Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Ezekiel 44:12 isn't about Mary. It's about a temple gate in a vision. The passage never mentions Mary, the Messiah's birth, or anything about lifelong virginity. Saying it refers to Mary only works if you already assume that meaning and read it back into the text.

Fre3dombear said:

---

To believe Joseph had sex with Mary is to throw away thousands of years of Jewish law that Joseph would have violated once Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit

---

What law do you contend Joseph would have violated? Please cite the specific verse or passage.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

I understand the logic of sola scriptura. Oral tradition feels unverifiable. Scripture feels checkable. So you anchor everything there.

You already believe God preserved written tradition through fallible hands across centuries. The question is whether you'll apply that same confidence consistently: to the Church He established to safeguard the faith once delivered?

Here's the problem: the Bible didn't fall from the sky.
The New Testament was oral tradition before it was written. For decades after the Resurrection, the Church baptized, ordained, celebrated the Eucharist, and transmitted the faith entirely through living apostolic witness. The writings came later, and the canon identifying which writings were authoritative wasn't settled until councils of bishops met several centuries later.

If the tradition is trustworthy enough to hand you Scripture, it's trustworthy enough to say "all generations shall call her blessed", and mean it. We acknowledge we're trusting a living community across time, and we own that. We confess that faith includes receiving what was handed down, which is literally what the word tradition means. We have faith that Christ didn't leave us in the dark and didn't let the gates of hell prevail against it. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth according to scripture.

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

---

Makes it plain…how?

Joseph is never called the father of Jesus' brothers. Mary is never called their mother. These men appear in the text without any birth narrative or maternal connection to Mary whatsoever. Scripture never says Mary had children with Joseph.

The Greek word is adelphos to describe them and was used regularly in the Septuagint to mean kinsmen, not biological siblings. Lot is called Abraham's adelphos in Genesis 13. he was his nephew…so how do you know for a FACT what that word means here?

You're interpreting scripture incorrectly. You don't even agree with the reformers on this and by your logic they're liars.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

---

Makes it plain…how?

Joseph is never called the father of Jesus' brothers. Mary is never called their mother. These men appear in the text without any birth narrative or maternal connection to Mary whatsoever. Scripture never says Mary had children with Joseph.

The Greek word is adelphos to describe them and was used regularly in the Septuagint to mean kinsmen, not biological siblings. Lot is called Abraham's adelphos in Genesis 13. he was his nephew…so how do you know for a FACT what that word means here?

You're interpreting scripture incorrectly. You don't even agree with the reformers on this and by your logic they're liars.

---

You are really grasping at straws there, brother.

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior. Adam needed a savior before he committed a sin…obviously or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

---

Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.

So this is your problem, not mine. I trust the consistency of the Gospel throughout Scripture, not some interpretation which changes the rules for one person not names Christ because it serves a cult.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

---

Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.

So this is your problem, not mine. I trust the consistency of the Gospel throughout Scripture, not some interpretation which changes the rules for one person not names Christ because it serves a cult.

---

So don't go to church. Don't listen to a pastor. Don't use a commentary. Don't follow any seminary trained teacher.

Because the moment you do, you're trusting a guy with a title. And every pastor disagrees with every other pastor on something significant.

Sola scriptura doesn't give you Scripture alone. It gives you your interpretation of Scripture, which you've elevated to the same authority you're denying everyone else.

I understand you are bitter on this point, but not worshipping Mary is not on the same level as not going to church or listening to a pastor.

Maybe it's because the pastor I listen to follows Scripture, and does not invent things.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I understand you are bitter on this point, but not worshipping Mary is not on the same level as not going to church or listening to a pastor.

Maybe it's because the pastor I listen to follows Scripture, and does not invent things.

---

No your pastor follows his interpretation or someone else's. Period.

I don't worship Mary and I'm tired of you guys bad mouthing the mother of Christ by trying to claim that it's impossible for God to have worked through her to be sinless. She carried Christ in her womb and raised Him!

Even reformers believed this. Your belief on this didn't even really become common in only the US until the 1900s. All of Christianity believed this for pretty much 1900 years before radical reformers came along. Think about that.

You didn't come to this conclusion on your own. You were taught to dislike Catholics/Orthodox and to think awful things about us.

Now you're veering into lies.

