Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

kepha31 said:

Did Mary go to the Temple and recite the sinners prayer? Did the angel Gabriel say, POOF! you are now Full of Grace?? (kecharitomene) Of course she needed a savior, but when was she saved? Does being announced by an angel from God as "Full of Grace" mean having a little sin on the side? This term "Full of Grace" (kecharitomene) is found only in one other place in scripture: describing Jesus in John 1:14.

This is an example of false dichotomous either/or thinking found in Protestantism. They are BOTH special, with the Messiah being the most special, it's both/and, not one being special at the exclusion of the other (either/or).

Click to expand...

For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

Romans 3:10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

BTW I am not protestant

BukiRob said:

BTW I am not protestant

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that Messianic Judaism was Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican.

SteveCaruso said:

I wasn't aware that Messianic Judaism was Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican.

Click to expand...

Judiasm should give you a clue....

BukiRob said:

Judiasm should give you a clue....

Click to expand...

"Messianic" is the operative phrase. It broke away in Protestant fashion from other churches in the 1960s. And as a former Messianic, I can say with some certainty that to not call it "Protestant" in this specific context is a wee bit disingenuous.

But perhaps that's for another thread.

SteveCaruso said:

"Messianic" is the operative phrase. It broke away in Protestant fashion from other churches in the 1960s. And as a former Messianic, I can say with some certainty that to not call it "Protestant" in this specific context is a wee bit disingenuous.

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Click to expand...

Do you believe and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, YHWH, the Creator and Redeemer, and Savior?



JLB

JLB777 said:

Do you believe and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, YHWH, the Creator and Redeemer, and Savior?

Click to expand...

Why ask me this? I confess the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, so yes, and more.

I had a small Messianic stint in College, but then grew out of it, aided by my Aramaic studies and a better grasp of ecclesiastical history.

But as I said, that's probably better for another thread.

rockytopva said:

Simple question... Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Click to expand...

No - seems to be a silly thought?
Of course if God wanted it to be it would have been.
But, the bible makes no mention of this.
M-Bob

JLB777 said:

I don't see where showing the truth from the scriptures is pitting them against the Church.

Those who deny the truth of the scripture, are against the Church, being false teachers.

There may be alot of things that alot of people throughout the History of the Church believe, but if it goes against the scripture then they are wrong.


19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21

• His mother and brothers came to Him.
• “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside.
  
• “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

This is an example of a point being repeated three times within a passage to emphasize the strength of that point.


Please post the scripture that uses mother and brothers as a reference to "cousins".


When coupled with "mother", brothers is a reference to sibling by the same mother.

Irrefutable proof Mary had other children after Jesus, and did not remain a virgin.

All the opinion in the world will not change that scriptural truth.

• But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19

• Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55

Here there is a reference to both Joseph and Mary and their sons.

• These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Acts 1:14

JLB

Click to expand...

Your whole argument rests on the abuse of the word "brother" because the truth of scripture, which you selectively ignore, has multiple meanings for "brother". You pick the one meaning that suits your preconceptions.

Mountainmanbob said:

No - seems to be a silly thought?
Of course if God wanted it to be it would have been.
But, the bible makes no mention of this.
M-Bob

Click to expand...

The Bible makes no mention of sola scriptura as a foundational principle, so you appeal to questionable inferences. There are plenty of inferences for the PVM in the OT, the NT, and explicit reference from the Early Church Fathers. Mariology has undergone development the same as every doctrine has, but they don't develop out of thin air. You can't do advanced calculus by counting on your fingers, it takes time and study just to begin to get it.

Her husband Joseph could not have came into her if she was a virgin.

Not exactly rocket science.

M-Bob

JLB777 said:

Yes, was passing on the care of His mother to John, who loved the Lord.

Those who hear the word of God and do it, are said to be His brothers.

19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21

• My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Jesus was expanding the idea that His natural mother and brothers, were not the only mother and brothers He had, but those who hear the word of God and obey were also His family.


JLB

Click to expand...

