Anti-Catholic Forums...

[onwingsaseagles]

When was this? Point me to the discussion in his site wherein you two had a debate. I know of only two that was banned, but it wasn't because there beliefs conflicted with cepha views. The ones who got banned was utterly disrespectful to those who didn't agree with them. It was getting out of hand. Even the Protestants that was on the site agree that there behavior towards "Roman Catholics" was unacceptable. Even the one who invited them said, "My friends are being disrespected on this board". I saw how these posters were behaving and I for one voted to ban them [perhaps you were one them?]. So you got it the other way around. That information is on the site. But one thing is for sure: Cepha doesn't ban people just because they disagree with some elements of Catholicism. Anyone who said otherwise is a liar. There are a few Protestants active on the site. The mod himself received hate mails and phone calls by those who were banned.
And they called themselves "Christians".

So contrary to onwingsaseagles statements, all are welcome to his site. In fact, we need more people to join, so please if anyone is interested please go to Thomas [Cepha] website! The only rule the Mod enforce is that everyone need to respect each other, even in debates.

This is also a lie, I was banned not for being disrespectful but for opposing the teaching of ''cepha''. He was teaching salvation outside of belief in Christ, which is a heresy of the worse type, I was banned for continuing to oppose this false teaching. I was not disrespectful to anyone outside of cepha himself. He is a false teacher an agent of satan himself.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

since I got such a thoughtful and respectful answer, I would like to bring up my biggest rift with the Catholic Church; grace vs works

my understanding is that Catholics believe you are initially saved by grace, but you can lose your salvation.
this means to me that good works (keeping rather than breaking God's law) is essential for salvation
my understanding is that we are saved UNTO good works (God has planned good works for us to do after we are saved) but our failure to do them results in temporal punishment here on earth as God disciplines us as sons but no loss of salvation because He will continue the work He has started in us until the day of Christ

what is your response? am I misunderstanding your doctrine?

This is your beef with catholics??? The catholics teach many false beliefs, but this is not one of them the bible itself teaches many places that we must live as christians to be christians

Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-23 not everyone that calls Him Lord will go to heaven but only those that do the will of the Father, all those that live in sin will be turned away. Paul writes in 2nd Timothy 2:19 Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Lastly James writes in James 2:24 that it is by works a man is justified and not by faith alone. This is not a catholic teaching although catholics may teach it, it is a biblical doctrine.

 

[tosety]

Lastly James writes in James 2:24 that it is by works a man is justified and not by faith alone. This is not a catholic teaching although catholics may teach it, it is a biblical doctrine.

first, let's take this in context
Jas 2:14 ¶ What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
this is written to people who thought that they could be "country club christians" and keep their own little group without showing Jesus' love abroad, but true faith necessitates action. (salvation is not killed by evil works, but is rather an irresistible source of good works)

Jas 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

my response to that is that a tree in summer with no leaves and no fruit is almost certainly dead, just as a "christian" with no works or spiritual fruit is almost certainly not truly saved, thus we show our salvation with our good works and if we are truly saved it is almost impossible to not do good works (and certainly stressful on the spiritual level because we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us)

lastly, we have been adopted, and are punished as sons, not servants
Heb 12:6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
Heb 12:7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?
Heb 12:8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

why would God adopt us and give us a new heart if He knew we would sin so heinously that He would disown us? Does a father ever repeatedly disown then forgive a child? "you aren't my son anymore" "okay, you're my son again" "nope, you're not my son anymore"
and
Php 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

I know from my own understanding of how horrible my sin is (and how much worse it must be to God) that if Jesus didn't pay 100% of every sin I have and will commit, I am doomed to hell.

 

[MamaZ]

Eze 36:25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
Eze 36:28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

These are the works that we will be justified with.. Not works of our own.

Jer 24:7 'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.

