Ukutsgp: @vest.

All of us are probably aware that the Catholic and
Orthodox churches believe and teach that Jesus
was the only child born to Mary. In 411,
Augustine wrote that Mary, "remained a virgin in
conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him,
a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at
her breast, always a virgin" ( Sermons 186, 1: PL
38, 999 as quoted in paragraph 510 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church ). We might also
know that many Anglicans believe this. But we
might be surprised that some Protestants believe
this. In fact, Martin Luther, Huldrych (or Ulrich)
Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin all
believed it. In his Commentary on Matthew ,
Calvin even called anyone who disagreed
"pigheaded and fatuous." Perhaps even more
surprising is that the eminent Baptist theologian,
John Gill, regularly waffled on this subject,
seeming to believe it by comments he made, but
never, as far as I know, making a clear statement
committing himself to it. Is there clear, biblical
proof one way or the other?
Jesus' Birth
The first Scriptural evidence is in Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost." The Greek word
translated "before" is prin . It means "prior" or
"before." "Came together" is translated from
sunelthein, which means to convene. But it was
also used to mean to come together in marital
relations. So, in other words, before Joseph and
Mary had consummated their marriage, Mary was
found to be pregnant with a child from the Holy
Spirit.
Verses 24 and 25 are often cited by Catholics as
evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth
her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
The word "knew" is from the Greek word,
eginōskin . As Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament explains, this normal Greek
word for "knew" was used by Jews as an "idiom
for sexual intercourse between a man and a
woman." "Till" serves a very great purpose in this
verse. The Catholic argument is that the word
"till" or "until" ( heōs in the Greek) does not
necessarily mean that the action prior to the
point indicated (in this case, sexual abstinence)
does not continue afterward. In other words,
Joseph and Mary may not have ended their
sexual abstinence after Jesus' birth. They may
have continued to refrain from sexual intercourse
for the rest of their lives. Catholics say that this
is, in fact, what happened. John Gill takes a
similar position regarding the word "till": "Joseph
knew her not till she had brought forth, the
meaning is certain that he knew her not before.
But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so
manifest, nor is it a matter of any great
importance." Oh, but it is important when millions
of people who believe in Mary's perpetual
virginity venerate her and pray to her. Yes, it is
important that we find the truth of this matter.
As I said above, "till" is translated from heōs . It
is a conjunction that means "till" or "until."
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary , eleventh edition, the conjunction
"until" means, "up to the time that: up to such
time as."

i repeat.

Ukutsgp: Jesus' Brothers and Sisters
Toward the end of Matthew 13, we read that
Jesus went to Nazareth, where He was brought
up, and spoke in the synagogue. The townspeople,
who all knew Him and His family well, said, "Is
not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they
not all with us? Whence then hath this man all
these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56; see also Mark
6:3).
This seems clear enough. But the Roman Catholic
Church has this response: "Against this doctrine
the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible
mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The
Church has always understood these passages as
not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus',
are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ,
whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other
Mary'. They are close relations of Jesus,
according to an Old Testament
expression" (paragraph 500, Catechism of the
Catholic Church ).
John Gill also insists, " And his brethren ; not
strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a
former wife; or Mary's, or Joseph's brothers or
sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being
usual with the Jews to call such, and even more
distant relations, brethren." Gill, following the
Catholic theologians on this matter, seems willing
to accept any other scenario but the most
obvious. Do these people name Jesus' uncles and
aunts? No. Why, then, should they name His
cousins? Are they not referring to Joseph, the
man they think of as Jesus' father (although
Jesus was really the Son of God), when they say,
"Is not this the carpenter's son?" Of course. Do
they not directly name Mary as Jesus' mother?
Yes. If they do this, even using the label "mother"
for Mary, it would be completely inconsistent to
use "brethren" to refer to Jesus' cousins. It is
plain that they are naming the members of his
immediate family. This is very strong evidence
against the Catholic position.
A Messianic Prophecy
Apparently John Gill and the Catholics have
forgotten or want to ignore the obvious wording
of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9: "I am
become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien
unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of
them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." In
his commentary on verse 8, Gill takes "brethren"
to mean the Jews in general and "also to such
who were still nearer akin to him, according to
the flesh." In commenting on "an alien unto my
mother's children," Gill points out that "alien" can
be taken as "Gentile" or "heathen," but completely
ignores "my mother's children." For this prophecy
to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, He had to have had
brethren, and His mother had to have had other
children. In fact, the Psalmist was simply using
the Hebraism of repeating something two different
ways when he said, "I am become a stranger
unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's
children," for, of course, these two phrases mean
exactly the same thing. Jesus' brethren were His
mother's children. This prophecy is devastating
evidence against the Catholic assertion that Mary
had no other children.
By the way, this also puts to rest Gill's
suggestion that the brothers of Jesus might be
the sons of Joseph by a former wife. They cannot
be so if they are, as the Psalm says, His
"mother's children."
Other Scriptures that refer directly to Jesus'
siblings are Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34;
Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14;
1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19. Never once, in
all the references to these people, are they
referred to with the Greek word suggenēs , which
has the general meaning of "cousin" or
"kinsman." The word used is always adelphos,
"brother."

i repeat.

