Perpetual virginity of Mary!

[BreadOfLife]

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him."
Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5).

It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus, (see Acts 12:17; 15:13). This is confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).

But you can continue twisting the night away, if you like, Chubby Checkers.

Now - tell me WHAT part of the following confuses you so I can hold your hand and walk you through it more slowly?

What does the Bible have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children, who are called the "brethren" (Adelphoi) of the Lord?

Matt. 27:56 says:
"…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states:
"There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states:
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (*Alphaeus), and Mary Magdalene".

*We are told in the NT that the Apostle James the Less is the "son of Alphaeus" (Luke 6:15).

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. This woman is called the "Sister" (Adelphe) of Mary, Mother of Jesus. She is a relative - probably NOT a uterine sister because they have the SAME name. That would make her children RELATIVES (Adelphoi) of Jesus and NOT uterine siblings.
ANY attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Now - give me a solid Biblical refutation of the Biblical argument I just nailed YOU with.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'll take that as a no.

No - I just PROVED that you don't understand Scripture when it comes to Type and Fulfillment.

 

[101G]

Do you hear my truth?

which one?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Renniks]

No - I just PROVED that you don't understand Scripture when it comes to Type and Fulfillment.

You gave me zero evidence of Mary being the ark in any way.

For example, supposed Parallel: Luke 1:43 ("And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord
would come to me?") is supposedly a mirror of 2 Samuel 6:9 (David was afraid of
the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?")

This is an odd example to use . Elizabeth's how question is out of humility and awe of having the
soon-to-be-born savior in her presence, while David's how question is asked explicitly out of
fear. God had just struck down Uzzah for putting his hand on the ark, and David was too afraid
to bring it into in his city.
Also, just because a similar question is asked doesn't mean it's a parallel. The verse in Luke
could just as easily be a parallel to 2 Samuel 24:21, which has nothing to do with the ark at all
(“Why has my lord the king come to his servant?”).
Supposed Parallel: David danced because of the ark, and John the Baptist leapt in his
mother's womb when Mary came near.
Here neither the
words for leapt or danced are used in regards to John's activity in Elizabeth's womb.
This is a pretty thin parallel to hang your argument on. Lots of people did lots of things in front
of the Ark (like die, mostly).

I can create all kinds of parallels. But with no scripture confirmation that they mean anything, it's pointless.

 

[Renniks]

Now - tell me WHAT part of the following confuses you so I can hold your hand and walk you through it more slowly?

What does the Bible have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children, who are called the "brethren" (Adelphoi) of the Lord?

Matt. 27:56 says:
"…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states:
"There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states:
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (*Alphaeus), and Mary Magdalene".

*We are told in the NT that the Apostle James the Less is the "son of Alphaeus" (Luke 6:15).

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. This woman is called the "Sister" (Adelphe) of Mary, Mother of Jesus. She is a relative - probably NOT a uterine sister because they have the SAME name. That would make her children RELATIVES (Adelphoi) of Jesus and NOT uterine siblings.
ANY attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Now - give me a solid Biblical refutation of the Biblical argument I just nailed YOU with.

Didn't you claim earlier that Jesus siblings were actually Joseph's kids? Now you are saying that this refers to them and they are some other womens kids?

 

[Taken]

They have to get Mary Immaculate in order for them to keep her as being like a goddess!

Start with a Lie, and everything thereafter is a Lie built upon The Lie.

Sad thing is: They corrupt her honorable Service to the Lord, by making up things about her, that she is not here to rebuke them.

 

[DaChaser]

Start with a Lie, and everything thereafter is a Lie built upon The Lie.

Sad thing is: They corrupt her honorable Service to the Lord, by making up things about her, that she is not here to rebuke them.

She would agree with John the Baptist, HE must increase, I must decrease!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Didn't you claim earlier that Jesus siblings were actually Joseph's kids? Now you are saying that this refers to them and they are some other womens kids?

Nope - I NEVER said that.
I said that the Protoevangelium makes this claim.

Get your facts straight.

 

[Renniks]

Nope - I NEVER said that.
I said that the Protoevangelium makes this claim.

Get your facts straight.

So early Catholic doctrine was wrong?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So early Catholic doctrine was wrong?

It's not Catholic doctrine. It's a minor tradition.