I never hated Catholics, some friends of mine are RC and great Christians. Of course, they don't try selling Mary as co-Intermediary, or someone we should confess our sins to in hopes on reconciling with God, etc.

But back to the main point.

Joseph was Mary's husband, do you agree or disagree?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now you're veering into lies.

I never hated Catholics, some friends of mine are RC and great Christians. Of course, they don't try selling Mary as co-Intermediary, or someone we should confess our sins to in hopes on reconciling with God, etc.

But back to the main point.

Joseph was Mary's husband, do you agree or disagree?

---

You just accused them of being in a cult…that's absolutely hateful. You would tell your friends that to their faces?

Nobody confesses their sins to Mary. That's not Orthodox or Catholic theology.

"husband" doesn't settle the question you're trying to ask. Betrothal in the Jewish context was legally binding marriage before cohabitation. Joseph is called her husband before they ever lived together (Matthew 1:18-20).
Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not until she gave birth." The word "until" in Greek, heos, does not imply the opposite occurred afterward. In 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no children "until the day of her death." Nobody reads that as meaning she had children after death.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

---

When you allegedly attended this Protestant Church, were you five, or did you just sleep through Sunday School? I ask because I've never met a former Protestant as glib about his former congregation as you appear to be.

At the core, this isn't really about whether God could have done these things - of course He could. The real issue is whether He actually did them in the specific ways you're claiming, and whether the apostles clearly passed those teachings down. Saying something is possible isn't the same as showing it's true.

When Scripture talks about Mary, it presents her as someone who received grace and still needed a Savior, like everyone else. So if you're claiming something unique like the Immaculate Conception, the responsibility is on you to show that it's part of the original apostolic teaching, not just something that developed later.

When it comes to tradition, I'm not denying that God worked through people orally as well as in writing. The problem is figuring out how we can reliably tell which traditions actually go back to the apostles and which don't. Different groups all claim to have that continuity, but they don't agree with each other, so something has to serve as a standard to test those claims. That's where Scripture comes in - it's the only source we have that is clearly tied to the apostles and publicly available for testing. So it's not that I think "if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true," but rather that teachings need a clear apostolic basis if they're going to be treated as binding doctrine.

The same kind of issue applies to the idea of a perfectly reliable, visible Church. Yes, God used flawed people to write and preserve Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean He created an institution that can't err. In fact, Scripture itself shows leaders making mistakes and even churches drifting into error. So pointing out that God worked through fallible people doesn't prove that everything later attributed to the Church is guaranteed to be correct.

As for relics and physical objects, I don't disagree that God sometimes used material things to accomplish miracles. But those were specific situations where God chose to act in that moment. They don't automatically establish an ongoing practice or system for using objects in devotion. There's no clear evidence that the apostles taught or organized that kind of practice.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

---

Makes it plain…how?

Joseph is never called the father of Jesus' brothers. Mary is never called their mother. These men appear in the text without any birth narrative or maternal connection to Mary whatsoever. Scripture never says Mary had children with Joseph.

The Greek word is adelphos to describe them and was used regularly in the Septuagint to mean kinsmen, not biological siblings. Lot is called Abraham's adelphos in Genesis 13. he was his nephew…so how do you know for a FACT what that word means here?

You're interpreting scripture incorrectly. You don't even agree with the reformers on this and by your logic they're liars.

---

Your argument mainly depends on reading into what isn't said and stretching word meanings instead of following the most natural reading of the text.

Saying "Joseph is never called their father" or "Mary is never called their mother" doesn't really prove anything, because the Bible doesn't always repeat obvious relationships every time it mentions people. If we used that kind of reasoning consistently, we'd end up doubting a lot of basic family connections in Scripture. What is clearly stated is that Jesus had "brothers and sisters," and in a normal, straightforward reading, that points to immediate family members.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior. Adam needed a savior before he committed a sin…obviously or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

---

Oy vey. It amazes me how often you Orthodox guys will twist and contort scripture to fit your narrative.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

---

Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.

So this is your problem, not mine. I trust the consistency of the Gospel throughout Scripture, not some interpretation which changes the rules for one person not names Christ because it serves a cult.

---

So don't go to church. Don't listen to a pastor. Don't use a commentary. Don't follow any seminary trained teacher.

Because the moment you do, you're trusting a guy with a title. And every pastor disagrees with every other pastor on something significant.