Ukutsgp: A Distorted View of Marriage
Something I want to point out here is that the
Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity
leads to a distorted view of sex in marriage.
Catholics maintain—without any biblical evidence
—that Mary herself was immaculately conceived
and remained without sin all her life. The idea
that she never had sex is a part of this doctrine.
However, the Bible shows that this view backfires
on itself. While sex outside of marriage is a sin,
within marriage, sexual relations are clearly
sanctified (Hebrews 13:4). Yet, the doctrine of
Mary's perpetual virginity intimates that sexual
intercourse with her husband would somehow
have defiled her, and that she is to be revered
because she remained a virgin. This makes a
mockery of God's institution of marriage. The sin
would have been in Mary's remaining a virgin (1
Corinthians 7:3-5).
By the way, the Bible never so much as hints at
other Catholic doctrines that Mary was born from
an immaculate conception, that she was sinless
at birth, or that she remained sinless. The Bible
tells us, "For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The only one
born of a woman who knew no sin was Jesus
Christ: "For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The truth is that Mary was a human being and
sinner like any other. To say otherwise is a denial
of the Bible's teaching of the total depravity of all
humans

i repeat

[quote author=OLAADEGBU]

When was the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures published, 4th century by the RCC?

Not sure what your point is here. Please explain. If this is to do with the deuterocanonicals, I'm sure you're aware that the Jews did not accept the NT.

Neither Jesus nor His Apostles quoted from the apocrypal and the fact that one quotes a prophecy does not mean quoting from a book. The OT books do not contradict the NT they complement each other. This cannot be said for the books you added in between the OT and NT.

If this is how you judge what books are supposed to be in the OT, how come the following books are in the OT: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. I don't believe these were quoted from?
As I mentioned before, some books quoted from didn't even make it into the OT. So your point is not valid

The list I posted there shows the pagan origin of your traditions which is not congruent with the Scriptures.

This is entirely your opinion and there are reasons for traditions. Just so you know, your tradition of sola scriptura (which is the basis of your beliefs and arguments) is not taught anywhere and is a concept that stems from Martin Luther in the 16th century.
Teachings have been passed down via sacred tradition and the Church in its position as the pillar & foundation of truth has decided what is part of the christian faith.
Please can you let us know why you believe in the bible because this also came about via catholic tradition. Some groups will actually tell you that they are fables and like the pagan origin ( please be sincere in your response)

You need the Holy Spirit who breathed the Scriptures into existence not your tradition of men for the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are God breathed.

Please let us know how the Holy spirit did this, because by your statement it appears the bible suddenly appeared out of thin air. Again, endeavour to give a considered response. A lot of your responses have not been deep at all.

When your will becomes the will of God you will know whether the doctrines are of God or not. You will not have to depend on faulty human traditions.

To some extent this is true, however, please let me know how you know what books constitute the bible from your your will becoming the "will of God". I can inform you with all certainty that you're operating within a particular tradition - whatever you've heard throughout your time in church or with peers.

So the CC has been teaching something for 2000 years and says this is the case but you need us to believe your “will of God” that comes 2000 years later. Don’t you think this is what’s caused the innumerable number of denominations today - everyone thinking they know the doctrines via sola scriptura?

There is no institution that doesn't require a visible head and governing body even with established laws, constitution, terms & conditions, procedures etc. They tell you what the procedures are, they interpret in light of circumstances and ongoing events, otherwise what you get is anarchy. From your responses, it appears christianity is supposed to be by anarchy? Please let me know how the early church functioned without a complete set of scriptures, how did they know what the correct doctrine was?

btoks:

Not sure what your point is here. Please explain. If this is to do with the deuterocanonicals, I'm sure you're aware that the Jews did not accept the NT.

When I say the Hebrew Scriptures I meant the Hebrew Bible, the OT, or the Tanakh, it is the collection of writings that was first compiled and preserved as the sacred books of the Jewish people. Were they compiled by the RCC?

