It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[BreadOfLife]

oh, sorry--actually what happened there is i ignored you ignoring me posting the 3 verses earlier. The ones that quote Christ revealing who His spiritual family are; "...these are my mothers, and brothers, and sisters."

NONE of those verses show Jesus "disinheriting" His Mother.
To have "disinherit" her would mean that He Dishonored her - breaking the 4th Commandment.
Jesus never broke a Commandment, so you LOSE on that point.

So, just like you, you mean.

No - I, like YOU, was born with the stain of original sin - unlike Adam and Eve or Mary.

Strike 2.

this is what happens when you let other people with an agenda interpret your Bible for you, i guess. Look, you are welcome to believe this if you like BoL, but it is not Christian, and i hope you understand that i am not too inclined to pay much doctrinal heed to anyone who worships other gods, ok? Btw how is Ishtar doing, i guess you just had a bacchanalia to her? Still giving your kids cavities? And indoctrinating them into the fertility rites? Gee, i wonder why your church is melting? But fwiw i assert that you can believe whatever you like, ok, i also have no objection. I don't even think these are "salvation" issues anymore, as i once did. God does not judge like we do, and Scripture makes this plain. You maybe reveal yourself more in your lack of humility, but then i am hardly the shining example there myself. See that no good can come from this thread, imo. You are quite likely a thoughtful person who seeks God, and are put in the position of feeling like you have to defend your beliefs, and this is specifically condemned in Scripture. So, blessings to you, and be well.

And this is just more evidence of your lies and twisting of the truth.
I don't worship anybody but God - your lied notwithstanding.

Strike 3 - you're out . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I guess Mary didnt need Jesus than?? And the bible lied because Mary was also sinless, not only Jesus, and Mary could of gone to teh cross and done the same thing because she was perfect, and Jesus birth was a waste of Gods time, and His suffering for us pointless.

Why would you make the asinine statement that Mary didn't need Jesus?? The Church doesn't teach this.
Is that what the "Generals" teach you over at your cult (aggressivechristianity.net)?

 

[bbyrd009]

It is self evident that if someone is sinless they do not need Christ, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You might also see that in insisting upon having your pov being a "fact" here, symbology in other parts of the Bible will be misconstrued as well. Lots of places, but for instance

8I have become a stranger to my brothers and a foreigner to my mother's sons

from Psalm 116, and we know that Jesus' biological family at one point contemplated "putting Jesus away," a la "in a sanitarium," and many other places. So it is pointless to suggest that Jesus did not disown His biological family, when the point is more likely that they disowned Him, at least in a spiritual sense.

Ergo "To have 'disinherit' her would mean that He Dishonored her" is not only not supported it is, once again, actively antithetical to the Message. Now you are going to have problems at "hate your family," and in many other places, and without realizing it you will manifest the warnings in Psalm 116;

22Let their table set before them be a snare, and let it be a trap for their allies.
23Let their eyes grow too dim to see, and let their loins continually shake.

By which i do not mean to specifically condemn Mary worship, as this chapter is most certainly talking about me too, ok; it is my beliefs that i have embraced and justified that i will reap from, and the fact that just because i was not raised a Catholic and so do not have to overcome the belief in Mary worship becomes completely irrelevant, imo.

As wadr the imagery abundant in someone whose belief system demonstrably swirling the drain having the hubris to be calling strikes maybe demonstrates? What is the point of this, other than to condemn yourself? Because i can certainly tell you that your perspective on Mary is your own, and i would not sway you from it even if i could.

So perhaps an acceptable perspective for someone who has been raised with this doctrine is to at least recognize that "the opposite of any great truth is also true," in order that Scriptural symbology may at least be contemplated? After all, i doubt anyone would disagree that Mary was a shining example; of humanity. And after all, i surely worship other gods, too.

Ps, Original Sin is yack, ok, this is surely a much more damaging and fallacious doctrine than Mary worship, i'm not interested in another pointless debate but at least contemplate that https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the-Fallacy-of-Death-Centric-Western-Christian-Models]Original Creation is the much more ancient one. Peace to you.
https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the-Fallacy-of-Death-Centric-Western-Christian-Models

 

[bbyrd009]

note to mods
i guess hyperlinks are broken, see "Original Creation" in last paragraph above

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is self evident that if someone is sinless they do not need Christ, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You might also see that in insisting upon having your pov being a "fact" here, symbology in other parts of the Bible will be misconstrued as well. Lots of places, but for instance

8I have become a stranger to my brothers and a foreigner to my mother's sons

from Psalm 116, and we know that Jesus' biological family at one point contemplated "putting Jesus away," a la "in a sanitarium," and many other places. So it is pointless to suggest that Jesus did not disown His biological family, when the point is more likely that they disowned Him, at least in a spiritual sense.

