Mary and her children

[YADA]

:nope:
"So, please, can someone explain to me, using the Bible, how Mary could still be a virgin all her life, and not contradict the following passages?.

The bible does not say anywhere that Mary “gave birth” to other children. No where in scripture is it stated that Mary and Joseph had carnal relations nor is there any referencce that dircectly states that Joseph “knew” Mary or that Mary “knew” any spouse other than the Holy Spirit.

It is purely you imposing your interpretation upon the scriptures to “imply” that this occurred. Sorry, I have read yur postings and they “beg the question” and set up the “straw man” that you accuse others of doing…

Many have posted here with charity and a genuine attempt to answer your question. You have ignored points and/or totally dismissed the arguements based upon your infallable interpretation of the scriptural texts, youhave made yourself a *pope like **authority. ***

***According to you: ***You have decided that your and only your interpretation is authentic…afterall Luther and Calvin were mere men…the early church fathers were not discussing anything that resembles the catholic Church of today…

You just ignore the fact that if you place the teachings [understanding, religious practice and theology] of those same early church fathers next to any protestant church [mainline, non-denominational, evangelical] and its beliefs and practices and also with the Catholic [and Orthodox] those early church fathers look very “CATHOLIC” But hey; don’t let history, logic, or the scriptures get in the way of your personal beliefs…

 

[hvg3akaek]

It cant be any longer than this thread, or some of your writing. Maybe it is because you don’t agree with it or it began to make sense to you and you could not face the truth, and now it’s… too long…

No, it is because this thread has grown slowly over time. Or perhaps not so slowly. But it is much easier to read a bit and contribute to this thread than to start at the beginning and read the entire thread in one hit. It is one of the main reasons that so many people come in and give the same answers that have already been answered themselves.

BTW, setting aside the “brothers” issue for a moment, let’s just look at Mary and consider her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Do you not think that God, being a jealous God could not have given Mary and or Joseph enough Grace to remain apart?

what??

Mary was not the spouse of the Holy Spirit!

The Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary!

Mary was Joseph’s husband, not God’s.

So why couldn’t Mary have remained a Virgin by keeping her eyes on God and Heaven as she was soooooo disposed to do His will? You say it is unnatural. So is giving up your life for sinners.

and once again, idolatry creeps in…

Jesus is God. For him, doing something ‘unnatural’ is ok - He is God!
Mary is a human. She is not God. For her to do something ‘unnatural’ is not reasonable.

Please, do not attribute God’s characteristics to Mary…

 

[hvg3akaek]

Since the statement was to show the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, that is, a virgin will not only conceive, but also bear a child, the author does not intend to imply anything more than the prophecy having been fulfilled. The fact that Joseph knew not Mary “until” Jesus is born fulfills this prophecy is all the author intends to convey. If you desire to believe that Mary and Joseph afterwards, had a sexual relashionship, by all means, you can, but not at the expense of the verse in question.

And again -I agree! The verse does not state that they did have sex afterwards. It also doses not state that they did not. Using it to prove either way is erroneous.

But, put together with all the other verses in my first post, it highly suggests that there was sex in the marriage after Jesus was born!

This was what I meant;your argument comes from scriptures only, interpreting scriptures. And one cannot do any better by using such method of exegesis. if Abraham’s bosom exists in Heaven, then, what was the purpose for God’s Son to become incarnate and sacrifice His life in saving us from our sins, if the souls of those who died before the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, already were able to enter Heaven?

Or…hold it…it was a parable!!

Jesus was not explaining the specifics of what heaven would be like. His purpose was elsewhere.

Nowhere can this revelation be found in scriptures. This makes the catholic, unbiblical doctrine of Limbo as having biblical support, since this is precisely what Abraham’s bosom is… the catholic doctrine of Limbo.

No, there is no no biblical support. Support does not mean “referenced something that could have the same meaning as an idea that is totally removed from the Bible”.

