Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus

[Illuminator]

If the kings of Judah had wives for queens, like other nations, then we would have no analogy, but the fact that it might be so unusual, makes it all the more stunning. That the kings in the ancestral line of Jesus had mothers for queens is all the more appropriate that Jesus continue this “unusual practice” and make his mother the queen according to the same pattern of his predecessors.

One cannot deny that Solomon, the Son of David who sat on the throne of his father David — Solomon did have his mother for a queen. And he did set up the throne for her at his right hand. If it is unusual, it only makes my case all the stronger.

One cannot deny that Jesus sits on the throne of his father Solomon. Jesus is the ultimate Son of David who sits on the throne of David (and Solomon) and it would not be unbiblical or irrational or astounding to think that Jesus would do for his mother what Solomon did for his. . . .

But anti-Mary liberal Protestants, who have little or no historical connection with their own reformers,
deny it anyway.

:) You would think that if Mary was going to be the "queen of heaven" someday that her own son would care to mention it, and explicitly state so.

You would think that if sola scriptura were true, her own son would care to mention it, and explicitly state so. But its nowhere to be found EXPLICITY either, yet its the pillar and ground of Protestantism.

This tremendous "revelation" we are only given by Catholics and misguided believers just went totally over his head, and over the head of John and the rest of his disciples. :

The title was a later development, not a tremendous revelation, just as the canon of scripture was a later development.
Did it go over Luke's head when he wrote about an angel speaking in royal terms?
Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
throne
reign
kingdom
These are royal terms. The House of Jacob with no queen would be unthinkable to the Jewish community. But your system has removed itself so far from Judaism you recognize so little of it.

 

[Illuminator]

So you believe God... without mother or father has a mother?

You are so mixed up. I believe Jesus had a mother, do you? I believe Jesus is God, do you? It seems to me you don't know what you believe. Mary is not the mother of God the Father, how many times does this have to be repeated???

 

[Dcopymope]

The title was a later development, not a tremendous revelation, just as the canon of scripture was a later development.
Did it go over Luke's head when he wrote about an angel speaking in royal terms?
Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
throne
reign
kingdom
These are royal terms. The House of Jacob with no queen would be unthinkable to the Jewish community.

.....And yet, the angel says nothing about her alleged "queen ship" in heaven as an "intercessor" before Jesus, as you claimed. This is a shining example of putting words in someones mouth. I'll leave you to your personal interpretations, have fun, its getting late for me.

 

[Illuminator]

.....And yet, the angel says nothing about her alleged "queen ship" in heaven as an "intercessor" before Jesus, as you claimed. This is a shining example of putting words in someones mouth. I'll leave you to your personal interpretations, have fun, its getting late for me.

Again, the title "Queen of Heaven" was a later development, that's why it's not explicitly found in scripture. the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. isn't enough due to your rigid demand for strict literalism.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can’t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!

Blessed Virgin Mary & Revelation 12: Debate with a Protestant

 

[Taken]

You are so mixed up. I believe Jesus had a mother, do you?

See, here we agree Jesus, HAD, (past tense)
a mother.

I believe Jesus is God, do you?

Jesus IS the Word of God.
Jesus came forth out from God, for the purpose of revealing the Word of God to Jewish people...

The Father is God...did Mary birth the Father? Uh no.

Christ is the Power of God...did Mary birth the Power of God?...uh no.

God has His OWN Glory that He gives to no one...did Mary birth Gods Glory?...uh no.

It seems to me you don't know what you believe.

Why is that? Did I stutter, or contradict myself or Scripture?

Mary is not the mother of God the Father,

Mary was Never the Mother of the wholeness of God....nor is she the Mother of God.

how many times does this have to be repeated???

As many times as you enjoy hearing yourself talk.

 

[Taken]

You would think that if sola scriptura were true, her own son would care to mention it, and explicitly state so. But its nowhere to be found EXPLICITY either, yet its the pillar and ground of Protestantism.

Sola Scriptural is the Scriptures being the Sole Source for Validating Scriptural Teaching.

Obviously, you disagree with that...
So would you be so kind to List "what sources", you believe are your go to Sources for Validating Taught Scripture?

 

[Paul Christensen]

If the kings of Judah had wives for queens, like other nations, then we would have no analogy, but the fact that it might be so unusual, makes it all the more stunning. That the kings in the ancestral line of Jesus had mothers for queens is all the more appropriate that Jesus continue this “unusual practice” and make his mother the queen according to the same pattern of his predecessors.

One cannot deny that Solomon, the Son of David who sat on the throne of his father David — Solomon did have his mother for a queen. And he did set up the throne for her at his right hand. If it is unusual, it only makes my case all the stronger.

One cannot deny that Jesus sits on the throne of his father Solomon. Jesus is the ultimate Son of David who sits on the throne of David (and Solomon) and it would not be unbiblical or irrational or astounding to think that Jesus would do for his mother what Solomon did for his. . . .

But anti-Mary liberal Protestants, who have little or no historical connection with their own reformers,
deny it anyway.

