Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

[TriuneUnity]

In making a judgement about what to believe in matters not clearly stated in scripture, such as this.
The ECF’s? or Jim Bakker? Hmmm.

LOL well, that’s not exactly a fair comparison. What I mean is, someone living 300 years after Christ would not know anymore about the sexual status of Mary as anyone living today would

 

[JonNC]

LOL well, that’s not exactly a fair comparison.

Ok. John Hagee, then.

What I mean is, someone living 300 years after Christ would not know anymore about the sexual status of Mary as anyone living today would

Closer to the time. Perhaps a more reliable, dare I say it, oral tradition.

 

[RobHom]

Well, nothing was normal about the situation lol. Honestly, the best argument, I feel, for her not having any other children is the Christ-child being taken to the temple. Doesn’t mention any other family.

BINGO!! And so it was as you said.

You’re free to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Scripture doesn’t bind your conscience here! I just wish the Church didn’t

Oh, I don’t really don’t feel that the “Church” binds my conscience on the issue… I guess its the thoughts and writings of people far wiser than I that makes me bind myself to it.

On certain things, yeah (Paul setting fire to those who denied the Real Presence would’ve been helpful). I can’t say Mary’s virginity is one of them

Agreed, yet in the case of Mary…it would have made one less issue to quibble over, no?

Haha!

“Huzzah, good people, never shall thee fear. I am predestined to protect the followers of Christ from Calvinists!” - Ubermensch

SHAZZAM!!! I will rest well tonite!!

 

[RobHom]

He also, in general terms, agreed with the assumption. The point of departure is intercession, and binding the conscience of the believer in this matter.

Agreed…though I’m not really sure why he was that way… Can you shed some light on that? I know that Luther really rebelled against the notion of “indulgences”…especially in the manner that they were “handled” in those times…

As for a Catholic using the early reformers to support a position, I say where we agree, we agree. Nothing wrong with that. Wish there were more instances.

Jon

As do I and many others!!

Peace!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok. John Hagee, then.

Ah, good. We can agree on a reasonable example then.

Closer to the time. Perhaps a more reliable, dare I say it, oral tradition.

I just don’t think the apostles were preaching it. The Trinity, eschatology, justification, good works, along with Mary’s marital relations? I just can’t see it.

 

[adstrinity]

Closer to the time. Perhaps a more reliable, dare I say it, oral tradition.

Bells, Whistles, and Sirens

WHAT KIND OF SOLA SCRIPTURIST ARE YOU!!!

That one monk must be rolling over in his grave!

As a pennance drink three bloody Mary’s and say something in favour of the Calvinists.

 

[TriuneUnity]

BINGO!! And so it was as you said.

See, I even convince myself when I argue.

Oh, I don’t really don’t feel that the “Church” binds my conscience on the issue… I guess its the thoughts and writings of people far wiser than I that makes me bind myself to it.

I am glad my posts are starting to impress me upon your conscience

Agreed, yet in the case of Mary…it would have made one less issue to quibble over, no?

That’s what I don’t get. Aside from pre-Baptist pietists, why would anyone quibble over it!?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Bells, Whistles, and Sirens

WHAT KIND OF SOLA SCRIPTURIST ARE YOU!!!

That one monk must be rolling over in his grave!

As a pennance drink three bloody Mary’s and say something in favour of the Calvinists.

HAHAHAHA

“they have such nice beards.”

 

[DianJo]

(Fourth rewrite trying not to respond in anger but in love) How do YOU know that my definition of until is not the same as the Lord’s? Pretty presumptious to put words in His mouth. Other passages in Scripture mention Jesus’ brothers - do you just ignore verses that don’t subscribe to your own views? I guess in your views I and all who don’t subscribe to your opinions (not facts or truths) are heretics. So be it - I’ll take my chances on the mercy of the Lord. See you in Heaven.

God Bless!

Sorry for the buttinski here…He explained to you the meaning of the word “until” because you used the scripture verse about Joseph not having relations with Mary “until” she gave birth, you were indicating they had relations afterward.

In the time of the Hebrews when the word “until” was used, it was used only in the context of what happened before and had no relation whatever to any future events. This is evident in the other passages that were quoted from various places in scripture. You are placing a 21st century meaning on something written in the 1st century and meant something entirely different.

In that particular verse, Matthew is trying to explain just who Jesus is, that he is of the line of David. That’s why all the geneology in the beginning. He was saying that Jesus was connected to the line of David through Mary and by viture of His conception by the Holy Spirit (Son of God).

Matthew was not trying to say anything about Mary and Joseph and their married life. He was only concerned with WHO Jesus was.

 

[JonNC]

Bells, Whistles, and Sirens

WHAT KIND OF SOLA SCRIPTURIST ARE YOU!!!

The Lutheran kind.

That one monk must be rolling over in his grave!

No he wouldn’t. He quoted the ECF’s all the time.

