix because we are too afraid to approach Jesus.

This is not true.

There is one mediator--Christ--who can save us from our sins. Immaculate Mary does not have the power to do this, and even she, in her humility, must rejoice in God her savior.

However, it is because of Mary that Christ entered into the world, put on flesh and dwelt among us. He came into the world through the womb of Mary and so we as Catholics believe that it is the desire of Christ that souls should approach Him through the intercession of Mary. It's as simple as that.

We do not believe that it necessary to come to Christ through Mary, however, we do emphasize this type of spirituality as being especially perfect, because it is approaching Christ exactly as He chose to approach us.

You may also ask (and I think you have asked before in this thread), "Why does Mary rejoice in God her savior?"

Well, let me use this analogy. Say there's this really big hole, and I see you walking towards it. You don't see the hole, so you fall in, and you cry out "Save me!" So, I reach down and pull you out. There. I saved you. That's the ordinary way most people are saved... we are born with a sinful nature, we are baptized, we become Christian, we receive Christ's mercy, AFTER the fact.

Mary still received mercy, but in a different way. Let's use the giant hole analogy again. Say you're walking towards the hole, having no idea that you are about to fall in. So I say "YO JUDE, YOU ARE ABOUT TO FALL INTO A GIANT HOLE" and physically prevent you from falling in. I still saved you, even though you never actually fell. You are still indebted to me because I saved you. In the same way, Mary was saved because God did not allow her to fall into sin. He did this so that she could be a pure and holy vessel, fit to carry the Lord. (if you've read the Old Testament, you know how picky God was about the materials used to construct His dwelling place.)

Hope this helps. God bless!

[Jubilate Deo]

Dear Anthony:

If you really seek to know truth, why don't you consider reading the Bible first, instead of consulting the doctrines and creeds of religion?
Have you no respect for the ancient fathers of the Church, who decided what books went into the Bible? Have you no respect for the apostles, who fearlessly guarded the Church against error and persevered in the face of death? These are the people that actually knew Mary as a person, who dined with her at the table and called her "Mother."

[Jude3b]

Have you no respect for the ancient fathers of the Church, who decided what books went into the Bible? Have you no respect for the apostles, who fearlessly guarded the Church against error and persevered in the face of death? These are the people that actually knew Mary as a person, who dined with her at the table and called her "Mother."


Dear Jubilate Deo:

PART I: Church fathers:

You ask if I have respect for ancient church fathers?

If you are speaking about those that Roman Catholicism calls their "Early Church Fathers" THE ANSWER IS NO, I DO NOT HAVE RESPECT FOR THEM, WHY? Because your so-called "Saint" Jerome, "Saint" Origen, "Saint" Eusebius, "Saint" Irenaeus, etc. WERE NOT THE REAL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS!! Yes, they are really "fathers" of Roman Catholicism - the counterfeit and false apostate version of Christianity - but they are not the real church fathers of the church of God - the body of Christ!

If you want to be Roman Catholic, go ahead and read their books and their perversions of the Scriptures.

But, If you want to be a Christian - read the books of the REAL CHURCH FATHERS:

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, JAMES, JUDE, PETER AND PAUL!!! These are the men I respect! These are the true church fathers! These are the men who followed Christ and did what He said and wrote down the Books of the New Testament for us to have today.

If you want to be a true Christian - read their books!


PART II: Mary:

First let me clearly state this: Mary-worshpers are Roman Catholics - not Christians!

Satan is a clever rascal! Only his priests were "qualified" to interpret Jerome's fake "Latin Vulgate Bible," which was finished in 405 AD. That was only 21 years after the completed official formation of Roman Catholicism and the creation of the first "pope" of Romanism. Siricius (384 AD - 399 AD) was the first Roman Bishop to call himself "Pontifex Maximus" and a new term, "Pope" (papa). Now pagan Rome became the so-called "holy" city. The pope now had the religious powers of Caesar and claimed to rule the "church."

The pope declared that they needed their own Bible. Satan had the perfect man: a monk named JEROME. One of the men, destined to be "an early church father of Roman Catholicism." From 382 AD to 405 AD, Jerome worked on his rewrite of the true Old Latin Bible, using the Greek Counterfeit of Origen - the so-called "Septuagint and consulting with Jewish rabbis in Bethlehem." By 405 AD, your wonderful Roman Catholic church father, "Saint" Jerome had finished his Latin perversion of the Bible. The final insult was the name of Jerome's disaster: They called it the "Roman Catholic LATIN VULGATE!!"

The early Roman Catholics became further deceived by the phony Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate bible.

By 432 AD, pope Celestine I (422 AD - 432 AD) would turn Mary into a "goddess." His Council started to call Mary - the "mother of God" (Greek, theotokos).

All the changes that were taking place gave Romanism a Counterfeit leader - the pope. It gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Mary to worship. It gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Jesus wafer god. And it gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Latin Vulgate Bible. All this helped lead to the day when Roman Catholic priests would start ruling over the people like they were little gods.

That is when the popes made everyone worship the fake Mary. From 432 AD, Maryolatry started to grow and it continues to grow, even today. Romanism has gone so far as to declare Mary as "the Queen over all things:"

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preseved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things." (Page 252, #966 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

Scripture not only never teaches such a doctrine, but even condemns it! In Jeremiah 44:9, we read about the worship of a false goddess known as the "Queen of heaven," a practice which made God furious:

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." (Jeremiah 7:18)

Why did these people worship this false goddess called the Queen of heaven? It was a tradition that had been handed down to them:

"But we will... burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes..." (Jeremiah 44:17).

Has Roman Catholicism handed down the same pagan ritual, for its adherents to follow, that infuriates God?

[Joe Gofish]

Have you no respect for the ancient fathers of the Church, who decided what books went into the Bible? Have you no respect for the apostles, who fearlessly guarded the Church against error and persevered in the face of death? These are the people that actually knew Mary as a person, who dined with her at the table and called her "Mother."
And what about Calvin,Luther and Zwingli, They all believed in the teaching on Mary.

[Jude3b]

I recall reading in this thread that someone said that Catholics approach Mary as a Mediatrix because we are too afraid to approach Jesus.

This is not true.

There is one mediator--Christ--who can save us from our sins. Immaculate Mary does not have the power to do this, and even she, in her humility, must rejoice in God her savior.

However, it is because of Mary that Christ entered into the world, put on flesh and dwelt among us. He came into the world through the womb of Mary and so we as Catholics believe that it is the desire of Christ that souls should approach Him through the intercession of Mary. It's as simple as that.

We do not believe that it necessary to come to Christ through Mary, however, we do emphasize this type of spirituality as being especially perfect, because it is approaching Christ exactly as He chose to approach us.

You may also ask (and I think you have asked before in this thread), "Why does Mary rejoice in God her savior?"

Well, let me use this analogy. Say there's this really big hole, and I see you walking towards it. You don't see the hole, so you fall in, and you cry out "Save me!" So, I reach down and pull you out. There. I saved you. That's the ordinary way most people are saved... we are born with a sinful nature, we are baptized, we become Christian, we receive Christ's mercy, AFTER the fact.

Mary still received mercy, but in a different way. Let's use the giant hole analogy again. Say you're walking towards the hole, having no idea that you are about to fall in. So I say "YO JUDE, YOU ARE ABOUT TO FALL INTO A GIANT HOLE" and physically prevent you from falling in. I still saved you, even though you never actually fell. You are still indebted to me because I saved you. In the same way, Mary was saved because God did not allow her to fall into sin. He did this so that she could be a pure and holy vessel, fit to carry the Lord. (if you've read the Old Testament, you know how picky God was about the materials used to construct His dwelling place.)

Hope this helps. God bless!


Dear Jubilate Deo:

If what you have posted about Mary were true, she would be reduced to the status of R2/D2, a mere Robot, without any free will of her own.

If Mary had no free will, she would have no reason to "rejoice in God her Savior!" A Robot is programmed and incapable of sin or worship of Almighty God.

[1.61803399]

Dear Jubilate Deo:

PART I: Church fathers:

You ask if I have respect for ancient church fathers?

If you are speaking about those that Roman Catholicism calls their "Early Church Fathers" THE ANSWER IS NO, I DO NOT HAVE RESPECT FOR THEM, WHY? Because your so-called "Saint" Jerome, "Saint" Origen, "Saint" Eusebius, "Saint" Irenaeus, etc. WERE NOT THE REAL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS!! Yes, they are really "fathers" of Roman Catholicism - the counterfeit and false apostate version of Christianity - but they are not the real church fathers of the church of God - the body of Christ!

If you want to be Roman Catholic, go ahead and read their books and their perversions of the Scriptures.

But, If you want to be a Christian - read the books of the REAL CHURCH FATHERS:

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, JAMES, JUDE, PETER AND PAUL!!! These are the men I respect! These are the true church fathers! These are the men who followed Christ and did what He said and wrote down the Books of the New Testament for us to have today.

If you want to be a true Christian - read their books!

So you dis the disciples of the apostles...
Those who handed down that which was passed to them from those who had seen Christ are unworthy witnessess of the Church? Then the Church is , and Christ a liar.


PART II: Mary:

First let me clearly state this: Mary-worshpers are Roman Catholics - not Christians!

No, Mary worshippers are heretics. You do not know or understand Church teaching, stop trying to represent yourself as such.

I'll ignore your ignorance of history and the Church until here:

By 432 AD, pope Celestine I (422 AD - 432 AD) would turn Mary into a "goddess." His Council started to call Mary - the "mother of God" (Greek, theotokos).

Why was theotokos defined Jude? It is not a statement about Mary, but about the Incarnation.

Will you join Michael T. in professing Nestorianism to avoid the theotokos?

c

Benedictus Deus.

[Chytraeus]

Dear Chytraeus:

MARY IS NOT the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman.

If Mary is not the "Mother of God", then the baby in her womb was not God, and then his death upon the cross could not have been for the sins of all mankind, for a man can only die for his own sins, never for the sins of others. And if we are still dead in our sins, then all of this is pointless.

If Jesus was God in human flesh, and Mary bore Him in her womb, then that was indeed God in her womb, and a woman is usually called the mothe of the child she bares, even if that child was put there by means other than sexual union between a man and a woman. Therefore, if the child in her womb was God, she was his mother, and Mary is the mother of God.

Your confusion, I hope, comes from the word "mother" which you immediately associate with the concept of source. Mary is not the source of the Child that she bore in her womb, for no woman could ever concieve a male child by herself. No, God created the holy Zygote out of nothing, ex nihilo, just as He created all of the cosmos out of nothing, so that Jesus was born without sin.