I’m sorry for not being clear enough. After Judas died, Matthias was chosen to replace him. However, Matthias was chosen because he was a follower of Jesus from the beginning.
Now, we also know that James is, not only an apostle, but one of the three pillars, along with Peter and John. How did he become such a prominent figure if he, at one time was an unbeliever? How could he have become superior to most of the other apostles? Where does the scripture reveal his great conversion?
My point is simply that the first century christian document (gosple according to the Hebrews), which identifies James as one of the twelve, is supported in the fact that scriptures identify him as being one of the three pillars in the Church.

Ah, gotcha Different James, then, would be the logical conclusion.

 

[Bishopite]

They might not have heard of Jesus yet? They might not have heard all that he had done? In essence, they had not heat been able to read the NT?

Is there any indication in Acts 17 where the Bereans knew of Jesus before Paul told them?

[purgatory] is not found in the OT nor the NT nor post Apostolic period until [someone] created it.

 

[hvg3akaek]

You don’t see the Beauty in God’s Word? I know you see it in the NT. But I mean the way God has connected the OT and the NT in so many ways.

I was asking for specifics in regards to Mary => the ark. I just see it as :whacky: not beautiful, so was wondering what you saw that i didn’t.

I’m talking about the way the OT is fulfilled in so very many ways in the NT. Not just with Mary (BTW, do you see how Mary is the New Eve?).

NO, I do not.
Eve = Adam’s helper.
Eve = first to sin, led Adam into temptation

How do these apply to Mary?

I could go on and on, but I simply find these teachings Beautiful!!! They give me but a brief glimpse into just how much God Loves us, not matter how unworthy (or should I say “not worthy”?) we are.

Yeah, I understand this My question was much more specific - about mary, a normal human, somehow representing the ‘new’ ark of God’s law. That, I don’t see.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Can I first ask, why you depend on the Bible for proof that Our Blessed Mother, Mary was not a virgin? What does the Bible bring to this discussion?

Because that was the discussion and the claims at the time I started this thread?

If the response was “No, fair enough, by the bible, either way is fine, but we have traditions that tell us otherwise” I would have left this thread happily right then and there.

But the response is largely “Our view is correct and based on the Bible (but we cant show it from the Bible, you just have to believe us)” and “your idea is wrong - can’t you admit that possibility (although we are not going to admit the possibility of us being wrong)”.

Let’s say, for argument sake, that each of those passages proves Mary not to be a virgin…What does that mean to you?? I"m just curious…Thanks.

If this happened, it would show that Roman Catholic Traditions were not infallible.

 

[Ignatius]

Either that, or kept the Bible in a language most people did not understand (eg…latin?)

Please, do a little homework of your own instead of parroting the misinformation you’ve been spoon fed. What language do you think most people in the fourth century spoke? It was translated into latin because virtually anyone who could read, could read Latin. And if you do the least amount of research, you’ll find that the Church provided translations in dozens of languages throughout the ages starting less than two decades after it declared the Canon of the Bible.

Here are a few facts that I was able to gleanr in about 10 min.

2nd - 3rd A.D. CENTURY THE FIRST BIBLE SCHOOL: The early Catholics started a school in Alexandria for the learning the Gospels and other early Catholic writings.(6)

250 A.D. THE FIRST PARALLEL LANGUAGE BIBLE: The Catholic Origen creates the Hexapla edition of the Old Testament which contained parallel Hebrew and Greek versions. (5)

250-300 A.D. THE FIRST BIBLE IN BOOK FORM: The Jews used long papyrus scrolls, the Early Catholics were the first to use the book (codex) form for scarred scriptures. (10)

382 A.D. The Canon of the New and everlasting covenant declared by decree of Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome.