It's not Sacred Tradition, which IS a matter of doctrine, per Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[Illuminator]

well thanks for the reply, second, a question, why uplay Mary's viriginity? I agree we all are holy, or at lest suppose to be, in Christ Jesus, which make Mary no different from anyone else.

and three, Mary is not the Lord Jesus biological mother, only his body that he came in is she the surrogate birth mother to it. so Mary have no higher status than any other human woman. she needs a saviour just as anyone else. she was only highly favored AMONG, and not ABOVE, favored as with many others that has been favored. so that's nothing new or special here. thank God for her, but nothing more.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Catholics know that Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor is she mother of the Holy Spirit. Catholicism teaches the pre-existence of Christ, the same as you. What you refuse to understand is that you are unwittingly dividing Christ into 2 separate persons. The human Christ and the divine Christ. They are one. Mary is the mother of Jesus as Matthew repeats 6 times. And Jesus is God. There is no way out of this logic.

The heretic Nestorius back in 431 AD wanted to give Mary the title "Christotokos" which means "Christ bearer." The Church Fathers chose "Theotokos" which means in English "God bearer" or Mother of God to avoid the potential confusion of Christ's identity.. The Council of Ephesus was more about defending the Trinity than it was about uplifting Mary.

Full context of the Council of Ephesus
number of times mentioned:
God: 146
Jesus 24
Mary 5

It's not that anti-Catholics don't understand, it's that they refuse to understand.

All the early Protestant reformers taught that Mary was sinless. A growing number of Protestants today have fallen for the lies invented in the 18th century by modernist liberals. Therefore your flavor of Protestantism is chaotic and meaningless. "Mary a sinner" is a 200 year old false tradition of men. I take it further. It is a doctrine of demons because it denies the power of grace that makes us holy, but you afford that to every individual believer but not to the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God. Your position is unbiblical, stupid and absurd.

God did not HAVE TO make Mary sinless, He CHOSE to.
God can do that because He is God. My GOD has that power, does yours?

 

[Illuminator]

By the way, you need to remove the flaming rules from the bottom of your posts if you aren't going to follow them.

I follow them to the letter.
"You are an idiot" is an attack on the person. (ad hominum)
"That statement is idiotic" attacks the statement, not the person.
It's because of your style of bar-room-brawling that Catholic-bashing threads like this one are taken to the point that moderators have to step in and shut it down.
If I have violated the rules, it's up to the moderators to decide, not you.
If I have violated the rules, report the post. If you can't or won't, then stop making false accusations against me.
Your post has been reported, and THIS THREAD NEEDS EDITING OR CLOSED.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You gave me zero evidence of Mary being the ark in any way.

For example, supposed Parallel: Luke 1:43 ("And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?") is supposedly a mirror of 2 Samuel 6:9 (David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?")

This is an odd example to use . Elizabeth's how question is out of humility and awe of having the soon-to-be-born savior in her presence, while David's how question is asked explicitly out of fear. God had just struck down Uzzah for putting his hand on the ark, and David was too afraid to bring it into in his city.
Also, just because a similar question is asked doesn't mean it's a parallel. The verse in Luke could just as easily be a parallel to 2 Samuel 24:21, which has nothing to do with the ark at all (“Why has my lord the king come to his servant?”).
Supposed Parallel: David danced because of the ark, and John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb when Mary came near.
Here neither the words for leapt or danced are used in regards to John's activity in Elizabeth's womb.
This is a pretty thin parallel to hang your argument on. Lots of people did lots of things in frontof the Ark (like die, mostly).

I can create all kinds of parallels. But with no scripture confirmation that they mean anything, it's pointless.

No - what's "pointless" are your denials of Type and Fulfillment.

OT Type doesn't need to exactly mirror its NT fulfillment. That's a requirement that YOU have placed on the Word of God - NOT Scripture itself.
For example - in the OT, Jonah spent THREE days in a whale's belly, which prefigured the THREE days that Jesus spent in the tomb (Matt. 12:38-42).
- Jonah was being disobedient and God taught him a lesson.
- Jesus was being obedient to the Father and gave His life willingly.

- Jonah was alive for 3 days and got puked-up by a fish.
- Jesus was DEAD in the tomb for 3 days was gloriously resurrected.

These situations are as different as night and day - yet JESUS HIMSELF makes the OT Type and NT Fulfillment comparison in Matt. 12:40.

YOUR problem is that you reject the Word of God because you think you know better than HE does.
Good luck with that, pal . . .

 

[Illuminator]

The Virgin Birth did not require Mary to be sinless!

That's correct, in Catholic theology. God CHOSE TO do it that way. Out of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers, none of them agree with that 18th century man made tradition that Mary was a sinner.