Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Janet1983]

My concept of God is thus very different from yours.
A true God is not that vain as to require continuous praise and adoration from his/her/its creation. After all, we did not ask to be created.
If the CC believes that we were created to obey and worship Jehovah in this life and spend eternity with him, no doubt praising him for ever and ever it makes Jehovah hooked on praise as if it were a drug.
A true God does not require the shedding of blood to forgive his creation.
A true God would not reveal him/her/itself to a selected group and any commandments he/she/it would impart on mankind would not be written in a particular language. It would be universally understood by all peoples of the Earth.

Well I guess that’s why I serve the One and Living God and you have a concept of your own personal god, which does not require anything nor give anything, nor feel anything…

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Psalm 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Leviticus 20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

You call yourself a believer, but what do you believe in?

But seeing that you are happy with worshiping a repenting God who is jealous, hates, orders genocide, requires blood and sends people to a lake of fire for all eternity, then I am happy for you too.

Your view of the One True God is not only lopsided, but also focused on you. You do not see the whole picture (of course how could you?). You don’t know my Jesus! You don’t know my God!
Without the knowledge I cannot expect you to understand what great things He has done for me when I was still a sinner. As long as you are outside of His saving grace it will not apply to you and you will not be able to understand the splendor of His grace and mercy that has been extended to us while we were yet sinners.

 

[guanophore]

Is it not the catholic(and perhaps the EO) that are putting forth the idea that to be fully saved, one must believe that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born?

I think it would be more accurate to say that the way to salvation is to fully receive Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This means to embrace all that he did, and taught. He commissioned the Apostles to “teach them all that I have commanded”; The Apostles understood that the gospel is a seamless garment, and that it must be maintained whole and intact. We are not at liberty to choose parts that can be subtracted and disregarded.

God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. He has revealed the sure way to salvation in His son. In embracing the Son, we embrace all of the Truths that He lived and taught. One of those Truths is that He was an only child.

I see two key words that catch my eye:willfull and rebellious. Willful disobedience, is of course, knowing it is wrong, and doing it anyway; while rebellion may be interpreted any number of ways. Some times we rebel, because we don’t agree with something, or we feel oppressed. Personally, when it comes to Christians, if I hear that someone has “lost” their salvation(jury’s still out on that one), or is WILLFULLY committing sin, it makes me wonder about their salvation

Yes. I think that Catholics are understanding of this. It is just that we take an Apostolic view of salvation, in that it begins at justification, works itself out in us throughout our lives in sanctification, and is completed in glorification when we see Him as He really is. It is not so much that salvation is “lost” as it is that we have not yet attained. We have begun, and He is able to complete this work in us, as the Author and Finisher of our faith, but if we don’t stick close to HIm so that He can write upon and transform our hearts, we forfeit our inheritance.

I know myself that Jesus has removed many of the desires I used to have, for doing things that are against God’s will. I’m not perfect by any means; as are all Christians, but God is constantly shaping me(Philippians 1:6). Until I encountered catholics, I had only heard of Mary’s virginity prior to Jesus’s birth.

This is a good example of invicible ignorance, and also a good example of why you stand it the tradition of Apollos.

My wife and I were discussing OSAS, and she said that she believed that if she had died while she was away from the Lord, she wouldn’t have gone to Heaven. I said, "I don’t know for sure if you would’ve or notThen I said, “Why do you think that God protected you, during those dark times?”

What do you make of the warnings He gives in the letters to the Churches in Revelation?

I don’t believe that you can definitively translate 1Cor9:27, to mean that if you do something, like sin that you may lose your salvation! It could mean that if you are not vigilant in keeping yourself “fit”, in the Lord’s ways(priest, pastor, apostle) you may lose the privilege of doing the Lord’s work(in other words; practice what you preach).Romans 8:24(should include verse 25)

Do you think that a priest or a pastor that started out dedicated, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and having a walk with God that is admirable, if he then chooses to engage in sexual immorality through abuse, adultery, or fornication is bound for heaven? Now you may prefer to think that such a one was never “saved”, but scripture indicates that he did not abide in the vine, fell from grace, and was cut off.