As for the need for the immaculate conception of Mary, there is no such need, as was made clear both in Genesis 3 and by Paul again in Galations. The corruption of sin was always inherited from the father, not the mother, for Eve was deceived into her rebellion, but Adam was not deceived, and he rebelled anyway, making his action the truly sinful one. That is why it was the Seed of the woman, not a seed of the man, that would undo the sin of Adam. Therefore, Mary did not need to be without sin herself to be able to carry in her womb the incarnate Son of God. This is another one of those areas where human spculation interfered with the divine revelation of God.

In fact, this concept that Jesus was never really one of us is part of the reason the Roman Church felt the need to elevate Mary to such a high position. Since Jesus was seen as more divine than human, instead of fully human and divine as the Church had always taught. Also, Jesus was seen not as the revelation of the mercy and love of God, but more as a second Moses, a new law giver, with little or no mercy. Combine these two and we no longer have a high priest who was tempted and tried in all ways just as we are, but a God who came in an appearance like a man, but who was really just still divine, untouchable and unreachable by sinful mortal man. Therefore, they needed someone who could be more merciful, more tender, more gentle and kind. Since my Jesus, and the Jesus of the Bible is touchable, reachable, merciful, tender, gentle and kind, so I have no need for another intercessor, Jesus is the perfect One.

Now, when you make the statement that Mary cannot be the mother of God because there is only one, true, eternal God who was not born of a woman, you sound like a Nestorian heretic, denying the divinity of Jesus. If this is what you meant, and I sincerely hope it is not, then you have no room to talk about saying that the Roman Catholics take away from the glory of Jesus when they assign some of that glory to His mother. If you do not believe that Jesus, who was born of a woman, is the Word of God who was with God and who was God, and through whom all things were made that were made, then you have taken all the glory from Jesus and reduced Him to a mere man. I am sure you do not believe any of this, or at least I hope you do not. Please be more careful in the future before you make such claims. The fact that Jesus was God, and that He was born of Mary is one of the central articles of doctrine, without which there is no Christian Church.

[Jude3b]

If Mary is not the "Mother of God", then the baby in her womb was not God, and then his death upon the cross could not have been for the sins of all mankind, for a man can only die for his own sins, never for the sins of others. And if we are still dead in our sins, then all of this is pointless.

If Jesus was God in human flesh, and Mary bore Him in her womb, then that was indeed God in her womb, and a woman is usually called the mothe of the child she bares, even if that child was put there by means other than sexual union between a man and a woman. Therefore, if the child in her womb was God, she was his mother, and Mary is the mother of God.

Your confusion, I hope, comes from the word "mother" which you immediately associate with the concept of source. Mary is not the source of the Child that she bore in her womb, for no woman could ever concieve a male child by herself. No, God created the holy Zygote out of nothing, ex nihilo, just as He created all of the cosmos out of nothing, so that Jesus was born without sin.

As for the need for the immaculate conception of Mary, there is no such need, as was made clear both in Genesis 3 and by Paul again in Galations. The corruption of sin was always inherited from the father, not the mother, for Eve was deceived into her rebellion, but Adam was not deceived, and he rebelled anyway, making his action the truly sinful one. That is why it was the Seed of the woman, not a seed of the man, that would undo the sin of Adam. Therefore, Mary did not need to be without sin herself to be able to carry in her womb the incarnate Son of God. This is another one of those areas where human spculation interfered with the divine revelation of God.

In fact, this concept that Jesus was never really one of us is part of the reason the Roman Church felt the need to elevate Mary to such a high position. Since Jesus was seen as more divine than human, instead of fully human and divine as the Church had always taught. Also, Jesus was seen not as the revelation of the mercy and love of God, but more as a second Moses, a new law giver, with little or no mercy. Combine these two and we no longer have a high priest who was tempted and tried in all ways just as we are, but a God who came in an appearance like a man, but who was really just still divine, untouchable and unreachable by sinful mortal man. Therefore, they needed someone who could be more merciful, more tender, more gentle and kind. Since my Jesus, and the Jesus of the Bible is touchable, reachable, merciful, tender, gentle and kind, so I have no need for another intercessor, Jesus is the perfect One.

Now, when you make the statement that Mary cannot be the mother of God because there is only one, true, eternal God who was not born of a woman, you sound like a Nestorian heretic, denying the divinity of Jesus. If this is what you meant, and I sincerely hope it is not, then you have no room to talk about saying that the Roman Catholics take away from the glory of Jesus when they assign some of that glory to His mother. If you do not believe that Jesus, who was born of a woman, is the Word of God who was with God and who was God, and through whom all things were made that were made, then you have taken all the glory from Jesus and reduced Him to a mere man. I am sure you do not believe any of this, or at least I hope you do not. Please be more careful in the future before you make such claims. The fact that Jesus was God, and that He was born of Mary is one of the central articles of doctrine, without which there is no Christian Church.

Dear Chytraeus:

MARY DID NOT GIVE BIRTH TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please read Hebrews 10:5: "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

and

Note that the body of Jesus was prepared by God. Read Matthew 1:18: "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a physical body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human, in the sense that we know and understand our own humanity. He was divine God in a physical body. This is what Mary gave birth to. See Phil. 2:5-11.

The divine nauture of Jesus existed before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary. Therefore, Mary IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD!!!

[1.61803399]

Dear Chytraeus:

MARY DID NOT GIVE BIRTH TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a physical body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human, in the sense that we know and understand our own humanity. He was divine God in a physical body. This is what Mary gave birth to. See Phil. 2:5-11.

The divine nauture of Jesus existed before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary. Therefore, Mary IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD!!!

Jude a Nestorian?
Or is it Docetism?
Or a modified Adoptionism?

:huh:

You've got one warped Christology, and all to avoid the theotokos.

chris

[Jude3b]

Jude a Nestorian?
Or is it Docetism?
Or a modified Adoptionism?

:huh:

You've got one warped Christology, and all to avoid the theotokos.

chris


And Chris, you have no Bible verses that teach anything different than what I just posted. So why bother with your debate by ridicule!

[Joe Gofish]

Have you no respect for the ancient fathers of the Church, who decided what books went into the Bible? Have you no respect for the apostles, who fearlessly guarded the Church against error and persevered in the face of death? These are the people that actually knew Mary as a person, who dined with her at the table and called her "Mother."
Calvin,Luther and Zwingli all believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

JUDE if you remember I asked you to show chapter and verse that said Mary give birth to other Children and I'm still waiting Hmmmm

[Strategos]

And Chris, you have no Bible verses that teach anything different than what I just posted. So why bother with your debate by ridicule!

It wasn't ridicule, it was the truth. According to the Council of Chalcedon what you posted earlier is heresy. Namely:

Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a physical body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human, in the sense that we know and understand our own humanity. He was divine God in a physical body. This is what Mary gave birth to. See Phil. 2:5-11.

As an aside, you completely misconstrue Phil 2:5-11. Phil 2:6 says that Jesus was in the form of God, the same word that Paul uses in Phil 2:7, Jesus took on the form of a man. "Form" here indicates a correspondance to reality. That is, in a similar way Jesus was God pre-incarnation, Jesus became man during the incarnation. However, he is still God, because he did not take of his "form" of God, but put on the "form" of man on (or in addition to) his pre-existing "form" of God.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Jubilate Deo:

PART I: Church fathers:

You ask if I have respect for ancient church fathers?

If you are speaking about those that Roman Catholicism calls their "Early Church Fathers" THE ANSWER IS NO, I DO NOT HAVE RESPECT FOR THEM, WHY? Because your so-called "Saint" Jerome, "Saint" Origen, "Saint" Eusebius, "Saint" Irenaeus, etc. WERE NOT THE REAL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS!! Yes, they are really "fathers" of Roman Catholicism - the counterfeit and false apostate version of Christianity - but they are not the real church fathers of the church of God - the body of Christ!

If you want to be Roman Catholic, go ahead and read their books and their perversions of the Scriptures.

But, If you want to be a Christian - read the books of the REAL CHURCH FATHERS:

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, JAMES, JUDE, PETER AND PAUL!!! These are the men I respect! These are the true church fathers! These are the men who followed Christ and did what He said and wrote down the Books of the New Testament for us to have today.

If you want to be a true Christian - read their books!


PART II: Mary:

First let me clearly state this: Mary-worshpers are Roman Catholics - not Christians!

Satan is a clever rascal! Only his priests were "qualified" to interpret Jerome's fake "Latin Vulgate Bible," which was finished in 405 AD. That was only 21 years after the completed official formation of Roman Catholicism and the creation of the first "pope" of Romanism. Siricius (384 AD - 399 AD) was the first Roman Bishop to call himself "Pontifex Maximus" and a new term, "Pope" (papa). Now pagan Rome became the so-called "holy" city. The pope now had the religious powers of Caesar and claimed to rule the "church."

The pope declared that they needed their own Bible. Satan had the perfect man: a monk named JEROME. One of the men, destined to be "an early church father of Roman Catholicism." From 382 AD to 405 AD, Jerome worked on his rewrite of the true Old Latin Bible, using the Greek Counterfeit of Origen - the so-called "Septuagint and consulting with Jewish rabbis in Bethlehem." By 405 AD, your wonderful Roman Catholic church father, "Saint" Jerome had finished his Latin perversion of the Bible. The final insult was the name of Jerome's disaster: They called it the "Roman Catholic LATIN VULGATE!!"

The early Roman Catholics became further deceived by the phony Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate bible.

By 432 AD, pope Celestine I (422 AD - 432 AD) would turn Mary into a "goddess." His Council started to call Mary - the "mother of God" (Greek, theotokos).

All the changes that were taking place gave Romanism a Counterfeit leader - the pope. It gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Mary to worship. It gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Jesus wafer god. And it gave Roman Catholics a Counterfeit Latin Vulgate Bible. All this helped lead to the day when Roman Catholic priests would start ruling over the people like they were little gods.

That is when the popes made everyone worship the fake Mary. From 432 AD, Maryolatry started to grow and it continues to grow, even today. Romanism has gone so far as to declare Mary as "the Queen over all things:"

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preseved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things." (Page 252, #966 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

Scripture not only never teaches such a doctrine, but even condemns it! In Jeremiah 44:9, we read about the worship of a false goddess known as the "Queen of heaven," a practice which made God furious:

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." (Jeremiah 7:18)

Why did these people worship this false goddess called the Queen of heaven? It was a tradition that had been handed down to them:

"But we will... burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes..." (Jeremiah 44:17).