4TH CENTURY THE OLDEST EXISTING BIBLES: The two oldest existing Bible containing both the Old and most the (Note not the complete) the New Testaments called today the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), the Codex Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), the Codex Ephraemi (345 A.D.), and the Codex Alexandrinus (450 A.D) were hand copied by Catholic monks.(6)

390 A.D. THE FIRST COMPILING OF THE COMPLETE NEW & OLD TESTAMENT: At the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume with The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (which was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., this was the version Christ and His apostles used) and That is the Bible as we have it today. The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today.

(continued)

 

[Ignatius]

(continued)

400 A.D. MOST OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES TRANSLATED: In Syriac, Coptic, Ethhiopic, Georgian Languages

400 A.d. Across the Rhine and Danube from the Roman Empire A Gothic version was translated by the Catholic Bishop Ulfilas (318-388), who after devising an alphabet for them.

406 A.D. THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATION: In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.

405 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE COMPLETE BIBLE IN THE COMMON LANGUAGE: Latin Vulgate, was translated by St. Jerome (Whom the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version in their original preface called " a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him").

7TH CENTURY THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO FRENCH LANGUAGE: The Catholic Church provided a French Versions of the Psalms and the Apocalypse, and a metrical rendering of the Book of Kings, appeared as early as the seventh century.

7TH CENTURY, THE FIRST GERMAN VERSION: The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing.

8TH CENTURY,THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE: By Aldhelm, the Catholic Bishop of Sherborne, and Bede.

9TH CENTURY, THE FIRST SLAVIC TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE: The Catholic Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Gospel to the Slavs in the second half of the ninth century, and St. Cyril, having formed an alphabet, made for them, in Old Ecclesiastical Slavic

1170 A.D. THE FIRST PARALLEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE BIBLE: Eadwine’s Psalterium triplex,

THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST DIVISION OF CHAPTERS: It was the British Catholic Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, St. Stephen Langton (died 1228), was first to tabulate scripture into Chapters,

THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO SPANISH LANGUAGE:

1300 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO NORWEGIAN LANGUAGE

1454 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED BIBLE: A Catholic named Gutenberg caused great excitement when in the fall of that year he exhibited sample pages at the Frankfurt trade fair.

All of this information is readily available for those interested in the Truth of the matter.

I hope this helps to dispell the false notions you seem to have held.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Bishopite]

Please, do a little homework of your own instead of parroting the misinformation you’ve been spoon fed. What language do you think most people in the fourth century spoke?

Our friend from down under may not know that the word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew word Jeshua or Joshua.
He ingores a lot of history I’m afraid; post Apostolic era to the reformation while many respectable Protestants don’t and I’m wondering why?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Not one of the early protestant reformers believed that Mary was other than “ever virgin” Calvin and Luther accepted the perpertual viginity of Mary.

The OP wants to imbue scripture with meanings that are not present in scripture but only in the interpretation of said scripture.

I won’t sit down to dinner with the OP until after I post this message…

It definitely means that dinner with me is possible after your message has been posted (a bit far to travel, though )

Thus, you are saying that sex is definitely possible after Jesus was born? I agree with you then

This still begs for an answer:

Dr. William Hendriksen, the former Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus “until.” That wording does not always introduce an event (in this case: she gave birth to a son) whereby the earlier situation (the couple had no sexual relations) is reversed (they now begin to have sexual relations).” From The Gospel of Matthew, p. 144.

Why? What new information does it bring to the discussion that has not already been talked about so far?

Hey hvg3,

1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

If this passage from scripture is true, then why is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s virginity wrong?

Because the Roman Catholic church is not “the church of the living God”?
Because “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” does not mean “infallible”?

Why don’t protestants fulfill this passage of scripture? Is it because there are thousands and thousands of different protestant denominations, that each say their church is the true church, but yet teach something different from the protestant church around the corner.

Skipping over the thousands of denominations, which one of them claims to be the one true church? Anglicans certainly do not…

 

[NotWorthy]

I was asking for specifics in regards to Mary => the ark. I just see it as :whacky: not beautiful, so was wondering what you saw that i didn’t.

