False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Sigma]

#1 - You are automatically wrong because God's word says your wrong.

Wrong, it's really because I'm Catholic. That's why you'll abandon reason just to stick to any belief that isn't involved in Catholicism.

#2 - God also says your worship of Mary is wrong.

Your belief we worship Mary is wrong.

#3 - Starting a religion and attaching idolatry to Christ is very, very wrong.

Jesus founded Christianity and the Catholic Church is the earthly Church He founded.

 

[David in NJ]

Wrong, it's really because I'm Catholic. That's why you'll abandon reason just to stick to any belief that isn't involved in Catholicism.



Your belief we worship Mary is wrong.



Jesus founded Christianity and the Catholic Church is the earthly Church He founded.

More error from sinful men who know not the Father.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

 

[Sigma]

More error from sinful men who know not the Father.

That's just more ignorant, modern anti-Catholic polemics.

 

[Zao is life]

Wrong, it's really because I'm Catholic. That's why you'll abandon reason just to stick to any belief that isn't involved in Catholicism.



Your belief we worship Mary is wrong.



Jesus founded Christianity and the Catholic Church is the earthly Church He founded.

The church is made up of many tribes, tongues and peoples, i.e universal. Another word for universal is catholic. The catholic church is comprised out of all congregations who are in Christ:

There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all. -- Eph 4:4-5,

a.k.a the kings of the earth in the Revelation:

Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood. -- Rev 1:5

Their head is Christ, and they are also a city called New Jerusalem, the foundations of which are the 12 apostles and the chief cornerstone of which is Christ.
​

Those who belong to Christ have no other foundation, and no other head.

But there is also a city that rules over the unfaithful kings of the earth:

And the woman whom you saw is the great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth. -- Rev 17:18

And guess what?

The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. -- Rev 17:15

The harlot is also catholic.

copy @David in NJ​

 

[David in NJ]

The church is made up of many tribes, tongues and peoples, i.e universal. Another word for universal is catholic. The catholic church is comprised out of all congregations who are in Christ:

There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all. -- Eph 4:4-5,

a.k.a the kings of the earth in the Revelation:

Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood. -- Rev 1:5

Their head is Christ, and they are also a city called New Jerusalem, the foundations of which are the 12 apostles and the chief cornerstone of which is Christ.
​

Those who belong to Christ have no other foundation, and no other head.

But there is also a city that rules over the unfaithful kings of the earth:

And the woman whom you saw is the great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth. -- Rev 17:18

And guess what?

The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. -- Rev 17:15

The harlot is also catholic.

copy @David in NJ​

FEET vs counter-feet

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Jesus founded Christianity and the Catholic Church is the earthly Church He founded.

Really?

Well your counterpart believes differently....

What counterpart you ask?

Read on...

The Original Christian Church - Questions & Answers

As an Orthodox Christian I have been taught that the Orthodox church was the first or original christian church. After speaking to many Catholics, they…

www.oca.org

The Original Christian Church​

Question​

As an Orthodox Christian I have been taught that the Orthodox church was the first or original christian church. After speaking to many Catholics, they too believe that they are the first christians.

Can you please share some information with me in regard to this issue? How can I support the Orthodox side of the issue?

---

Answer​

In brief, the one, undivided Church is said to have begun on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ. Already by the 4th century the term “Orthodox Christian” was used to designate those Christians who remained faithful to the totality of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles, as opposed to those who were known as “heretics” who promoted false doctrines and beliefs. [The term “orthodox” means “correct believing” or “correct, true glory.”]

Due to a variety of complex circumstances, the Western church, known today as the “Roman Catholic Church,” split from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch in the 11th century. Roman Catholics, however, see it from the opposite perspective, namely that the Orthodox Church broke communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

We Orthodox believe that we are the continuation of the ancient Orthodox Christian Church, that we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church placed itself outside of this fellowship when it broke off communion with us in the 11th century.

This is a very brief outline; a thorough treatment of the issue would fill volumes, and there are many resources readily available should you wish to research the history of this further. For more information I would recommend that you check links on Church history. Or you may wish to read the book by Bishop Kallistos [Timothy] Ware called “The Orthodox Church,” which gives the historical background in detail.

For further reading:

See Church History, section of the Fr Thomas Hopko’s books four-volume work, The Orthodox Faith
The Church History section is the next section of The Orthodox Faith that will made available on this website—starting May/June 1999.

Bp Kallistos Ware’s books and Fr Thomas Hopko’s books are available from booksellers and from:
St Vladimir’s Seminary Bookstore.

 

[Zao is life]

FEET vs counter-feet

Hahaha. Love that.

 

[David in NJ]

Hahaha. Love that.

i was hoping so

 

[rwb]

While it's true that the literal meaning of "until" does not specify what happens outside of the period of time specified by the "until" statement, language carries certain unsaid implications. In the verse in question, the terminus of the "until" statement is Jesus's birth. Why was this point in time chosen, rather than, say, the end of Mary's mortal life? What is implied by that choice of words?