Neither Jesus nor His Apostles quoted from the apocrypal and the fact that one quotes a prophecy does not mean quoting from a book. The OT books do not contradict the NT they complement each other. This cannot be said for the books you added in between the OT and NT.

btoks:

If this is how you judge what books are supposed to be in the OT, how come the following books are in the OT: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. I don't believe these were quoted from?
As I mentioned before, some books quoted from didn't even make it into the OT. So your point is not valid

That is just one of the criteria, there are many others. The NT complements the OT, it does not contradict the way the apocryphal does. And I reiterate that all the books in the Hebrew Bible or the Tanakh is what we have in the OT, no more no less.

btoks:

This is entirely your opinion and there are reasons for traditions. Just so you know, your tradition of sola scriptura (which is the basis of your beliefs and arguments) is not taught anywhere and is a concept that stems from Martin Luther in the 16th century.
Teachings have been passed down via sacred tradition and the Church in its position as the pillar & foundation of truth has decided what is part of the christian faith.
Please can you let us know why you believe in the bible because this also came about via catholic tradition. Some groups will actually tell you that they are fables and like the pagan origin ( please be sincere in your response)

How can the Hebrew Bible come out of the catholic tradition for instance? And what you claim as your church tradition contradicts with what we have in the inspired word of God (i.e. the NT). Does that make sense?

btoks:

Please let us know how the Holy spirit did this, because by your statement it appears the bible suddenly appeared out of thin air. Again, endeavour to give a considered response. A lot of your responses have not been deep at all.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The idea conveyed here is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Holy Scriptures which gave us what God intended us to have.

btoks:

To some extent this is true, however, please let me know how you know what books constitute the bible from your your will becoming the "will of God". I can inform you with all certainty that you're operating within a particular tradition - whatever you've heard throughout your time in church or with peers.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17).

You have to be simple minded enough to believe that it happened the way the Scriptures says it did. Then proceed to study to show yourself approved. Below are the yardstick used in knowing what books constitute the inspired Word of God.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/why-66-books/

btoks:

So the CC has been teaching something for 2000 years and says this is the case but you need us to believe your “will of God” that comes 2000 years later. Don’t you think this is what’s caused the innumerable number of denominations today - everyone thinking they know the doctrines via sola scriptura?

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..." (Mark 7:13).

The tendency to negate the word of God with one's interpretation or tradition is not new as we can see our Lord Jesus saying here. God has repeatedly warned against adding, subtracting or altering the inspired Word of God. All we need to do is to submit our will to His Will and obey His Word as Apostle Peter said here:

"...We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

btoks:

There is no institution that doesn't require a visible head and governing body even with established laws, constitution, terms & conditions, procedures etc. They tell you what the procedures are, they interpret in light of circumstances and ongoing events, otherwise what you get is anarchy. From your responses, it appears christianity is supposed to be by anarchy? Please let me know how the early church functioned without a complete set of scriptures, how did they know what the correct doctrine was?

The Bible. Blessed Information Bringing Life Eternal.

OLAADEGBU:

Did Mary believe God for her salvation? The fact that Mary believed God for her salvation and that she also went for purification should tell you that your church tradition that says she was born without sin is faulty.

This is what Jesus said of such practise:

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..." (Mark 7:13).

Apostle Paul said this:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Cor 2:17).

You should listen to Apostle Peter who said:

"...We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

you didn't answer my question.


If mary was saved already before the birth of CHRIST (as you say), then why did she undergo the purification?

OLAADEGBU:

What's the point in conducting Mass in a language you don't understand? This is the more reason why the gospel should be preached in languages understood by the hearers, that way they would be able to worship God in spirit and in truth instead of just following rituals and dogmas.

who says we don't understand what is been said?


Whether in greek (as in the east) or in latin (as in the west), those who use another language in liturgy usually understands what they are saying.

Ubenedictus:


who says we don't understand what is been said?


Whether in greek (as in the east) or in latin (as in the west), those who use another language in liturgy usually understands what they are saying.

Are you speaking for yourself or on behalf of the majority of roman catholics?

Dux01:


pls i want you to answer this question.don't get angry.was mary a sinner like us that needed to be forgiven or she was sinless like Jesus.

Mary was a sinner like us who needed to be forgiven. Only Jesus was sinless.

ichuka:


and my spirit rejoices in God my
Savior..Luke 1:47.
If She's sinless why would she need a Savior?

Good response.

Ukutsgp:


jesus was sinless because his conception wasn't through sexual intercourse. d bible said all have sinned including mary hence need a saviour.

