Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
Jesus' father was God. Mary's husband was Joseph. You've jumped the shark.
One.
Any and all of the "called out" ones were and are the church. That likely includes some Roman Catholics in spite of (but not because of) their many errors before and after the Reformation.
I have the dead bodies of the thousands burned at the stake and othewise martyred for the gospel of Christ.
No one said they prevailed. But they did have bearing on doctrines concerning the means of salvation and otherwise just as they do now in the Roman cult.
Tell that to the souls of the thousands of dead babies who's remains were found under the drained waters on the grounds of convents and monestaries throughout Europe.
From Henry to Jimmy there have been thousands of so called Christians who have fallen or rushed headlong into sin in their life - myself included. Some were or are born again and some were and are not. What's your point?
Assuming you are correct in your assessment. What has that to do with the truth of the doctrines of the Roman organization?
I am not familiar with many of the so called church organizeations you number in the thousands. Therefore I could not make that assessment.
I assume you are equating the "water" mentioned in John 3:5 with the water sprinkled by the so called priests of your organization??????
To be spiritutally born again by the Word of God is the eventual byproduct of having been regenerated spiritually by grace by the Heavenly Father.
It has direct parrallels with the earthly type. That is why Jesus used the analogy.
That grace does not come through the actions of the so called priests of Romanism.
As I have said before - I don't care much what you believe about Mary and her children. You are welome to it - right or wrong.
What does trouble me is the false path to salvation taught by the Roman church.
You have said enough to make me (and most others here - I am quite sure) believe that you subscribe also to those more important errors.
I believe that most of us knew where you would come down on the important dotrines concerning the method of salvation as soon as you published the OP on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I have found that one error, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, seldom exists alone.
I hope to see you on the other side of this life in spite of your errors.
I have my doubts - as you likely have concerning my salvation.
As for me - I know whom I have believed and I am presuaded that He is able to keep what I have entrusted to Him against the day of judgment without the assistance of the so called "church" of Rome.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
Lies. Media news rags don't measure up to official government records.
The apostasy of the reformers is based on their personal vices, your glorious reformers aren't so glorious.
It has to do with the falsehoods of the so called reformers that didn't reform anything. They invented a new religion.
That's a nice way to deny the division and hopeless anarchy of Protestantism.
I'm equating the water Jesus commanded be used in baptism. The doctrine hasn't changed in 2000 years while Protestants are divided in 5 different camps. That's your "clearness" of scripture for ya.
Define "word of God" as it is used in about 200 places in Scripture. Nowhere does it mean "written word alone", that's one of your many false traditions of men.
Baptism is not an analogy.
With this kind of ignorance, you have no business making dogmatic proclamaitions about the Church you obviously know nothing about.
That's your radical false opinion.
Your "errors" are based on blind prejudice.
Catholics don't assume the salvation or non-salvation of anyone, we leave that up to judgmental Protestants.
If you want to discuss the Inquisition, open a thread instead of inserting rabbit trails in the middle of a post.
If you want to discuss the Crusades, open a thread instead of inserting rabbit trails in the middle of a post.
If you want to discuss alleged wrongful burials of babies, open a thread instead of inserting rabbit trails in the middle of a post.
If you want to discuss any past scandal, I will insist on scholarly documentation, not the standard Protestant propaganda. I accept no "histories" unless it is authored by a Ph.D. Many of the clowns on you tube is not history.
Your post is nothing more than an anti-Catholic rant, which I rarely respond to.
Upvote
0
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
No one has called them glorious.
Many will likely be glorified in time though as will likely many who have remained in the Roman so called chuch.
"...there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19
You must be "born again" is the analogy not baptis,.
Ridiculous and untrue.
Have you ever heard of an anathema? It refers to a person who is considered eternally condemned or cursed of God. There are several in the scriptures and many more added to those by the Roman cult.
The Roman Catholic church condemns to hell billions who correctly reject their doctrines associated with the repeated unbloody sacrifice for sins, purgatory, etc. If you are thinking those Catholic anathemas came 450 years ago and have no place today, remember this: The latest Roman Catholic church council, Vatican Council II, reaffirmed the Council of Trent. By reaffirming Trent they also reaffirmed well over 100 Anathemas placed on all non-Catholics, including the ones cited below!
1. "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema." (Session Seven, canon 3 under baptism).