 

[tosety]

These are the works that we will be justified with.. Not works of our own.
.

amen

much better put than mine

it is God working in us to will and to do (can't remember the reference)

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

since I got such a thoughtful and respectful answer, I would like to bring up my biggest rift with the Catholic Church; grace vs works

my understanding is that Catholics believe you are initially saved by grace, but you can lose your salvation.
this means to me that good works (keeping rather than breaking God's law) is essential for salvation
my understanding is that we are saved UNTO good works (God has planned good works for us to do after we are saved) but our failure to do them results in temporal punishment here on earth as God disciplines us as sons but no loss of salvation because He will continue the work He has started in us until the day of Christ

what is your response? am I misunderstanding your doctrine?

Both the Orthodox and Catholics believe that salvation is a process that we are working out every day. The steps to salvation are thus:

a) Believe
b) Repent
c) Be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)
d) Live out your faith (see below)

We believe that one must have faith AND works to be saved. For as St. James says in his gospel:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:14-26
​

For it is easy for a man to proclaim that he believes in Christ. But if after the altar call to Christ he goes out and kills 100 men, and is unrepentent for it, is he truly saved?

None of us know if we are saved until we reach heaven. No one but God has the authority to declare who is saved an who is not saved.

Salvation is process that must be worked out every second of every minute of every day. Salvation is worked out through living our faith, participating in the sacraments, following God's commandments, and doing good works. We do not do good works for the sake of doing good works, but rather for the love and glory of God.

Hope this helps.

In XC,

Maureen

 

[tosety]

We believe that one must have faith AND works to be saved. For as St. James says in his gospel:

​

For it is easy for a man to proclaim that he believes in Christ. But if after the altar call to Christ he goes out and kills 100 men, and is unrepentent for it, is he truly saved?

None of us know if we are saved until we reach heaven. No one but God has the authority to declare who is saved an who is not saved.

Maureen

I understand your reasons for believing James was saying works are necessary to keep your salvation

if I remember properly, it was Luther that called the book of James an epistle of straw, but later understood that James wasn't talking about keeping your salvation, but rather works are the proof of your salvation

My stand is that we are saved unto good works, meaning that if we are saved, we will be compelled by the Holy Spirit to do good works and punished as sons when we sin

If I saw a man that said he was saved but was unrepentant about obvious sin (murder,adultery, etc.) then I would conclude that he was never saved.

how do you respond to Romans 11:6?
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God,

not even my faith is my own, so if God gave me the faith to believe, I have no power to break it.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I understand your reasons for believing James was saying works are necessary to keep your salvation

if I remember properly, it was Luther that called the book of James an epistle of straw, but later understood that James wasn't talking about keeping your salvation, but rather works are the proof of your salvation

If memory serves me correctly, Luther got pretty liberal with what he considered to be valid chapters and books of the Bible, lightening the Protestant Bible by quite a bit. Personally, I'll take the word of the third Council of Carthage over that of Luther as to what does and does not belong in the canon of the Bible.

My stand is that we are saved unto good works, meaning that if we are saved, we will be compelled by the Holy Spirit to do good works and punished as sons when we sin

If I saw a man that said he was saved but was unrepentant about obvious sin (murder,adultery, etc.) then I would conclude that he was never saved.

So by this reasoning, a man is saved until he does something really really bad, then he's not saved? Even if his prayer at the altar call was genuine at the time of the call? What if later on he repents? Either "once saved, always saved" is true, or it's not. And by what authority does man have to declare his own salvation?

how do you respond to Romans 11:6?
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

First, you must put the quote in context. In Romans 11:1-10, Paul is speaking about the Jewish unbelief in Christ, and how it raises the question of whether or not God has cast away His people. The answer is, Certainly not! If He had done so, not one would have been saved. but Paul himself was being saved, and there is a remnant of Jews who believed. Elija prefigured this remnant when he thought that he alone followed God. As only a few heeded Elijah in his day, so only a few heed Jesus and His apostles. God's grace saves the willing, but Israel is not willing for she seeks righteousness on her own terms through works of the law and not throug faith in Christ. God has given them a spirit of stupor as a result of their refusal to believe, not as a cause of it.

