Blue86:
So who are the magisterium?

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?

btoks:

This issue has been decided as far back as year 553 by the 2nd Council of Constantinople. Mary was a perpetual Virgin.

Please think of the implications of Mary having other children, not in 2024 but in the 1st century AD before anything was even recorded. How exactly could you prove Jesus' exclusive divinity if there were others who were born through the same womb? How exactly could it be proven that Mary conceived Lord Jesus as a virgin if she gave birth to others.

There is more to reading the scriptures with 2024 eyes and the fact is early christianity believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and affirmed by the 2nd Council of Constantinople. I'll urge you to read the acts from this council. Those who reject this are to be anamethised.

Catholic Church beliefs are not based on Sola Scriptura but on the 3 legs of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Christianity has been like this from day 1: example - Acts 15.

StillDtruth:


This argument took place 4 weeks back so 4 weeks ago, i proved that the constatine people were wrong here.

Matthew 13:55-56 and other scriptures prove she had other children.

Christ's divinity is/was already proven and settled by the fact that His Holyness was not corrupted at all whether at His implanting or in His Gestation period, which is why the Angel commanded Joseph not to touch her till after He was born.

Note the word [/color]"After the child is born"

So, Christ's Holiness was preserved and therefore His divinity is not affected at all.

All was done and Mary was free of her Commandment after she birthed The Christ

So she became free as other wives and could fucqk her husbandand have children. The angel did not give her a perpetual command

btoks:

Unfortunately Matthew 13:55-56 doesn't prove these were Mary's children. Trust me, these arguments would have been brought up at the council. The fact that this matter had to go to council just like the Acts 15 matter, meant that some were questioning or deviating from church sacred tradition. The council decided, I believe them over any modern interpretations, Catholics/ Eastern Orthodox cannot reject this teaching.

StillDtruth:


Now you have changed your leg of argument from your fear that Christ's divinity would be contamimated which i have shown it is not contaminated at all.

We all read the proceedings of Acts 15 and the rightfullness of the decision therein stands since then till the world ends

I have never seen the constatinople proceedings but from their judgment speaks of their error.

For Matbew 13:55 already confirms what we all feel and know to be true in nature and clearly it states that Mary and Joseph had other children, even stating the names of the other children. So what more can Mathew say and should he say beyond what he has already said?

Secondly, since you state that Matthew 13:55-56 doesn't prove these were Mary's children, please show and prove how it does not, if you can reasonably and validly do so.

StillDtruth:


This argument took place 4 weeks back so 4 weeks ago, i proved that the constatine people were wrong here.

Matthew 13:55-56 and other scriptures prove she had other children.

Christ's divinity is/was already proven and settled by the fact that His Holyness was not corrupted at all whether at His implanting or in His Gestation period, which is why the Angel commanded Joseph not to touch her till after He was born.

Note the word [/color]"After the child is born"

So, Christ's Holiness was preserved and therefore His divinity is not affected at all.

All was done and Mary was free of her Commandment after she birthed The Christ

So she became free as other wives and could fucqk her husbandand have children. The angel did not give her a perpetual command

StillDtruth:


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

StillDtruth:


Yet you still talk about dedication

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

btoks:

Also, the knew her not until in it's use in Greek (Matt 1: 25) at the time does not indicate what happened afterwards. Matthew's main concern was to clarify Joseph had no hand in the conception. Through sacred tradition, it is known Mary remained a virgin in marriage.

Emusan:


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

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



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.

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.

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.

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

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

Ubenedictus:


This is how I know if I'm talking to a honest person.

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.

Ubenedictus:


I think you have a problem with English language.
The verse you quoted is refering to Jesus.

"Is he (Jesus) not the carpenter's son? Is his(Jesus) mother not Mary?

The passage identified Mary as the mother of Jesus! It doesn't claim Mary is the mother of any other person!

It says Mary is the mother of Jesus and that Jesus has other relatives, but nowhere does it say that Mary is the mothers of those relatives.

btoks:

Also, the knew her not until in it's use in Greek (Matt 1: 25) at the time does not indicate what happened afterwards. Matthew's main concern was to clarify Joseph had no hand in the conception. Through sacred tradition, it is known Mary remained a virgin in marriage.