Jesus considered Mary to be more of a mother of his for her faith. If it hadn't been for her faith in charity and grace, Jesus would not have become her son, since the incarnation would not have happened. Eve chose death for mankind, whereas Mary chose life with God. The early Church perceived Mary to be the new Eve or spiritual mother of redeemed humanity. Being the new Eve in association with the new Adam, Mary did not have biological children of her own "conceived in sin and born in guilt" by the seed of Joseph. Jesus called his mother Mary "Woman" at Cana and Calvary in allusion to the fall and God's promise of redemption worked through a woman and her seed (Gen 3:15).


JA

justinangel said:

If it hadn't been for her faith in charity and grace, Jesus would not have become her son

Mary did not have biological children of her own

Click to expand...

Where does the bible (God's Word) agree with those comments?
M-Bob

JLB777 said:

Sorry, but Mary did have sons by Joseph.

Click to expand...

this is an assumption

• Please post the scripture that uses mother and brothers as a reference to "cousins".

Click to expand...

Not exactly what your after but
See gen 20
Sister and brother used in context of family below, however given gen20:12 and gen 11:31 Sarah is not Abraham's "sister" she is at most a step sister but given gen 11:31 she is not a biological daughter of abrahams father (she becomes his "...daughter in law" when married to his son Abraham)

Per the ECF quotes below she is the daughter of abrahams uncle.

Gen 20:2And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.........11And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.....15And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee. 16And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved


Gen 11:26And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. 28And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. 30But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees......


Augustine (Reply to Faustus - book XXII. 35)
35. It is waste of time to observe Faustus' remark, that Abraham falsely called Sara his sister; as if Faustus had discovered the family of Sara, though it is not mentioned in Scripture. In a matter which Abraham knew, and we do not, it is surely better to believe the patriarch when he says what he knows, than to believe Manichaeus when he finds fault with what he knows nothing about. Since, then, Abraham lived at that period in human history, when, though marriage had become unlawful between children of the same parents, or of the same father or mother, no law or authority interfered with the custom of marriage between the children of brothers, or any less degree of consanguinity, why should he not have had as wife his sister, that is, a woman descended from his father? For he himself told the king, when he restored Sara, that she was his sister by his father, and not by his mother. And on this occasion he could not have been led to tell a falsehood from fear, for the king knew that she was his wife, and was restoring her with honor, because he had been warned by God. We learn from Scripture that, among the ancients, it was customary to call cousins brothers and sisters. Thus Tobias says in his prayer to God, before having intercourse with his wife, 'And now, O Lord, Thou knowest that not in wantonness I take to wife my sister;"(1) though she was not sprung immediately from the same father or the same mother, but only belonged to the same family. And Lot is called the brother of Abraham, though Abraham was his uncle.(2) And, by the same use of the word, those called in the Gospel the Lord's brothers are certainly not children of the Virgin Mary, but all the blood relations of the Lord.(3)

Jerome (against Helvidius:17)Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says,(6) "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise, what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of his own father ? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and threatens,(1) "He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his mother, and beholds her nakedness, hath commited abomination, he shall be utterly destroyed. He hath uncovered his sister's nakedness, he shall bear his sin."

"Sarah was indeed the sister of Abraham: from his father because she was the daughter of his father's brother, but not from his mother, for none of her sisters had been married to Haran the son of Terah. Another woman, a foreigner, was married to Haran. This one, who loved her tribe more than her children, remained with her family and refused to go out and accompany Lot, her son, or Sarah and Milkah, her daughters.--St Ephraim the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 20,

Irrefutable proof Mary had other children after Jesus, and did not remain a virgin.

Click to expand...

No it's not, it's your assumption

All the opinion in the world will not change that scriptural truth.

• But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19

• Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55

Click to expand...

note he is not a biological son of Joseph, and no one would argue that this is proof that he is. I'm not suggesting you are, just reflecting consistency with your approach. Cant just assume it's black and white.

Here there is a reference to both Joseph and Mary and their sons.

• These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Acts 1:14

JLB

Click to expand...

It's amazing to see that one third of the voters in this thread agree! After studying the bible for many years and attending several different churches and denominations during the past sixty years, that all never even mentioned such a thing as this -- it's so hard to believe!

I'll stick to the bible and have seen 0 support for this reasoning.

M-Bob

M- Bob, lifeless books (The Bible as we have it in the form of a book didn't exist until the late 4th century.) don't agree or disagree. Living people do. Christ is the living Word of God, and he reveals his truth to his one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church - "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) - by the declarations of the Holy Spirit, the unwritten word of God (Jn. 16:12-13).

