ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc, I know right now you're thinking less about what is actually true, and more about how to defend Orthodoxy.

I urge you to think in the spirit of truth, not in the spirit of self preservation.

---

I'm trying to find what's actually true. That's what led me to start questioning things in the first place.

But let me ask you something honestly: what is the "correct" denomination, in your view?

Because within Protestantism, there are huge differences on salvation itself: whether baptism saves, whether you can lose salvation, whether faith alone is enough, whether God chooses some and rejects others, etc.

Where is the ultimate authority of interpreting scripture? Who has the ultimate authority when people within your own church disagree on an interpretation?

They can't all be right. So how do we know which version of Protestantism has the truth? Why do you think you and your church are the only people who have the correct theology?

If you don't think you have perfect theology, then why does theology even matter? If scripture is all we need, then why do we even need a physical church? Why do we need Pastors?

We both believe and have faith in Jesus, is that not enough?

1 Thess. 5:21

---

Good questions, and I'll answer what you want. I think I've already answered some of them already. But I think you're avoiding the pressing issue here. Can you answer me - you DO see the serious problem in praising someone who took you to church in that way, don't you? I don't know if I can tell you which denomination is "correct", but I CAN tell you which denomination is certainly NOT correct, and it would be any church that teaches THAT.

---

If I had a superficial view that what they're doing is literal worship of Mary then yes I would reject it.

Its the same concept of Protestant communion... yeah it looks like the practice of consuming the literal body and blood of Christ...but you make it very clear that its just symbolic.

You think the words they say are meant to convey worship of Mary...yet they make it very clear that treating it that way would be heretical.

---

It's very interesting that if someone dies everything that Catholics do for Mary, but they did it for Buda instead of Mary.... Catholics would agree that those people were worshipping Buda.
Catholics are trying to move the goal posts so that they can engage in Marian worship but claim that it's not worship.
No other religion on the planet builds churches or temples, sings songs, prays prayers, bows before the image of someone or something that they claim they do not worship.
The Catholics have more churches named after & dedicated to Mary than they do Jesus.

Actions speak louder than words.

---

Interesting take. Are members of the Church of England (Anglicans) worshipping England (or the head of state)? You are going to be shocked when you find out where Lutherans get their name from. Are Methodists in love with process? What are Baptists worshipping? Are Seventh Day Adventists some weird calendar worshippers? We haven't even gotten to what the nondenominational churches name themselves: you'll find names like Antioch, Watermark, City Church. What do their names tell you about what they worship?

And wait until you figure out who our beloved university is named after. Are we all worshipping Judge Baylor when we gather to celebrate and sing the praises of the Green and Gold? Heck, we even have a statue of him.

---

That's a pretty pathetic response.

Are you actually attempting to say that all of the thousands of churches named after Mary, are just because of location (church of England) or a different methodology (Methodists)?
That's pathetic.

The entire planet knows the difference between singing songs about a school, and singing worship songs. You are one of the few who can't seem to understand it.

No one bows to the statue of judge Baylor, nor do they sing songs praising him, nor go they ask him for his grace, nor do they pray to him in any way.

Catholics are very much involved in the worship of Mary, and they constantly have to try and convince the rest of the planet that the worship of Mary is not worship.

Very very sad for you and your level of deception. You think you made some kind of brilliant defense of Marian worship, but it's not even close.

I'll pray for your eyes to be opened.

---

If there was a university named Budda (or Buddha) University and it had a statue of Budda on the campus would you think the people attending there were improperly honoring Budda? This is YOUR simple "replace it with Bud[d]a" test.

There are numerous posts in this thread from Catholics telling you that you are more than free to not have a Marian devotion. Does that sound like people who believe Mary is a deity? This entire thread is about the fact that the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith (in layman's terms, the department in the Vatican responsible for the deposit of the faith and protecting the orthodoxy of the faith and morals) has explicitly stated that the "Co-redemptrix" title is not to be used in reference to the Mary.

The DDF's exact words: "In this case, the expression 'co-redemptrix' does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ."

Does that sound like the DDF believes she is to be worshipped?

So, you have Catholics telling you they are not worshipping her. You have Catholics telling you that nobody is required to keep a devotion to her. You have the DDF all over the place, including recently, telling you not to worship her (note the use of the word extol). But I guess you know better.