 It could mean that if you are not vigilant in keeping yourself "fit", in the Lord's ways(priest, pastor, apostle) you may lose the privilege of doing the Lord's work(in other words; practice what you preach)

this is certainly true, but the fruit is what reveals the nature of the tree.

.Romans 8:24(should include verse 25), it is, I believe talking about being patient, persevering and faithful that God wil deliver on His promise of eternal life! Not totally sure how to interpret Romans 11:22, but it may have something to do with willful disobedience and falling into darkness, after having been in the light.

The reason it is so important to abide and remain in Him is that we can do nothing without Him. If we cease to abide in Him, then we are prone to fall back into the sin from which he redeemed us.

Bottom line is, I cannot in good conscience, tell anyone that they can, or have lost their salvation:thumbsup: This is God’s dominion, and He knows what is in a man’s heart

I agree that it is God’s decision, and that is why the Apostles taught us not to judge before the time, even ourselves. However, to fail to tell people that it is possible to run so as to not with the prize is a disservice to them. If they go through life thinking their name cannot be blotted out of the Book of Life, they are misled.

 

[guanophore]

Well I guess he never heard of this good advice:
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control…

It would be very worldly of us to think that Mary and Joseph felt in any way “deprived” by the unique privilege or raising the Son of God.

 

[1beleevr]

goodfella: I knew I should have submitted that post in English I never said that Judas was "saved"amd then lost it; what I said was, that God and Satan used Judas to fulfill a prophecy! Do you not believe that God, and Satan can use people and situations to accomplish goals, or fulfill prophecy? In the case of Jesus’s betrayal, it just happened to be Judas Jesus had to die on the Cross, it was prohesied in the OT. Satan entered Judas, which was allowed by God. We do not know whether he was as devoted to Christ as the others! Remember Pharoah from Exodus? Wasn’t he used by God?

 

[1beleevr]

guan:I think the word deprived here, may be a bit over the top I don’t think either Joseph or Mary felt deprived, if in fact they didn’t have sexual relations AFTER Jesus was born!

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: I dont carve up the Gospel, to form my “own” agenda or plan of salvation I do though wish youse guys would prove to us that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was required for eternal life; and to be wholly savedIt seems that the way the cc explains the Gospel, is not to say, “This is what Jesus says is the way to be saved,” rather you use “blanket” explanations, by saying that the apostles taught it, sp we should believe it

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: You are correct, that it is vital to remain in Him!!!:thumbsup:But, as we all know, even the staunchest of believers, falls away, from time to time Thank goodness for forgiveness(1John 1:9). So, let me ask you, are all those catholic priests who were caught in the sex abuse cases, headed for Heaven, or what? Are they. or have they been forgiven? If I, a 42 year saved, follower of Christ, cheats on my wife or my taxes, am I condemned to Hell?

 

[Janet1983]

It would be very worldly of us to think that Mary and Joseph felt in any way “deprived” by the unique privilege or raising the Son of God.

Sure… they were married and didn’t become one flesh…
Mary and Joseph were first of all a Jewish couple. It is just logical for him to not have sex with her until she gave birth and even after that there is a healthy waiting time, but after that it is just reasonable to assume that they went ahead and consummated the marriage like every other couple would have back then (and till today).
The prophecy was fulfilled at the point that Jesus was conceived without a human father… Jesus divinity is not changed in any way through any further actions of His mother.
She was an honorable wife and she was expected to have more children… Throughout the Old Testament we see that children are a blessing and a man considered himself blessed if he had a lot of sons as heirs and as those who would take care of him in his old age.