Concerning your first objection, what was essential in the Divine plan of salvation was that Mary should have the freedom to decide whether to be the mother of our Lord and Saviour. It was necessary that her liberty of will be honoured for the sake of all righteousness in harmony with the Divine essence. God desired that Mary should say Yes, and only then would He become incarnate to redeem the world in the Person of the Divine Word - because Eve had said No by her own free will.

In Catholic theology, there is a marked difference between what God desires and what God decrees. What God desires is His antecedent will, and what God decrees is His consequent will. God desires that everyone be saved (Ezek 18:23; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 2:2, etc.), but He decrees that unrepentant souls must be cast into the everlasting fire of Hell in eternal expiation for their grave sins (Matt 25:41; Lk 13:3, etc.). So, God desired that Mary should say Yes to His will before He would become man. What God desired (antecedent will) would not have been realized if Mary had said No to His messenger. But God’s decree (consequent will) that Mary should have the freedom to choose to be the mother of His Only-begotten Son would have been fulfilled whether she said Yes or No to Him.

If God has decreed or determined that we all say Yes to Him, then no human soul could possibly perish. Nor could we be at liberty to choose God and accept His will for the sake of His love and goodness above all else. If we choose to say No to God, the negative consequence of being alienated and separated from Him is something we bring upon ourselves (Deut 30:19; 2 Tim 2:12, etc.). God has willed with absolute necessity that we have the freedom to say Yes or No to His will, for He desires that we truly love Him to make our abode with Him (Jn 14:23). God desires that we say Yes instead of No, and so, He has given each of us the liberty to decide for ourselves if we want Him to be the centre of our lives. Conversely, if God has determined that some people say No to His will (double-predestination) and, as a result, they are eternally punished in Hell for failing (not refusing) to say Yes, then there is no justice in God.

God does not determine that we say Yes to His will, or else our love for God and our faithful obedience to Him, because of our love, become non-sequitur. In the same vein, neither did God determine or coerce Mary to say Yes to the angel Gabriel. God willed with necessity that our Blessed Lady have the freedom, being created in the divine image, to choose Him over any natural desire of hers. This liberty of will that God decreed Mary should have entailed consequences not only for her, but also humanity. We read in the Gospel of John that "God so loved the world that he sent his Only-begotten Son." God expects us to reciprocate our love for Him. Moreover, this verse presupposes that God did not send His Son to take away the sins of the world because He was justly obligated to. God did not have to redeem humanity in they way He decreed, so if Mary had said No, God's love would have been spurned just as it had been in the Garden of Eden, and the fall of mankind would have continued to leave its spiritually fatal mark.

James exhorts us: "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you" (Jas 4:8). Similarly, Jesus himself says: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20). The word "Behold" (hinneh) points to an existential state of affairs. If one hears our Lord's voice, but refuses to open the door for him, Jesus will not force his way in to sup with someone who hasn't invited him. Therefore, by saying, "Be it done to me according to thy word," Mary invited God to come into the world in the flesh after Adam and Eve had rejected Him along with obstinately sinful humanity.

When God fashioned Mary’s soul at the first instant of her conception, He knew that she would freely say Yes just by having created her without having to look into the future to discover for Himself what her answer to the angel would be (scientia media). It’s like someone who can know an entire story from beginning to end by just looking at the cover of a book. The only reason Mary couldn’t have said No was because God infallibly knew in the immediate eternal present that she would say Yes to Him. And since He knew Mary would say Yes, she would then have had to. Thus, God did not have to depend on her Fiat to become incarnate, though He still desired that she freely say Yes before He would. Without faith working through love (Gal 5:5-6), there is no hope of salvation.

For God, it wasn’t a question of will she or won’t she say Yes. God didn’t rely on other possible options either, in the event that she should say No. There is nothing outside of God that can constrain Him, for He infallibly knows all things that do or shall exist. But God may freely will to obligate Himself to what is righteous in concurrence with His moral attributes. What God decreed with necessity, therefore, was that He send the angel Gabriel to Mary for her free consent so that all people might be saved as He desired, knowing that she would say Yes to Him according to His will. Elizabeth, too, could then praise her kinswoman for her obedient act of faith to our Lady’s merit (Lk 1:45). God could only have coerced Mary to say Yes if He did not know for certain what her reply would be or if He knew she would say No. There is nothing glorious about God in that.