Good point.

nnatom:


so are u saying a sinner carried Christ for nine month in an unclean body. use ur head bro.

That was by the grace of God. Neither Joseph's seed nor Mary's egg were involved.

nnatom:


have u heard of immaculate conception. pls make ur findings.

There's nothing like immaculate conception, it did not happen.

btoks:


So, from your sola scriptura, you were able to read that Jesus said 'his mission was not to do temporary ephemeral things....?unfortunately,This is your own interpretation of the verse. Another effort to dishonour the blessed virgin Mary.Did the bible record everything that happened historically? Bros,please try to quit all this nonsense of opening threads to slate the CC and try to get some understanding of what the CC teaches and why..

What did Jesus mean when He said it was not His time yet?

btoks:


It's worth taking a look at the immaculate conception dogma. Yes she needed a saviour, hers was just done earlier by a singular act of grace from God, she was freed from original sin at conception.This all hacks back to gen 3 :15. As @nnatom implied, Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb and this had to be sinless. Adam and Eve were also created sinless so nothing God cannot do.

What happened to the scripture that says "All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

ifeness:


prophet of doom,stay clear of drugs

As long as you don't abuse it.

OLAADEGBU:


Good point.

i am really tired of those guys o. I dnt know if they study the bible with their anus.

Ubenedictus:



pls show me a passage that says "these are mary's children"

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7)

Why firstborn and not only son?

vest:
lieszz!!

the bible did nt say mary had other kids dat you own fallable worng 20th century intepretation.

How do you interpret Luke 2:7?

OLAADEGBU:


What happened to the scripture that says "All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

what's ur point here. bros if u lack knowledge calm down and do a constructive reasoning before saying things ok. understanding the bible is not like maths and english o.

OLAADEGBU:


How do you interpret Luke 2:7?

pls interpret it and tell us how he is wrong.

OLAADEGBU:


That was by the grace of God. Neither Joseph's seed nor Mary's egg were involved.

how did u know dat Mary's egg was not involved. and also show me where it's writing in d bible.

OLAADEGBU:


What happened to the scripture that says "All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

pls show us where it is stated in d bible dat Adam and eve were created in sin.

pls use ur common sense and stop quoting the bible falsely.

OLAADEGBU:


What did Jesus mean when He said it was not His time yet?

now how dis one take answer his post.

bros sorry o,something is common in u.

OLAADEGBU:


There's nothing like immaculate conception, it did not happen.

I wonder where you get the confidence to say this or the proof?do you know it was the same guys who told us about Jesus who also told us this?
. Do you know there are groups that believe the Jesus story was fabricated or exaggerated?what gives you the assurance that it's true?

OLAADEGBU:


What did Jesus mean when He said it was not His time yet?

it certainly didn't mean not doing temporary ephemeral things as per your interpretation because I wonder why he carried out any miracles at all.
How about this,he didn't want to reveal himself but he still went ahead to do a miracle after Mary's intercession. What do you say to this?

For Those That Want To Learn

www.Matt1618.Freeyellow.Com/mary.html

@ukutg
Martin Luther, Ulrich, Zwingli, John Calvin Nd Baptist Theologian John Gill All Taught Nd Blive Sola Scriputural Yet Agree That Mary Waz Eva Virgn Nd Even Condem Any 1 Who Said She Was Nt As U Rightly Said In Ur Post. What Mks U Think Dat They Are Wrong Nd Your 21st Century Interpretation Is The Correct 1?

Pls It's Better You Answer In Ur Hrt Dan To Reply Like Sum 1 Who Has A Rusted Brain.

nnatom:


what's ur point here. bros if u lack knowledge calm down and do a constructive reasoning before saying things ok. understanding the bible is not like maths and english o.

When the Scriptures says "all have sinned" it includes Mary.

nnatom:


pls interpret it and tell us how he is wrong.

Does the word "firstborn" mean only child or the first of his siblings?

OLAADEGBU:


Does the word "firstborn" mean only child or the first of his siblings?

when you want to intepret the bible learn hw to put every tin in context(place nd time when such words are used).

firstborn is a jewish title for every first child wheda they ve other children or nt u can confirm dis 4rm the old T.M

JESUS Was Also Called Firstborn In Heb1:6 Nd In Jn3:16 The Only Son Of God.

Read The Link 4 More If Oly U Want To Knw

nnatom:


how did u know dat Mary's egg was not involved. and also show me where it's writing in d bible.

If you spend more time studying your Bible instead of your church tradition you would have come to the same conclusion.

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrew 10:5).

Show me where the Bible says Mary's egg was involved.