Has Roman Catholicism handed down the same pagan ritual, for its adherents to follow, that infuriates God?
Jude I have ask you 5 or 6 times to show the verse from the Bible that said Mary gave birth to other children,if you can't do this, why do you keep running your mouth.

and BTW the Church fathers are Ephraim,Ambrose and the greatest was Augustine all from about 306ad to 420,if you need a bigger list let me know

[Joe Gofish]

Jude I have ask you 5 or 6 times to show the verse from the Bible that said Mary gave birth to other children,if you can't do this, why do you keep running your mouth.

and BTW the Church fathers are Ephraim,Ambrose and the greatest was Augustine all from about 306ad to 420,if you need a bigger list let me know
THE ANSWER IS NO, I DO NOT HAVE RESPECT FOR THEM,== We can see from this post that JUDE has no respect for any one not even himself.
You must belive in the gospel according to JUDE ,He "THINKS" he is the protestant Pope

[Jude3b]

It wasn't ridicule, it was the truth. According to the Council of Chalcedon what you posted earlier is heresy. Namely:



As an aside, you completely misconstrue Phil 2:5-11. Phil 2:6 says that Jesus was in the form of God, the same word that Paul uses in Phil 2:7, Jesus took on the form of a man. "Form" here indicates a correspondance to reality. That is, in a similar way Jesus was God pre-incarnation, Jesus became man during the incarnation. However, he is still God, because he did not take of his "form" of God, but put on the "form" of man on (or in addition to) his pre-existing "form" of God.

Dear Strategos:

By 451 AD - apostasy had fully taken over the visible church of God and made it into the religion of Roman Catholicism. If Pope Leo and His council of Chalcedon - disagree with me - so be it! I don't serve Rome. It is Christ whom I serve. Amen!

[Strategos]

Dear Strategos:

By 451 AD - apostasy had fully taken over the visible church of God and made it into the religion of Roman Catholicism. If Pope Leo and His council of Chalcedon - disagree with me - so be it! I don't serve Rome. It is Christ whom I serve. Amen!

Oh no doubt you serve someone. According to RCC, Anglicans, EO, Lutherans, and anyone else who accepts the decision of the Council of Chalcedon (which itself was merely an agreement with the Council of Ephesus in 431) you may serve someone but that someone isn't the revealed Christ. Now no doubt you'll come back and say "I don't listen to the RCC, Anglicans, EO, Lutherans, or anyone else, just the Bible." Well put your money where your mouth is, either prove using only the Bible that Nestorian heresy isn't heresy or shut up. In fact, since this is off-topic for the perpetual Virginity of Mary, I'll start a new topic for you.

[Chytraeus]

Dear Chytraeus:

MARY DID NOT GIVE BIRTH TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please read Hebrews 10:5: "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

and

Note that the body of Jesus was prepared by God. Read Matthew 1:18: "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a physical body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human, in the sense that we know and understand our own humanity. He was divine God in a physical body. This is what Mary gave birth to. See Phil. 2:5-11.

The divine nauture of Jesus existed before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary. Therefore, Mary IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD!!!

Jude, you are really sad. You just keep beating youre head against the very word of God, holding to your own personal doctrine, even worse than those who hold to doctrines given to them by others, for you, resisting the truth, have made up your own religion. At least those who hold to false doctrines taught to them by others in authority over them have the excuse that they were taught those things by those who should have known better. But you, claiming you can see, go stumbling about in the dark and would make yourself a leader of the blind.

So, supporting the doctrine of the Church for more nearly 2000 years now, the council of Chalcedon did not invent any new doctrine, the were defending the Word of God from heritics like yourself who either denied that Jesus was truly God, or that He was truly man. They did not rely upon clever teachings of men, but defended all of their teaching by the very inspired Word of God itself. Knowing nothing of what they did, or why they did the things they did, you set yourself up as judge over them. Pity.

So, let me begin with St. Paul.

"and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:5) These words are spoken of the Israelite nation, from whom St. Paul says Christ is according to the flesh, who is God. Now, if St. Paul, who cannot be wrong, for he was inspired by God, says that Christ is from the nation of Israel according to the flesh, how else could this be other than that Christ was born of Mary? Therefore, Christ was from Mary, according to the flesh. That is, God used the flesh of Mary to prepare a body for Christ. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary.

Also, 1 Tim. 3:16

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."

John supports this also, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

You see, John goes even further than Paul, for he says that whoever does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh is an antichrist. This is the same one of Whom John spoke in the Gospel when he wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 14) It does not say that He put on a human body, but that He became flesh.

If it were the fantasy Jesus you believe in, then Jesus would never have gotten hungry, tired, or thirsty, as the Gospels say He did, for He would only have been God wearing a human body with no true humanity.

But Jesus had to have humanity just like our humanity, for the writer of Hebrews tells us that we have in Him a high priest who participated in all things, even trials, like us. St. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians that He was tempted like us, except He did not sin. If Jesus had not been truly human, then His sacrifice on the cross would have had nothing to do with us, for it was a man, Adam, who got us into the predicament, so it had to be a Man, Jesus, who got us out. But this Man also had to be God, otherwise He could only have died for Himself, or perhaps for one other, if he were sinless. But, since this Man was God, His death was sufficient for all mankind, for the sins of all.

Now, listen to what Paul says about Jesus in his letter to the Colosians.

Col. 1:19-20 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

2:2b-3 "God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

2:8-9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

There is never any seperation between the humanity and the divinity of Jesus after His conception in the womb of Mary, so that it is not hyper-elelvation of Mary to say that the child that was in her womb was God, and that she was therefore God's bearer, or theotokos.

What offends you by those words, I hope, is that calling Mary the mother of God seems to imply that she is greater than God, and the one from which God originated. This is not meant or even intended by those words. Mary was created by her Son, who is truly speaking, her source, and the One from who she obtains life, forgiveness of sins, salvation, and eternal life. But to imply that it was only a human body that was born of Mary is to diminish Jesus and to deny His glorious work, the salvation of mankind. Claim as you do that Jesus was not really human, or that He was not divine while in the womb of Mary, and you no longer have the Jesus of the Bible, but a false idol that cannot save.

You argue to your own hurt, Jude. Just like Nestorious before you, you deny the very Word you claim to defend just because you cannot get your head wrapped around the great mystery of God.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Strategos:

By 451 AD - apostasy had fully taken over the visible church of God and made it into the religion of Roman Catholicism. If Pope Leo and His council of Chalcedon - disagree with me - so be it! I don't serve Rome. It is Christ whom I serve. Amen!
Jude I have asked you 8 times now Please show the Cahpter and verse that said Mary gave birth to other children beside Jesus. WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER ?????????????

[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 For the 10 time Please show the chapter and verse that said Mary gave birth to other children,Why will you not answer this question?BTW the reformers are a LOT smarter then you are, now or will ever be



Catholics believe, as did the Protestant Reformers, that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Catholics believe the truth of the Bible that the Redemption of Jesus freed all believers from the original sin of Adam and its consequence, death.

On the basis of Bible truths from Genesis to Revelation, Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the first to believe, and the first to reap both benefits from her Son's Redemption. Mary's freedom from original sin is called her Immaculate Conception; her immediate entrance into Heaven at the completion of her life is called her Assumption.

[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).

These verses and several others clearly contradict Romanism's claim to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine.

Why do they do that?

I am convinced that it is because of the pagan connection that Romanism incorporated into itself over the centuries. There is afterall an amazing resemblance between the Mary of Roman Catholiicsm and pagan deities that were worshipped in Old Testament times.

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

[Joe Gofish]

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).

These verses and several others clearly contradict Romanism's claim to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine.

Why do they do that?

I am convinced that it is because of the pagan connection that Romanism incorporated into itself over the centuries. There is afterall an amazing resemblance between the Mary of Roman Catholiicsm and pagan deities that were worshipped in Old Testament times.

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

AGAIN jude CANNOT SHOW FROM THE bIBLE THAT mARY GIVE BIRTH TO OTHER CHILDREN.please one more time chapter and verse showing Mary gave BIRTH to other children,if you can't stop with your raving and ranting

[Joe Gofish]

Jude, you are really sad. You just keep beating youre head against the very word of God, holding to your own personal doctrine, even worse than those who hold to doctrines given to them by others, for you, resisting the truth, have made up your own religion. At least those who hold to false doctrines taught to them by others in authority over them have the excuse that they were taught those things by those who should have known better. But you, claiming you can see, go stumbling about in the dark and would make yourself a leader of the blind.

So, supporting the doctrine of the Church for more nearly 2000 years now, the council of Chalcedon did not invent any new doctrine, the were defending the Word of God from heritics like yourself who either denied that Jesus was truly God, or that He was truly man. They did not rely upon clever teachings of men, but defended all of their teaching by the very inspired Word of God itself. Knowing nothing of what they did, or why they did the things they did, you set yourself up as judge over them. Pity.

So, let me begin with St. Paul.

"and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:5) These words are spoken of the Israelite nation, from whom St. Paul says Christ is according to the flesh, who is God. Now, if St. Paul, who cannot be wrong, for he was inspired by God, says that Christ is from the nation of Israel according to the flesh, how else could this be other than that Christ was born of Mary? Therefore, Christ was from Mary, according to the flesh. That is, God used the flesh of Mary to prepare a body for Christ. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary.

Also, 1 Tim. 3:16

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."

John supports this also, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

You see, John goes even further than Paul, for he says that whoever does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh is an antichrist. This is the same one of Whom John spoke in the Gospel when he wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 14) It does not say that He put on a human body, but that He became flesh.

If it were the fantasy Jesus you believe in, then Jesus would never have gotten hungry, tired, or thirsty, as the Gospels say He did, for He would only have been God wearing a human body with no true humanity.

But Jesus had to have humanity just like our humanity, for the writer of Hebrews tells us that we have in Him a high priest who participated in all things, even trials, like us. St. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians that He was tempted like us, except He did not sin. If Jesus had not been truly human, then His sacrifice on the cross would have had nothing to do with us, for it was a man, Adam, who got us into the predicament, so it had to be a Man, Jesus, who got us out. But this Man also had to be God, otherwise He could only have died for Himself, or perhaps for one other, if he were sinless. But, since this Man was God, His death was sufficient for all mankind, for the sins of all.

Now, listen to what Paul says about Jesus in his letter to the Colosians.

Col. 1:19-20 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

2:2b-3 "God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

2:8-9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

There is never any seperation between the humanity and the divinity of Jesus after His conception in the womb of Mary, so that it is not hyper-elelvation of Mary to say that the child that was in her womb was God, and that she was therefore God's bearer, or theotokos.