The Ark was venerated because it held the OT Law, the manna from heaven, and the Staff of Aaron - the High Priest of the OT.

Mary is venerated because she held within her the NT Law, the Bread of Life which comes from heaven, and the New Covenant High Priest

NO, I do not.
Eve = Adam’s helper.
Eve = first to sin, led Adam into temptation

How do these apply to Mary?

Mary is the woman prophecied in Genesis 3:15.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” Mary, who is without sin, has enmity with Satan. Anyone who is born into sin (or has sinned) is a slave to sin. A slave and his master can not have enmity between each other, for the Master has already one.

Jesus, the seed of Mary, will strike at Satan’s head, while Satan strikes at His heel.

Mary’s role as “The New Eve” has been taught among the Church Fathers as early as 155AD (if not earlier).

Yeah, I understand this My question was much more specific - about mary, a normal human, somehow representing the ‘new’ ark of God’s law. That, I don’t see.

I’m sorry about that. You are missing out on yet more beautiful teachings from Mother Church!

 

[hvg3akaek]

The bible does not say anywhere that Mary “gave birth” to other children.

Correct. It just says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, who (at least some of them) didn’t believe him, and thought he was crazy. And that some of the Jewish people knew they were Jesus’ siblings.

No where in scripture is it stated that Mary and Joseph had carnal relations

Correct. It just implies that (with both the lack of continuation in the “until” verse, and the reference to his siblings elsewhere)

nor is there any referencce that dircectly states that Joseph “knew” Mary or that Mary “knew” any spouse other than the Holy Spirit.

There is no where in scripture that says Mary “knew” the Holy Spirit, or that she was its spouse.

It is purely you imposing your interpretation upon the scriptures to “imply” that this occurred. Sorry, I have read yur postings and they “beg the question” and set up the “straw man” that you accuse others of doing…

Is it purely Roman Catholicism “imposing their interpretation upon the scriptures” to imply it didn’t happen?

The simplest interpretation is that Jesus had blood siblings. The alternative requires a lot of fussing around to discredit and disprove other verses, and still has not seen to all those listed yet.

Many have posted here with charity and a genuine attempt to answer your question. You have ignored points and/or totally dismissed the arguements based upon your infallable interpretation of the scriptural texts, youhave made yourself a *pope like **authority. ***

and now you claim to know more about me and my ideas than I do…
Why would I want to make myself like the pope, when i believe his very office is wrong and unbiblical? why do you think I think my interpretation is infallible, when i continually state it is not?

***According to you: ***You have decided that your and only your interpretation is authentic…afterall Luther and Calvin were mere men…the early church fathers were not discussing anything that resembles the catholic Church of today…

I, too, am only a man.

But hey; don’t let history, logic, or the scriptures get in the way of your personal beliefs…

It is a shame that so many follow these words of yours

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

c’mon, he was just a man, you cant expect him to get everything right, can you?

No, but we’re supposed to believe your interpretation? That of an anonymous poster on a Catholic forum?

hvg3akaek:

Seriously, some things are learnt and hammered in so hard that even if you break free of many of them, a few still linger on.

Straw man.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Is there any indication in Acts 17 where the Bereans knew of Jesus before Paul told them?

Not that I can see. SO, you agree with my first option then?

Purgatory is a theological concept just as the Trinity, hypostatic union, incarnation, original sin. It is taught in the Bible and was also taught in the early church. Ever heard of Augustine?

Verses that teach purgatory, please?

Can you show me any Protestant up to the 20th century who affirmed it? Contraception has been around since the begining of time, primitive methods, yes but around nonetheless. You must take a blind eye at history and the post Apostolic period or ignore it since it opposses your theology.

If it existed so far back in time, surely there would have been a Law about it, or Jesus would have mentioned it, or an apostle would have written of it?