You might as well face facts. The only ones on the forum who are going to believe what you are writing are those who are already Roman Catholics. You won't have a hope of convincing anyone else.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Now Mary, the mother of Yeshua may not be a virgin, but she was the Sola Scriptural mother of Yeshua. Say what you want about her, but Yeshua will be paying attention.

What do we have here essentially?
1. We have people that have formulated their beliefs on the Bible alone ~2000 years after Christ's ministry. Sola Scriptural They do not recognize any divine activities after the close of the Bible. Assuming that God's interactions and Miracles ceased for ~2000 years. And for some, any and all divine interactions no longer continue. Most of these individuals do not recognize the authority of the Church at all or only their Church or their own personal beliefs.

2. We have others that have formulated their beliefs from the early years of Christianity. (*second century 100 AD) They include all the history of Christianity from that time. (the Gospels forward) As a religion they include all of the documented divine interactions of God and the decisions of the Church over the past 2000 years.

Now, is there anyway or reason to try to harmonize these two religions? ....NO... 2000 years of Christian history is not going to be reflected in the texts that only account for the first 65 years. For that same reason the Catholics are not going to be able to prove that much of their beliefs are reflected in the texts of the first 65 years. And the Protestants are not going to be able to prove that God was still and silent for ~2000 years.

So you tell me, what is going to be accomplished here?

*The first use of the term "Catholic Church" (literally meaning "universal church") was by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD). Ignatius of Antioch is also attributed the earliest recorded use of the term "Christianity" (Greek: Χριστιανισμός) (in Catalan) 100 A.D. The first use of the title of Pope started in the early 3rd century. (232 AD) The belief that the Apostle Peter was the first leader of the Catholic Church is impossible to prove. But the Apostle Peter was a Christian leader and a succession of disciples can be nearly proven.

 

[n2thelight]

Holy Mary,

Why do you call her Holy?

 

[n2thelight]

You would think that if sola scriptura were true, her own son would care to mention it, and explicitly state so. But its nowhere to be found EXPLICITY either, yet its the pillar and ground of Protestantism.

When Christ often asked,have ye not read,what was He referring to?

 

[Grailhunter]

Why do you call her Holy?

That was a pretty long explanation I gave about beliefs. There are some that believe that Christian events and miracles continued between 65 AD and 2020. And although I am not Catholic, I stand with those that love her. I believe in her works and her miracles. And I am in debt to her love.

 

[Illuminator]

When Christ often asked,have ye not read,what was He referring to?

When Christ often asked, have ye not read, He taught what the scriptures meant, He didn't let the scriptures speak for themselves. If you study Jesus' OT quotes IN CONTEXT, sola scriptura is non-existent.

 

[Illuminator]

You might as well face facts. The only ones on the forum who are going to believe what you are writing are those who are already Roman Catholics. You won't have a hope of convincing anyone else.

t would not be unbiblical or irrational or astounding to think that Jesus would do for his mother what Solomon did for his. . . .BUT YOU DENY IT ANYWAY.

 

[Taken]

Mary’s royal office

Mary's Royal Office"?
More imaginary.
Jesus did not come to Earth as a King.
Clearly..."will be King" has not occurED."

 

[Pearl]

t would not be unbiblical or irrational or astounding to think that Jesus would do for his mother what Solomon did for his. . . .BUT YOU DENY IT ANYWAY.

Speculation only -

 

[Taken]

Speculation only -

Illuminator is trying to illuminate you with his words, and saying you deny his words.

Gods Word teaches to be Enlightened, with Gods Word and ultimately with the Reflection of Gods Glorious Light.

It requires denial of mankind...
Your Acceptance of what And Denial of what is clear.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Grailhunter]

The entertainment value is only minimal but still some humor.
I love the Protestants too but you all look like you have a terrible case of denial.
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it.

 

[Dcopymope]

The entertainment value is only minimal but still some humor.
I love the Protestants too but you all look like you have a terrible case of denial.
If you want to make your case....if the Catholics are wrong....tell them what the Trinity was really doing between 65 AD and 2000. Let's hear it.

A "terrible case of denial" of what exactly?

 

[Pearl]

Illuminator is trying to illuminate you with his words, and saying you deny his words.

Gods Word teaches to be Enlightened, with Gods Word and ultimately with the Reflection of Gods Glorious Light.

It requires denial of mankind...
Your Acceptance of what And Denial of what is clear.

God Bless,
Taken

Illuminator is trying to illuminate you with his words, and saying you deny his words.

Gods Word teaches to be Enlightened, with Gods Word and ultimately with the Reflection of Gods Glorious Light.

It requires denial of mankind...
Your Acceptance of what And Denial of what is clear.

God Bless,
Taken

‘Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?

 

[Paul Christensen]

t would not be unbiblical or irrational or astounding to think that Jesus would do for his mother what Solomon did for his. . . .BUT YOU DENY IT ANYWAY.

Of course I would deny it, because I don't believe that Mary is anywhere else but in Paradise with all the best of those who died in Christ and awaiting their resurrection to glory.