 

[FdeS2]

Sure… they were married and didn’t become one flesh…
Mary and Joseph were first of all a Jewish couple. It is just logical for him to not have sex with her until she gave birth and even after that there is a healthy waiting time, but after that it is just reasonable to assume that they went ahead and consummated the marriage like every other couple would have back then (and till today).
The prophecy was fulfilled at the point that Jesus was conceived without a human father… Jesus divinity is not changed in any way through any further actions of His mother.
She was an honorable wife and she was expected to have more children… Throughout the Old Testament we see that children are a blessing and a man considered himself blessed if he had a lot of sons as heirs and as those who would take care of him in his old age.

Janet1983, I appreciate your sincerity and your contributions to this thread. However, I would like to attempt to shed some light upon this topic, for your sake, my sake, and the sake of all those who read and understand these words.

Ancient Judaism is a topic that can be misunderstood or even unknown, based upon the difficulty one can have in attaining information about their culture. I have been blessed with an education that includes a background in ancient Jewish culture. Professor Michael Barber, a Biblical Theologian, has taught me and my classmates for four academic years, revealing to us the beauty and depth of the Bible in a way I had not thought possible. In the process, I learned several key things about Mary and her perpetual virginity.

Something not many know is that, in ancient Judaism, it was not uncommon for women to take a vow of perpetual celibacy, all for the glory and service of God. A girl was required to tell her father about this decision and, if after a set time he had not objected, it was understood that her vow was acceptable.

This posed a problem to some fathers, who could not support their daughters after a certain point, but expected to be cared for in their old age. This is where the practice of a marriage like that of Joseph and Mary comes into play. Just as women could take vows of perpetual abstinence, so also could men. Now, it is possible that Joseph was one of these men or that he had been married before. This could explain the reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus later in the Gospels. However, this can also be explained by referring to the ambiguity of the term “brother” in Hebrew, which can also refer to cousins, distant kinsmen, or even countrymen. In any event, let us get back to the point at hand.

Since Mary had taken a vow of perpetual celibacy, she expected not to have relations with any man, as she says in Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be, since I know not man?”). Even so, in order for women to have any rights in ancient Jewish society, they had to be married. If they were not, then after their father’s death, they would be worth little more than a dog. Tragic and sad, I know, but historically accurate. It is reasonable, then, for Mary to enter into a marriage with a man, but this man would be informed beforehand of her vow of celibacy.

Now one can see the circumstances under which Mary and Joseph entered into marriage. of course, this marriage is not the same as the one that we are used to in our culture, but our two cultures are very different indeed.

In my next post, I will examine the Old Testament “types” of Mary, as outlined by Dr. Brant Pitre and Professor Michael Barber.

P.S. The circumstances that I have laid before you are not a fanciful dream, but based upon the scholarly work of these two men. You can find Dr. Brant Pitre’s outline of a Bible study on Mary here:

brantpitre.com/documents/printable_outlines/mother_of_messiah.pdf

God bless you and yours, and have a wonderful day!

In Christ,
Daniel

 

[FdeS2]

As a quick note (before I forget to make this connection), after Joseph’s death, Mary was entrusted to Jesus. Then, on the cross, Jesus entrusts Mary to the Apostle John, in order to protect her and allow her to maintain the rights that she needed through the protection of a man in ancient Jewish culture. Of course, Jesus is also giving Mary to all of us as our Mother, in order to pray for us and beg for mercy before her son (who existed before her as the Son, but was born of the Virgin Mary and was raised by her; Mary is not greater than or equal to Jesus, but is a creation of God, albeit a very blessed one).

As another quick note, here is a quote from the Bible study outline I linked to in my last post:

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” (Luke 1:34)
(Gk pos estai touto, epei andra ou ginosko)

“All the angel has told her at this point is that she would conceive and bear a child; there is no reason for her to wonder how this would take place if she, as a betrothed woman, had any plans of having marital relations with Joseph.”

Now, for the promised Old-New Testament linkages, specifically focusing on Ark of the Covenant similarities (old ark was so holy it couldn’t be touched and was the "glory seat/throne of God; new ark (Mary) was so holy she couldn’t be touched, and she carried God himself within her).