---

I never made the argument that people who attend a university are worshipping the name of that university. That was your ridiculous argument.

Let me try to explain it to you.

If there was a George Washington Baptist Church somewhere, I might wonder why they named their church after George Washington. If i went inside that church on Sunday and saw a big statue of George Washington behind the altar in the front so that everyone would focus on George during the service... that would be concerning. Then if everyone sang songs to George, praising his qualities... I would start to think that they are probably engaging in idolatry of George Washington. Then if they prayed prayers to George, thanking him for salvation and asking him to dispense Grace and Blessings upon them and their families... now I would definitely think they were engaging in worship of George. Then if they also bowed before the statue of George, while praying to George.... you add it all up and it is obvious that these folks are worshipping George Washington.

Now replace the name George Washington with The Virgin Mary, and you can obviously see the idolatry of Mary by the Catholic church.


I'm glad that there are some catholics who are not taking part in worshipping Mary, but it seems very odd to say that. Those would have to be catholics who also don't pray the rosary and don't go to "confession" because almost all of the priests instruct parishioners to pray the rosary or pray a certain number of Hail Mary prayers for their forgiveness of sins.
In other words, it would be hard to consider someone a Roman Catholic if they were not engaging in the idolatry of Mary, since this idolatry is taught & practiced by all the Popes and all the leaders in Rome and the Bishops and the Priests.
Maybe there are different levels of Marian idolatry in the RC, but just praying the rosary alone is idolatry. If you pray the rosary as instructed, you will be praying to Mary FAR more times than to God Himself.

I do hope that this step of no longer referring to Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediator is the first step in moving the Roman Catholic Church away from idolatry. There will need to be many, many more steps before the RC stops it's idolatry of Mary, and sees her as she was, a blessed woman who was a sinner and needed a Savior.

---

Let's say you have a university named Budda University with a statue of Budda on it. Let's say the members of that community memorize a handful of ritualized chants about their community. They get together on a regularly scheduled basis where they will all dress similarly announcing their allegiance to BU. They will sing the same songs in coordinated fashion extolling the virtues of their community. They will all agree on a few fundamental issues, like their common enemy of TCU. They will cheer their heroes on as they seek to defeat their opponents in the arena. They have an annual pilgrimage where they are all called to come home to celebrate their community. They plaster their cars in BU decals and emblems. They wear clothes proudly announcing their association with BU. They hang in places of prominence their official certificates marking their membership in the BU Alumni community. They put flags and other decorations on their homes announcing their allegiance. Immediately after birth, they dress their babies in Budda U gear. They even minorly incorporate it into other holidays like their equivalent Christmas, with a BU ornament or some other token or icon of the holiday that incorporates BU. They spend their money supporting BU. Many of them will be proud when their children are initiated into the community. Occasionally the military will get involved and bring aircraft to the gatherings of BU. This could go on and on.

The point is that you and I, as insiders of the community, know that we are not worshipping Judge Baylor or Baylor University. We understand the nuance of the situation, but an OUTSIDER could be forgiven if he or she took a look at the whole thing and accused the BU community members of worshipping or idolizing the namesake of BU and/or his university.

Likewise, the insiders who understand what is happening in the Catholic faith are telling you they are not worshipping Mary. The DDF is telling you it is not happening and to avoid the appearance of it happening (the purpose of this thread). We are explicitly telling you that the faith does NOT require a Marian devotion, but it is approved for the faithful that find comfort in it and beleive it brings them closer to Christ.

---

Can you really not comprehend that all what you described is what university students and alumni do for tribal unity and pride for their university, and NOT for the personal honor, praise, and glorification of the namesake of their university??

Can you truly not understand the massive difference between doing all what you described, and them bowing and praying to the image of their namesake, and petitioning it for grace and all salvation, all while elevating their namesake to deity, having the same qualities of Jesus (being sinless, perpetually pure, and assumed into heaven)?? And saying that their namesake is necessary for salvation, THE ALL HOLY ONE, and that in the hour of their death they entrust their souls wholly to their namesake's care??

You really are struggling cognitively with this topic. You and your Catholic brethren. It's quite perplexing to behold.