2. "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema." (Session Thirteen, chapter 8, canon 1).
3. "Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them... but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear .... great profit is derived from all holy images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits and gifts bestowed on them by Christ, but also because through the saints the miracles of God and salutary examples are set before the eyes of the faithful, so that they may give God thanks for those things, may fashion their own and conduct in imitation of the saints and be moved to adore and love God and cultivate piety. But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema. (H. J. Schroeder, O. P., The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978, p. 216)
4. "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema." (Session 22; chapter 9, canon 3).
I do not subscribe to any "new religeon" - only the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.
I believe that God has accomplished all that is necessary for salvation in the work of Christ at Calvary. I believe that all that is necessary for salvation in any particular case is for that person to contact God in his or her innermost being and lay hold of that work as his or her only hope of salvation.
I and many others in what you call Protestantism have done that very thing.
We rest in that fact and expect to spend eternity in the presnce of God because of it.
Do you believe that there is more that I must do to obtain salvation? If so - what?
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
What part of "you must be born of water AND the spirit" do you not understand?No one has called them glorious.
Many will likely be glorified in time though as will likely many who have remained in the Roman so called chuch.
"...there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19
You must be "born again" is the analogy not baptis,.
Ridiculous and untrue.
Anathema just means one is excluded from receiving the sacraments, until they repent, nothing more. "Condemed to hell" is typical Protestant ignorance. Reformist Philip Melanchthon ordered the death penalty for anyone who didn't believe the way he did. Luther favored the death penalty for Anabaptists
John Calvin: Capital Punishment for “Heretics”
The list goes on...Anathema is no comparison to the reformist method of killing people. Big difference. The Church hasn't used the term "anathema" for 150 years. My links have scholarly documentation while you spew nonsense.
So do Catholics.
Stop bearing false witness against Catholicism. It's a violation of the 8th Commandment. BTW, the Church you despise does not exist. It's a cardboard caricature, as it shows in your out-of-context snippets from the Council of Trent.
I'll give you one last chance to discuss ONE thing at a time. Any more bigoted screeching will land you in my ignore bin.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
The Roman Catholic anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent have been reaffirmed by your church and still stand.
That simply is not true and you know it.
That is why people like me are under a curse --- according to your teaching.
I would remind you that you and others had moved well beyond the basic concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary and had begun a pro-Catholic/anti-Catholic dialog long before I arrived on the scene.
Speaking of the "ONE" issue we started with in this thread - I see that most everyone here has lost interest in refuting the anti scriptural teaching that Mary remaindc a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
One's position on Mary's staus is really a matter of wheather or not they subscribe to the teachings of your so called church. It seems that most here do not.
The fact is that the gospel which your organization teaches has moved we;; beyond the simple message delievered to the Phillippian jailor,to me, and to millions of others.
I disagree that they are one and the same.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
At least you have it down to 6 topics in a single post. You don't want a discussion, you want to scourge the Church with 39 lashes.The Roman Catholic anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent have been reaffirmed by your church and still stand.
That simply is not true and you know it.
That is why people like me are under a curse --- according to your teaching.
I would remind you that you and others had moved well beyond the basic concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary and had begun a pro-Catholic/anti-Catholic dialog long before I arrived on the scene.
Speaking of the "ONE" issue we started with in this thread - I see that most everyone here has lost interest in refuting the anti scriptural teaching that Mary remaindc a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
One's position on Mary's staus is really a matter of wheather or not they subscribe to the teachings of your so called church. It seems that most here do not.
The fact is that the gospel which your organization teaches has moved we;; beyond the simple message delievered to the Phillippian jailor,to me, and to millions of others.
I disagree that they are one and the same.
Upvote
0
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
In one sense you've nailed my heart's desire - spot on.
One qualification however --- As with the reformers before me, it isn't the Church of Jesus Christ I wish to scourge, but the leaders of the Roman cult who have obscured the simple gospel of Christ for so long to so many.
Upvote
0
Simple question... Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? - Matthew 13
So I take the story that Mary had the baby Jesus as a virgin. After that God blessed Mary and Joseph with four sons and daughters. It seems that at Christ handed her off to the Apostle John while on the cross. Which makes me wonder why he did not suggest her to go back home as she had four other sons
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - John 19
So yes... Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. But she had a family after that. I would imagine about seven children. I would suppose Christ Jesus liked it that way as it freed him up for ministry.
