The 'blessed virgin Mary'

[theefaith]

Bible not available expensive and rare even after the printing press. Most people were illiterate before the 20th century.

Which is no doubt why many were deceived about the false doctrine of the Sacred Womb.

So, what's your excuse?

scripture says we must be taught!
Lk 1:4 matt 28:19 etc.

You’re the one opposing the doctrine of the apostles acts 2:42 and scripture Lk 1:34

 

[robert derrick]

scripture says we must be taught!
Lk 1:4 matt 28:19 etc.

You’re the one opposing the doctrine of the apostles acts 2:42 and scripture Lk 1:34

scripture says we must be taught!

True. We must be taught the Scriptures:

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

We must not be taught the traditions of men without Scripture.

You have your traditions taught to you without scripture, and I have the scriptures taught to me according the Scriptures.

I have the gospel preached to me according to the scriptures, and you have another accursed gospel preached to you according to your traditions.

Simple.

Other than the fact that you believe on other traditions, while I believe on Scripture only, there is no disagreement about the need of teaching, except of course for the fact, that I insist that teaching be true according to the scriptures.

But, you can believe whatever you want. It's your soul, and you will answer for it, but none of your traditions nor teachers will stand by you at that time.

 

[theefaith]

scripture says we must be taught!

True. We must be taught the Scriptures:

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

We must not be taught the traditions of men without Scripture.

You have your traditions taught to you without scripture, and I have the scriptures taught to me according the Scriptures.

I have the gospel preached to me according to the scriptures, and you have another accursed gospel preached to you according to your traditions.

Simple.

Other than the fact that you believe on other traditions, while I believe on Scripture only, there is no disagreement about the need of teaching, except of course for the fact, that I insist that teaching be true according to the scriptures.

But, you can believe whatever you want. It's your soul, and you will answer for it, but none of your traditions nor teachers will stand by you at that time.

really?
Please do tell me according to the scripture alone what is and what is not scripture?

and you do follow the tradition of men but our tradition is of God by the authority of Christ in the teaching of the apostles or apostles doctrine acts 2:42

 

[Marymog]

Some cults have a thing about celibacy.

I am convinced Mary went on to give birth to other children after she gave birth to Jesus.

Did Paul start a cult: The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;.... I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

Did Matthew start a cult: there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The teaching in Christianity that Mary had other children didn't start until the 16th century. The greatest Protestant leader, Martin Luther, didn't teach what you believe about Mary. Why do you follow the teachings of those men and not the men who lived closest to Christ?

 

[theefaith]

Did Paul start a cult: The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;.... I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

Did Matthew start a cult: there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The teaching in Christianity that Mary had other children didn't start until the 16th century. The greatest Protestant leader, Martin Luther, didn't teach what you believe about Mary. Why do you follow the teachings of those men and not the men who lived closest to Christ?

luther even says it’s An article of faith

Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] 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’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).

 

[marks]

And so, any person that depends on the sacredness of any woman, especially her womb, for the divinity and birth of Jesus Christ, does not believe in the Lord God of Israel, nor the resurrected Son of God, Jesus Christ.

That Jesus is the "Last Adam" tells us that He did not receive any part of Who He is from Mary.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Where does it say they didn't consummate their marriage?

@Heart2Soul They had other children...the Lord Jesus was Marys first born (Matthew 1).

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not in the NT; and a lot of damage has been done over the centuries over the assumption that for married ppl it's supposedly better not to have any physical relations.

 

[marks]

and the one called 'Mary' was created first by immaculate conception, that she could then have power to create Christ in her Sacred Womb, and hold His divinity forever by her ever-virginity.

@Marymog

Is this right, is this what the CC teaches?

That Mary was born from immaculate conception so that she could pass her holiness to Christ?

Much love!

 

[Heart2Soul]

@Heart2Soul They had other children...the Lord Jesus was Marys first born (Matthew 1).

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not in the NT; and a lot of damage has been done over the centuries over the assumption that for married ppl it's supposedly better not to have any physical relations.