What offends you by those words, I hope, is that calling Mary the mother of God seems to imply that she is greater than God, and the one from which God originated. This is not meant or even intended by those words. Mary was created by her Son, who is truly speaking, her source, and the One from who she obtains life, forgiveness of sins, salvation, and eternal life. But to imply that it was only a human body that was born of Mary is to diminish Jesus and to deny His glorious work, the salvation of mankind. Claim as you do that Jesus was not really human, or that He was not divine while in the womb of Mary, and you no longer have the Jesus of the Bible, but a false idol that cannot save.

You argue to your own hurt, Jude. Just like Nestorious before you, you deny the very Word you claim to defend just because you cannot get your head wrapped around the great mystery of God.
Jude is also not gook at spelling,He is spelling Judas like the word Jude.Lets all pray for him

[Joe Gofish]

Jude, you are really sad. You just keep beating youre head against the very word of God, holding to your own personal doctrine, even worse than those who hold to doctrines given to them by others, for you, resisting the truth, have made up your own religion. At least those who hold to false doctrines taught to them by others in authority over them have the excuse that they were taught those things by those who should have known better. But you, claiming you can see, go stumbling about in the dark and would make yourself a leader of the blind.

So, supporting the doctrine of the Church for more nearly 2000 years now, the council of Chalcedon did not invent any new doctrine, the were defending the Word of God from heritics like yourself who either denied that Jesus was truly God, or that He was truly man. They did not rely upon clever teachings of men, but defended all of their teaching by the very inspired Word of God itself. Knowing nothing of what they did, or why they did the things they did, you set yourself up as judge over them. Pity.

So, let me begin with St. Paul.

"and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:5) These words are spoken of the Israelite nation, from whom St. Paul says Christ is according to the flesh, who is God. Now, if St. Paul, who cannot be wrong, for he was inspired by God, says that Christ is from the nation of Israel according to the flesh, how else could this be other than that Christ was born of Mary? Therefore, Christ was from Mary, according to the flesh. That is, God used the flesh of Mary to prepare a body for Christ. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary.

Also, 1 Tim. 3:16

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."

John supports this also, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

You see, John goes even further than Paul, for he says that whoever does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh is an antichrist. This is the same one of Whom John spoke in the Gospel when he wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 14) It does not say that He put on a human body, but that He became flesh.

If it were the fantasy Jesus you believe in, then Jesus would never have gotten hungry, tired, or thirsty, as the Gospels say He did, for He would only have been God wearing a human body with no true humanity.

But Jesus had to have humanity just like our humanity, for the writer of Hebrews tells us that we have in Him a high priest who participated in all things, even trials, like us. St. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians that He was tempted like us, except He did not sin. If Jesus had not been truly human, then His sacrifice on the cross would have had nothing to do with us, for it was a man, Adam, who got us into the predicament, so it had to be a Man, Jesus, who got us out. But this Man also had to be God, otherwise He could only have died for Himself, or perhaps for one other, if he were sinless. But, since this Man was God, His death was sufficient for all mankind, for the sins of all.

Now, listen to what Paul says about Jesus in his letter to the Colosians.

Col. 1:19-20 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

2:2b-3 "God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

2:8-9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

There is never any seperation between the humanity and the divinity of Jesus after His conception in the womb of Mary, so that it is not hyper-elelvation of Mary to say that the child that was in her womb was God, and that she was therefore God's bearer, or theotokos.

What offends you by those words, I hope, is that calling Mary the mother of God seems to imply that she is greater than God, and the one from which God originated. This is not meant or even intended by those words. Mary was created by her Son, who is truly speaking, her source, and the One from who she obtains life, forgiveness of sins, salvation, and eternal life. But to imply that it was only a human body that was born of Mary is to diminish Jesus and to deny His glorious work, the salvation of mankind. Claim as you do that Jesus was not really human, or that He was not divine while in the womb of Mary, and you no longer have the Jesus of the Bible, but a false idol that cannot save.

You argue to your own hurt, Jude. Just like Nestorious before you, you deny the very Word you claim to defend just because you cannot get your head wrapped around the great mystery of God.
YOUR words "Jesus was not human" are you for real ? So if Jesus was not human then He must have not have "Suffer" for our sins.
What is the name of the church you have started and what bible do you read. Do ALL Christians know that Jesus was not human,or is this the way you read the bible.
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE CRUCIFIXION WAS ALL ABOUT. I LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VERSION.May God help us all

[Chytraeus]

YOUR words "Jesus was not human" are you for real ? So if Jesus was not human then He must have not have "Suffer" for our sins.
What is the name of the church you have started and what bible do you read. Do ALL Christians know that Jesus was not human,or is this the way you read the bible.
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE CRUCIFIXION WAS ALL ABOUT. I LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VERSION.May God help us all
Get real. I'm not even sure this merits a response, since I never even once said that Jesus was not human. My point was that he was equally God, and that from conception. Do you even read these posts before you comment, or do you just scan them, make up some crazy thing you think the person said and then make outlandish arguments. This is the last time I will respond to you if you do this again. It's just insulting.

[1.61803399]

YOUR words "Jesus was not human" are you for real ? So if Jesus was not human then He must have not have "Suffer" for our sins.
What is the name of the church you have started and what bible do you read. Do ALL Christians know that Jesus was not human,or is this the way you read the bible.
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE CRUCIFIXION WAS ALL ABOUT. I LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VERSION.May God help us all

that you Gofish?

>sigh<

sarcasm and arguing ad absurdum are lost on this board. No matter what you say, people think you actually believe it.

[Jude3b]

Jude, you are really sad. You just keep beating youre head against the very word of God, holding to your own personal doctrine, even worse than those who hold to doctrines given to them by others, for you, resisting the truth, have made up your own religion. At least those who hold to false doctrines taught to them by others in authority over them have the excuse that they were taught those things by those who should have known better. But you, claiming you can see, go stumbling about in the dark and would make yourself a leader of the blind.

So, supporting the doctrine of the Church for more nearly 2000 years now, the council of Chalcedon did not invent any new doctrine, the were defending the Word of God from heritics like yourself who either denied that Jesus was truly God, or that He was truly man. They did not rely upon clever teachings of men, but defended all of their teaching by the very inspired Word of God itself. Knowing nothing of what they did, or why they did the things they did, you set yourself up as judge over them. Pity.

So, let me begin with St. Paul.

"and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:5) These words are spoken of the Israelite nation, from whom St. Paul says Christ is according to the flesh, who is God. Now, if St. Paul, who cannot be wrong, for he was inspired by God, says that Christ is from the nation of Israel according to the flesh, how else could this be other than that Christ was born of Mary? Therefore, Christ was from Mary, according to the flesh. That is, God used the flesh of Mary to prepare a body for Christ. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary.

Also, 1 Tim. 3:16

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."

John supports this also, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

You see, John goes even further than Paul, for he says that whoever does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh is an antichrist. This is the same one of Whom John spoke in the Gospel when he wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 14) It does not say that He put on a human body, but that He became flesh.

If it were the fantasy Jesus you believe in, then Jesus would never have gotten hungry, tired, or thirsty, as the Gospels say He did, for He would only have been God wearing a human body with no true humanity.

But Jesus had to have humanity just like our humanity, for the writer of Hebrews tells us that we have in Him a high priest who participated in all things, even trials, like us. St. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians that He was tempted like us, except He did not sin. If Jesus had not been truly human, then His sacrifice on the cross would have had nothing to do with us, for it was a man, Adam, who got us into the predicament, so it had to be a Man, Jesus, who got us out. But this Man also had to be God, otherwise He could only have died for Himself, or perhaps for one other, if he were sinless. But, since this Man was God, His death was sufficient for all mankind, for the sins of all.

Now, listen to what Paul says about Jesus in his letter to the Colosians.

Col. 1:19-20 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

2:2b-3 "God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

2:8-9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

There is never any seperation between the humanity and the divinity of Jesus after His conception in the womb of Mary, so that it is not hyper-elelvation of Mary to say that the child that was in her womb was God, and that she was therefore God's bearer, or theotokos.

What offends you by those words, I hope, is that calling Mary the mother of God seems to imply that she is greater than God, and the one from which God originated. This is not meant or even intended by those words. Mary was created by her Son, who is truly speaking, her source, and the One from who she obtains life, forgiveness of sins, salvation, and eternal life. But to imply that it was only a human body that was born of Mary is to diminish Jesus and to deny His glorious work, the salvation of mankind. Claim as you do that Jesus was not really human, or that He was not divine while in the womb of Mary, and you no longer have the Jesus of the Bible, but a false idol that cannot save.

You argue to your own hurt, Jude. Just like Nestorious before you, you deny the very Word you claim to defend just because you cannot get your head wrapped around the great mystery of God.


Jesus Christ Himself is GOD and He is declared to be the son of God. The divinity of Jesus Christ is of God: See Heb. 13:8; Romans 1:4; John 1: 1-4, 10, 34; John 11:27; I Tim. 1:16,17; Col. 1:15-20; Phil 2:6.

The humanity of Jesus Christ comes through Mary, as promised: See Mat. 1:23; Luke 1:30-33; Luke 2:5-14; John 1:14; Acts 2:30-32.

[Joe Gofish]

YES IT IS AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ANSWER GO TO THE cATHOLIC FORUMS,but not you ,you just love bashing the Church started by Jesus Christ

[Jude3b]

Questions: Was Mary unlike all other human women? Was she a perpetual Virgin? Was she really sinless for her whole earthly life?

1) Did she not suffer any pain when she gave birth to Jesus? Was Mary exempt from the curse God spoke to Eve as a result of the fall: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children" (Gen. 3:16)??

2) Wouldn't the womb have to be open to give birth?

3) Wouldn't the hymen receive injury in child birth?

4) Wouldn't child birth in and of itself diminish the virginal integrity of Mary?

5) Did Mary never engage in any sexual relations with her husband, Joseph? Wouldn't it be normal and appropriate for sexual relations to take place between Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Christ? We know that Sexual relations within the marriage relationship bring no defilement, but are rather good and proper (see Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; I Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31)

6) The Bible clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary bore other children (Matt. 1:25; 13:55,56). Were they a miraculous conception also??

7) Why did Romanism wait until A.D. 1547 to proclaim that Mary's alleged sinlessness was dogma? Better yet, why did God fail to tell us in scripture that Mary was sinless and thereby would not need a Savior, like the rest of us?

[Joe Gofish]

Questions: Was Mary unlike all other human women? Was she a perpetual Virgin? Was she really sinless for her whole earthly life?

1) Did she not suffer any pain when she gave birth to Jesus? Was Mary exempt from the curse God spoke to Eve as a result of the fall: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children" (Gen. 3:16)??

2) Wouldn't the womb have to be open to give birth?

3) Wouldn't the hymen receive injury in child birth?

4) Wouldn't child birth in and of itself diminish the virginal integrity of Mary?