We are not saved by faith alone, nor by works alone, but by both. As I said, salvation is a process that we are continually working out.

For Orthodox Christians, the understanding of justification by faith differs from the Protestants in several ways.

First, When Orthodox Christians approach the doctrine of salvation, the discussion has to talk about the New Covenant relationship with God. Unlike the covenant with Israel which centered around faith revealed through the law, the Church is under the new covenenant. Salvation comes through faith in Christ who fulfills the law. We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, leading us to the knowledge of God the Father.

Second, Orthodoxy emphasizes that it is first God's mercy -- not our faith -- that saves us. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we also have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom 5:1,2) It is God who initiates or makes the new covenant with us.

Third, Justification by faith is dynamic, not static. For Orthodox Christians, faith is living, dynamic, continuous -- never static or merely point in time. Fath is not something that a Christian excercises only at one critical moment, expecting it to cover all the rest of his life. True faith is not just a decision, it's a way of life. Thus the Orthodox Christian sees salvation in at least three aspects: (a) I have been saved, being joined to Christ in Holy Baptism, (b) I am being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church; and (c) I will be saved, by the mercy of God at the Last Judgment.

We who believe are granted entrace into His Kingdom by His grace. Through His mercy, we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good works or deeds of righteousness that bring glory to Him.

I hope this clarifies things.

In XC,

Maureen

 

[RND]

Hello,

The phrase "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." The Greek word "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. Protestants use this text to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, but a closer look will prove that it doesn't contradict this teaching, but this is a off-topic anyway.

Examples:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
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 year old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Furthermore, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. The problem is this: In English, the word "until" indicates a change after the fact, but in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. But for the sake of the argument, let's say it did, then apparently we would have to believe that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unknown date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!

That is why is important for one not to rely solely on there English translation, since the Holy Bible was not written in the English language. When it comes to "until" in regards to St. Matthew 1:25, one need to see how this word is used in other places in Scriptures (and see how it is used in the original language of the Holy Bible), not what one want it to mean because one have some preconceived idealistic views.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

So, did Joseph have relations with Mary after Jesus was born?

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

So, did Joseph have relations with Mary after Jesus was born?

No

 

[RND]

No

Sure He did.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

#1097 -ginosko - a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

When examining the word "knew" one has to ask to what type of usage the word is relating? Did Joseph not "know" Mary or know who she was prior to her giving birth? Of course not. Scripture is clear that they "knew" each other and knew who each other was long before the birth of Jesus. So we can rule out that "knew" in this sense, of knowing who some is, was not the meaning here.

So how is it then that Joseph "knew her not" until the baby Jesus was born? Well, that's simple. Obviously the word "knew" doesn't mean to "know" someone by recognition or familiarity but includes sexual relations. But the real trick here is simply reading the word "firstborn." It is obvious Mary had more children simply because Jesus was her "firstborn." That would mean by obvious implication that Mary had more than one child.

Mosaic law requires a woman who gives birth to a male child to be separate and considered "unclean" for seven days. Then, after that, her purifying continued for another 33 days, for a total of 40 days.

After that, she was then available again to mate and have more children.

 

[RND]

ROME'S CHALLENGE
​

Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?​

​

Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.

Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety.