People who grow up in a church are taught what to believe...I was taught things that I later came to cast aside as false teaching. I began to study the Word for myself asking the Holy Spirit to teach me. I had such a hunger for truth and I searched scriptures endlessly...and in my search the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to see.

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog

Is this right, is this what the CC teaches?

That Mary was born from immaculate conception so that she could pass her holiness to Christ?

Much love!

Thanks Marks for the opportunity to respond to @robert derrick

The Church does teach that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain. I believe that is what Robert was saying. If so, then he got it right.


Mary

 

[farouk]

People who grow up in a church are taught what to believe...I was taught things that I later came to cast aside as false teaching. I began to study the Word for myself asking the Holy Spirit to teach me. I had such a hunger for truth and I searched scriptures endlessly...and in my search the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to see.

@Heart2Soul A true Berean spirit, right? :) (Acts 17.11).

 

[marks]

Thanks Marks for the opportunity to respond to @robert derrick

The Church does teach that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain. I believe that is what Robert was saying. If so, then he got it right.


Mary

What I'm asking is the reason for that to be.

@robert derrick was saying that Jesus required a "holy womb", otherwise He would not be holy, if I'm understanding him. Does that fit your views?

I'm curious of the how why Mary would have been conceived without the corruption of Man's sin, and I want to understand your teaching on this.

I understand this about Jesus. He was the Last Adam, therefore a new humanity, not Mary's DNA, so he was born without Adam's corruption, being a new original creation. And He had to be or else His death would only count for He'd be just another living/dead First Adam-man.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

@Marymog

Is this right, is this what the CC teaches?

That Mary was born from immaculate conception so that she could pass her holiness to Christ?

Much love!

so that she could pass her holiness to Christ?

Very well put.

As well as her divinity.

There is no holiness of God without divinity of God.

Therefore the divinity of Christ was not His own from everlasting, but was bestowed upon Him, when He was conceived in the sacred Womb that came before Him: a created christ.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (John 1)

Therefore, He that came out of Mary was of Mary, and not before Mary, because His holiness and divinity came from Mary's Immaculate Sacred Womb. Mary was the forerunner of Jesus.

When Christ's divinity becomes dependent on another person's divinity and holiness, whether that of the LORD Jehovah, as the JWs say, or of Mother Mary and the Sacred Womb, as that certain Catholics say, then He is a created christ. A false christ.

They don't want to come right out and say it, and will even try to deny it, such as they don't 'worship' Mother Mary, but they don't need to.

They tipped their hand, when they immersed the divinity of Christ in that of Mary: An ever-virgin Mother and sinless Sacred Womb is divine by nature, and whether they want to admit they worship her as such doesn't matter.

They made her divine by her nature, and then they made Christ dependent on her divinity, when they declared that rejecting her ever-virgin sacredness of womb, is to reject the divinity of Christ in that womb: believing in the ever-virgin 'Mary' and Sacred Womb is necessary for believing in the divinity of christ.

Therefore, one is not allowed to believe in the divinity of Christ, without first believing in the immaculateness of Mary and Her Sacred Wombness.

Conclusion: There can be no divinity of Christ to believe in, that is independent of Mary's Sacred Womb and eternally divine virginaity.

No Sacred Womb, no Divine Christ.

 

[marks]

so that she could pass her holiness to Christ?

Very well put.

As well as her divinity.

There is no holiness of God without divinity of God.

Therefore the divinity of Christ was not His own from everlasting, but was bestowed upon Him, when He was conceived in the sacred Womb that came before Him: a created christ.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (John 1)

Therefore, He that came out of Mary was of Mary, and not before Mary, because His holiness and divinity came from Mary's Immaculate Sacred Womb. Mary was the forerunner of Jesus.

When Christ's divinity becomes dependent on another person's divinity and holiness, whether that of the LORD Jehovah, as the JWs say, or of Mother Mary and the Sacred Womb, as that certain Catholics say, then He is a created christ. A false christ.