5) Did Mary never engage in any sexual relations with her husband, Joseph? Wouldn't it be normal and appropriate for sexual relations to take place between Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Christ? We know that Sexual relations within the marriage relationship bring no defilement, but are rather good and proper (see Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; I Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31)

6) The Bible clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary bore other children (Matt. 1:25; 13:55,56). Were they a miraculous conception also??

7) Why did Romanism wait until A.D. 1547 to proclaim that Mary's alleged sinlessness was dogma? Better yet, why did God fail to tell us in scripture that Mary was sinless and thereby would not need a Savior, like the rest of us?
Jude Please show any Catholic writting that said Mary does not need or would not need a Savior,PLEASE post any writting you can find,you can't because this is not a teaching of the Church.Its just the thinking of a BIGOT.

[Chytraeus]

Jesus Christ Himself is GOD and He is declared to be the son of God. The divinity of Jesus Christ is of God: See Heb. 13:8; Romans 1:4; John 1: 1-4, 10, 34; John 11:27; I Tim. 1:16,17; Col. 1:15-20; Phil 2:6.

The humanity of Jesus Christ comes through Mary, as promised: See Mat. 1:23; Luke 1:30-33; Luke 2:5-14; John 1:14; Acts 2:30-32.

And nothing in any of this denies the fact that the child conceived in the womb of Mary was in fact God from conception. He did not become God after his birth, but He was God from the moment the cells formed in her womb. So, if a woman carries a child in her womb, is it her child? Of course it is. If that child is God, then her child is God, so she is the mother of God. This is not to say that he is God because he is her child, He is God because He is the Father's child, just as you said, and He is man, because he is her child. But still, the child in her womb, the One she gave birth to and suckled at her breast, was both God and man, and she was His mother. Mary was the theotokos, the bearer of God, which is more easily translated into English as the mother of God.

She is not the queen of heaven, she is no more eternal than any of the rest of us, she was not conceived without sin, she is not over-flowing with the substance of grace (whatever that is), but she is the mother of God. We should not pray to her as though our beloved Lord needed someone to interceed between Himself and us, for He is our only intercessor, and she is not a co-redemtrix, for her fiat was nothing more than assent to what had already been accomplished by the word of God spoken by the angel Gabriel. She does prefigure the church, in as much as she bore the incarnate God in her womb, and the church carries about the incarnate God in her doctrine and practice (specifically the sacraments, which you deny to your own hurt).

Originally, church art was not just to look pretty, or to honor people, but to portray theology. So, the icons of Mary with Child were a reminder to the church that just as she carried the incarnate God in her womb and arms, the church still carries Him to the world in her witness. Unfortunately, during the middle ages the teachers of the church forgot this vital lesson and began to venerate the person of Mary instead of presenting her as an image and example for the church.

But, instead of learning all of this and getting some vital knowldge about God and his Christ, you throw out everything done by the Catholic church as evil. While you are at it, why not throw out using Scripture in worship, since the Catholic church does this, it must be evil, according to your logic.

[1.61803399]

Hi Tim,


She is not the queen of heaven, she is no more eternal than any of the rest of us, she was not conceived without sin, she is not over-flowing with the substance of grace (whatever that is), but she is the mother of God. We should not pray to her as though our beloved Lord needed someone to interceed between Himself and us, for He is our only intercessor, and she is not a co-redemtrix, for her fiat was nothing more than assent to what had already been accomplished by the word of God spoken by the angel Gabriel. She does prefigure the church, in as much as she bore the incarnate God in her womb, and the church carries about the incarnate God in her doctrine and practice (specifically the sacraments, which you deny to your own hurt).

She is only queen if heaven in as much as she is the mother of her Son. She is what we shall be (if we assume the Assumption)*sorry for the bad pun*, or she has gone to her reward at the least. Mary as full of grace comes from Luke 1:28-30. Grace=God's favor, Mary is highly favored, therefore full of grace.

We should not pray to her as if she were THE intermediary, for we can go directly to God. But we can seek her intercession the same way we ask for those around us to pray for us, as with all the saints. (according to Catholic belief and practice).

The question of Mary's fiat raises other questions that would be intresting to discuss (given free will). For example, does (or would) God override human will directly (ie person wills one thing, but physically does another?)

Originally, church art was not just to look pretty, or to honor people, but to portray theology. So, the icons of Mary with Child were a reminder to the church that just as she carried the incarnate God in her womb and arms, the church still carries Him to the world in her witness. Unfortunately, during the middle ages the teachers of the church forgot this vital lesson and began to venerate the person of Mary instead of presenting her as an image and example for the church.

Actually, devotion to Mary started at the foot of the cross (son, behold your mother). :wink:

chris

[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?

First of all the word "ROMANISM" is just a word that is used by Bigots only because there is no Roman Catholic Church and only a word .
And #2 Please show the chapter and verse that will say Maty gave BIRTH to other Children beside Jesus,if Mary gave birth to other Children why does the bible NOT say so. And why did all the reformers all belive inMary being a virgin after Jesus thats Calvin,Luther and Zwingli.
Jude stop hating and just try to answer the questions ?

[Joe Gofish]

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

JUDE WILL NOT AND CAN NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION

[Chytraeus]

Hi Tim,

She is only queen if heaven in as much as she is the mother of her Son. She is what we shall be (if we assume the Assumption)*sorry for the bad pun*, or she has gone to her reward at the least. Mary as full of grace comes from Luke 1:28-30. Grace=God's favor, Mary is highly favored, therefore full of grace.

kecharitomene=Perfect, passive, vocative participle of charosto: To show kindness/favor. To be gracious toward.

So, to be kecharitomene is to be someone who has received kindness or favor from someone else, in this case, from God. The Angel was simply telling Mary that God was being extreemly kind to her. Now, Mary could have seen this in quite a different way. She was about to become pregnant while she was still engaged to a very godly man, who was certainly going to assume that she had been unfaithful. She was either going to be stoned to death for adultery or put aside quietly, which would amount to the same thing, for she would have no support once her father died (unless her father also sent her away for disgracing him with her sin). Even if, by some miracle, her husband neither stoned her nor put her away, and he believed her story and married her, she would still be considered an adulterer by her neighbors and probably family and friends as well.

All that aside, Mary was not full of anything, by this passage or word, as it simply states that God was doing a great kindness to her, that being that she had been chosen to be the Mother of His only begotten Son. Now, this is certainly a great honor, which Mary obviously realized, and she submitted to this honor, in spite of the difficulties it would cause. She is not like us. When God seeks to honor us in ways that will most certainly result in trials for us. We should certainly follow her example.

BTW, I do not assume the assumption, being, as it is, based on a very spurious text, from which I would believe nothing else. Mary is awaiting resurrection with us, just like all the other saints.

We should not pray to her as if she were THE intermediary, for we can go directly to God. But we can seek her intercession the same way we ask for those around us to pray for us, as with all the saints. (according to Catholic belief and practice).

But where are we ever told that the Old Testament prohibition against trying to speak to the dead was ever put aside. I should no more pray to Mary than Saul should have consulted Samuel after his death. Certainly she was a more pious person than I am, and I should make greater attempts to follow her example, but I cannot pray to her.

The question of Mary's fiat raises other questions that would be intresting to discuss (given free will). For example, does (or would) God override human will directly (ie person wills one thing, but physically does another?)

This is quite a different subject altogether. If you mean would God force someone's body to walk up-hill when they really wanted to go down-hill, absolutely not. His people are never treated like pupets. God never circumvents the will. However, pregnancy is not like this. If Mary had not said those famous words or piety, she still would have become pregnant with the Lord, for that was a work of the Spirit of God, not of Mary. No woman ever "chooses" to become pregnant. Some may want to, and try as they might, cannot do so, while others not wanting to, but only wanting to have a "good time" become pregnant dispite their meager efforts to avoid it. Pregnancy, in the end, is always an act of God, but He normally uses the activity of a man and woman to bring it about. In Mary's case, he forwent that activity and created a Child in her womb, thus her virginity. However, Mary did not object to this act of God, so it is really a moot point.


Actually, devotion to Mary started at the foot of the cross (son, behold your mother). :wink:

Interesting that this passage is recorded by the same man who saw the vision of the woman dressed as a queen in Revelation, where this woman seems to be an icon of Eve, Israel, Mary, and the Church. So, John understood Mary as a type of the Church. When he included this passage in his passion account, was he teaching people to give nearly idolotrous honor to Mary, or was he teaching us that if we would have God as our Father, we must have the Church as our Mother (as Augustine believed)? Jesus was certainly not giving orders for the proper care of his mother, as she should have been taken in by James or Jude, even if they were only her step-children. Of course, if in this passage Mary is a type of the Church, John is a type of all believers, members of the Church.

This interpretation, which was popular among the fathers, implies that many "evangelicals" are wrong about the Church. They say that the Church is nothing more than the sum of her members. If so, then how could the members and the institution be typified by two seperate individuals in one passage of Scripture? No, the Church is something more than just the some total of her members. She is, as Iranaeus said, pre-existant and eternal, and we gain eternal life only be becoming members of her. She is the true Queen of heaven, as she is married to the Lord and King of heaven, Christ Jesus. It is this wedding feast which we partake of everytime we gather together to eat the fest at which Jesus is both Food and Hoast, Victim and Priest.

Thanks again for the engaging discussion.

Tim

[Jude3b]

Mary never ever made any mention of any vow to live a life of virginity.

In fact Mary said to the angel that spoke to her in Luke 1:27: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Mary never said: "How can this be, since I am now and FOREVER WILL BE A VIRGIN?"

No, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity!

The Word of God does clearly show that Mary was a virgin up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, but thereafter Mary and Joseph engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship. To DO ANYTHING LESS WOULD VIOLATE THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE IN REGARD TO GOD'S INSTRUCTIONS that husband and wife are to meet each other's sexual needs (see I Cor. 7:3)

[Joe Gofish]

Mary never ever made any mention of any vow to live a life of virginity.

In fact Mary said to the angel that spoke to her in Luke 1:27: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Mary never said: "How can this be, since I am now and FOREVER WILL BE A VIRGIN?"

No, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity!

The Word of God does clearly show that Mary was a virgin up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, but thereafter Mary and Joseph engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship. To DO ANYTHING LESS WOULD VIOLATE THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE IN REGARD TO GOD'S INSTRUCTIONS that husband and wife are to meet each other's sexual needs (see I Cor. 7:3)
JUDE Please try to answer one question you keep bashing the Church but you will NEVER answer a question from a Catholic,WHY
PLEASE show the chapter and verse that will say Mary gave birth to other children beside Jesus,You do all the ranting and raving so just give us the verse.Can you do this REV. LOL

[Jude3b]

Is it possible for Mary to retain her virginal state both during the birth of Jesus and afterward, even though married to Joseph? Would the virginity been ended just by the child birth itself?