That the Son of man should suffer for our transgressions and die as an expiation for our sins wasn’t an option for God either. Jesus himself said: “Was it not necessary for the Messiah to endure these things and to enter into his glory?” (Lk 24:26). So, what was also necessary was that our Lord be “made of a woman” who had the liberty to accept or reject the will of God, as much as Eve had, as to fulfill all righteousness (Gal 4:4). God didn’t depend on Mary’s reply to the angel, but the Incarnation did. Nor did God depend on Eve to cast her and her husband out from Eden. Adam and Eve had themselves banished from paradise by freely disobeying God. It was all part of God's perfect and righteous plan, therefore, that the fall be reversed in the most perfect way: reciprocation. That Mary should say Yes was as necessary as it was for her divine Son to suffer and die to atone for the sins of mankind. The sacrifice Jesus made of himself in the person of the Son was his humble and loving Yes to the Father in his humanity (Jn 14:31). God would have it no other way, or else the angel Gabriel wouldn’t have appeared to the virgin Mary at all.

The original Greek text is transliterated genoito moi kata to rhēma (Lk. 1:38). What our Lady declared to the angel in Aramaic, therefore, was, “Be it to me what you have said.” In other words, seeing that the angel was God’s messenger, Mary said, “May it be for me in accordance with God’s will.” Our Lady’s response was an act of faith working through love. The word genoito (γένοιτό) or “be it” indicates that our Blessed Lady did not merely act in passive submission like a slave who has no choice but to submit to her master’s command in dreadful fear. Rather, she responded freely and appreciatively in a spirit of great joy. This Greek word is a form of the verb ginomai (γίνομαι) or “to come into being”. God’s word found fulfilment and the Incarnation happened because Mary found no true joy in this world except in God. The Divine Word or Logos would not come into the world unless he were joyfully and lovingly received by the young maiden he chose for being his mother. Here you have it: the word of God.

As for your second objection, that Mary may have had biological children of her own with Joseph, Luke has Mary say to the angel, after he told her that she would conceive and bear the long-awaited Messiah, who wasn't expected to be YHWH himself: "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (1:34). The original Greek word for "man" is andra, which refers to the male gender. The word anthropos refers to individual men such as husbands. The verb "to know" (have sexual intercourse) or ginosko is in the present indicative active form. So, the original Greek text reads: andra ou ginosko (ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω) which literally is “man not I know” or in English “I know not man.” The Greek verb ginosko (Present Indicative Active) is in the continuous present which shows a permanent disposition to not know man. So, Mary has a permanent disposition to not know man, just as the man who says, “I don’t smoke” has a permanent disposition not to smoke. Idiomatically, Mary is telling the angel: “I don’t have sexual relations with man.” This is why she is questioning how it could ever be possible for her to conceive and bear the Messiah. She has no intention of normally consummating her marriage.

The Greek present tense denotes either a progressive or repetitive action. In this case, it is progressive and connotes a continuance of state which bears on a future event. So, there is emphasis on the progress of an action (to not know or have sexual relations with man) or a state (virginity) which extends into the future and affects it. The verb “to be” (estai) is in the simple future tense. Mary’s present state in real time is of no concern. Therefore, we should keep in mind that the verb “to know” in the first person (ginosko) does not have to do with an instant of time, but rather with Mary’s state itself. Mary does not tell the angel: ‘I am not having sexual relations with a man (my husband) now’ or ‘I have not had any sexual relations with a man until now.’ There would be no reason for her to say these things, since the angel does not tell her that she has conceived or suggest even remotely that she will conceive the child immediately or before her marriage is formally solemnized upon the second and final wedding ceremony (Nisuin). The original Greek text reads: “I do not know man.” Mary has sexual relations with no man ever – not presently, not ever. And since the verb is in the active indicative mood, there is emphasis on the progress of the negative action (to not know man) which continues when she is supposed to have the child - whenever that will be.



JA

Mountainmanbob said:

It's amazing to see that one third of the voters in this thread agree! After studying the bible for many years and attending several different churches and denominations during the past sixty years, that all never even mentioned such a thing as this -- it's so hard to believe!