They don't want to come right out and say it, and will even try to deny it, such as they don't 'worship' Mother Mary, but they don't need to.

They tipped their hand, when they immersed the divinity of Christ in that of Mary: An ever-virgin Mother and sinless Sacred Womb is divine by nature, and whether they want to admit they worship her as such doesn't matter.

They made her divine by her nature, and then they made Christ dependent on her divinity, when they declared that rejecting her ever-virgin sacredness of womb, is to reject the divinity of Christ in that womb: believing in the ever-virgin 'Mary' and Sacred Womb is necessary for believing in the divinity of christ.

Therefore, one is not allowed to believe in the divinity of Christ, without first believing in the immaculateness of Mary and Her Sacred Wombness.

Conclusion: There can be no divinity of Christ to believe in, that is independent of Mary's Sacred Womb and eternally divine virginaity.

No Sacred Womb, no Divine Christ.

@Marymog , is this a fair explanation? (refutations aside?) Again, just seeking understanding.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

really?
Please do tell me according to the scripture alone what is and what is not scripture?

and you do follow the tradition of men but our tradition is of God by the authority of Christ in the teaching of the apostles or apostles doctrine acts 2:42

Please do tell me according to the scripture alone what is and what is not scripture?

If you did look in the Bible, you would usually see a listing of Books of the Old and New Covenants. They begin with Genesis and end with Revelation.

No man 'canonized' the writings of the prophets and apostles of God to 'become' Scripture.

They were Scripture once penned on paper in the world, and faithful librarians and scribes kept them written as such to this day and in one book (the above 'Bible' I referred to).

Those at Nicea ware faithful men, who had all the Scriptures of God, and judged other writings to not be as Scripture by referring to what they already knew to be Scripture, as well as refuting the Arian heresy by Scripture: Sola Scriptura men.

The founding fathers of your religion lied about them and said they had 'canonized' the Scriptures, so that your fathers could then go on and proclaim right to canonize their own traditions and doctrines as equal to Scripture, and thus make their own religion out of the name of Jesus Christ.

And for centuries, they had highjacked and dominated much of the body of Christ, until the Scriptures were once again asserted as the true source of all authority of God's Word in the world.

Now, you have your religion still, with all the mystical traditions along with it, such as the eternal Sacred Womb, and you are more than welcome to it.

But the true Mary and faithful believer in her risen Lord Jesus, will not be standing to defend you in the day of judgment, but rather will be a witness against you, for your idolatrous lies about her that have no place in Scripture.

Except you repent.

 

[robert derrick]

That Jesus is the "Last Adam" tells us that He did not receive any part of Who He is from Mary.

Much love!

Good point. Skips right over everyone else in between.

However, when you think with the immaculate mind of Mary, it's not so.

You see, to be immaculately and sinlessly born, so that even your womb is eternally Sacred, then your very nature is holy and divine, which means you have no beginning, since there is no creation of divinity.

Therefore, she had to have been before the first Adam, and so also before the last Adam.

And it only stands to normal human reasoning that the Mother is before the God she birthed, and made holy and divine as She.

So, before the beginning of the Word, there was the Father and Mother of the Word.

It's a sort of womblike twist on the LORD Jehovah's creation of the Word in the beginning of creation.

So on the one hand, the JW's preach Christ as the firstborn of all creatures, being created first, and the Mother Mary missionaries must preach Christ as the firstborn Son of God the Father and His Mother.

You may say that I am making this up. But I am not. I have learned their doctrine by their own writings, and this is the conclusion of them, whether they like to admit it or not.

If I believed the basics of their doctrine, then I would have to arrive at these conclusions, in order to stay honest to them.

I can now talk and teach like them, even as I have learned to do with the JW's. Only, I don't hold anything back.