Ergo "To have 'disinherit' her would mean that He Dishonored her" is not only not supported it is, once again, actively antithetical to the Message. Now you are going to have problems at "hate your family," and in many other places, and without realizing it you will manifest the warnings in Psalm 116;

22Let their table set before them be a snare, and let it be a trap for their allies.
23Let their eyes grow too dim to see, and let their loins continually shake.

By which i do not mean to specifically condemn Mary worship, as this chapter is most certainly talking about me too, ok; it is my beliefs that i have embraced and justified that i will reap from, and the fact that just because i was not raised a Catholic and so do not have to overcome the belief in Mary worship becomes completely irrelevant, imo.

As wadr the imagery abundant in someone whose belief system demonstrably swirling the drain having the hubris to be calling strikes maybe demonstrates? What is the point of this, other than to condemn yourself? Because i can certainly tell you that your perspective on Mary is your own, and i would not sway you from it even if i could.

So perhaps an acceptable perspective for someone who has been raised with this doctrine is to at least recognize that "the opposite of any great truth is also true," in order that Scriptural symbology may at least be contemplated? After all, i doubt anyone would disagree that Mary was a shining example; of humanity. And after all, i surely worship other gods, too.

Ps, Original Sin is yack, ok, this is surely a much more damaging and fallacious doctrine than Mary worship, i'm not interested in another pointless debate but at least contemplate that Original Creation is the much more ancient one. Peace to you.
https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the-Fallacy-of-Death-Centric-Western-Christian-Models

This entire post is looney.

First of all - Mary being sinless does NOT mean that she didn't need Jesus. God simply chose to apply the grace of His sacrifice to he before she was born. This is the ONLY way she could be Kecharitomene.
God is not bound by time - and Scripture tells us that Christ's sacrifice is ETERNAL (Rev. 13:8).

As for Psalm 69:8 - this is referring to ISRAEL, not Mary.

As for "hating" one's family (Luke 14:6) - Jesus was using HYPERBOLE to say that God come first - even before our family.
He commands us to love one another and would never contradict Himself in the way YOU say He is.

Finally - Original Sin is a BASIC tenet of Christianity (Rom. 5:12-13).
If you reject this - you reject the Gospel.

 

[bbyrd009]

This entire post is looney.

yes ty have a nice day

 

[BreadOfLife]

yes ty have a nice day

Now there's an intelligent response . . .

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife

Still waiting a response for my post #166.

Are you saying the woman in (Rev. 12) is Israel?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife

Still waiting a response for my post #166.

Are you saying the woman in (Rev. 12) is Israel?

Stranger

The Woman in Rev. 12 is a polyvalent symbol (sorry for the big word).
She symbolically represents Israel from which Jesus came out of - and more literally represents Mary who actually gave birth to Him.

 

[Stranger]

The Woman in Rev. 12 is a polyvalent symbol (sorry for the big word).
She symbolically represents Israel from which Jesus came out of - and more literally represents Mary who actually gave birth to Him.

No, you're not sorry. You like to use your 'linguistic gymnastics', oh, i'm sorry, your 'linguistic implications' to cover your error. Do you really think others are fooled by this? How can the woman in (Rev.12) literally represent Mary but symbolically represent Israel?

In post #136 you were adamant that (Ps.69:8) spoke to Israel and not Mary. But then when I said that Israel is not the mother of Christ, but Mary was, in post #138, you asked about who the woman was in (Rev.12) in post #141. In other words, it is one or the other. To which I respond in post #143, that it is Israel.

Now you say it is both Israel and Mary. It just depends on what argument you are losing at the time. Make it up as you go. Make it say what you want it to say. The Romanist way.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, you're not sorry. You like to use your 'linguistic gymnastics', oh, i'm sorry, your 'linguistic implications' to cover your error. Do you really think others are fooled by this? How can the woman in (Rev.12) literally represent Mary but symbolically represent Israel?

In post #136 you were adamant that (Ps.69:8) spoke to Israel and not Mary. But then when I said that Israel is not the mother of Christ, but Mary was, in post #138, you asked about who the woman was in (Rev.12) in post #141. In other words, it is one or the other. To which I respond in post #143, that it is Israel.

Now you say it is both Israel and Mary. It just depends on what argument you are losing at the time. Make it up as you go. Make it say what you want it to say. The Romanist way.

