Was Mary sinless?

[Marymog]

Paul said deceivers would soon follow after them

Ok....so you believe that the students of the Apostles were "deceivers". That really doesn't make any sense but lets go with that theory.

Who do you trust correctly interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Apostles?

1st century Gnosticism?​

2nd century Montanism?​

3rd century Sabellianism?​

Curious Mary

 

[Truther]

Ok....so you believe that the students of the Apostles were "deceivers". That really doesn't make any sense but lets go with that theory.

Who do you trust correctly interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Apostles?

1st century Gnosticism?​

2nd century Montanism?​

3rd century Sabellianism?​

Curious Mary

As long as the Apostles were alive, they could straighten out their doctrines. Ravenous wolves followed them after they departed

 

[Marymog]

The RCC is the worst thing to ever happen to Christendom.

She is the mother of all of the Acts skippers that ever lived and are now alive.

Lol....hold on kiddo...HOLD ON.

For the first 1,500+ years of Christendom there was what Christ prayed for and the Apostles taught. One Church with One teaching. Then your Protestant men came along and started a division in Christianity which has resulted in thousands of different churches with hundreds of different salvific doctrines. And your theory is that The Catholic Church is the worst thing that happened to Christianity? Satan, getting his wish to divide Christianity via the Protestant Revolution, WAS the worst thing that happened to Christendom kiddo.

 

[Marymog]

As long as the Apostles were alive, they could straighten out their doctrines. Ravenous wolves followed them after they departed

Answer the question kiddo.......

 

[Nephesh]

Listen, the KJV translators need not be corrected by theses modern, phony PHD's.

They got it right 400 years ago.

All you need is an old dictionary for old English words. (Probably about 10 or so words).

The ancient Greek is a dead language in modern times, so if the ancient translators put it into English, we are good.

The farther we get from the original, the more polluted it gets.

For instance, Christendom started pure like snow at a mountain peak, but as it flowed downstream, it began to pick up pollutants. It is now a stagnant swamp.

The Bible works the same way, as it has thousands of modern day pollutants per endless translations that say different things.

You are in error when you automatically assume and apply modern-day meanings to archaic words that aren't a direct definition of that original Koine Greek word used and its English translation, like you do with "brothers." So, whoever taught you to do that is in error as well.

 

[Truther]

Lol....hold on kiddo...HOLD ON.

For the first 1,500+ years of Christendom there was what Christ prayed for and the Apostles taught. One Church with One teaching. Then your Protestant men came along and started a division in Christianity which has resulted in thousands of different churches with hundreds of different salvific doctrines. And your theory is that The Catholic Church is the worst thing that happened to Christianity? Satan, getting his wish to divide Christianity via the Protestant Revolution, WAS the worst thing that happened to Christendom kiddo.

The RCC is the founder of skipping Acts 2:38.

Most of Christendom has followed her decree in one way or another.

All of this is created to debunk this....

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,...

The RCC put a stop to it, which made them the worst thing to attack the Apostolic doctrines of the 1st century church.

She actually protested Acts 2:38 and Peter, making her the mother of all protestants. They are her daughters because they are Acts skippers also.

She laughs at the daughters as they argue over micro doctrines and yet lack remission of sins as she likewise doesn't have.

 

[Truther]

Answer the question kiddo.......

Here is the early formation of the eventual RCC...


29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


...and you thought things would get better after the Apostles died.

 

[Truther]

You are in error when you automatically assume and apply modern-day meanings to archaic words that aren't a direct definition of that original Koine Greek word used and its English translation, like you do with "brothers." So, whoever taught you to do that is in error as well.

Wrong, the farther we get, the worse the definition.

Simple as that.

 

[Nephesh]

Wrong, the farther we get, the worse the definition.

Simple as that.

The simple fact is that you read Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and other verses that refer to Jesus's family, and assert that they refer to Jesus's half-brothers, but they don't. You're ssuming and applying modern definitions to the English translation "brothers" of an ancient Koine Greek word that doesn't share those modern definitions directly. You're wrong to do that, but I'm sure you want to do the right thing, yes?

 

[Nephesh]

You and your Internet research of ancient church fathers is not feasible. It doesn’t even make sense. ... It’s all a Catholic trick that happened in the dark ages. And they posted all that stuff on the Internet for people like you to create doctrines with.

O really? By all means, show us how.

By the way, if you rightly agree that James, the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3), and “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) were the same person, then even without the early Christian testimonies, and Maria Valtorta's writings, Scripture alone still disproves your belief that he and his siblings were Jesus's half-brothers. This is because in Gal. 1:19, Paul indicates that James is one of the Twelve, which means he would have had to have either been apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary, yet still a kinsman/relative of Jesus.