Also, Is it possible that Mary never ever had sexual relations with her husband, Joseph? Is that possible even though the New Testament makes reference to Jesus' brothers and Sisters (Matthew 1:25; 13:55, 56; John 2:12; John 7:5; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; Gal. 2:9-12). The fact that Jesus had brothers clearly shows that Mary gave birth to other children following Jesus.

Certainly sexual relations between Mary and her husband Jospeph would have been normal, expected and appropriate. Only sexual relations outside of marriage is condemned in Scripture. God created sex, and "everything created by God is good" (I Tim. 4:4).

If Christians are supposed to worshp Mary, why doesn't the Bible tells us to do that? Why is Mary's name not even mentioned in any of the Epistles, if we are to worship her?

[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 we all know you cannot answer a question because you are to busy bashing the CC but please show me the chapter and verse that will say Mary gave BIRTH to other children beside Christ.
CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE(GIVING BIRTH) THE BIBLE ALWAYS SAID MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS IT NEVER SAID THE MOTHER OF ANY OTHER.
tHIS IS NOT HARD JUST THE CHAPTER AND VERSE.
I think you think Jesus was the first of Marys children so why does the bible not talk about the birth of other children,it will never say the birth of other children,it does say brother and sisters but I have a brother but my Mother did NOT give birth to him.

[Joe Gofish]

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 Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children. Jude this is another of your many lies about the Bible and the Church.
PLEASE SHOW THE CHAPTER AND VERSE THAT WILL SAY MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN, IT MAY BE IN YOUR BIBLE BUT IT IS NOT IN ANY cHRISTIANS BIBLE

[Joe Gofish]

"The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children. Jude this is another of your many lies about the Bible and the Church.
PLEASE SHOW THE CHAPTER AND VERSE THAT WILL SAY MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN, IT MAY BE IN YOUR BIBLE BUT IT IS NOT IN ANY cHRISTIANS BIBLE
PS From the KJB 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.
4: But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.'"

Jude this verse does not say Mary gave birth to them.They may be kin are the children of Joseph but IT DOES NOT SAY MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN. Stop trying to rewrite the bible and stop with your picking and choose

[Joe Gofish]

Mary never ever made any mention of any vow to live a life of virginity.

In fact Mary said to the angel that spoke to her in Luke 1:27: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Mary never said: "How can this be, since I am now and FOREVER WILL BE A VIRGIN?"

No, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity!

The Word of God does clearly show that Mary was a virgin up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, but thereafter Mary and Joseph engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship. To DO ANYTHING LESS WOULD VIOLATE THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE IN REGARD TO GOD'S INSTRUCTIONS that husband and wife are to meet each other's sexual needs (see I Cor. 7:3)
Jude Please show us how YOU know that Mary NEVER made a vow of virginity please remember that NOT all is in the Bible,Why would she made a vow to humans ,the vow would be to GOD.
Here is the leader of your man made faith, has to say Mr Calvin =====John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

[Jude3b]

The Roman Catholic idea that Mary remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus - is directly contradicted in the Bible!!!

In Matthew 1:25 we read that Joseph: "kept her a virgin UNTIL she (Mary) gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

The word UNTIL implies that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations, the same as any other married couple, after the birth of Jesus.

Gosh, that was how His brothers and sisters got here:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, AND HIS BROTHERS, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:55,56).

[Joe Gofish]

The Roman Catholic idea that Mary remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus - is directly contradicted in the Bible!!!

In Matthew 1:25 we read that Joseph: "kept her a virgin UNTIL she (Mary) gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

The word UNTIL implies that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations, the same as any other married couple, after the birth of Jesus.

Gosh, that was how His brothers and sisters got here:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, AND HIS BROTHERS, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:55,56).
THE WORD "UNTIL"
In the same chapter of the same text (Matthew 1:25) where we read "and he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son." This word, however, does not mean that he DID know her AFTERWARDS. It refers to what has already been done and not to the future.
For example: In Genesis 8:6, 7, we read that Noah sent forth a raven which did not return UNTIL the waters dried up. As a matter of fact the raven NEVER returned, even after the waters dried up. So, too. in Psalm 109: "Sit thou at my right hand UNTIL I make thy enemies my footstool." Now, of course, Christ will continue to sit at the right hand even after enemies are made the footstool of God.

As Catholics we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary before, during, and after the birth of Christ. After the birth of Christ she lived in the home with her Son whom she knew by revelation to be "the Son of God." There was no place for selfish personal feelings when she was so absorbed in the love for her Son. It is like looking directly into the sun; we see nothing except the sun. So in heaven we will know God, see God and there will be no reason for turning our attention to the creatures of the world or of thinking of ourselves. This was true, likewise, of Mary, living, as she was, with the Son of God.

[Joe Gofish]

THE WORD "UNTIL"
In the same chapter of the same text (Matthew 1:25) where we read "and he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son." This word, however, does not mean that he DID know her AFTERWARDS. It refers to what has already been done and not to the future.
For example: In Genesis 8:6, 7, we read that Noah sent forth a raven which did not return UNTIL the waters dried up. As a matter of fact the raven NEVER returned, even after the waters dried up. So, too. in Psalm 109: "Sit thou at my right hand UNTIL I make thy enemies my footstool." Now, of course, Christ will continue to sit at the right hand even after enemies are made the footstool of God.

As Catholics we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary before, during, and after the birth of Christ. After the birth of Christ she lived in the home with her Son whom she knew by revelation to be "the Son of God." There was no place for selfish personal feelings when she was so absorbed in the love for her Son. It is like looking directly into the sun; we see nothing except the sun. So in heaven we will know God, see God and there will be no reason for turning our attention to the creatures of the world or of thinking of ourselves. This was true, likewise, of Mary, living, as she was, with the Son of God.
Jude did you know that CALVIN also believe that Mary was a virgin all her life as did Luthern and the other reformers

[Jude3b]

The Word of God clearly shows that Mary had other children besides Jesus and did not remain a Virgin.

Christians hold the Word of God as final authority and not mere men.

[Joe Gofish]

Mary never ever made any mention of any vow to live a life of virginity.

In fact Mary said to the angel that spoke to her in Luke 1:27: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Mary never said: "How can this be, since I am now and FOREVER WILL BE A VIRGIN?"

No, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity!

The Word of God does clearly show that Mary was a virgin up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, but thereafter Mary and Joseph engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship. To DO ANYTHING LESS WOULD VIOLATE THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE IN REGARD TO GOD'S INSTRUCTIONS that husband and wife are to meet each other's sexual needs (see I Cor. 7:3)
WHY does Mary making a vow have to be in the Bible ?????
Not all is in the bible(JN21:25)
Why would Jesus leav His mother on earth to rot when He can do anything,Would you leave your mother to rot and not take her to heaven,REMEMBER JESUS WAS HUMAN

[Joe Gofish]

The Word of God clearly shows that Mary had other children besides Jesus and did not remain a Virgin.

Christians hold the Word of God as final authority and not mere men.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OF jude LIES, Jude PLEASE show us the verse that will say Mary gave birth to other children.
The Bible does say Jesus the SON of Mary .
Jude IF Jesus had other brother or sister WHY DID OUR LORD LEAVE THE CARE OF HIS MOTHER TO JOHN AND NOT HIS BROTHERS OR SISTERS ???????PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER ONE QUESTION.
You are good at bashing the Church,but you never answer the questions,does Jack Chick not gave you your answers.

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=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?[/QU\\

The bible NEVER said that Mary bore other Children,Jude said it ,but NOT the bible.
Jude NOT ALL is in the Bible,The following are some of the things which are not mentioned in the Bible, and yet many Christians believe.


The word "Trinity," meaning three persons in one God, each equal to the other. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. The word was invented by the Catholic Church to try to explain somewhat the mystery of there being three persons in one God , as is revealed by God in the Bible. The Athanasian Creed, dating from the late 4th century, was written during the time of St. Athanasius (297 - 373), bishop of Alexandria, but probably not by him. It states "The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity." The Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) said that Jesus is of one substance with God the Father. It explained the absolute unity between God and Jesus. The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) said the same about the Holy Spirit as Nicea said about Jesus. St. Augustine (345 - 430) wrote De Trinatate (about the Trinity).

The word "Rapture"

The words "Altar call"

A list of inspired books which make up the Canon of Scripture, i.e., a list of the books to be included in "The Bible"

The Sabbath Day is Saturday. Exodus 20:8 says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." It is not written down in the New Testament that the Apostles had the authority to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

The word "Incarnation," i.e., the Son of God took on flesh

That the Bible alone is to be used as the sole rule of faith

By faith alone you are saved

[Jude3b]

The Roman Catholic magisterium pays such great respect to the so-called early church fathers, that they even try to claim them and their writings for validation of their religion and its peculiar doctrines.

Do you Roman Catholic religion lovers realize that some of your heroes - the so-called early church fathers of Romanism such as Cyril of Alexandria and Origen believed that Mary had engaged in various sins in her life?

That goes against modern day Rome's teaching that Mary was sinless.

Bottom line - Rome apparently doesn't believe Romans 5:12 which clearly shows that Mary, like all other humans (except for Christ) inherited a sin nature from Adam.

[Chytraeus]

The Roman Catholic magisterium pays such great respect to the so-called early church fathers, that they even try to claim them and their writings for validation of their religion and its peculiar doctrines.

Do you Roman Catholic religion lovers realize that some of your heroes - the so-called early church fathers of Romanism such as Cyril of Alexandria and Origen believed that Mary had engaged in various sins in her life?

That goes against modern day Rome's teaching that Mary was sinless.

Bottom line - Rome apparently doesn't believe Romans 5:12 which clearly shows that Mary, like all other humans (except for Christ) inherited a sin nature from Adam.
Well, after pages and pages of absolutely worthless debate on weather or not Mary remained a virgin all her life, you finally touched on something that really matters. Did Mary, as all the rest of us, need a savior? Of course, those of us who take our theology only from Scripture, are quite certain that she did, for Scripture plainly declares that of all the human race, only Christ was sinless. Mary even calls Jesus, the child within her womb, Savior in her hymn of praise in Luke. So, the Bible says that all have sinned other than Christ, and Mary acknowledges that her own child was her Savior, then Mary did have sin, just like all the rest of us.