Sola scriptura doesn't give you Scripture alone. It gives you your interpretation of Scripture, which you've elevated to the same authority you're denying everyone else.

---

Sola Scriptura doesn't say "ignore pastors, teachers, or commentaries." It says they are helpful but not binding. You can learn from them, evaluate them, and even disagree with them - because they're all subject to Scripture, not equal to it.

Everyone relies on teachers in some sense - the difference is where final authority rests. In your framework, a specific tradition or church ultimately settles doctrine. In mine, Scripture does, and every teacher is tested against it.

As for "it's just your interpretation," that cuts both ways. You're also interpreting Scripture - you're just doing it through a particular tradition and then giving that tradition authority.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now you're veering into lies.

I never hated Catholics, some friends of mine are RC and great Christians. Of course, they don't try selling Mary as co-Intermediary, or someone we should confess our sins to in hopes on reconciling with God, etc.

But back to the main point.

Joseph was Mary's husband, do you agree or disagree?

---

You just accused them of being in a cult…that's absolutely hateful. You would tell your friends that to their faces?

Nobody confesses their sins to Mary. That's not Orthodox or Catholic theology.

"husband" doesn't settle the question you're trying to ask. Betrothal in the Jewish context was legally binding marriage before cohabitation. Joseph is called her husband before they ever lived together (Matthew 1:18-20).
Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not until she gave birth." The word "until" in Greek, heos, does not imply the opposite occurred afterward. In 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no children "until the day of her death." Nobody reads that as meaning she had children after death.

---

Oh please, you're back to clutching at straws. Joseph did not know his wife until after Jesus was born, there we agree, but nowhere is he told to not be her full husband, and the word until DOES mean he consummated the marriage, and if he had not we would certainly have known that from other passages

We know that Joseph ALSO raised Jesus as a child, since there is Scripture about him and Mary taking Jesus to temple when Jesus was 12.

There are also plain passages in the Gospel accounts about Mary, and none of them call her sinless or imply it.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Another example of Mary's perpetuity virginity is, as tradition would have it, Mary was espoused by the Holy Spirit ajd as such, was not appropriate for Joseph to Have relationship with her, as he never did.

This is also reflected in the Old Testament Deut 24:1-4 and Jer 3:1-2

NT reflects OT over and over

---

Scripture never describes Mary as being married or espoused to the Holy Spirit. Instead, it teaches that she conceived Jesus through the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), which refers to divine action, not a marital covenant.

In contrast, Joseph is clearly identified as her husband, indicating a real, ordinary marriage rather than a symbolic or abstinent arrangement. The idea that Joseph was obligated to refrain from marital relations because Mary belonged to the Spirit simply is not stated in the text.

More importantly, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph "did not know her until she had given birth to a son," and the most natural reading of "until" suggests that normal marital relations followed afterward. Given the fact that the New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters (e.g., Matthew 13:5556), and the plain reading of these passages indicates they were His biological siblings, not cousins or extended relatives, it is clear that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is completely made up.

As for Deuteronomy 24:14 and Jeremiah 3:12, those laws concern marital unfaithfulness and remarriage, not a unique, miraculous conception by God. Mary's situation does not fall into the categories those laws address, since she did not commit adultery and Joseph was explicitly told the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

---

In fact Joseph believed he needed to behave as was directed in the OT which is further explained in the text. Otherwise theee was no need for Joseph to be explained to not do what he was planning to do.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Another example of Mary's perpetuity virginity is, as tradition would have it, Mary was espoused by the Holy Spirit ajd as such, was not appropriate for Joseph to Have relationship with her, as he never did.

This is also reflected in the Old Testament Deut 24:1-4 and Jer 3:1-2

NT reflects OT over and over

---

Scripture never describes Mary as being married or espoused to the Holy Spirit. Instead, it teaches that she conceived Jesus through the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), which refers to divine action, not a marital covenant.

In contrast, Joseph is clearly identified as her husband, indicating a real, ordinary marriage rather than a symbolic or abstinent arrangement. The idea that Joseph was obligated to refrain from marital relations because Mary belonged to the Spirit simply is not stated in the text.

More importantly, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph "did not know her until she had given birth to a son," and the most natural reading of "until" suggests that normal marital relations followed afterward. Given the fact that the New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters (e.g., Matthew 13:5556), and the plain reading of these passages indicates they were His biological siblings, not cousins or extended relatives, it is clear that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is completely made up.

