Kingsempires:
Through eye witnesses

Through eye witnesses that Jesus didn't pass through the womanhood of Mary.

So who are the eye witnesses according to early church?

Emusan:


Through eye witnesses that Jesus didn't pass through the womanhood of Mary.

So who are the eye witnesses according to early church?

What i am talking of is mary being perpetual virgin

Kingsempires:
What i am talking of is mary being perpetual virgin

Did Jesus pass through Mary womanhood?

Emusan:


Did Jesus pass through Mary womanhood?

This question way you they ask me you no they read bible

Kingsempires:
This question way you they ask me you no they read bible

Okay, quote the Bible verse for me!

Emusan:

Okay, quote the Bible verse for me!

Mat 1

Kingsempires:
Mat 1

So, Matt 1 actually proved that Mary delivered Jesus vaginally.

Emusan:


So, Matt 1 actually proved that Mary delivered Jesus vaginally.

men are you a Christian

Kingsempires:
men!!, why would you be saying that the roman C are liars. Are they the only church that teaches that mary was a perpetual virgin ?

The catholic church is a church of Lies as proven by many atheists here whose hatred for God.stems from the lies they were taught and many are catholics.
https://www.nairaland.com/7600700/why-catholic-church-evil-majority#121547568

So Mary's perpetual virginity is not the only lie as you can see from the other thread of forgiveness and taking communion is another one,

Kingsempires:
men are you a Christian

I made a comment, you jumped in without know the genesis and I asked you a question, the next is to ask me if I'm a Christian, what does that have to do with the question I asked you?

Emusan:


So, Matt 1 actually proved that Mary delivered Jesus vaginally.

this is the reason why i ask are you a Christian. What type of proof do you want mat 1 to give you that mary conceived Jesus by the holy Spirit

Kingsempires:
this is the reason why i ask are you a Christian. What type of proof do you want mat 1 to give you that mary conceived Jesus by the holy Spirit

You see the reason why you should understand a discussion properly before jump into it.

Who is talking about Jesus miraculous conception?

We're talking about Jesus delivery, did Jesus pass through Mary vaginal or not?

Emusan:


You see the reason why you should understand a discussion properly before jump into it.

Who is talking about Jesus miraculous conception?

We're talking about Jesus delivery, did Jesus pass through Mary vaginal or not?

sorry oo!! ,na now i understand what you are saying



Brought the question you asked I no go fit answer am oo

Kingsempires:
you just come on nairaland once a while

Yes I have a whole life out there to live.
I don't have the time for long arguments from people who have already closed their minds.

All I am doing if fulfilling all righteousness. The moment I notice a person is unteachable, I leave them to their thoughts.
Even scripture forbids me from arguing over words

Emusan:


But the scripture recorded the birth of Jesus and nothing was said about being miraculous.

If it's not recorded in the scripture, where did early church get such info from?

The early church was taught directly by the apostles. The gospels were written over 30 years after the resurrection. Before we had a single book of the new testament, we already had a church, the early church didn't begin to learn about Jesus by reading a new testament! No! The apostles preached and were already preaching for over 30 years before the holy spirit inspired them to put some of what they had taught into writing.

So really it is very ignorant to ask "if it isn't in scripture where the the early church get the info from"?
Sorry but that's a very ignorant question. The early church already knew about Jesus before we had a new testament and even the new testament tell us it doesn't attempt to put everything down in writing.
If you want to know all that the apostles taught the early Christians that the bible itself say it couldn't write because it will be too much, then go check the practices and beliefs of those who the apostles taught and those who those people taught. Check out all the churches that can directly trace themselves back to the apostles and see what all of them have always believed.

StillDtruth:


We know, the wide meaning of the word breathren means relative.

But we also see and appreciate the narrow meaning of brethren which means biological brothers as we see in Joseph and his brothers/Judah's sons, Er and Onan.

And whsat differentiates these 2 meanings is their lineage.

They were relatives of Jesus that is why the Bible calls them is "brethren", but they were not children of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Do you understand?

If bethren.means relatives, then Mathew will not say brethren because him, matthew and the whole of Isreal, whether Nazareth or Capernaum or Jerusalem are his relatives.


John 19:25
standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother 's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Matt 27:56
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Mk 15:49
There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

See it many Marys, James, Johns, Sals, simons etc Names are replicated in their families, so Mary and Joseph have their own James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. You can even see you said "the younger james" meaning, there is an older james.

And see Simon and Judas are not mentioned in that family, so you see, lineage proves you are wrong and your church lied

You are trying to be cleaver by half.
In the entire bible Mary the mother of Jesus is only addressed as the mother of Jesus. No other.