Click on the above link for the whole story.
​

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Ever-Virginity

One of the more puzzling traditions regarding the Theotokos for modern Christians is the teaching that she is Ever-Virgin, that is, that she remained a virgin before, during, and eternally after the birth of Jesus Christ.
That the Holy Virgin Mary is Ever-Virgin (Aeiparthenos) is not to elevate her to some special status or to incite us to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Rather, it is an affirmation of who Christ Jesus is. Because He has chosen her to be his mother, to conceive Him, to give flesh to Him, to give birth to Him, we understand her as a finite dwelling place of the infinite God. Thus, because she is in this sense this new Holy of Holies, her ever-virginity is a natural characteristic of such an awesome reality.
The whole tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin,[3][4] knowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next, never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning. Except for a few instances here and there in history, never have Christians regarded her in any other fashion until relatively late in the Protestant traditions. There are many testimonies to her ever-virginity, so let's consider a few:
Testimony from Scripture

The principal understanding of the Virgin Mary as Ever-Virgin in Scripture is expressed in terms of her being a new Ark of the Covenant, a created thing which somehow contained the uncontainable God. The reason that St. Joseph the Betrothed (as tradition names him) did not enter into marital relations with her is that he understood her as one would understand the Ark, that she had been set aside for use by God, and that her womb had in some sense been made into a temple. The language used for the Virgin in the New Testament parallels that used for the Ark in the Old:
From a Roman Catholic source:[5]

For the first time God's presence has descended upon a person as the new ark of the Covenant. . . . Rene Laurentin speaks of the subtle use of ark imagery [early in Luke]. For instance, he shows how in II Samuel 6, there was a journey to the hill country of Judah that the ark of the covenant took. Likewise, the same phrase is used to describe Mary's journey to the hill country. . . . Both David and Mary "arose and made the journey." In II Samuel 6:2 and Luke 1:39. Laurent goes on to describe how when the Ark arrived and when Mary arrived, they were both greeted with "shouts of joy." And the word for shout or the word for Elizabeth's greeting, anafametezein, is very rare. It's only used in connection with the OT liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the Ark. It literally means to "cry aloud, to proclaim or intone." Elizabeth greets Mary the same way the Ark of the Covenant was greeted. The entrance of the Ark and the entrance of Mary are seen then as blessing an entire household. Like Obededom's household was blessed, so Elizabeth sees her household as blessed. Laurentin goes on to talk about how both David and Elizabeth react with awe. "How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?" David says in II Samuel 6:9. And likewise Elizabeth says, "Why should the mother of the Lord come to me?" The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two ways of looking at the same reality which is becoming clearer and more personal with Our Lady. Then finally, the Ark of the Covenant and Mary both remain in the respective houses for three months, II Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56. In Luke 1 and 2 we have the annunciation of Gabriel to Zachariah and six months later the annunciation by Gabriel to Mary, then nine months later Jesus is born, and thirty days later He is presented in the temple. You add up 180 days in the six months, 270 days in the nine months, and the 40 days in the presentation and it adds up to 490, which is a very rare number that is found in one of the most memorable prophecies in the OT, Daniel 9. . . . Luke is once again giving a surplus value, a surplus meaning to those who are really willing to dig deep into the text to see all of the inspired meanings behind what God has done to inaugurate the New Covenant salvation in Christ and in His Blessed Mother. This is the Ark of the Covenant. Now let's go back and conclude our time in Revelation 11 and 12. We have Mary the Ark of the Covenant. We have Mary the true tabernacle. We have in Mary a figure for the New Jerusalem because at the end of Revelation, how is the New Jerusalem described? As being a bride that is pure and yet also being a mother of God's children Well, how is it that you could be at the same time virginally pure and maternally fruitful? It seems impossible in human nature, but not for Mary, not only in mothering Jesus, but in John 19 at the cross and also in Revelation 12 where we read at the very end of the chapter, verse 17, we discover that Mary becomes by grace the mother of all God's children. How is it that our Lord would have brothers? Many look at the story of Ss. Mary and Joseph and see a young couple about to embark on their married life together, but Church tradition holds differently. St. Joseph was a much older man, a widower, and had children by his previous marriage, thus his sons were in some sense Christ's step-brothers, and their being older than Jesus can also account for some of the way he is treated by them as being the baby of the family, somewhat out of his mind. Joseph takes in Mary as something like his ward, because in leaving her life as a Temple virgin, she could not go out into the world alone (cf. Protevangelion of James). That is why Joseph, a righteous, respected man, was chosen to take her in. His being much older than she also accounts for the notion that they should have had relations—she had already dedicated herself to a life of virginity, whereas he was a much older man who had already had his children and whose wife had died. Another possible understanding is that these "brothers" of our Lord were his cousins—St. Jerome holds this view, that these were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas, who had died and left his children and widow in Joseph's care, according to Jewish custom.
​

Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does.
Beyond that, it is nowhere to be found in Scripture that any man other than the God-man Jesus Christ is called the child of Mary.
Some would cite the use of the "until" in Scripture ("...and he knew her not until (Greek eos) her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)) to indicate that after she gave birth to the God-man, that St. Joseph then "knew" her maritally. Again, this is a translation problem.
From this webpage:

This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, eos, indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus."
​

Another testimony from Scripture is that on the cross, our Lord gave his holy mother into the care of the Apostle John (John 19:26). This might seem a merely practical thing to do, but if we recall the Mosaic Law would have dictated that she be given into the care of other natural children, since her firstborn son was dying. Christ, who kept the Law perfectly, would not have violated it in any detail, and so when he gave his mother to the apostle to look after, he did so only because she had no other children who could take her in, St. Joseph having long since passed away.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

This is a brief excerpt (ca. A.D. 210) regarding the Blessed Theotokos:
But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII).
Notice that Hippolytus refers to Mary as all-holy, and ever-virgin. Since he does this in passing, we may be sure that he is introducing no new teaching about Mary, so that it was common to refer to Mary in these terms before Hippolytus wrote.
Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with men, ... (A Discourse on the End of the World).
Here Hippolytus casually refers to Mary as spotless and God-bearing. I assume this latter term is the equivalent to Theotokos in the Greek, which means Bearer of God, commonly translated Mother of God (the Son). This title was that affirmed by the Council of Ephesus.
St. Ephrem (4th century):
Some dare to claim that Mary became fully Joseph's wife after the Savior's birth. How could she who was the dwelling-place of the Spirit, who was overshadowed by the divine power, ever become the wife of a mortal and bear children in pain, according to the ancient curse? It is through Mary, "blessed among women," that the curses uttered in the beginning have been removed according to which a child in such torments cannot be called blessed. Just as the Lord entered through all closed doors, so he came out if an original womb, for this virgin bore him truly and really without pain.
The Second Council of Constantinople, 553, Capitula II:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.[6]
The ancient Christian titles for Mary, Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God") and Meter Theou ("Mother of God"), are not to be understood in the sense that she somehow created God. Even mothers giving birth to exclusively human children do not create their children. Rather, these titles for the Virgin are an affirmation that the Christ contained in her womb is indeed God, the Theanthropos ("God-man"). She is not his origin nor the source of the Godhead, but she did quite literally give birth to God. If we affirm that Jesus Christ is God, then we must call her Theotokos, for she gave birth to God himself. Nestorius the heretic in the ancient Church refused to call her Theotokos, preferring instead Christotokos, because he could not understand the idea that a creature could give birth to the Creator, yet is this scandal not at the heart of the Incarnation? Nestorius's doctrines insisted on a separation between the divine Logos and the man Jesus, that somehow the Son of God had inhabited a man, not that God became man as the Christian faith has always held. Is the one who was in her womb God? Then we must call her Theotokos.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Testimony from the Protestant Reformers

Though the Orthodox Church does not follow the teachings of the Protestant Reformers, their views regarding the Theotokos's ever-virginity are a point of commonality with Orthodoxy. Many of the major figures amongst the Protestant fathers in the faith believed in the Theotokos's ever-virginity.