As to weather or not Mary had other children, there is really no evidence either way. The "brothers and sisters" mentioned in Scripture may have been children Joseph had by a first wife who then died before he married Mary. While it is certainly unusual for a woman to mary a man and then withhold herself from him, it is also possible that Joseph had such reverance for the fact that his Savior was born from her womb that he was unwilling to "defile" that space with his own seed. The Bible simply does not tell us one way or the other, so it should not be a point of doctrine either way. It should neither be mandated that we believe that she did or did not have other children. No one's salvation is determined by this point, for God never tells us that we must believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin for our sins to be forgiven. It only says that we must believe that Jesus died for our sins to receive all the benifits of his death on our behalf.

Therefore, for the Roman church to insist that we must believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary to be a member of the "One true church" is evil. No man after the apostels has the right to enforce doctrine upon the church. For the church to be Catholic, it must be Apostolic. The only doctrine which we can be sure the Apostles taught is that recorded in the Apostolic scriptures.

Although the word "Trinity" is not in the Scriptures, the concept most certainly is. It was a standard part of an Apostolic epistle that they began and ended with a Trinitarian greating. There is no more trinitarian book that the Revelation to John, which is rich with references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit. The Christians were considered a Jewish sect, and to be a Jew was to believe in only one God. Since Christians believed that Jesus was God, that His Father was God, and that the Holy Spirit was God (as is made clear from devine references to each of them) then they must have believed that these three distinct persons were in fact the same God. That is the doctrine that has, since the third century, been called the Trinity. In the 4th century the whole church decided to call this doctrine by the name of Trinity. So, to believe in the Trinity, even though the word itself does not show up in Scripture, is very different than believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is nothing in any of the Apostolic writings that suggest this teaching in anything that even comes close to the Trinity. Those few verses that are used are much too vague.

[jonfan]

The Roman Catholic magisterium pays such great respect to the so-called early church fathers, that they even try to claim them and their writings for validation of their religion and its peculiar doctrines.

Do you Roman Catholic religion lovers realize that some of your heroes - the so-called early church fathers of Romanism such as Cyril of Alexandria and Origen believed that Mary had engaged in various sins in her life?

That goes against modern day Rome's teaching that Mary was sinless.

Bottom line - Rome apparently doesn't believe Romans 5:12 which clearly shows that Mary, like all other humans (except for Christ) inherited a sin nature from Adam.


I don't know where you heard Origen or Cyril of Alexandria Believed Mary had engaged in sins in her life. Can you cite your sources please?

This is what Origen had to say about Mary being an ever-virgin:

Origen

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

and just for giggles Cyril of Alexandria



"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

[jonfan]

When Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

Also in Jewish culture the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have been left to John when they were at the cross of Jesus if Jesus had already had a corporeal brother as it would have been an insult to him and to his household.

[Jude3b]

I don't know where you heard Origen or Cyril of Alexandria Believed Mary had engaged in sins in her life. Can you cite your sources please?

This is what Origen had to say about Mary being an ever-virgin:

Origen

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

and just for giggles Cyril of Alexandria



"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).





See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3,27,2.

[BibleMan]

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?



Obviously they trust their religion. It has told them over and over and over again that Mary was a virgin all her life. Tell something to someone often enoough, over and over again from childhood and they will believe it. Brainwashing does the same thing with the Muslims. This Perpetual Virgin doctrine shows us that Roman Catholic people love and believe their religion even more than the Bible which tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters (see Mark 6:3).

Obviously its just a deep, deep trust that Roman Catholics have in their religion and its teachers. Gosh, they even try to say their pope is infallible. But apparently he's not, because he didn't even know he was gonna make all the Muslim crazies mad recently when he read something out of the 14th century and it caused Islamic wackos to burn churches, kill a nun and call for the pope's death.

What a lunatic world this has become!

[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?

ANOTHER OF JUDE FALSE STATEMENT the bible does not say "mary bore other Children"

No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.--John Calvin defending Mary's perpetual virginity

[Chytraeus]

I'm not even a Roman Catholic and the anti-catholicism is easy for me to spot from a mile away. The shear ignorance is even more blatant. If you are going to attack someone else in his religion, you should at least know what he actually believes.

Obviously they trust their religion. It has told them over and over and over again that Mary was a virgin all her life. Tell something to someone often enoough, over and over again from childhood and they will believe it. Brainwashing does the same thing with the Muslims.[QUOTE]

Neither Roman Catholics nor Muslims are brainwashed. If they are, then the children of Southern Baptists are even more so, for they are also told the tenants of their false religion over and over again until they can no longer engage a rational argument to the contrary. Brainwashing is a very definate and difficult procedure used by some cults and often by military in iterogation. It requires sleep, water and food depravation and a psychological breaking down requiring the person to declare to be true something they know is false in order to gain the "privilages" of food, water and sleep. However, like serious adherants to many religions, Roman Catholics and Muslims teach the doctrines of their religion to their children beginning at a very young age. Athiests do this as well. In fact, anyone who would not teach his own children things which he himself is convinced are true would be guilty of neglect.

[QUOTE]This Perpetual Virgin doctrine shows us that Roman Catholic people love and believe their religion even more than the Bible which tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters (see Mark 6:3).

Even though I agree with you, the Bible is hardly clear on this point. It points out that Mary and his brothers and sisters came to get him, but it never says specifically that these are her children. Those who hold to the perpetual virginity have some prety solid arguments as well. We who believe that she had other children need to explain why Jesus gave her to the Apostle John to care for at His death. And it certainly seems a nobel sentiment that Mary, after giving birth to the Lord of Life, would never want to use that organ for sensual pleasure. You don't do that in church, I'm sure, and her womb had become a holy sancutary. If I had been Joseph I'm sure I would have felt wierd about it.

Obviously its just a deep, deep trust that Roman Catholics have in their religion and its teachers.

And how unAmercian it is to have such trust in some leaders or an institution. God forbid that anyone should obey the commandment to have respect for those in authority over them. Rather, it is much more "godly" to treat our religious leaders like hirelings of the congregation, firing them at will when they do not teach us what our itching ears want to hear. Yah, I can see the attraction for converting to an "Evangelical." :eek:

Gosh, they even try to say their pope is infallible. But apparently he's not, because he didn't even know he was gonna make all the Muslim crazies mad recently when he read something out of the 14th century and it caused Islamic wackos to burn churches, kill a nun and call for the pope's death.

Here is where your ignorance is put on display. When they say that the Pope is infalible, they mean under very specific circumstances. It does not mean that he cannot make a mistake, that he can fortell the future, or even that everything he says is absolutely true. The Pope is only considered "infallible" when he is speaking "from the throne." When he issues a papal bull denouncing false doctrine, clarifying the position of the church, explaining what the church believes on a given position, then he is infallible, according to their doctrine.

However, was it really a mistake? The Pope read a 14th century statement of what Muslims were like in those days, a violent people, and the Muslims react by burning some churches, killing a nun and demanding the death of the Pope to prove that they are not really like that. While the rest of the world leaders have been trying to outdo each other making deceitful statements about the peacefulness and tolarance of Islam, the Pope, single handedly tricked them into exposing themselves for what they really are. All the Pope did was to shout, "The Emperor has no clothes on," while everyone else was complementing him on his bold new style. Sounds right on the money to me.

What a lunatic world this has become!

Finally, some truth. A lunatic world where strawmem are torn down daily in the name of "good theology." Let Jesus Christ be true and all men liars.

[Crow]

Obviously they trust their religion. It has told them over and over and over again that Mary was a virgin all her life. Tell something to someone often enoough, over and over again from childhood and they will believe it. Brainwashing does the same thing with the Muslims. This Perpetual Virgin doctrine shows us that Roman Catholic people love and believe their religion even more than the Bible which tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters (see Mark 6:3).

Obviously its just a deep, deep trust that Roman Catholics have in their religion and its teachers. Gosh, they even try to say their pope is infallible. But apparently he's not, because he didn't even know he was gonna make all the Muslim crazies mad recently when he read something out of the 14th century and it caused Islamic wackos to burn churches, kill a nun and call for the pope's death.

What a lunatic world this has become!

I disagree with the Catholics about Mary's perpetual virginity, and I believe that scripture contradicts it. I disagree. I think they're wrong. And who is not wrong about something? Show me any infallible Christian.

Human beings are not infallable--not you, not I, not the Pope, not Jude3b. We aren't going to interpret scriptures perfectly, Lord knows, and He ought to because He made us and He knows our limitations.

I'll give you a great example of fallibility. I suspect that you're Jude3b under a sock account based upon the threads you choose to frequent and the style and tone of your posts. I am fallible and there's no way to know for certain. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. And I'm not less Christian for harboring this honest suspicion, correct or not. I hope that I owe you an apology on this, because Christians who behave dishonestly discredit the body of Christ.

Regardless, the body of Christ doesn't need divisive men and women representing them. It's one thing to disagree on issues--it's human, it's normal, and it's healthy. If Christians didn't love God, it wouldn't be important to us that we and others understand Him to the best of our abilities. But when it degenerates into some sort of an intramural witch hunt it's gone too damned far. It's time to reject the divisive man.

We are the body of Christ--all of us who accept Christ as the son of God and as our savior. He cared enough for all of us to suffer and die for us so that we are reconciled. We, the body, are what is most visible to this world. If people never pick up a Bible, they see him through us. And these incessant attacks don't paint a pretty picture. They make our God look like the God of bitter self-absorbed fools. They make the body a stumbling block to the unsaved.

When Christians disagree and remember that we are all His and all part of the same body, all loved by Him, that is constructive and a good use of the minds that God gave us. We can grow out of these discussions. When we act like sons of Hell we are like whited tombs, shiny on the outside but surrounded by a miasma of rottenness and death that no man in his right mind would want to be a part of. He cared enough for those unsaved to die for them too.

We can't be cookie cutter Christians, all perfect and uniform and one the same as the next. We can remember that we are a family and not take cheap shots at one another and we can approach each other with love. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. These "what's wrong with the Catholics" threads are starting to sound like a hailstorm in a forest of steel garbage cans.

[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?

"The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children." This is just another of the many false statements by this lunatic. Jude please give us the chahpter and verse that will say Mary bore other children,You can't, this is just another of your many false statements about the Mother of Our Lord.

[Chytraeus]

"The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children." This is just another of the many false statements by this lunatic. Jude please give us the chahpter and verse that will say Mary bore other children,You can't, this is just another of your many false statements about the Mother of Our Lord.
Show me the one that says definitively that the "bothers and sisters" of our Lord were not Mary's children. From Scripture alone we simply will never know, so the fact that some people on both sides of the argument want to divide the church over this baffels me. If it were that important, I think the Holy Spirit would have made sure that we knew by inspiring one of the Evangelists to say something like, "Mary had other children," or "Joseph took Mary into his home as his wife but never knew her." It does not. The only important fact is that Mary was a virgin when our Lord was concieved, and she was still a virgin when He was born. This fact proves that He is not just an ordinary man, but God in human flesh, the only begotten Son of God, who came into the world to redeem mankind.