---

No one has elevated Mary to a deity. She is not divine, and the Catholic Church is extremely explicit about this. You keep saying it because you refuse to accept the Catholic conception of worship, but that doesn't make it true. Mary is not God and therefore cannot be adored, which is the common English translation of the Latin latria. Mary's importance to Catholics is derived in its entirety from her ability to draw Christians closer to God via her intercession and righteous example. Intercession and serving as a great exemplar of faith are the only things that the Virgin Mary can do, and neither of those actions are unique to God. You and I are capable of the same actions; Mary is just vastly more effective at them than the rest of us because of her relationship to Jesus.

Mary was sinless. No, being sinless does not make anyone divine; Adam and Eve were sinless before their Fall, but they were still only human. Her sinless nature has nothing to do with her earning it and everything to do with her being the Mother of God Incarnate and the special graces that derive from that status.

Her free participation was necessary for God's salvation plan in a practical sense, as God made his salvation plan contingent on her agreement. God obviously can do anything He wishes, but he wanted to make humanity active participants in His plan for our salvation. Catholics and the Orthodox have a somewhat different atonement theology than most Protestant denominations.

Mary is all-holy. No one, including Mary, can be holy without God making them so. Mary is all-holy because she was never stained with sin in the first place, unlike the rest of us. This was a grace given to her by God, wholly unearned on her part. Also, Mary has a uniquely close relationship to Christ, the source of all holiness. If holiness is a necessity for friendship with God, and people can grow in holiness, then Mary's holiness must be all the more complete because she is the Mother of God in the Person of Christ. Motherhood is the strongest of all relationships and is stronger than friendship.

There isn't anything wrong with the Hail Mary prayer. The only possible contention a Trinitarian Protestant could have with it is in the second half when the text asks Mary, who is already in Heaven, to pray for us. We've already discussed how that is completely fine in Catholic theology due to our belief in the communion of saints. Also, the Hail Mary isn't the most common Catholic prayer. That would be the Our Father, which is obviously said directly to God.

There isn't anything wrong with bowing either. The presence, or lack thereof, of a statue or icon of Mary is immaterial, as no one believes her spirit is tied to the image as ancient pagans commonly believed about their idols. Bowing remains standard practice whenever one is speaking to royalty. And make no mistake, the Blessed Virgin Mary is royalty. She is the Queen Mother of the Universe precisely and solely because her Son, Jesus Christ, is King of the Universe.

And before you repeat "that is mentioned directly in Scripture!" remember that criticism doesn't work on Catholics. We don't believe in Sola Scriptura, which was a 16th century theological innovation. We rely on Christ's promise to "lead you (you being Church as represented by the Apostles) into all truth," not on our individual, fallible interpretations of Holy Writ. God inspired the composition and compilation of the Bible to aid in our understanding of the Christian faith, and He established the Church to teach the precepts of the Faith using the Bible as a primary source.

---

Everything you've written here, your high praise, exaltation, and glorification of Mary, is worship.

No human is ALL-HOLY, much less the ALL HOLY ONE. The ALL HOLY ONE is GOD, and no one else. NO ONE should be extolled this way except God, as this attribute belongs to NO ONE but God. This is just so basic and such an obvious no-brainer for Christians, that I have no choice but to conclude that you are not a true Christian. You have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You being perfectly fine with this language makes it all the more clear why you support saying that Mary is "necessary for salvation" and that "no one can attain salvation except through Mary". Yes, you've deified Mary. Jesus is deity, and you're giving Mary all of Jesus' traits (sinless, perpetually pure, assumed to heaven, Mediator between sinners and God, "no one attains salvation except through Mary'). This is all just staring at everyone in the face, and we're all sadly watching people like the RC's here who are completely in the dark try their darndest to justify it, all for the sake of protecting their precious Queen mother. THERE IS NO "QUEEN MOTHER' IN CHRISTIANITY. You are blindly following the re-awakened form of the ancient pagan mother goddess religion that has plagued human civilization throughout all of human history. WAKE UP. Before God judges

"There isn't anything wrong with bowing, either" - the way you're doing it, yeah, there definitely is, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by Satan. I already showed you that bowing IS worship, as Revelation 22 reveals. You're just repeating your spiritual stupidity here. And did the second commandment fall out of the hole in your brain? You're in a loop of satanic deception.

And I don't know what it's going to take to get you to stop dodging and answer my question: again, are all those statements and actions I listed in my earlier post okay to do for a child who you say "saved your life"? I mean, if everything you're saying here in your latest post is correct, then PROVE IT by answering the question! Your repeated avoidance of it is telling us all we need to know. It's showing the truth is not in you, and that your church is not from God.