Huh, now that’s strange since both Luther and Calvin knew scripture well enough to understand Mary’s perpetual virginity, yet you know scripture better. In fact, you know it better and know it correctly, far better than anyone else! Yet the last sola scriptura person I spoke with believed baptism was neccessary and regenerative. That Luther and Calvin saw Mary’s perpetual virginity by merely reading scripture and you don’t tell me that someones wrong…guess which one?

Luther saw Mary’s perpetual virginity by merely reading scripture? So now you are discounting his time within the Roman Catholic organisation, and the teaching that shaped his thoughts?

But you continue to argue the same way as other sola scriptura’s

…

Well, again, what are the “essentials” within Protestantism?

Your views are quite off the truth. But this is not the place for that. Try here for sola scripture

 

[hvg3akaek]

Mary is the woman prophecied in Genesis 3:15.

Or, its talking about Eve, and her distant seed, Jesus.

Mary, who is without sin,

You see, this is another unbiblical doctrine. No where in scripture does it say mary was sinless. And many places in scripture it says that we are all fallen.

After all - if Mary could be sinless, then she did not need Jesus to save her. There is nothing to save her from, for she has done what we were meant to do all along.

Even more - if she could do it, then others could do it too. Jesus’ death was because there was no other way.

Mary’s role as “The New Eve” has been taught among the Church Fathers as early as 155AD (if not earlier).

So, clearly not based on the Bible. Good to know

I’m sorry about that. You are missing out on yet more beautiful teachings from Mother Church!

No, but we’re supposed to believe your interpretation?

Not at all If all you get from me is a desire to think for yourself, (Edited by moderator), then my time was worthwhile.

That of an anonymous poster on a Catholic forum?

I know, I thought it was a lost cause before I started, But, God can work miracles. If it were down to me, it would be lost. But if I can plant a seed, or water one someone else planted, God can make it grow!

Straw man.

How?

 

[YADA]

Yes, if I travel to Australia it would be possible to now have dinner [as I have posted]. But no **further action **in the “I will not …until…” is implied by the word “until” You my friend are imposing a future event.

I notice you didnot address my aunts first born and only son with three sisters none of which are blood siblings…nor my nephew Jeremy. To argue from scripture the *possibilities *is absurd.

It is possible that Jesus is only a man or only God [both positions argued by early Christians and both positions decelared heretical by the Church.

Mary is the one who bore a child by the power of the Holy Spirit, who over came [or over powered depending, etc depending upon the translation you choose]…Jesus is refered to as the Son of the Most High. The Son of God [and Son of Man] cae into the world [Incarnate - made flesh human nature, human form] with parents - Mary and God [through the action of the Holy Spirit], that makes her [defacto] the spouse of the Holy Spirit. This is the understanding through Christian history. That you challenge this understanding with 20th century sexualized connotations is your issue.

And you may not like the office of pope, nor accept papal authority and infallablility does not mean that you are not holding up your authority and your interpretation as being infallable, because you are.

I notice in the scripture passage you are loving to quote it is Mary the mother of Jesus and the brothers [and sisters] of JEsus NOT Mary the mother of Jesus and her other sons and daughters.

Also, what about Jesus giving the care of his mother to a non family member [John] at the cross? A scandal this would be…Mary would have had no need to be given into John’s care if she had had all of these [or even just one] other child…

 

[epostle]

1. Matthew 1: 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
   this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:
   Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” Does this mean that Jesus is not with us AFTER the end of the world? Of course not.
   Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.
   Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.
   Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old. If you want more scriptures about hoes meaning “not up to the point that”, just ask.

Matthew 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
4. Mark 3 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 … Who is my mother and my brethren? 34 And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: Behold my mother and my brethren. 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Is Jesus suggesting His mother does not do the will of God, and is excluding her, or is Jesus using His mother as an example? I hope you think for yourself instead of the opinions of those who gave you this list of verses.

34: …behold my mother and my brethren.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
If Jesus had biological brothers, giving His mother over to an outsider would have been a violation of Jewish custom (law?), and a scandal. Jesus can’t sin. John represents us, because the whole Gospel of John is written from the perspective of the reader, making it unique compared to the other Gospels.