 

[Truther]

The simple fact is that you read Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and other verses that refer to Jesus's family, and assert that they refer to Jesus's half-brothers, but they don't. You're ssuming and applying modern definitions to the English translation "brothers" of an ancient Koine Greek word that doesn't share those modern definitions directly. You're wrong to do that, but I'm sure you want to do the right thing, yes?

Nothing to assume.

The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings.

The verse in Matt 1 says Joseph knew Mary not TILL...

The verse also says Mary was in the upper room receiving the Holy Ghost with the 120, needing it too.

But, you guys are hung up on some kind of virgin deity thingy.

 

[Truther]

O really? By all means, show us how.

By the way, if you rightly agree that James, the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3), and “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) were the same person, then even without the early Christian testimonies, and Maria Valtorta's writings, Scripture alone still disproves your belief that he and his siblings were Jesus's half-brothers. This is because in Gal. 1:19, Paul indicates that James is one of the Twelve, which means he would have had to have either been apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary, yet still a kinsman/relative of Jesus.

I bet Maria Valtora was actually a statue that was speaking to a buncha nuns in a convent....

 

[Nephesh]

Nothing to assume.

The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings.

They don't. Go ahead, quote any of the verses in the original language Koine Greek, as well those same verses in English, then tell me if you see the word "siblings."

 

[Nephesh]

I bet Maria Valtora was actually a statue that was speaking to a buncha nuns in a convent....

You would bet that an inanimate object, like a statue, talks to living humans?

Oi.

 

[RedFan]

Why are you guys continuing to debate this? The Greek is ambiguous. Period. End of discussion. It could mean that these folks were Jesus's actual brothers and sisters, or cousins, or kinsmen of some degree removed, or half-brothers/sisters from Mary, or step brothers/sisters from Joseph, etc.. Because the Greek words have multiple meanings, WE CANNOT TELL FROM THE TEXT ALONE WHAT THE AUTHOR MEANT.

I don't know whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. Neither do you - at least, not from the text. Some conclude she did from the traditions of the Church, some don't agree. That's a good debate to have. But a debate based on the Greek text? What a colossal waste of time! End. Done. Move on!

 

[Nephesh]

Why are you guys continuing to debate this? The Greek is ambiguous. Period. End of discussion. It could mean that these folks were Jesus's actual brothers and sisters, or cousins, or kinsmen of some degree removed, or half-brothers/sisters from Mary, or step brothers/sisters from Joseph, etc.. Because the Greek words have multiple meanings, WE CANNOT TELL FROM THE TEXT ALONE WHAT THE AUTHOR MEANT.

You don't have to tell me. I'm the one who's been explaining that to people. However, there are scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies that give genealogical evidence, and collectively show that the kinsmen/relatives of Jesus believed to be His half-brothers were His cousins. Refer back to post #190.

 

[MonoBiblical]

[Luk 2:48 NIV] 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

She forgets who the son of God is.

And she remembers at the wedding, she has him do an early miracle. Good but not sinless.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Ok....so you believe that the students of the Apostles were "deceivers". That really doesn't make any sense but lets go with that theory.

Who do you trust correctly interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Apostles?

There is no reason to trust the Catholic Church when they love your enemies, those who want to hurt. They haven't a clue.

 

[Nephesh]

I don't know whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. Neither do you - at least, not from the text.

Immediately after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary that She will bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. Therefore, at the moment Mary asked that question, which was before She received the answer, the question itself indicates She had the initial impression that She was to bear this Son through sexual intercourse with a man, and was confused as to how that could happen when She made a vow to remain a virgin for God, even in marriage. If She had any intention of sexual intercourse with Joseph, or anyone, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have asked that question at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result of such an act.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

[Luk 2:48 NIV] 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

It's normal for any concerned mother to be anxious when they can't find their son.

She forgets who the son of God is.

Perhaps you forget who she is. That's like saying, "my mother forgets who I am".

And she remembers at the wedding, she has him do an early miracle. Good but not sinless.

"not sinless" is the sewage that seeped out of the false philosophies of the Enlightenment Era that had more darkness than light. Modernist liberals started covering up what the reformers taught about Mary, and it spread in (some) Protestantism like a cancer. "not sinless" is a man made tradition less than 200 years old. It's fad theology.
Our God is quite capable of preventing Mary from Original Sin, another biblical doctrine abandoned more and more by Modernist liberals. Not capable puts limits on God's omnipotence. Choose wisely.