Cults like to paint a rosy picture with just a few surface areas a shade different from Scripture, until they lure in them ignorant of Scripture, so that they can proselytize and indoctrinate them into the 'Secret' depths of Satan. (Rev 2:24)

But someone may say they are so nice and polite and earnest and sincere and really want to help you to truly understand their 'Sacred' traditions:

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[theefaith]

That Jesus is the "Last Adam" tells us that He did not receive any part of Who He is from Mary.

Much love!

only his human nature!

how can you have a king without a queen?
Or
A new Adam without a new Eve?

 

[theefaith]

Please do tell me according to the scripture alone what is and what is not scripture?

If you did look in the Bible, you would usually see a listing of Books of the Old and New Covenants. They begin with Genesis and end with Revelation.

No man 'canonized' the writings of the prophets and apostles of God to 'become' Scripture.

They were Scripture once penned on paper in the world, and faithful librarians and scribes kept them written as such to this day and in one book (the above 'Bible' I referred to).

Those at Nicea ware faithful men, who had all the Scriptures of God, and judged other writings to not be as Scripture by referring to what they already knew to be Scripture, as well as refuting the Arian heresy by Scripture: Sola Scriptura men.

The founding fathers of your religion lied about them and said they had 'canonized' the Scriptures, so that your fathers could then go on and proclaim right to canonize their own traditions and doctrines as equal to Scripture, and thus make their own religion out of the name of Jesus Christ.

And for centuries, they had highjacked and dominated much of the body of Christ, until the Scriptures were once again asserted as the true source of all authority of God's Word in the world.

Now, you have your religion still, with all the mystical traditions along with it, such as the eternal Sacred Womb, and you are more than welcome to it.

But the true Mary and faithful believer in her risen Lord Jesus, will not be standing to defend you in the day of judgment, but rather will be a witness against you, for your idolatrous lies about her that have no place in Scripture.

Except you repent.

so from scripture what are the books and chapters of the Bible?

maccabees 1 & 2?
Dan chapters 13 & 14?
Or you’re 66 books of the tradition of men under king James?

 

[David in NJ]

I have no objection to referring to Mary as the blessed virgin Mary, because every saint in Christ Jesus presented to the Lord, shall be a blessed and chaste virgin (2 Cor 11:2).

All that abide in Christ therefore can be fairly addressed as the blessed virgin 'so and so'.

The only One in heaven that is and ever shall be noticeably and visibly distinct from all others is Jesus, who stands as a slain Lamb in the midst of the throne(Rev 5), i.e. the prints and marks of His crucifixion shall remain in His resurrected body for all to see, as a perpetual reminder of His cross.

Other than Himself, the 12 Apostles of the Lamb, aside from Judas and including Paul, shall be specially remembered in the foundation stones of heavenly New Jerusalem, having their names written in them. Likewise the names of the 12 tribes of Israel shall be remembered by being written on the gates of the that City.

Other than these examples, I see no other blessed saint with Jesus in heaven that is recognized by God as 'special' to Himself and His ministry. None shall be better or worse, higher or lower, honored more or less, nor specially named than any other...

Does anyone know why believers in Jesus are so intent on falsely making Mary a 'perpetual' virgin on earth after she gave birth to Jesus? I know it is a false teaching and woefully vain worshipping, but my question is why?

This goes back to when young virgin girls were selected to become mediums (prophetess) for the occult. They were kept as virgins for it is believed to give them greater access to the spirit world and divination.

The RCC is base in the occult with covering itself as Christianity to deceive, mesmerize and control the billions who are enslaved by it.

Mary becomes their Virgin Prophetess to displace the Holy Spirit and submit their jesus unto Her.

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog , is this a fair explanation? (refutations aside?) Again, just seeking understanding.

Much love!

Thanks marks. @robert derrick wrote a lot of words in that post which got a bit confusing for me so I will only comment on his "conclusion": There can be no divinity of Christ to believe in, that is independent of Mary's Sacred Womb and eternally divine virginaity (sic). No Sacred Womb, no Divine Christ.

That 'conclusion' seems to be a fair explanation. Mary's womb had to have been sacred to carry God's son in it.

Respectfully, Mary