In case you don't know who the younger James is please ask questions and I'll tell you, Jesus had 2 James among his apostles, one was the son of Zebedee he was older, the other is James the son of Alpheus AKA Clopas, he was younger. The bible says their mother was a relative to Mary so they are brothers of Jesus.
There are no many James or Jose's in the passages I gave you, they are all talking about the women at the foot of the cross and they all corroborate that a relative of Mary was there who was the mother of James, Joses and Salome. This James is James the younger or James the less, who is an apostle. Since you were wondering about Jude, Jude wrote an epistle. He claims to be "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James," he is a relative of James probably his blood brother.

So the passage you brought claiming that Mary had other kids does not prove any such thing. Instead the bible tells us that many of those listed had a totally different mother, not Mary the mother of Jesus.



That is clear enough for any sincere person. If you feel like going about to argue, I have no desire for useless arguments.

StillDtruth:


I said "Cite examples where the bible decribed an only son as a first born." i did not ask for definition or redefinition. I just said give us an example.

And clearly, you see, THERE IS NOT ONE CASE WHERE THE BIBLE EVER CALLS AN ONLY SON, "FIRST BORN"

So, you see you are talking rubbish and have therefore fled away as all liars must do when they are caught.

You have descended to insults and to be sincere I'm too old for that rubbish. You can go play in the sand with your age mates where you can decide to call them liars.

When a man gives birth to his first son, is he mandated to dedicate him or must be wait to have a second born before he can dedicate him. Since you claim that only child cannot be a first born?

It's simple, if you can reason without insults it's not really hard

[quote author=StillDtruth post=131534754]

Who can give full picture of anything? Who needs full picture of everything? Even you cannot give the full picture of your neigbbourhood.

See this guy's case https://www.nairaland.com/8186055/been-scammed-neighbor#131518390
Has he not already given us the picture we need? Who has asked for more pictures?

You are the one claiming that if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen. You are still the same person here now agreeing with me that the bible doesn't claim to paint a full picture.

If the bible doesn't paint a full picture, as you admitted, why do you expect to find every Christian belief and practice explicitly stated in the bible? If the bible doesn't claim to have all the information if what happened in the life of Jesus, why are you so pained that all ancient churches believe things about Jesus that are not explicitly stated in the bible?

You are just showing you are one of those sucessfully scammed by the Romans. because you failed to think and therefore you fell for their scam of removing you from the Book of Truth (bible) so that you can see and accept their inteligently woven lies in other books

you see why ignorance is not good? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not held only by the Roman Catholic church. It is held by EVERY APOSTOLIC church, any church that can trace itself by by 2000 years. This includes the Ethiopian church in Ethiopia, the Coptic church in Egypt, the Syriac church in Antioch, the Greek orthodox church, the full orthodox communion, the oriental church, the ancient churches in Jerusalem...all of them. Those who believed it include protestants like John Wesley of the Methodist, Martin Luther of the Lutherans, etc.
So if you claim I was deceived by the Roman, what about the Ethiopian church, that of Alexandria, that of Greece, Jerusalem, Antioch...who deceived them? Was the entire Christian church deceived for 1600 years until your protestants church showed up?

And that is why you do not know what is True for you are corrupted and full of lies.

It is people like you who make atheist call Christians brainwashed meanwhile you are never there to defend the lies they have seen and experienced because they too were catholics but they were watching to see if the lies held up especially the fact that lies always raised up more questions and more lies.

No, it's people like me who understands who Christianity started and what it has always believed. I make no apology to atheist. If an atheist doesn't believe in God then he can't believe in a virgin conceiving. His first problem is lack of faith in God and if you don't know that maybe you aren't even mature enough to be discussing with atheist.

No reasonable person requires anybody to tell the fullestest story only the Truth, the sufficient and the relevant part. And if clarity is needed, questions would be asked as seen in that thread. No extra threads required.

Truth exists; only lies are invented[/b].Georges Braque -

the truth is all ancient Churches and even the early protestants reformers all teach that Jesus was born of a virgin and that she remained a virgin.

They do not claim the bible says "and Mary remained a virgin", they know it because that is what has always been believed among Christian. When someone comes 2000 years later and say all Christians before him were wrong and he is right because he saw "brethren" of the Lord who were never called sons of Mary, I start to laugh

Ubenedictus:

You have descended to insults and to be sincere I'm too old for that rubbish. You can go play in the sand with your age mates where you can decide to call them liars...

I did not insalt you, it is you who is putting yourself in a very bad and indefensible position, like a thief trying to defend his stealing and even trying to say it is right.