Stranger

WRONG..

I never said it didn't have anything to do with Mary - so why LIE about it??
I said that the "mother's children" mentioned in Psalm 69:8 were referring to Israel.

What makes Rev. 12:1 a polyvalent symbol is that it represents more than one thing - hence the prefix "Poly".

 

[Stranger]

WRONG..

I never said it didn't have anything to do with Mary - so why LIE about it??
I said that the "mother's children" mentioned in Psalm 69:8 were referring to Israel.

What makes Rev. 12:1 a polyvalent symbol is that it represents more than one thing - hence the prefix "Poly".

What is 'it'? To which you claim I am lying about?

You're the one who brought up Mary as the woman in (Rev. 12). Why? If now you say the woman was Israel also? You brought up (Rev.12) to prove the woman was Israel and not Mary. Now you are crawfishing. Remember, that big yellow line going up your back. It is called 'cowardice'.

What makes (Rev. 12) a polyvalent symbol is only your ability to spread manure. A manure spreader. As I said before you and Romanists must depend on 'linguistic gymnastics' to form your doctrine.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is 'it'? To which you claim I am lying about?

You're the one who brought up Mary as the woman in (Rev. 12). Why? If now you say the woman was Israel also? You brought up (Rev.12) to prove the woman was Israel and not Mary. Now you are crawfishing. Remember, that big yellow line going up your back. It is called 'cowardice'.

What makes (Rev. 12) a polyvalent symbol is only your ability to spread manure. A manure spreader. As I said before you and Romanists must depend on 'linguistic gymnastics' to form your doctrine.

Stranger

Like I said – I apologize for the big word (polyvalent). I never had a doubt that this would be troublesome for you.

a ) The Woman symbolizes Israel, from which Christ came out of.
b ) She also symbolizes Mary, His mother who bore Him.
a ) The crown of 12 stars symbolizes the 12 Tribes of Judaism.
b ) It also symbolizes the 12 Apostles of Christianity.

Polyvalent symbolism is used throughout Scripture.
For example, the “fig tree” is used to describe Israel (Matthew Matthew 24:32-35). But it is ALSO used to symbolize people (Isaiah 36:16, Jeremiah 5:17 Jeremiah 8:13).

YOU problem is that you’re not familiar enough with the Word of God to recognize these things, so you blurt out ignorant frustrations like “Romanist” manure and “Scriptural acrobatics”.

 

[Stranger]

Like I said – I apologize for the big word (polyvalent). I never had a doubt that this would be troublesome for you.

a ) The Woman symbolizes Israel, from which Christ came out of.
b ) She also symbolizes Mary, His mother who bore Him.
a ) The crown of 12 stars symbolizes the 12 Tribes of Judaism.
b ) It also symbolizes the 12 Apostles of Christianity.

Polyvalent symbolism is used throughout Scripture.
For example, the “fig tree” is used to describe Israel (Matthew Matthew 24:32-35). But it is ALSO used to symbolize people (Isaiah 36:16, Jeremiah 5:17 Jeremiah 8:13).

YOU problem is that you’re not familiar enough with the Word of God to recognize these things, so you blurt out ignorant frustrations like “Romanist” manure and “Scriptural acrobatics”.

Please, spare me and others your false humility. What you're sorry for is that I called you on (Rev. 12) being Israel as you want to claim. Which is why you haven't answered when I asked in post # 165 and 166. You stepped in it by saying (Rev.12) is speaking of Israel, when the Roman church says it is Mary. Your response? Keep quiet. Maybe he won't notice. But, I did notice. Why? Because I am familiar with your false representations when it comes to Scripture. And you would have never responded unless I called you on it again.

When I said before, that (Ps. 69:8) speaks to Mary and her other children you came back saying no it speaks to Israel, just like the woman in (Rev.12) speaks to Israel. You didn't say anything about some so called 'polyvalent'. You didn't say anything about the woman in (Rev.12) representative of Israel and Mary. You said the woman was representative of Israel. Unitl you saw you were caught. Then, as a coward does, you tried to hide. Till I brought it up again. Yeller...remember?

(Isaiah 36:16) " Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a presently, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern: " There is nothing here about the fig tree or vine representing people.

(Jeremiah 5:17) " And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish they fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword. " There is nothing here about the fig tree or vine representing people.

(Jeremiah 8:13) " I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them. " There is nothing here about the fig tree or vine representing people.