John Calvin:

He says that she [Mary of Cleophas] was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term 'brothers.' - John Calvin, Commentary of the Gospel According to John, on John 19:25
The word 'brothers', we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relative whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons because Christ's 'brother' are sometimes mentioned. - John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. II, p. 215 (on Matthew 13:55)
[Note: Helvidius was a 5th-century Christian who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was rebuked and refuted by Jerome in his treatise, "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius"]

Huldrych Zwingli:

I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. - Huldrych Zwingli. "Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527," in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.
Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] - Huldrych Zwingli. "Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525," in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217.

Martin Luther:

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. - Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, 'Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.' Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, 'She was found to be with child before they came together,' it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. - Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 212.

John Wesley:

I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. - John Wesley "Letter to a Roman Catholic"

Protestants who deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos are breaking even with their own fathers in faith.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

ROME'S CHALLENGE​

Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?​

Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.

Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety.

Click on the above link for the whole story.

​

For the Orthodox Christian the Lord's Day is the first day of the week. Often it is also called the eighth day in honor Our Lord's Resurrection and the new life he brought. In the English language, and other languages of Germanic origin, the day is called Sunday or some linguistic variation. In many languages around the Mediterranean Sea the name for this day is derived from Lord's Day, while other languages including Slavic languages use a word derived from the word Resurrection.

In the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, in Genesis, the seven-day week is defined after the description of God's efforts in establishing the world, and universe with the seventh day being the Sabbath, commemorating God's day of rest. In Apostolic times the practice is noted in Acts of meeting together on the first day of the week for Eucharistic Sacrifice which is called the Lord's Day in remembrance of our Lord's Resurrection. By the second century the Lord's Day was looked upon as the day of rest and the day for celebrating the Divine Liturgy, replacing the Jewish Sabbath. Then in 325, the Council of Nicea formally declared that the Lord's Day, Sunday, was the day of worship for Orthodox Christians.

The practice of observing the Divine Liturgy on the first day of the week has its origin in Apostolic times. Then, the first day of the week was a day of special observance for the Christian community as it assembled to celebrate the breaking of the bread as indicated in Acts 20:7 and I Cor 16:2. Later, the Didache of the first or second century gives the injunction: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks, after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure." The Christian writers St Justin Martyr and Tertullian of the third century mention assembling for worship on the first day of the week. By the fourth century the practice of the earlier times of setting aside first day of the week for assembly and rest began to be codified in both civil and church canons and specifically for the Orthodox Church in the canons of the Council of Nicea.

The Sabbath day is the seventh day, it is the day of rest in this world, the final day of the week. The next day, Sunday, is symbolic of the first day of creation, but also the last day of the Kingdom of God, the eighth day. The first day is also the eighth day, the day beyond the confines of this world, the day which stands for the life of the world to come, the day of the eternal rest of the Kingdom of God.

The number eight has symbolical significance in both Jewish and Christian spiritual tradition in that it signifies more than completion and fullness. Eight signifies the Kingdom of God and the life of the world to come, seven being the number of earthly time.

For Orthodox Christians, Sunday is the day of Christ's resurrection from the dead, the day of God's judgment and victory predicted by the prophets. Sunday inaugurates the presence and the power of the "kingdom to come", already within the life of this present world.

 

[Ramon96]

Sure He did.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

#1097 -ginosko - a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

When examining the word "knew" one has to ask to what type of usage the word is relating? Did Joseph not "know" Mary or know who she was prior to her giving birth? Of course not. Scripture is clear that they "knew" each other and knew who each other was long before the birth of Jesus. So we can rule out that "knew" in this sense, of knowing who some is, was not the meaning here.

So how is it then that Joseph "knew her not" until the baby Jesus was born? Well, that's simple. Obviously the word "knew" doesn't mean to "know" someone by recognition or familiarity but includes sexual relations. But the real trick here is simply reading the word "firstborn." It is obvious Mary had more children simply because Jesus was her "firstborn." That would mean by obvious implication that Mary had more than one child.