As a pennance drink three bloody Mary’s and say something in favour of the Calvinists

The first one is a snap. The second, not so much. of course, it is easier in that order.
Just kidding. Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[ufamtobie]

(Fourth rewrite trying not to respond in anger but in love) How do YOU know that my definition of until is not the same as the Lord’s? Pretty presumptious to put words in His mouth. Other passages in Scripture mention Jesus’ brothers - do you just ignore verses that don’t subscribe to your own views? I guess in your views I and all who don’t subscribe to your opinions (not facts or truths) are heretics. So be it - I’ll take my chances on the mercy of the Lord. See you in Heaven.

God Bless!

Then what is your difinition of “UNTIL”? Please explain, if truely I have not already explained it:thumbsup:

How do YOU know that my definition of until is not the same as the Lord’s? Pretty presumptious to put words in His mouth.

I already explained it to you in my post earlier.

Other passages in Scripture mention Jesus’ brothers - do you just ignore verses that don’t subscribe to your own views?

Yes, it does mention that Jesus Christ has brothers and must I remind you that it also mentions that Jesus Christ also had SISTERS.LOL In times of old the word brothers and Sister was a widely used term, such as meaning close relatives were considered brothers and sisters, such as Jesus replied in:** (Mark 4: 33-35) He said in reply who are my mother and brothers? And gazing around him at those seated in the circle he continued, THESE ARE MY MOTHER AND BROTHERS. WHOEVER DOES THE WILL OF GOD IS MY BROTHER SISTER MOTHER TO ME.**

Emereald, it is also writen in Scripture that you MUST EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN. Emerald now why is it that you don’t believe in the verse or do you**…(John 6: 51) I myself am the living bread come down from heaven . If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the Bread I will give is MY FLESH, for the life of the world. ** “EUCHARIST!!!” AMEN.

Again in **(John 6 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: "Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE you if you do not EAT the FLESH odf the SON of MAN and DRINK his BLOOD you have no life in YOU. **
Emerald why is it that you do not believe that the EUCHARIST IS TRUELY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST THAT WE ALL MUST EAT AND DRINK FOR OUR SALVATION.

Emerald, if you believe in (John 6: 53) The only place on earth where you can EAT the Flesh and Drink His BLOOD is at a local Catholic Church near you:thumbsup:

So be it - I’ll take my chances on the mercy of the Lord. See you in Heaven.

LORD WILLING

Ufamtobie

 

[RobHom]

See, I even convince myself when I argue.

I do that to myself too…but I get a little worried when I agree with myself too much…

I am glad my posts are starting to impress me upon your conscience

Not gonna touch that one…

That’s what I don’t get. Aside from pre-Baptist pietists, why would anyone quibble over it!?

Come now…you know why…its one of those “hot-button” things and a real talking point for “them”…

JonNC…there has to be at least one “Reformer” at least “twitching” in his grave…

 

[JonNC]

Agreed…though I’m not really sure why he was that way… Can you shed some light on that? I know that Luther really rebelled against the notion of “indulgences”…especially in the manner that they were “handled” in those times…

Do you mean shed some light on indugences, or intercession?

 

[RobHom]

Do you mean shed some light on indugences, or intercession?

Intercession. (please)

 

[JonNC]

Intercession. (please)

Augsburg Confession:

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country.
But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it (scripture) sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.

 

[TriuneUnity]

JonNC…there has to be at least one “Reformer” at least “twitching” in his grave…

Methinks said reformer doing more than twitching right now

 

[RobHom]

Augsburg Confession:

Thanks! Got it!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Just kidding. Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ohh I suppose. Pfft…Our brothers, yet they have a different spirit.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thanks! Got it!

Here’s another confessional statement on intercession:

The Smalcald Articles

The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

And although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, yet it does not follow thence that we should invoke and adore the angels and saints, and fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, and establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, and regard them as helpers in need [as patrons and intercessors], and divide among them all kinds of help, and ascribe to each one a particular form of assistance, as the teach and do. For this is idolatry, and such honor belongs alone to God. For as a Christian and saint upon earth you can pray for me, not only in one, but in many necessities. But for this reason I am not obliged to adore and invoke you, and celebrate festivals, fast, make oblations, hold masses for your honor [and worship], and put my faith in you for my salvation. I can in other ways indeed honor, love, and thank you in Christ. If now such idolatrous honor were withdrawn from angels and departed saints, the remaining honor would be without harm and would quickly be forgotten. For when advantage and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, are no more to be expected, the saints will not be troubled [the worship of the saints will soon vanish], neither in their graves nor in heaven. For without a reward or out of pure love no one will much remember, or esteem, or honor them [bestow on them divine honor].

In short, the Mass itself and anything that proceeds from it, and anything that is attached to it, we cannot tolerate, but must condemn, in order that we may retain the holy Sacrament pure and certain, according to the institution of Christ, employed and received through faith.

 

[JonNC]

Methinks said reformer doing more than twitching right now

Ok, then why did Luther and the other reformers hold to the BVM’s perpetual virginity, if not on the writings of the ECF’s?

And y’all stop picking on me about my oral tradition remark!