StillDtruth:


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,

Ubenedictus:


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

btoks:


Unfortunately Matthew 13:55-56 doesn't prove these were Mary's children. Trust me, these arguments would have been brought up at the council. The fact that this matter had to go to council just like the Acts 15 matter, meant that some were questioning or deviating from church sacred tradition. The council decided, I believe them over any modern interpretations, Catholics/ Eastern Orthodox cannot reject this teaching.

StillDtruth:


Exactly!

The "until" is very very clear and understandable.

But how can "until" be stretched to mean "perpetual"? Who does that!

So imagine, when the bible Said Exodus 12:10 Do not leave any of it until morning" it means they could keep the manna forever?

btoks:


Exodus 12:10 isn't saying that, in fact it further states what should happen to the manna that remains.

Just to add other examples of the use of until ( where no reversal occurs)

Act25: 21 But when Paul has appealed ..........., I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Ceaser
(Paul was still held in Roman custody after this event)
Gen 9:7 .. and sent out the Raven and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up. ( it's apparent that this raven never returned even after the water dried up.)

Mary's perpetual virginity is not streched from that verse.

btoks:

One needs to look at the wider context of her role e.g. Mary as the Ark of the new covenant. We know how the original ark was treated.

btoks:

Are you saying Mary , Jesus mother, was Apostle James the Less' mother? Where was he when his mother was given to Apostle John at the foot of the cross?

Kingsempires:
this link you are showing me is just in the favor of protestants so I don't have anything to do with that non sense link

Good! At least, you have admitted that "until" does not mean perpetuity,which clearly means therefore that by virtue of this verse no one can and should call her a perpetual virgin for immediately the "until" is fulfilled, she is therefore free to fuqk her husband, as you have stated via your examples above.

So this verse is against you.

And of course no one calls a woman who has given birth a virgin because Virginty is always before birth and stands only before birth.

And virginity is extinguished in 2 ways;
1) upon entrance (penetration) aka sex or
2) exit (birth)

Mary did not get lose her virginity by the usual entrance of penetration but she lost it by birth and exitation of a child.

And at no ever calls a woman who has given birth, a virgin.

So, you have 3 Points against you!

So, this is your own leg of argument different from your other brothers own which did not stand.

So, clearly, you people have no common foundation on which you base your perpetual virginity belief but it is based on individuallly created grounds.

No, problem, i will examine any ground presented here.

So your ground is "Mary as the Ark of the new covenant"

First point did the bible declare Mary as so? No, it didnt. This is a creation and declaration of men and not of God!

Secondly, after the ark in Noah did its service, did anyone frame it and praise it? No

Even the Ark of the covenant, did it have any value greater than the wagons which carried the Isrealites? No.

Its value and super magnification came because God sanctified it and put Himself in it, as with Mary.

But, by her birthing Christ, God left ark Mary and never returned therein exactly how Noah and co left the ark and never returned to it and the ark returned to its normal value.

So as Noah had no further use for the ark and it could be chopped for use and other purposes, so also was ark Mary returned to her husband and now usable by him as proven by the "until" commandment.

So, your ark Mary belief Falls and does not stand.

Fallacy of reversal of burden of proof and Departure from post.

I was rebutting your catholic brother's answer only and did not say any of the above, so it is you who said it ooo and not i.

Ubenedictus:
because the apostles themselves tell us that scripture was never supposed to be an exhaustive record of all they taught.

In fact, the idea that everything the apostles taught should be written down in the bible is unbiblical because the apostles tell us they never attempted to do so! They told the church to hold on to the oral teaching they received and to pass on this teaching from generation to generation.

The idea that everything they taught should be in the bible is unbiblical and unhistorical.

I repeat, the new testament WAS NOT written to be an exhaustive account of [b]Christian belief.[/u] The apostle were never interested in putting everything in writing because they commanded the church to hold on also to what they've been orally taught.

This view that the bible should contain everything is a new heresy barely 500 years old in Christendom.

because God word is not limited to the written word, it also includes the oral teaching which the apostles committed to the church and commanded them to hold.