I'll stick to the bible and have seen 0 support for this reasoning.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

its not really hard to believe,
the child was God incarnate.

SteveCaruso said:

"Messianic" is the operative phrase. It broke away in Protestant fashion from other churches in the 1960s. And as a former Messianic, I can say with some certainty that to not call it "Protestant" in this specific context is a wee bit disingenuous.

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Click to expand...

Uhm No, that would be wrong. If you are a former Messianic as you say then you know what you are saying is factually incorrect.

Protestants do not observe Sabbath (outside of 7th day Adventists)
Protestants do not observe the Feast Days as prescribed by Torah
Protestants do not adhere to the dietary requirements found in Torah
Protestants do not recite the Shema, Amidah or Mourners Kaddish

In fact, there is almost NOTHING that is protestant about a messianic JEWISH service. Having been in both a messianic synagogue and a JEWISH conservative service the two are almost identical.

JLB777 said:

Who abused the word brother in the Bible? You?
Because you are the one who is trying to twist brothers into "cousins".
I'm simply letting the scriptures speak for itself, using the mother to mean mother, and not "aunt", and using the word brothers, to mean brother and not "cousins'.

• Please post the scripture that uses mother and brothers as a reference to "cousins".

• When coupled with "mother", brothers is a reference to sibling by the same mother.

19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21

• His mother and brothers came to Him.
• “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside.
  
• “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

This is an example of a point being repeated three times within a passage to emphasize the strength of that point.
Irrefutable proof Mary had other children after Jesus, and did not remain a virgin.
All the opinion in the world will not change that scriptural truth.

• But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19

• Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55

Here there is a reference to both Joseph and Mary and their sons.

• These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Acts 1:14

JLB

Click to expand...

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
Acts 15:
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.
According to your ABUSE of the term "brother", James is talking to his siblings.
Acts 12:
16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.
According to your ABUSE of the term "brother", Peter is saying “Tell these things to James and to the siblings.”
Acts 21:
17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
It does not mean, "the siblings of Jesus."
1 Cor. 15:6, do you mean from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children???
Acts 1:15 At a time when about 120 disciples had gathered together, Peter got up and spoke to them.
He said, 16 “Brothers, what the Holy Spirit predicted through David in Scripture about Judas had to come true. Judas led the men to arrest Jesus.
Mary would have to be pregnant for 90 years to produce that many "brothers".

The term brother (Gk. adelphos) obviously has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. This is a scriptural reality that is denied by the liberal heretics that invented this nonsense after the 19th century.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).
This is a scriptural reality that you must deny.
1 Corinthians 9:4-5
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant, a title you are abusing.

Your man made assertions have been debunked several times. Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity You are also in defiance of every early church author who wrote about it.

You are also in defiance of your own reformers.
When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."
Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

Calvin
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."
Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

Martin Luther, inventor of sola scriptura, taught the PVM.
I believe in revealed truth as handed down, you believe in whatever you choose.

JLB777 said:

This is irrefutable biblical fact.




Here are the scriptures to prove it.

• Please post the scripture that uses mother and brothers as a reference to "cousins".

Click to expand...

is Sarah the biological/full sister /sibling of Abraham as mentioned in gen 20:2

And is Lot the full brother/sibling of abraham?

BukiRob said:

Uhm No, that would be wrong. If you are a former Messianic as you say then you know what you are saying is factually incorrect.

Protestants do not observe Sabbath (outside of 7th day Adventists)
Protestants do not observe the Feast Days as prescribed by Torah
Protestants do not adhere to the dietary requirements found in Torah
Protestants do not recite the Shema, Amidah or Mourners Kaddish

In fact, there is almost NOTHING that is protestant about a messianic JEWISH service. Having been in both a messianic synagogue and a JEWISH conservative service the two are almost identical.

Click to expand...

Yes I am a former Messianic, and no I don't just make stuff up, so characterizing me as a liar is out of bounds.

Dietary and liturgical differences do not define what is "Protestant" and what isn't. Messianic Judaism – as a movement – was birthed within Protestantism (and its theological frameworks, structures, etc.) in the 1960s. It did not start within Judaism. This isn't controversial or disputed.

However, as I said earlier: This is probably best discussed in another thread. (But I have a feeling that we're not done yet.)