The fig tree can at times represent Israel. It's just you chose verses where it doesn't. It just represents figs. Work a little harder next time. Do some of your own work. Oh, I'm sorry, you're not allowed. But, even if these verses did speak to the fig tree representing these people, these people are Israel. So no 'gymnastic polvalent' here. No polyvalent manure here.

Thus the point remains, (Ps.69:8) speaks to Mary as the mother of other children.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

I think all of the emphasis on Mary comes from anti-Catholics.

um...snarf?

MANY anti-Catholics will have to answer to Him for the maltreatment of and disrespect toward His mother.

48 But He replied to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

at least we're in good company lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

um...snarf?

Sorry - I didn't mean to confuse you more than you already are . . .

48 But He replied to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

at least we're in good company lol

Why don't you post the rest of what Jesus says in this passage instead of cherry-picking??

um...snarf?

48 But He replied to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

at least we're in good company lol

 

[bbyrd009]

ah the day's comic relief is here lol

Why don't you post the rest of what Jesus says in this passage instead of cherry-picking??

because that is the part of the universally known passage where Jesus disowns Mary as His mother, duh.

 

[Marymog]

Hello Mary

The reformers you name were part of the Roman church before they were reformers. If they were not part of the Roman church before then they were not reformers. If they were not part of the Protestant movement then they were not reformers. In other words, the Church of England could be Roman at times or Protestant at times, depending on who the King or Queen was. The Church of England is really not Protestant. It simply put the King of England over the church there instead of the Pope.

My point is that these were affected by the Roman church also. And if they still believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then they were holding on to a Roman doctrine that the should not be holding to.

I agree that Mary and Joseph's marriage would not be a normal one. But that would be because of the 'virgin birth', not the perpetual virginity of Mary. To ask Mary and Joseph to remain virgins and be married would be abnormal and cruel. To indicate that if Mary had relations with Joseph would be infidelity on her part is a serious charge, and not founded in Scripture. They were married. The bed is undefiled.

If God wanted Mary to be a perpetual virgin, then why Joseph. What greater way to show perpetual virginity then to never be married and have a virgin born Son, and continue to never be married.

And, how are you going to prove that Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph when Scripture never says so? Are you saying a man and a woman lie in the same bed every night and control their sexual desires and say no every night? And that, when they were in love with each other?

So, now, you attribute adultry to Mary and Joseph for having sex and other children. Because Scripture says they had other children.

It seems to me that you are saying Mary is either 'divine' or a 'whore'. And I say that respectfully. The virgin birth alone supplies all that God needs in His salvation plan. To add more to that is to bring Mary to place God never intended.

Stranger

Dear Sir,

It seems you are saying that the reformers of The Reformers got it right? You are saying that what Christians believed and preached for 1,500+ years was wrong? Why are the men who disagreed with The Reformers right and everyone else for 1,500 years before them wrong?

Why is their marriage not normal ONLY because of the virgin birth? If they didn't have sex as a married couple that would not be normal either, would it? A life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates purity of heart and her total love and dedication to God who was the father of her son. It may be hard for YOU and ME to understand how one can resist sexual relations with our spouse but Mary and Joseph had a little help. As you may recall at one point Joseph was going to leave Mary until an angel visited him. When the angel told Joseph that Mary’s child was conceived of the Holy Spirit Joseph knew what was required of him just as we saw with King David in 2 Samuel 20:3. According to Scripture and ancient Jewish tradition Mary belonged to the father of her child (the Holy Spirit) not Joseph.

Matthew points out in his genealogy that Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Therefore if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph he would have been in line for the throne. Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of Jesus since Mary would have been in danger because The Jewish culture does not take kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse.

Since perpetual virginity has been believed and taught by Christians for 1,500 years that means for 1,500 years Christians did not believe or teach that Mary had other children. Are you trying to erase 1,500 years of Christian teaching?

In scripture when were the “brothers” of Jesus called the children of Mary? We know that Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) but no one else. How do you explain that?

You are truly confused my friend. I have never suggested that Mary is either 'divine' or a 'whore'. I am flat out saying that she was "divine". You see Mary as ordinary. God and I see her as EXTRAORDINARY. YOU are suggesting she was a whore when you say she had children from two different fathers; Joseph AND God. (and I say that respectfully)

Divine defined: the protective care of God.

I wish you well my friend. You should think more highly of the Mother of God instead of looking upon her as a weak human who can't resist sex after agreeing to give birth to the son of God. She was full of grace and blessed among women. She was not an ordinary woman.

May I suggest when studying scripture please don't throw away 1500 years of teachings and beliefs. God bless!