Rocky in Mathew 13 the Jews had it wrong when they said: "is this not the carpenters son". Because as we know now, what they did not know then, that Jesus Christ was not actually the carpenters son, BUT the Son of God. Rocky, if they got this wrong they also got it wrong when these Jews stated: "and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Rocky, NOTE: the "?" Question Marks. These Jews did not know what they were asking they wanted answers they were asking QUESTIONS and the ONLY question they got CORRECT IS: "is not his mother called Mary"? And by their questions they were not even sure about Mary being His Mother.
Rocky, what Holy Man in the world would want to have relations with the mother of God? This question I am asking you, is one that I already know and not like the Jews in Matthew 13. The the answer is NO Man would want to have sexual relations with the Mother of God and Joseph a HOLIEST OF MEN would not think of such a thing. Joesph KNEW his ROLE, in the lives of Jesus and Mary.
Remember! Joseph did not want anything to do with Mary when he thought thought that Mary had relations with a mere man, it took an angle to explain to him in a dream, that it was by the Power of God/Holy Spirit that Mary had CONCEIVED. Even more so NOW knowing it was by the Holy Spirit, again Joseph being a Holy Man would NEVER! Again, Joseph knew now his Role, AND his ROLE IS THAT OF A CAREGIVER/SUPPORTER! And nothing more! Amen AMEN
Upvote
0
Pan, I must say that this is a new twist to the old argument.
What you are saying is that these folks were so utterly stupid that they could not correctly identify the mother of Jesus Christ, whom they (wrongly) supposed to be Mary.
If Mary was not the mother of Jesus Christ, who was His mother?
Matthew 12:46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will o
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B, I did not say that they are stupid, you did! So don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
These Jews in Matthew 13 were asking questions, and the Only question that they had correct without knowing is: Is not His Mother called Mary.
B, I see that you left out part of Matthew 12:50 Let me add it for you: Matthew 12: 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
B, you must agree that immediately After Jesus Christ hearing that His Mother and Brethren, were wanting to speak with Him, Jesus went out to see them, because right after Matthew chapter 13, begins by immediately saying: Matthew 13:1 THE same day Jesus going out of the house, sat by the sea side.
By the Word "brethren", it does not mean that they where the actual brothers of Christ, John 19:26 proves that Mary had no other sons to take care of Her, therefore why Jesus Christ said: John 19:26When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
iT was customary in the Jewish Law that the next of kin would have to take care of the Widow Mother, there was no next of Kin therefore John came into the Picture as role of guardian for His Mother Mary. (Actions prove louder than words)
Also, Jesus Christ proves it by him saying: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. So B, if you are doing the will of God, you are my Mother / bretheren / sister as well.
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
Jesus is using His mother as a model of faith, because she did the will of God. Anybody who does the will of God are His mother and brothers. This is compatible with Catholic teaching. I suppose the question is how perfectly do we do God's will? We have a human model to help us.
If Jesus was slighting His mother in any way, wouldn't that be a violation of the 4th Commandment (honor your parents)???
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jesus was considered as the son of Joseph by custom, in which made Him the line of David.
The lineage of David traced back to Joseph.
Rocky gave you the scriptures that proves Mary had other sons after Jesus.
Unless you can provide some scriptures that show Mary remained a virgin then this case is closed.
JLB
Upvote
0
Open Heart
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,521
- 4,393
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Getting it partly right is not the same thing as getting it wrong. At least I don't think I would put it the same way. They just didn't have all the facts. It's true that it just doesn't click when someone you know becomes great. Mark Spitz went to High School with my sister and she says it still doesn't register that he got all those gold medals.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
For the 20th time? Where in scripture is the Bible ever pitted against the Church???
In the past few years, I’ve been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced the traditional belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, citing as reason the “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord referred to in Sacred Scripture.
While many Protestants regard Mary’s perpetual virginity as a uniquely “Catholic belief,” it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well.
I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these “brothers” and “sisters” are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew.
Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Apparently you also have reading problems. Pan did not make any point about Mary being a model of faith. His point was that the people of Nazareth failed to understand that the named brothers of Jesus Christ as well as His sisters that He had grown up with and who were the children of Mary and Joseph, were not, in actual fact, the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