---

You really should learn about typology. It is a truly ancient form of Biblical interpretation and is commonly used in all of the Apostolic churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches.

---

Typology is a very irresponsible and dangerous way to interpret scripture.

Typology should ONLY be used to elucidate and enhance what is already established to be true in Scripture. It should NOT be used to establish a NEW doctrine or truth. Thomas Aquinas even said this. All the typologies of Jesus in the Old Testament are only invoked AFTER we now know the truth about Jesus and who he is. In other words, typology is retrospective look, not a prospective one.

However, Roman Catholicism has resorted to typology to prospectively establish its Marian doctrine in Scripture - because it simply doesn't exist in Scripture. They are making indirect, even forcibly, Scriptural references, which can be creatively translated any way a person wants, and establishing it as a required belief for salvation. This is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, was well as heretical. Anyone can make up a typology you want, to say what you want, and use that as "proof" that you have to believe it. This is what cults do, btw.

Let me demonstrate the danger with an example I just completely made up: I could tell everyone that the bronze serpent being raised in Numbers 21:8-9 is a typology of Jesus and his being raised on the cross. Even Jesus said this was the case. But the serpent, as we all know, was Satan in the garden of Eden. So this typology is telling us that Jesus is SATAN! I mean, how is this not true, since Jesus told us:

• "I saw Satan fall light like lightning from Heaven" (Luke 10:18)
  

...and then he tells us in Matthew 24:27 -

• "For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

You see?! Jesus is telling us that HE is the lightning, the same lightning that fell from heaven - which was SATAN!! Jesus is admitting to us that he is SATAN!? Of course, not directly, but how can you deny this typology?? Holy frijole, we've all been duped!


See the point?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

I want to know by what authority Catholics think it is sound theology to pray to Mary.

---

Or anyone other than God. Only God can answer our prayers. Only God has any authority over anything we might pray on. There is no reason to think anyone else in heaven even hears them.

ARbear13 said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

I want to know by what authority Catholics think it is sound theology to pray to Mary.

---

Practically all Christian churches believe that Christians can pray for and intercede for one another before God. I would guess that you do too.

Catholics and all other ancient Christian churches, including the Orthodox, believe that the saints in Heaven are alive in Christ and therefore can also pray for us. They have no intrinsic power beyond their ability to participate subordinately in Christ's universal mediation. For all of Mary's intercessory power, none of it originates from her. It all flows from Jesus, who allows Mother Mary and all other Christians to take part in it.

All of this is settled doctrine, uncontroversial among Catholics. The Catholic Church is very concerned that no religious terminology, even that which is well-intentioned, should detract from Jesus's unique and necessary role in our salvation. That is why this doctrinal clarification was issued in the first place.

---

Praying FOR someone is not the same is praying TO them. There is no reason for anyone in heaven to intercede for us since Christ is the intercessor (Hebrews 7:25). Since Christ is God, and thus omnipotent, it would be silly to pray to a lesser, created being. There is no reason to pray to angels either.

I do appreciate that you, and many Catholics in general, try to clarify these doctrines not shared by other Christian's. However, I still find it a bit confusing and unnecessary.

Mary was not the "Mother of God". She was the human mother of the human Christ child. God has no mother in any sense other than the fact that He was fully human while also fully God. Mary's connection to Jesus was similar to that of Joseph, His human father while He was on earth.

By calling her the "Mother of God" Catholics seem to be elevating her status even if that's not the intention.

Do you believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her married life even though the Bible explicitly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters, even naming some of them? It's clear from the context that they were siblings since it was a discussion of Jesus's family, including His parents (Mark 6:3).

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

Today, the Vatican officially rejected the doctrinal titles of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. They did this specifically to avoid confusion regarding Mary's role in God's redemptive plan for humanity.

The term was originally proposed centuries ago by well-meaning, theologically-minded Catholics who wanted to emphasize that Mary did participate (in a subordinate way) in God's plan for human salvation by birthing and raising Jesus, the One Redeemer and Mediator. However, Pope Leo XIV and the Catholic hierarchy concluded that these titles are misleading in modern languages and make it seem like Mother Mary has her own, independent participation in our salvation, which is obviously false and heretical. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer. Everyone else, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, only participates in this process as far as we point others toward Jesus as Savior.