The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3)

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35)

David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2)

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39)

David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!”
(Luke 1:41-42)

The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

While I would like to take credit for this amazing compilation of Biblical parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, the new Ark of the Covenant, I cannot. As I have mentioned before, this is what I have learned through the hard work and dedication of men like Dr. Brant Pitre and Professor Michael Barber, who taught me as a student for four academic years.

Does it not seem likely that so holy a vessel would remain untouched by any man, just as the old Ark of the Covenant was? For all of these reasons, and those cited in my previous post (along with many more that have not been mentioned, I assure you!), can you see why the Catholic Church has maintained that Mary remained a virgin, even after Jesus’s birth?

 

[Good_Fella]

goodfella: I knew I should have submitted that post in English I never said that Judas was "saved"amd then lost it; what I said was, that God and Satan used Judas to fulfill a prophecy! Do you not believe that God, and Satan can use people and situations to accomplish goals, or fulfill prophecy? In the case of Jesus’s betrayal, it just happened to be Judas Jesus had to die on the Cross, it was prohesied in the OT. Satan entered Judas, which was allowed by God. We do not know whether he was as devoted to Christ as the others! Remember Pharoah from Exodus? Wasn’t he used by God?

God permitted Judas and Pharoah to commit their dastardly deeds. If this is what you mean, I agree. But I fail to see how Judas is any different from the rest of us who betray and deny Jesus on the occasions of sin.

 

[PRmerger]

guan:I think the word deprived here, may be a bit over the top I don’t think either Joseph or Mary felt deprived, if in fact they didn’t have sexual relations AFTER Jesus was born!

 

[PRmerger]

But I fail to see how Judas is any different from the rest of us who betray and deny Jesus on the occasions of sin.

Exactly! :clapping:

 

[elvisman]

Sure… they were married and didn’t become one flesh…
Mary and Joseph were first of all a Jewish couple. It is just logical for him to not have sex with her until she gave birth and even after that there is a healthy waiting time, but after that it is just reasonable to assume that they went ahead and consummated the marriage like every other couple would have back then (and till today).
The prophecy was fulfilled at the point that Jesus was conceived without a human father… Jesus divinity is not changed in any way through any further actions of His mother.
She was an honorable wife and she was expected to have more children… Throughout the Old Testament we see that children are a blessing and a man considered himself blessed if he had a lot of sons as heirs and as those who would take care of him in his old age.

Ezekiel 44:2** prophesies of Mary:**
“This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

---

What part of, ““This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it” do you have difficulty understanding?

 

[avflf]

Can you cite your reference for this?

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

Where is it that you get your understanding of what “a true God” is?

Oh. disappointed

Methinks that when questions are presented to you and you have no answer except “they just came to me”, it certainly is time to bow out of a reasoned discussion. sigh

I note that you do not attempt to refute my views on Jehovah, probably because you know that what I said can be backed up by your own Scriptures, so you keep asking questions and feeling that you’ve done your bit for your cause, so let me ask you a few question and this time do not dodge the issue: A YES or NO answer is all that is required

Does the Bible acknowledge that your God repents?
Do you believe that a God needs to repent?
Do you accept that your God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to kill men, women, children and even babies?
Does the total destruction of a people not constitute genocide?
Do you accept that your God takes to himself 10% of the virgins when the spoil was dished out?

So, it is not the case of “How do you know this?” that makes for a valid argument. It is what your Holy Book says that provides the indictment against your God being God.

 

[PRmerger]

I note that you do not attempt to refute my views on Jehovah, probably because you know that what I said can be backed up by your own Scriptures, so you keep asking questions and feeling that you’ve done your bit for your cause, so let me ask you a few question and this time do not dodge the issue: A YES or NO answer is all that is required

Does the Bible acknowledge that your God repents?
Do you believe that a God needs to repent?
Do you accept that your God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to kill men, women, children and even babies?
Does the total destruction of a people not constitute genocide?
Do you accept that your God takes to himself 10% of the virgins when the spoil was dished out?