 

[BreadOfLife]

ah the day's comic relief is here lol

because that is the part of the universally known passage where Jesus disowns Mary as His mother, duh.

First of all - Jesus NEVER disowned His Mother, Einstein.
For Him to do so would have been an abomination in the eyes of God because of the Commandment to "HONOR your Father and Mother."

Matt. 12:48-5
But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

I included the part YOU conveniently left out.

Mary DID the will of the Father because she was "Kecharitomene" - so Jesus was not "disowning" her.
Rather, He was pointing to people like her that obeyed God.

 

[Stranger]

Dear Sir,

It seems you are saying that the reformers of The Reformers got it right? You are saying that what Christians believed and preached for 1,500+ years was wrong? Why are the men who disagreed with The Reformers right and everyone else for 1,500 years before them wrong?

Why is their marriage not normal ONLY because of the virgin birth? If they didn't have sex as a married couple that would not be normal either, would it? A life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates purity of heart and her total love and dedication to God who was the father of her son. It may be hard for YOU and ME to understand how one can resist sexual relations with our spouse but Mary and Joseph had a little help. As you may recall at one point Joseph was going to leave Mary until an angel visited him. When the angel told Joseph that Mary’s child was conceived of the Holy Spirit Joseph knew what was required of him just as we saw with King David in 2 Samuel 20:3. According to Scripture and ancient Jewish tradition Mary belonged to the father of her child (the Holy Spirit) not Joseph.

Matthew points out in his genealogy that Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Therefore if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph he would have been in line for the throne. Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of Jesus since Mary would have been in danger because The Jewish culture does not take kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse.

Since perpetual virginity has been believed and taught by Christians for 1,500 years that means for 1,500 years Christians did not believe or teach that Mary had other children. Are you trying to erase 1,500 years of Christian teaching?

In scripture when were the “brothers” of Jesus called the children of Mary? We know that Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) but no one else. How do you explain that?

You are truly confused my friend. I have never suggested that Mary is either 'divine' or a 'whore'. I am flat out saying that she was "divine". You see Mary as ordinary. God and I see her as EXTRAORDINARY. YOU are suggesting she was a whore when you say she had children from two different fathers; Joseph AND God. (and I say that respectfully)

Divine defined: the protective care of God.

I wish you well my friend. You should think more highly of the Mother of God instead of looking upon her as a weak human who can't resist sex after agreeing to give birth to the son of God. She was full of grace and blessed among women. She was not an ordinary woman.

May I suggest when studying scripture please don't throw away 1500 years of teachings and beliefs. God bless!

Mary

The reason the reformers were right and the Roman church was not right, was because the reformers were going back to the Bible as the source for what they believed. They say the Bible instead of the Roman church is the basis for what they believed.

My point was that perpetual virginity was not needed for the marriage of Mary and Joseph to not be a normal one. Perpetual virginity was not necessary for any reason other than to glorify Mary and place her on a level God never intended. The 10 concubines of David were just that. The 10. That doesn't mean David no longer had sex with other of his wives. There is a difference between wives and concubines. And there is no reason to think David did not have other concubines after this. David put these 10 away not because God commanded. But because Absalom made a point to have sex with these to prove his right to the throne. David wanted nothing more to do with these. (2nd Samuel 16:21-22)

Mary was of the Davidic line also. No need to have Joseph there. And, the virgin birth was kept secret from the Jews. It was not broadcast. The marriage of Mary and Joseph would be important only to conceal the 'virgin birth'. Thus there was no reason for perpetual virginity. Once the Messiah was born of a virgin, no reason to now remain a virgin. Scripture didn't require it.
See (Ps. 69:8) for proof of other children by Mary.

Well, you said Mary is divine. And you said if she had relations with Joseph she was an adulteress. So, that is why I said, that you seem to be saying Mary is either divine or a whore. I say, Mary is not 'divine'. She is a special woman indeed. But not 'divine'. Was she virgin born also? Because that is what it takes to be free from Adams sin, as Christ was. And if she was virgin born, then was her mother 'divine' also? Mary was highly blessed of God among women. But she was still just a woman. She was not the Mother of God. God has no mother or father or beginning or end. She was the mother of the Godman, Jesus Christ. Big difference.

Understand, I am not anti-catholic. I am against the Roman errors that have crept into your church. And this I believe to be one of them. You have wished me well, and I wish you well also. I know there are many within the Roman church who are believers in Christ, just as the reformers were part of the Roman church. I appreciate your method of writing which reflects your attitude concerning these things. And I know it is a volatile subject. Grace and peace to you also.

Stranger