Hopefully actions like these will help my Protestant friends on this site realize that we Catholics DO NOT worship Mother Mary or anything other than the Triune God. We never did.

---

Many Catholics would argue with this stand.
But then, many Protestants falsely believe they will go to heaven because they are good people.

The lack of understanding people have in "their own faith" is amazing at times.

---

Is God all-knowing?

---

That's the definition of omniscience and yes, God knows all.

"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything." I John 3:20

Sex within marriage is not sin. In fact it is God's command repeatedly: "Be fruitful and multiply."

The prayers of the saints in Revelation refer to those on earth who are saved, not anyone in heaven.

historian said:

---

Sex within marriage is not sin. In fact it is God's command repeatedly: "Be fruitful and multiply."

---

Nobody is saying it is.

The Bible also says "Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1st Corinthians 7:1)

and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." (1st Corinthians 7:8).

Context is important.

Your assumptions about the marriage of Joseph and Mary come from extrabiblical nativity scenes that you've witnessed, leading to the false conclusion that these were two young people who were engaged and got married. The historical record on the other hand would suggest that this was not the case, rather that Joseph was an older man with children from a previous marriage.

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

And presuming anyone is sinless without biblical support is straight-down arrogance and pride

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

There's nothing about sola scriptura that prevents the events described in the canon from being placed into context by extrabiblical historical sources.

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Sex within marriage is not sin. In fact it is God's command repeatedly: "Be fruitful and multiply."

---

Nobody is saying it is.

The Bible also says "Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1st Corinthians 7:1)

and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." (1st Corinthians 7:8).

Context is important.

Your assumptions about the marriage of Joseph and Mary come from extrabiblical nativity scenes that you've witnessed, leading to the false conclusion that these were two young people who were engaged and got married. The historical record on the other hand would suggest that this was not the case, rather that Joseph was an older man with children from a previous marriage.

---

Amazing that there is ZERO evidence to support this claim about Joseph in the scriptures or the writings in the early church.
Where are all of Joseph's kids during the census?
Where is your evidence that he was previously married?

We do know that the Muslims have been making this claim for centuries because it helps them defend Mohammed (may he continue to burn in Hell) marrying a little girl, and raping her when she was around 11 years old. Did you RCs get this nonsense from the satanic Muslims? Catholics gonna catholic, I guess.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

There's nothing about sola scriptura that prevents the events described in the canon from being placed into context by extrabiblical historical sources.

---

Not infallibly, though.

How reliable can it be to derive the historical context surrounding Mary and Joseph from sources like the Protoevangelium of James which makes a false claim about its authorship, and says that Jesus wasn't born naturally through Mary's birth canal, but rather that he was magically "beamed" out of her, so her virginal birth canal remained intact?

Pretty dubious, if you ask me. And obviously very unwise to draw beliefs required for salvation from such sources.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

---

But that's not a criticism of sola scriptura, per se, but rather the faulty application of it. That's a straw man argument.

Or, in English, facts be damned you will cling to the lie you like

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

---

But that's not a criticism of sola scriptura, per se, but rather the faulty application of it. That's a straw man argument.

---

No one has the authority to say what is or isn't a faulty application of sola scriptura. That's the whole problem with it.

ShooterTX said:

---

Amazing that there is ZERO evidence to support this claim about Joseph in the scriptures or the writings in the early church.

---

The second century apocryphal text, the Protoevangelon of James has this to say:

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you."

Now obviously, this is not a canonical book. But it does contain historical information. There are a lot of other historical books that contain valuable information about the ***context*** of our faith. "Ecclesiastical History", a fourth century work by Eusebius of Caesarea is another such book.

Mary remained a virgin not because of some supernatural hocus pocus, but for the very simple earthly fact that she entered into a marriage of convenience after her time of service in the Jewish temple ended when she entered adolescence and was widowed early (corroborated by the early departure of Joseph from the gospel story).

Quote:

---

We do know that the Muslims have been making this claim for centuries because it helps them defend Mohammed (may he continue to burn in Hell) marrying a little girl, and raping her when she was around 11 years old. Did you RCs get this nonsense from the satanic Muslims? Catholics gonna catholic, I guess.

---

No idea where you are going with that, and I am not Roman Catholic.