So, it is not the case of “How do you know this?” that makes for a valid argument. It is what your Holy Book says that provides the indictment against your God being God.

Oh, good, you’ve decided to come back!

So, how is it that you know all these things about the Divine?

I think you understand what the underlying dichotomy is here, which is why you’ve refused to answer that question even after the 5th time I’ve asked you. The problem that you’re seeing is that you have the underlying assumption–based on the principles of a God that were revealed to you in the Bible--that God should be a loving God. However, if you reveal that your understanding of God is Scripturally based, then you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

Q.E.D.

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: And once again, we disagree. Jesus fulfilled every prophecy written about Him, against astronomical odds One of these prophecies, was that Jesus would be betrayed and hung on tree(Cross). The Jewish High Council, knowing that they had no authority to execute anyone, had to convince the Romans to crucify Him. God allowed Satan to enter Judas, thereby setting up the betrayal. But, of course, Judas had to get close to and befriend Jesus; to complete the evil deed! It has nothing to do with predestination, God regularly “used” people all throughout history to facilitate His will. In this case, it just happened to be Judas! Can you imagine what the Jews would have thought, if they had realized Who they were crucifying?

Prophesies being fulfilled do not take away the sins committed by individuals. If that were the case, then when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, it wasn’t their fault, they were the first ones to be “used” by God to facilitate His will.

You sound like a “Monday Morning Quarterback” (no offense intended). You have the result of yesterday’s game (1st Century AD), today (21st Century AD), and today you accommodate things that happened in yesterday’s game to conform to your interpretation of Scripture. It’s easy to get the wrong conclusions when you work backwards in time, from the present to the past. That’s why you conclude that Judas was just “used” to fulfill a prophesy, that he was “never saved” in the first place. Do you really believe Judas was condemned before he was even born? That seems to be your conclusion.

God’s time, on the other hand, doesn’t behave like ours. He sees our existence, our whole lives in the present time. He revealed His prophets the clues (prophesies) that would point to the Messiah. If you missed them, it was your fault. God did not “make you miss them”. Judas missed them. So did all the Jews that asked for His crucifixion, from Caiaphas on down.

You seem to believe that Judas was in a conspiracy against Jesus from the very beginning, because you say that “Judas had to get close to and befriend Jesus”. Have you forgotten it was Jesus who called on Judas to follow Him? And how was Judas to know what Jesus would be in three years time? Was he a clairvoyant? Besides, how many times do we read in the Bible about God’s people turning away from Him? Judas is one more who turned away from God. God knew what he would do, revealed it to His prophets, but it wasn’t God who made Judas turn away from Him.

Your statements imply that God deliberately “pushed” Judas to sin! God commits no sin. God’s knowledge of Judas action does not take away Judas guilt. Can’t you see that the difference between Judas and the others was that Judas did not repent? Had he repented, he would’ve been in the same boat with Paul, who persecuted and had Christians murdered. The Apostles accepted Paul, who showed remorse and repented for what he had done. The Apostles would’ve done the same for Judas. Isn’t that what Christianity teaches? What better example for the generations to come if he had repented and continued to preach Jesus Gospel!

And as you said in a previous post, this is one of those detours we take from the original discussion of this thread…

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: I read Ezekiel 44:2, and understood it to mean that the Eastern Gate would forever be sealed, because the Lord had entered the Temple through it I guess if I were catholic, I could see the way you do! I heard from someone who visited Israel, that the East Gate was indeed sealed:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

fdes2: Nice post, very nice; but…

 

[Janet1983]

Ezekiel 44:2** prophesies of Mary:**
“This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

---

What part of, ““This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it” do you have difficulty understanding?

This quote is about the temple…
“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

This “east gate” has indeed long been completely sealed. The most remarkable testimony of this verse is that “the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it.” In the new temple the gate will be open again and the God/man, the King of kings, Jesus Christ, will enter thereby.

Zechariah 14:4
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Acts 1:10-12
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.