So, every condemnation you get feels like an imsalt

Ubenedictus:

When a man gives birth to his first son, is he mandated to dedicate him or must be wait to have a second born before he can dedicate him. Since you claim that only child cannot be a first born?

You are being fraudulent in making the issue look like the argument is about the fedicstion of a child, whereas, it is not!

The issue is and had always been do you see anywhere in the bible where they called "an only son or child" "FIRST BORN"? . And iasked you for an example .

And clearly, you did not see any one or single case where an only child is called firstborn
.
So, you are wrong!

Ubenedictus:

You are the one claiming that if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen...

See, it! Instead of addressing the issue, you have resorted to accusing me.

Where did i say "if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen?

Ubenedictus:

You are still the same person here now agreeing with me that the bible doesn't claim to paint a full picture.

If the bible doesn't paint a full picture, as you admitted, why do you expect to find every Christian belief and practice explicitly stated in the bible?

You are being snaky in pretending as if you do not understand that the argument is about you saying "Acess and full picture" whereas, the bible has given us the relevant and sufficient information we need like that boy's thread. And no one went outdide his report lookong for any full picture.

So this is you not liking what you see, so like Isreal you went out looking for what you want which clearly are Lies because, it is liars who go looking for what is not missing..

Anyway, your life and your death!

Ubenedictus:

You are trying to be cleaver by half.
In the entire bible Mary the mother of Jesus is only addressed as the mother of Jesus. No other..

Now, you.have shifted to another leg since the one you used has fallen.

If you were truly sincere, you would see that the bible is about Jesus and not about Mary and her children, exactly how in Genesis,it focused on Abraham and not on his brothers.

And secondly, it is known the bible has always described lineage in terms of the father, in this case Joseph and not on mothers which is where Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So your church has lied to you!

"There is no valid argument against the Truth"

Or is there any other leg of argument you can make?

StillDtruth:


Now, you.have shifted to another leg since the one you used has fallen.

If you were truly sincere, you would see that the bible is about Jesus and not about Mary and her children, exactly how in Genesis,it focused on Abraham and not on his brothers.

And secondly, it is known the bible has always described lineage in terms of the father, in this case Joseph and not on mothers which is where Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So your church has lied to you!

"There is no valid argument against the Truth"

Or is there any other leg of argument you can make?

Na wa o

At first this was your point

"The certainly for this miraculous birth of Jesus is not found in scripture. It is attested to by the early church, this is why all ancient Churches AGREE that Mary is perpetually a virgin"

You have not addressed HOW this miraculous birth was known.

Ubenedictus:
The early church was taught directly by the apostles. The gospels were written over 30 years after the resurrection. Before we had a single book of the new testament, we already had a church, the early church didn't begin to learn about Jesus by reading a new testament! No! The apostles preached and were already preaching for over 30 years before the holy spirit inspired them to put some of what they had taught into writing.

Was Mary Perpetual Virgin part of their preaching?

If Mary perpetual virgin was already WIDE SPREAD before the scripture was developed, how come such important message was ignored?

The main point is, since it's not in the scripture then it's not something God wants to bother us with.

So really it is very ignorant to ask "if it isn't in scripture where the the early church get the info from"?
Sorry but that's a very ignorant question

If that's how you see it, but the truth is you have not addressed the real point here.

The early church already knew about Jesus before we had a new testament and even the new testament tell us it doesn't attempt to put everything down in writing.
If you want to know all that the apostles taught the early Christians that the bible itself say it couldn't write because it will be too much, then go check the practices and beliefs of those who the apostles taught and those who those people taught. Check out all the churches that can directly trace themselves back to the apostles and see what all of them have always believed.

In a nutshell, you don't have evidence to support your miraculous birth.

StillDtruth:


I did not insalt you, it is you who is putting yourself in a very bad and indefensible position, like a thief trying to defend his stealing and even trying to say it is right.

So, every condemnation you get feels like an imsalt

Does it not interest you that in the same paragraph where you said you didn't insult me, you likened me to a thief?
Your lack of self awareness of your own word is outstanding.

You are being fraudulent in making the issue look like the argument is about the fedicstion of a child, whereas, it is not!

The issue is and had always been do you see anywhere in the bible where they called "an only son or child" "FIRST BORN"? . And iasked you for an example .

And clearly, you did not see any one or single case where an only child is called firstborn
.
So, you are wrong!

You are debating that the term first born in the bible is a legal term to mean whoever opens the womb, whether or not he has other siblings.
The question is simple, when a woman gives birth to her first child in ancient Israel will she dedicate the child as the law says or will she wait for the "second born" to be born before she dedicates the child?
It is not a hard question if you are honest

StillDtruth:


See, it! Instead of addressing the issue, you have resorted to accusing me.