What absolute bilge.

Also, Luke 1:31-34 indicates that Mary had no expectation of children even though she was betrothed to Joseph.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Also, Luke 1:31-34 indicates that Mary had no expectation of children even though she was betrothed to Joseph.

---

NO it does not. It simply is the Angel telling Mary

"Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!"
34"How can this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

It focuses on the fact that AT THAT TIME Mary was a virgin.

It never claimed Mary could not have children, or that she stayed a virgin after Jesus' birth.

Stop lying.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

---

But that's not a criticism of sola scriptura, per se, but rather the faulty application of it. That's a straw man argument.

---

No one has the authority to say what is or isn't a faulty application of sola scriptura. That's the whole problem with it.

---

You're confusing sola scriptura with the interpretation of scripture. I swear, nothing trips you guys up more than this principle.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Amazing that there is ZERO evidence to support this claim about Joseph in the scriptures or the writings in the early church.

---

The second century apocryphal text, the Protoevangelon of James has this to say:

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you."

Now obviously, this is not a canonical book. But it does contain historical information. There are a lot of other historical books that contain valuable information about the ***context*** of our faith. "Ecclesiastical History", a fourth century work by Eusebius of Caesarea is another such book.

Mary remained a virgin not because of some supernatural hocus pocus, but for the very simple earthly fact that she entered into a marriage of convenience after her time of service in the Jewish temple ended when she entered adolescence and was widowed early (corroborated by the early departure of Joseph from the gospel story).

---

^^^^ There you have it, folks.

This belief did not come from Jesus' original apostles, but rather from a text written over CENTURY after Jesus, a pseudepigraphal work (the named author is not the actual author) that is deemed historically unreliable by scholarly consensus, and believed by many scholars to be GNOSTIC text. It was even rejected by the church in 405 AD, by Pope Innocent I and the Gelasian decree. And on top of that, this belief requires cherry picking which parts of the text are accurate historical information and which are fictional.

Yet, the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy REQUIRE this belief, or you go to Hell. Never mind that you believe Scripture and put your faith in trust in Jesus for your salvation - you miss this, then that's all for naught. See you in hell, perpetual virginity denier! Never mind that you believed the apostles' testimony in Scripture - you should have believed this dubious text written 100 years after Jesus! Didn't you gather from Scripture that your salvation is all about your view of Mary, not of Jesus?!

That pretty much tells you all you need to know, folks. The contradiction within the RCC having rejected this very text upon which their required belief is based, just makes it all the more ironic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

---

But that's not a criticism of sola scriptura, per se, but rather the faulty application of it. That's a straw man argument.

---

No one has the authority to say what is or isn't a faulty application of sola scriptura. That's the whole problem with it.

---

You're confusing sola scriptura with the interpretation of scripture. I swear, nothing trips you guys up more than this principle.

---

It's a distinction without a difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

With no scripture to back your claim, I defer to Jesus and Mary referring to Jesus' brothers as such in the full biologic sense .

---

This isn't sola scriptura. It's solo scriptura...and that is the criticism of sola scriptura from the non sola scriptura crowd. Regardless of how it is described in theory, in practice it always devolves into solo scriptura.

---

But that's not a criticism of sola scriptura, per se, but rather the faulty application of it. That's a straw man argument.

---

No one has the authority to say what is or isn't a faulty application of sola scriptura. That's the whole problem with it.

---

You're confusing sola scriptura with the interpretation of scripture. I swear, nothing trips you guys up more than this principle.

---

It's a distinction without a difference.

---

No, now you're talking about marian worship and marian "veneration".

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Sex within marriage is not sin. In fact it is God's command repeatedly: "Be fruitful and multiply."

---

Nobody is saying it is.

The Bible also says "Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1st Corinthians 7:1)

and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." (1st Corinthians 7:8).

Context is important.

Your assumptions about the marriage of Joseph and Mary come from extrabiblical nativity scenes that you've witnessed, leading to the false conclusion that these were two young people who were engaged and got married. The historical record on the other hand would suggest that this was not the case, rather that Joseph was an older man with children from a previous marriage.

---

No, my conclusions about the marriage of Joseph and Mary comes from reality and normal relations. It's also God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" which they clearly did: the gospel of Mark describes the family of Jesus in Nazareth including brothers, some named, and sisters.