That is how language is used.

This is a good point! The verse in question should read that Joseph NEVER knew her instead of saying that he knew her not until after the birth of Christ. If the intent was to prove Mary perpetually a virgin the verse would have said something like thus:

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And he never knew her AFTER she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born. Till a certain time (which is how it is defined) he did not know her, but that does not mean he never knew her.

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

 

[David in NJ]

This is a good point! The verse in question should read that Joseph NEVER knew her instead of saying that he knew her not until after the birth of Christ. If the intent was to prove Mary perpetually a virgin the verse would have said something like thus:

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And he never knew her AFTER she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born. Till a certain time (which is how it is defined) he did not know her, but that does not mean he never knew her.

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

AGREE @rwb

GOD is pretty smart and HE easily would of said 'NEVER' if HE meant never!

Since God joined Joseph and Mary in Holy Matrimony, it automatically includes HIS commandment to reproduce in the marriage bed.

 

[Sigma]

This is a good point! The verse in question should read that Joseph NEVER knew her instead of saying that he knew her not until after the birth of Christ. If the intent was to prove Mary perpetually a virgin the verse would have said something like thus:

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And he never knew her AFTER she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

That little word 'till' implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born. Till a certain time (which is how it is defined) he did not know her, but that does not mean he never knew her.

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

Unlike you, we consider the context of Matt. 1:20-24, where Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not whether or not Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the the world...

Here's what you're essentially arguing:
"Following Matthew speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the tidbit: 'After the birth of the Savior, Joseph finally got to have sex..." (Matt. 1:25)

It's not in line with the context at all...

 

[Augustin56]

AGREE @rwb

GOD is pretty smart and HE easily would of said 'NEVER' if HE meant never!

Since God joined Joseph and Mary in Holy Matrimony, it automatically includes HIS commandment to reproduce in the marriage bed.

David,

You guys are making the same mistake over and over again. You are trying to personally interpret an English translation of the Bible using modern understanding of the language through the lens of modern culture. The Bible was not written in English and our current culture didn't exist then. The authors of the Bible had their own distinct culture and way of saying things. Besides personal interpretation being condemned by St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21.ean, not what you would like it to mean.

Consider the following passage from 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not.

 

[David in NJ]

David,

You guys are making the same mistake over and over again. You are trying to personally interpret an English translation of the Bible using modern understanding of the language through the lens of modern culture. The Bible was not written in English and our current culture didn't exist then. The authors of the Bible had their own distinct culture and way of saying things. Besides personal interpretation being condemned by St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21.ean, not what you would like it to mean.

Consider the following passage from 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not.

We believe God at His word = HE is a lot smarter then you for HE writes Children's Books!!!

 

[David in NJ]

David,

You guys are making the same mistake over and over again. You are trying to personally interpret an English translation of the Bible using modern understanding of the language through the lens of modern culture. The Bible was not written in English and our current culture didn't exist then. The authors of the Bible had their own distinct culture and way of saying things. Besides personal interpretation being condemned by St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21.ean, not what you would like it to mean.

Consider the following passage from 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not.

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”

We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B

Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"

What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

 

[Augustin56]

We believe God at His word = HE is a lot smarter then you for HE writes Children's Books!!!

But Jesus didn't leave a book to be personally interpreted for us to know the fullness of His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so.

If the Bible could be personally interpreted without error, there wouldn't be literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing Protestant denominations. There would be one.

 

[Augustin56]

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”

We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B

Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"

What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

I made a mistake by not putting the context in that post. The context is to correct the misinterpretation of Matt. 1:25, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." This passage does not imply that she had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus. It only means she had no relations with him before.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I made a mistake by not putting the context in that post. The context is to correct the misinterpretation of Matt. 1:25, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." This passage does not imply that she had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus. It only means she had no relations with him before.

If she did not have relations after. there is absolutely no need to mention she did nto have relations before.

This is a nonsensical argument

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But Jesus didn't leave a book to be personally interpreted for us to know the fullness of His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so.

If the Bible could be personally interpreted without error, there wouldn't be literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing Protestant denominations. There would be one.

well he left the church.

But only the bible will let us know which body that is..

 

[Sigma]

If we consider the passage you quoted: 2 Sam 6:34: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”

We SEE that the word "till" carries with it the SAME connotation = something occurred from point A to point B

Point (A) - "Michal had no children"
"till"
Point (B) - "the day of her death"

What ocurred from Point A to Point B?

According to your interpretation of Matt. 1:25, regarding 2 Sam. 6:23, you should say that Michal started to have children after she died.

 

[Sigma]

If she did not have relations after, there is absolutely no need to mention she did not have relations before.

This is a nonsensical argument

Incorrect. You don't consider the context of Matt. 1:20-24, where Matthew is speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, Matthew reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not whether or not Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the the world...

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:
"Following Matthew speaking about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the tidbit: 'And Joseph finally got to have sex after the birth of the Savior unto the world..." (Matt. 1:25)

That is a nonsensical argument.