At a time it was more widely spread than the new testament. The new testament was compiled in the 4th century

and that idea is against scripture which explicitly teaches that the church must hold on to the teachings that were delivered by word of mouth. If you 2000 years later come here and tell me that the teachings delivered to all the ancient churches from the apostles by word of mouth are not important, I will say, I chose to hold to them as Paul instructed, I will not follow you to say they're unimportant. That's a sad way to treat apostolic teaching.



God never said the written word was supposed to contain every thing. The holy spirit himself inspired how apostolic teaching is to be passed down and preserved 2 Tim 2:2.


this isn't what the apostles taught the church

you are making an argument from silence. That is a fallacy.

That the bible doesn't record something does not mean it didn't happen. It isn't explicit in scripture is not the same as it is false. That's a quantum leap.

I never said Jesus didn't pass through Mary's womanhood. I don't know where you heard that.

God's testimony through is word in scripture is important, God's testimony through the apostles to his church is also important. That is why the bible says we must hold both the written scripture and the oral apostolic witness given to the church.


In as much as they are apostolic teaching delivered to the church, the bible says we should hold them. I won't disobey what the bible says about the oral tradition that the apostles committed to the church simply because a modern day protestant does not like them.

btoks:

I never said 'until' in Greek always means perpetuity. what is a fact in the OT an NT is that there are instances were the condition doesn't change after the use of 'until'
In Mat 1:25, there is no indication as to what occurred afterwards as that wasn't the point of the text

StillDtruth:


1)

We are not talking about instances but we are talking about the case of Mary and Joseph and the word until, which you confess does not mean perpetual, which is what your catholic brother Benedict implied.

So, thank you for shooting him.

You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was the main concern about that verse was to confirm that Joseph had no role in the conception. Through sacred tradition we know that Mary remained a virgin.
Also then stated that the use of until is not a confirmation of what happened afterwards

2) Mat 2:1 shows us that the until in Mat 1:25 was fulfilled and complied with which leaves the question, so did Joseph "knew his wife"?

And this is where Matthew 13:55-56 answers the question showing us that they had their own children.

So question answered and case closed!

btoks:

You have no points against me, I'm giving you what the Church teaches. The fact is no one calls a pregnant woman a Virgin either but I'm sure you believe that. Where was it mentioned that Mary lost her virginity?

btoks:

You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was the main concern about that verse was to confirm that Joseph had no role in the conception. Through sacred tradition we know that Mary remained a virgin.
Also then stated that the use of until is not a confirmation of what happened afterwards

btoks:

One of the children is James the Apostle, please confirm whether Mary the mother of Jesus was is mother

StillDtruth:


Now you will understand why the bible said you cannot serve 2 Masters and that you must love one and hate the other.

So, also doth Judgment always tilt one way against another. You cannot condemn a liar and still praise him.

So, as you have shown, you already want to be catholic and have chosen your master instead of searching and learning what God is Saying and teaching and not what one priest or pastor says.

But, as Moses said, the options have been laid before you and you have chosen, so no wahala.

btoks:

This is not true. The Catholic church ( & the EO, OO) looks at the whole of the word of God, written and orally transmitted and do not rely on 1 verse taken out of context as modern protestants do in order to make an argument. You might be surprised to know that the early reformers (Luther, Calvin, even Wesley much later) also affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity.

btoks:

While I don't want to delve into the Ark of the covenant on this thread, I'll point out a couple of things.
You are mixing up your arks. Noah's ark is not the same as the ark of the covenant. You'll need to do more research to see whether the Ark of the covenant lost its significance!

btoks:

After reading all your previous responses, this was my question to you as part of my contribution and I'll ask it again. Apostle James the Less was called Jesus's brother, was Mary the Mother of Jesus his mother? If she was, why didn't he take Mary into his home after Jesus Crucifixion?[/font]

Kingsempires:
so I should be against catholicism because of what those so called person that are not God said about catholicism

StillDtruth:


That is your choice

But i clearly said
"instead of searching and learning what God is Saying and teaching and not what one priest or pastor says."

Kingsempires:
....Just like the way you call the Catholic church liar . is the same liars that gathered the bible you are reading that means you are using a liar's bible

StillDtruth:


Wow! What a twist and reversal!

Now you know the meaning of God can use anyone to fulfil His purposes exactly how He used armed robbers and human traffickers to bring the bible to us.

Truth remains the Truth irrespective of who is used to deliver it.