Mosaic law requires a woman who gives birth to a male child to be separate and considered "unclean" for seven days. Then, after that, her purifying continued for another 33 days, for a total of 40 days.

After that, she was then available again to mate and have more children.

I cover this part. Like I said before (which you ignore, and I know why):

The phrase "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." The Greek word "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. Protestants use this text to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, but a closer look will prove that it doesn't contradict this teaching, but this is a off-topic anyway.

Examples:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
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 year old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Furthermore, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. The problem is this: In English, the word "until" indicates a change after the fact, but in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. But for the sake of the argument, let's say it did, then apparently we would have to believe that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unknown date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!

That is why is important for one not to rely solely on there English translation, since the Holy Bible was not written in the English language. When it comes to "until" in regards to St. Matthew 1:25, one need to see how this word is used in other places in Scriptures (and see how it is used in the original language of the Holy Bible), not what one want it to mean because one have some preconceived idealistic views.

And the phrase "Firstborn" does not imply Mary had additional Children, but only that no child was born before Jesus. The Firstborn son is traditionally the primary heir and recipient of blessings. Christ is the firstborn over all creation, and thus the first born from the dead (Col 1:15,18). Read Exodus 13:2,12. Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children. Also read Exodus 34:20. Under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born. What you following is the modern usage of the word, not the biblical usage of the word. And for the sake of it, read Mark 6:3. Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. As far as the common Scriptures use by Most Protestants to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (i.e., passage which said Jesus had "Brothers and Sisters"), HandmaidOfGod did a wonderful Job discussing it.

EDIT: In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos ("Firstborn") in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a “second-born” Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.”

No, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters who was of "Mary and Joseph". And yes, the consensus of the Church from the past 2,000 years has maintain that the Theotokos reminded a Virgin all her life.

Matthew 1:25 does not support your view that Mary had more children. HandmaidenOfGod did a wonderful Job in the other areas I did not touch upon.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

 

[RND]

I cover this part. Like I said before (which you ignore, and I know why):

The phrase "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." The Greek word "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. Protestants use this text to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, but a closer look will prove that it doesn't contradict this teaching, but this is a off-topic anyway.

The Greek word "heos" does indeed mean exactly what you think it doesn't mean.

#2193 heos - of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):--even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).

No, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters who was of "Mary and Joseph". And yes, the consensus of the Church from the past 2,000 years has maintain that the Theotokos reminded a Virgin all her life.

Matthew 1:25 does not support your view that Mary had more children. HandmaidenOfGod did a wonderful Job in the other areas I did not touch upon.

Mary clearly had other children. Can't have a "first" born without having a second, or third, or fourth born.

#4416 prototokos - from prwtoV - protos 4413 and the alternate of tiktw - tikto 5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):--firstbegotten(-born).

 

[Ramon96]

The Greek word "heos" does indeed mean exactly what you think it doesn't mean.

#2193 heos - of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):--even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).




Mary clearly had other children. Can't have a "first" born without having a second, or third, or fourth born.

#4416 prototokos - from prwtoV - protos 4413 and the alternate of tiktw - tikto 5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):--firstbegotten(-born).

Yes, I can see that you ignored my other responses. You "cherry-picked" which parts you could answered and dumped the rest. Typical of those who know that they are wrong.......

In your above post, you did not refute anything I or others have said. You just made "just-so" statements.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

 

[RND]

Yes, I can see that you ignored my other responses. You "cherry-picked" which parts you could answered and dumped the rest. Typical of those who know that they are wrong.......

In your above post, you did not refute anything I or others have said. You just made "just-so" statements.

Ramon, the points you made were irrelevant to the discussion as I saw it and did not require any further comment on my part. I'll let the words speak for themselves. That's why I posted the actual usage and meaning of the words. Context and clarification are extremely important in understanding what is being said. Only in Catholic exegesis can the plain meaning of words be said to say something different than what they clearly mean.

Frankly Ramon, you're explanations are begging.