1. Mark 6:3, 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.
2. Luke 8:19-20, 19 And his mother and brethren came unto him; and they could not come at him for the crowd. 20 And it was told him: Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 Who answering, said to them: My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God, and do it.
3. John 2:12 After this he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they remained there not many days.
4. John 7:310 But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.
   The Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin” and that is why they use “brother”. Here is biblical proof.
   Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
   Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
   Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
   Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. What would you think if a person told you this was biblical proof that Mary was pregnant for 90 consecutive years?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

You see, this is another unbiblical doctrine. No where in scripture does it say mary was sinless. And many places in scripture it says that we are all fallen.

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to stick to one subject per thread – it’s against the forum rules to change topics in the middle of a thread.

hvg3akaek:

Not at all If all you get from me is a desire to think for yourself, instead of being spoon-fed what to believe, then my time was worthwhile.

It seems to me that you’re trying to spoon-feed to us what to believe, not the Church. In the Church I have liberty to believe many different interpretations of Scripture, just not in the matter of faith or morals. I choose to remain Catholic because I see the mess that Protestantism has created and the disunity of doctrine which has created many divisions in the Protestant tradition – some as big as denying essential Christiain truths and some going as far as preaching the heresy of speaking in tongues (in a false way), prosperity doctrine, denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, once saved always saved, denial of baptism, etc.

hvg3akaek:

I know, I thought it was a lost cause before I started, But, God can work miracles. If it were down to me, it would be lost. But if I can plant a seed, or water one someone else planted, God can make it grow!

Yep, that’s why you’re here. God led you to the truth here at these forums and now all you have to do is believe. A beautiful thing, ain’t it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Or, its talking about Eve, and her distant seed, Jesus.

I’m sorry, but Jesus was the seed of Adam’s, not Eve. There is no enmity between Eve and Satan. Eve was a slave of Satan’s.

You see, this is another unbiblical doctrine. No where in scripture does it say mary was sinless. And many places in scripture it says that we are all fallen.

Kecharitomone,

After all - if Mary could be sinless, then she did not need Jesus to save her. There is nothing to save her from, for she has done what we were meant to do all along.

If Tarzan saves me from falling into a pit, am I any less saved than someone else who Tarzan rescued from the pit? I think so. Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into the pit of sin.

Even more - if she could do it, then others could do it too. Jesus’ death was because there was no other way.

“But all things are possible with God”. Mary didn’t do this on her own. No Catholic claims that. “my spirit rejoices in God my savior.”

So, clearly not based on the Bible. Good to know

Just as clearly it is based on the Bible (Brought to you by the Catholic Church!)

Not at all If all you get from me is a desire to think for yourself, instead of being spoon-fed what to believe, then my time was worthwhile.

If you think Catholics are spoon-fed what to believe and that we all don’t think for yourselves…

I know, I thought it was a lost cause before I started, But, God can work miracles. If it were down to me, it would be lost. But if I can plant a seed, or water one someone else planted, God can make it grow!

I think you’ve been spoon-fed on what Catholics teach and believe.

I don’t go to a Math teacher to learn English. You shouldn’t go to others to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[clmowry]

There in lies the problem.

(a) is not true. Catholic teaching is not “based on the bible.” It doesn’t need to be. It will not however be in contradiction to a correct interpretation of the bible.

As far as (b) goes we are only disputing “your” interpretation of the bible with regards to the perpetual virinity of Mary.

Many protestants teach “from the bible” on this subject and agree 100% with Catholc teaching (as has been shown repeatedly in this thread.)

Chuck

Not at all

The issues prompting me to start this thread were the ideas that:

(a) Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary are firmly based upon the Bible; and
(b) Protestant understanding of Mary is in direct conflict with Scripture

No one has managed to do anything about the second point, and so far, a solid biblical foundation for the first point is also unproven.