Where did i say "if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen?



You are being snaky in pretending as if you do not understand that the argument is about you saying "Acess and full picture" whereas, the bible has given us the relevant and sufficient information we need like that boy's thread. And no one went outdide his report lookong for any full picture.

So this is you not liking what you see, so like Isreal you went out looking for what you want which clearly are Lies because, it is liars who go looking for what is not missing..

Anyway, your life and your death!

The bible also clearly tells us that not all that happened was recorded(John 21:25). The bible also tells us that Jesus commander his apostles to teach all nations. How did they teach? By word of mouth and by letter, the letter says it doesn't contain all things and that Christians must hold on to what was taught orally. (2 Theses 2:15). it also says that oral tradition must be passed down to the next generation who must also teach the next generation. (2 Tim 2:2)
This is why every ancient church believes in tradition! The bible teaches it. So if you want to know what the apostles taught about the perpetual virginity of Mary, first you check scriptures, it doesn't say much, then you check all the churches that were taught by the apostles, what have they received as apostolic tradition. Ask the church in Antioch, in Greece, Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, Asia minor.... whatever ancient Church you go and ask, what is the apostolic tradition that has been passed on to you about Mary. They will all tell you, ALL OF THEM, that the faith passed on to them from the apostles is that Mary was always a virgin.

You can go and argue all you like, but that is the witness of every apostolic church.

Ubenedictus:

Does it not interest you that in the same paragraph where you said you didn't insult me, you likened me to a thief?
Your lack of self awareness of your own word is outstanding.

This is your guilt talking for all i did was to explain using an example.

Ubenedictus:

You are debating that the term first born in the bible is a legal term to mean whoever opens the womb, whether or not he has other siblings.

You already know this is what i contend and dedication is not in issue at all, which is why i have asked you to cite an example, where you see the bible call an only child, a first born.

And as you see, you have not seen any one single case as of course no one calls an only child "first born" for firsborn always means that child has other siblings.

So, you are wrong.

StillDtruth:


Now, you.have shifted to another leg since the one you used has fallen.

If you were truly sincere, you would see that the bible is about Jesus and not about Mary and her children, exactly how in Genesis,it focused on Abraham and not on his brothers.

And secondly, it is known the bible has always described lineage in terms of the father, in this case Joseph and not on mothers which is where Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So your church has lied to you!

"There is no valid argument against the Truth"

Or is there any other leg of argument you can make?

The verse you presented does not say that Mary is the mother of anyone but Jesus.

It only identified Mary as the mother of Jesus, the rest he calls the Adolphoi or relations of Jesus but not once did he call them sons of Mary.

In fact the bible tells us that they are kids of Mary's relative who married a man called Clopas.

Emusan:
At first this was your point

You have not addressed HOW this miraculous birth was known.

it is not hard to address.
All the ancient churches teach that the perpetual virginity of Mary was taught to the church by the apostles and have been taught, handed on and believed since then.

Was Mary Perpetual Virgin part of their preaching?

If Mary perpetual virgin was already WIDE SPREAD before the scripture was developed, how come such important message was ignored?

it was not ignored. The bible was never meant to be an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. The church already believed and practiced before the new testament was written. The church was already taught by the apostles before they even began to write things down
The bible was majorly developed in the fourth century. That was when the church put together what we now call bible. And even by then Mary as perpetual virgin was already wide spread. They didn't need to go put it in the bible because the bible was never understood as an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. It was protestants who came over a thousand years later who started to treat the bible like that. This is the reason why NO ancient church believe that the bible alone should be used for doctrine.

The main point is, since it's not in the scripture then it's not something God wants to bother us with.

the point is that scripture was never meant to have everything God wanted to reveal. The revelation of God was passed down by both written scripture and oral tradition. 2 Thess 2:15 says the church must stand firm on BOTH sources of divine revelation. Just as the letters were put together so too, the oral teaching were committed to faithful men who in turn were to commit them to others from one generation to the next 2 Tim 2:2. So the fact that a teaching is not explicitly spelled out in the bible does not mean Gid didn't want you to be bothered with it. The simple question is to ask, was this part of the teaching the apostle committed to the church by word of mouth? Ask any ancient Christian church, the answer is yes.

If that's how you see it, but the truth is you have not addressed the real point here.

what is the real point I did not address?

In a nutshell, you don't have evidence to support your miraculous birth.

the evidence for it is the testimony of all ancient Churches for thousands of years who all teach that it was handed to them by the apostles.
Again are you not surprised that this teaching isn't only held by Catholics? It is held by all ancient churches and even the early protestant held it.