You all need to let this issue drop and deal with some real problems, like that Justification is in fact by faith, and not by any kind of work, that it is entirely a gift of God. Unfortunately, that is the one point that both the Roman Catholics and those who most violently oppose them agree on, that somehow a work of man must be involved in salvation. One calls it penenance, while the other calls it a free choice to believe, but it matters not, for it is still a work of man that nulifies real faith and robs people of salvation.

[Joe Gofish]

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

NO He cannot because the bible never said she gave birth to other children.

[Joe Gofish]

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).

Once again we can see how Jude will use his own iteroretation to try to made the bible say what he needs it to say,"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,You do not have to give birth to a man to be his Step mother they may be the children of Joseph,none of the verse you are using is say Mary gave birth to any one but Jesus.
Juse one more of the many verse he takes out of context.

[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?

The writings of the Early Fathers of the Church and the early Councils all agree on the fact that Mary was always a virgin. Some of these writers are:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.110)
St. Aristides (d.123)
St. Justin Martyr (c.100-165)
St. Irenaeus (c.130-200)
Origen (c.185-254)
Creed of St. Epiphanius (c.315-403)
St. Jerome (c.342-420)
St. Hilary of Pointers (d.367)
St. Augustine (c.354-430)


2nd Council of Constantinople under Pope Vigilius (553)
Latern Council under Pope Martin I (649)


These councils, and the Creed of Epiphanius, speak of the "ever Virgin" Mary, that is, she was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. She was a virgin throughout her life.

This is nothing more then a false statement the bible NEVER said Mary gave birth to other Children this person is very confused as to what he thinks the bible is saying
"The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children: PLEASE GIVE THE CHAPTER AND VERSE THAT WILL SAY MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN,YOU CAN'T

[Chytraeus]

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).

Once again we can see how Jude will use his own iteroretation to try to made the bible say what he needs it to say,"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,You do not have to give birth to a man to be his Step mother they may be the children of Joseph,none of the verse you are using is say Mary gave birth to any one but Jesus.
Juse one more of the many verse he takes out of context.

Of course, if we are to take the words of these unbelievers as litterally as Jude wants us to take them, we have eliminated the virgin birth of our Lord altogether, for they begin with the question, "Is this not the capentar's son?" No, in fact He was not the carpentar's son. He was God's Son. Joseph the carpentar was only a stepfather to Jesus. Those who asked this question would have known that this was the claim of Jesus and his earthly family. Therefore, since they clearly show that they either use the term "carpentar's son" loosely or they do not believe the claim of Jesus that Joseph was not his real father, the rest of their statement cannot be taken dobmatically either.

You know, I have always denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the more I hear the vehemant arguments of those who insist that she could not be, the more inclined I am to side with her perpetual virginity.


The writings of the Early Fathers of the Church and the early Councils all agree on the fact that Mary was always a virgin. Some of these writers are:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.110)
St. Aristides (d.123)
St. Justin Martyr (c.100-165)
St. Irenaeus (c.130-200)
Origen (c.185-254)
Creed of St. Epiphanius (c.315-403)
St. Jerome (c.342-420)
St. Hilary of Pointers (d.367)
St. Augustine (c.354-430)


2nd Council of Constantinople under Pope Vigilius (553)
Latern Council under Pope Martin I (649)


Unfortunately, none of these, even Ignatius, were likely to have actually known the virgin herself, so they are going on tradition. However, having read Ignatious, I don't remember him affirming her perpetual virginity. Can you provide the source for this claim. I have seen the early fathers thrown around here as saying things that I know they never said, and I suspect that those who post such things hope that there are few who disagree with their point of view who have actually read the early fathers, so no one can refute them. This is a very deceptvie practice and highly unchristian. I would hope that you would not be guilty of using Ignatious in vain. So, reference please.


These councils, and the Creed of Epiphanius, speak of the "ever Virgin" Mary, that is, she was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. She was a virgin throughout her life.

Now, it is one thing to insist that Mary was a virgin both before and after the birth of Jesus, and quite another to insist that she remained so her entire life. The concern of the first 7 ecumenical councils was not the position of Mary in the life of the church, it was the person and nature of Christ Jesus. Any and all mentions of the virginity of Mary in those councils must be seen in that light. The virginity of Mary both before and after the birth of Jesus was a way of demonstrating His divinity. Only a divinly incarnate creature could be both concived and birthed while doing no damage to the proof of the virginity of the mother. Just as Jesus was able to pass through angry crowds bent on his distruction, just as He was able to pass through locked doors to great the frightened disciples, He was able to pass through the birth canal of Mary without damaging her virginity. He was able to do this because He was not only Man, He was also God. Therefore Mary is the Theotokos, the bearer of God, or in the vernacular, the mother of God. That Child in her womb was God. She gave birth to the Creater of the Cosmos.

To use these confessions of the Church which were written to combat heresey against the divine/human nature of Christ as proof texts for the modern perpetual virginity theory is being untrue to their context. They were not written to prove that point. Now, it may be possible to show that they took the perpetual virginity as a given and used that "fact" to prove the divinity of Christ, but this means that they could be in error on this point while their conclusions were still absoltutely correct.

This is nothing more then a false statement the bible NEVER said Mary gave birth to other Children this person is very confused as to what he thinks the bible is saying
"The Bible states that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children: PLEASE GIVE THE CHAPTER AND VERSE THAT WILL SAY MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN,YOU CAN'T

That is a very confusing statement. The absence of punctuation and correct grammer is very disruptive of the intent of the author. However, the point is correct. The Scriptures never say one way or another. They never say that the other brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually Mary's children, nor do they say that they were not. If, as some of the traditions propose, Joseph was a widower who had other children before he took Mary to be his wife, then these "brothers and sisters" could be step-siblings, just as Joseph was a step-father. Since, after the narative of Jesus as a boy in the temple, Joseph is never mentioned again as an actor in the Gospel accounts, it is possible that he was considerably older than Mary. Mary was very likely still a teenager when Jesus was born. Since we know of approximately 7 siblings, and men tended not to marry during their teens, this would have made Joseph closer to the age of 50 when they married. This might also go a long way to explain how she could remain a virgin. At that age high blood pressure might well have set in, leading to ED. :lol:

At any rate, holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary is a pious opinion neither proven nor disallowed by holy Writ. It does no damage to the Gospel of Jesus Christ either way, and is therefore a moot point. The fact that some protestants feel the intense need to defend their opinions as fact is part of what makes them smell so bad, and a great deal of the reason why I am reluctant to go by the name of "Protestant." :eek:

[Joe Gofish]

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).
JUDE The bible NEVER said Mary had other children,maybe there are the children of Joseph and that would make Mary the mother.

But let us not stop here. For after saying only "One is your Father", Jesus proceeded to declare, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ".6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a "teacher of Israel".7 And in the church at Antioch certain men were called "prophets and teachers".8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also did not hesitate to call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles".10 Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one "father" and "teacher", except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are looking for. In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as "reverend" and "pastor", Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well, "Call no one reverend or pastor".

[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?

ANOTHER VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT The bible NEVER said Mary bore other children,Jude what did Luther,Zwingli and your hero Calvin have to say about Mary being a virgin

[Chytraeus]

and just for giggles Cyril of Alexandria



"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Actually, all this is proof of is that Cyril believed that Jesus, while He was born, ensured that the physical proof of her virginity was not destroyed, as one would normally expect. Cyril did not say that He kept her a virgin for eternity, but only that "he kept his mother a virgin even after her childbearing." The fact that you would capitalize "Mother" while leaving the pronouns for Jesus himself in lower case is quite telling. Which one do you honor more? When praying the Rosery, whose prayers are uttered the most often? The Roman church continues denying that they worship Mary, but their practice continues to contradict those denials. Go to the great Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris France. The Crucifix is almost impossible to see for the giant size statue of Mary standing in front of the altar. Having read Cyril, I am sure he would not have approved of any of this, for he worshipped only the Lord, Jesus Christ, and anything he had to say about Mary was only in defense of the divinity and humanity of his Lord.

[Adam]

Actually, all this is proof of is that Cyril believed that Jesus, while He was born, ensured that the physical proof of her virginity was not destroyed, as one would normally expect. Cyril did not say that He kept her a virgin for eternity, but only that "he kept his mother a virgin even after her childbearing." The fact that you would capitalize "Mother" while leaving the pronouns for Jesus himself in lower case is quite telling. Which one do you honor more? When praying the Rosery, whose prayers are uttered the most often? The Roman church continues denying that they worship Mary, but their practice continues to contradict those denials. Go to the great Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris France. The Crucifix is almost impossible to see for the giant size statue of Mary standing in front of the altar. Having read Cyril, I am sure he would not have approved of any of this, for he worshipped only the Lord, Jesus Christ, and anything he had to say about Mary was only in defense of the divinity and humanity of his Lord.
I agree with Chytraeus fully here,
Both in his distaste for RC virtual worship of Mary and in his respect for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. My similar ambivalence made it easy for me to convert to RC in 1969 and easy to leave RC in 1992. Even while RC for those 23 years I was quite aware that many (maybe most, of the most devout, anyway) did in practice worship Mary--I never did have a devotion to Mary or any other saint.
I tend not to agree with Chytraeus, usually finding him quite stuffy. (Or on this issue I am simply as stuffy as he is.)
Adam

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOT
Your leader Calvin and Zwingli

Your leader Calvin, Zwingli,Luther Augustine ,Ambrose and Jerome all called Mary a virgin all her live and they are a lot smather then you.
THE BIBLE NEVER SAID MARY BORE OTHER CHILDREN,THATS JUST ONE MORE OF YOUR MANY FALSE INTERPRETATATIONS.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Jubilate Deo:

If what you have posted about Mary were true, she would be reduced to the status of R2/D2, a mere Robot, without any free will of her own.

If Mary had no free will, she would have no reason to "rejoice in God her Savior!" A Robot is programmed and incapable of sin or worship of Almighty God.

Again we can see how LITTLE this guy Jude3a knows about the early Church,Jude do you even know what your leader Calvin had to say about Mary or do you do as you do with the bible pick and choose,THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JUDE3A

[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?
Beacuse it is in the bible.
The bible NEVER said Mary Bore other Children after Jesus.
Because thats what most of Christianitly believe.
We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately.

His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her.

For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.



Marriage to the Holy Spirit

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).