StillDtruth:


This is your guilt talking for all i did was to explain using an example.



You already know this is what i contend and dedication is not in issue at all, which is why i have asked you to cite an example, where you see the bible call an only child, a first born.

And as you see, you have not seen any one single case as of course no one calls an only child "first born" for firsborn always means that child has other siblings.

So, you are wrong.

It is simple, if I give birth to a child today and I'm a Jew in 1st century Israel, will I go and dedicate the child as my first born or will I wait to have a second born before dedicating him?
The question is not hard to answer for someone who is honest.

And the question isn't about dedication, it is about understanding who a firstborn is according to Jewish scripture.

Ubenedictus:

It is simple, if I give birth to a child today and I'm a Jew in 1st century Israel, will I go and dedicate the child as my first born or will I wait to have a second born before dedicating him?
The question is not hard to answer for someone who is honest.

And the question isn't about dedication, it is about understanding who a firstborn is according to Jewish scripture.

Yet you still talk about dedication

And even you, do not call your only child, first born.

Ubenedictus:
it is not hard to address.
All the ancient churches teach that the perpetual virginity of Mary was taught to the church by the apostles and have been taught, handed on and believed since then.

If the Apostles actually taught it then there's no reason it shouldn't make it to their written.

it was not ignored. The bible was never meant to be an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. The church already believed and practiced before the new testament was written.

THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT IT before The New Testament was written part of the scripture supported the reason why it should have made it to their writings.

The church was already taught by the apostles before they even began to write things down

So why such important message didn't make it to their writings?

The bible was majorly developed in the fourth century. That was when the church put together what we now call bible. And even by then Mary as perpetual virgin was already wide spread. They didn't need to go put it in the bible because the bible was never understood as an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. It was protestants who came over a thousand years later who started to treat the bible like that. This is the reason why NO ancient church believe that the bible alone should be used for doctrine.

So, if Mary perpetual Virgin was wide spread if the reason it didn't make it to God's word.

Does it mean Mary perpetual Virgin is more WIDELY SPREAD THAN THE GOSPEL ITSELF?

The fact still remains that Mary perpetual Virgin isn't of important to the Salvation Jesus brought.

the point is that scripture was never meant to have everything God wanted to reveal. The revelation of God was passed down by both written scripture and oral tradition. 2 Thess 2:15 says the church must stand firm on BOTH sources of divine revelation. Just as the letters were put together so too, the oral teaching were committed to faithful men who in turn were to commit them to others from one generation to the next 2 Tim 2:2. So the fact that a teaching is not explicitly spelled out in the bible does not mean Gid didn't want you to be bothered with it. The simple question is to ask, was this part of the teaching the apostle committed to the church by word of mouth? Ask any ancient Christian church, the answer is yes.

God is not stupid to have INSPIRED the Apostles to pen down His Word, if Word of Mouth is reliable God won't have INSPIRED ANYONE.

what is the real point I did not address?

The real point is that Mary perpetual Virgin has nothing to do with The Salvation Jesus brought for mankind.

Also, that Jesus didn't pass through Mary womanhood still remains false. No scriptural backing for it.

the evidence for it is the testimony of all ancient Churches for thousands of years who all teach that it was handed to them by the apostles.

And that is more IMPORTANT THAT GOD'S OWN TESTIMONY THROUGH HIS OWN WORD.

Again are you not surprised that this teaching isn't only held by Catholics? It is held by all ancient churches and even the early protestant held it.

Well, many teachings were held by people past and now but some of these teachings have nothing to do with mankind salvation.

Ubenedictus:

The verse you presented does not say that Mary is the mother of anyone but Jesus.

It only identified Mary as the mother of Jesus, the rest he calls the Adolphoi or relations of Jesus but not once did he call them sons of Mary.

In fact the bible tells us that they are kids of Mary's relative who married a man called Clopas.

See it now, you are Lying very openly

Did you not see see what the people said about Jesus and his mother and father.
Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

See it. It is clearly and boldly written in red, yet you decided to Lie and said the verse did not say so, see how you wish not to.see the Truth? Clearly proving how much you love Lies!

Clearly proving that you are one of those
People swallow greedily any lie that flatters them, but sip only little by little at a truth they find bitter.' Dennis Diderot

Further, Simon and Judas are not in your Clopas lineage.

And furthermore, lineage is traced by the men Joseph and your Clopas and not by the women Mary and your Mary, clopas's wife.

So see, it now, your church lied to you and now here you are Lying to others.

Clearly, your church is a church of Satan, the father of Liars