As for Deuteronomy 24:14 and Jeremiah 3:12, those laws concern marital unfaithfulness and remarriage, not a unique, miraculous conception by God. Mary's situation does not fall into the categories those laws address, since she did not commit adultery and Joseph was explicitly told the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

---

In fact Joseph believed he needed to behave as was directed in the OT which is further explained in the text. Otherwise theee was no need for Joseph to be explained to not do what he was planning to do.

---

To the extent I understand what you're saying, I don't disagree. I am just trying to understand the relevance of your comments.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Ezekiel 44:12 isn't about Mary. It's about a temple gate in a vision. The passage never mentions Mary, the Messiah's birth, or anything about lifelong virginity. Saying it refers to Mary only works if you already assume that meaning and read it back into the text.

---

You actually inverted how it works.

Great to see a Mothra sighting. Missed your pretzels.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

---

When you allegedly attended this Protestant Church, were you five, or did you just sleep through Sunday School? I ask because I've never met a former Protestant as glib about his former congregation as you appear to be.

At the core, this isn't really about whether God could have done these things - of course He could. The real issue is whether He actually did them in the specific ways you're claiming, and whether the apostles clearly passed those teachings down. Saying something is possible isn't the same as showing it's true.

When Scripture talks about Mary, it presents her as someone who received grace and still needed a Savior, like everyone else. So if you're claiming something unique like the Immaculate Conception, the responsibility is on you to show that it's part of the original apostolic teaching, not just something that developed later.

When it comes to tradition, I'm not denying that God worked through people orally as well as in writing. The problem is figuring out how we can reliably tell which traditions actually go back to the apostles and which don't. Different groups all claim to have that continuity, but they don't agree with each other, so something has to serve as a standard to test those claims. That's where Scripture comes in - it's the only source we have that is clearly tied to the apostles and publicly available for testing. So it's not that I think "if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true," but rather that teachings need a clear apostolic basis if they're going to be treated as binding doctrine.

The same kind of issue applies to the idea of a perfectly reliable, visible Church. Yes, God used flawed people to write and preserve Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean He created an institution that can't err. In fact, Scripture itself shows leaders making mistakes and even churches drifting into error. So pointing out that God worked through fallible people doesn't prove that everything later attributed to the Church is guaranteed to be correct.

As for relics and physical objects, I don't disagree that God sometimes used material things to accomplish miracles. But those were specific situations where God chose to act in that moment. They don't automatically establish an ongoing practice or system for using objects in devotion. There's no clear evidence that the apostles taught or organized that kind of practice.

---

You're actually arguing against Rome here, not Orthodoxy. The Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX in 1854 is a Roman Catholic novelty. Orthodoxy doesn't affirm it in that form. What we do affirm is that Mary was purified and prepared by grace to bear the Incarnate God, which the angel's greeting kecharitmen (Luke 1:28) supports directly.

Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, already develops the Eve/Mary typology, the new Eve who reverses the first Eve's disobedience. Are you claiming Ireneus made up a bunch of nonsense? He wrote down the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ and the Eve/Mary typology.

Irenaeus is writing Against Heresies around 180 AD, within two generations of the apostles. John the Apostle taught Polycarp, who taught Ireneus. Paul commands Timothy to transmit what he received through laying on of hands to faithful men. John does the same with Polycarp, we have Irenaeus testifying to this personally. Polycarp then transmits to Irenaeus, who writes it all down within two generations of the apostles.

What point in that chain do you claim the transmission broke down, and what's your evidence? Paul said to carefully choose men and apparently that didn't happen according to you because Irenaeus was teaching cult/pagan theology.

I left a non denom church that had about 2500 members a year and a half ago.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Ezekiel 44:12 isn't about Mary. It's about a temple gate in a vision. The passage never mentions Mary, the Messiah's birth, or anything about lifelong virginity. Saying it refers to Mary only works if you already assume that meaning and read it back into the text.

---

You actually inverted how it works.

Great to see a Mothra sighting. Missed your pretzels.

---

I needed a break from your stream of conscious, shoddy reasoning, and often times unintelligible rants.

This is yet another.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

---

Please note proof wirh scriptures. Any writings the first 1,500 years if the Catholic Church?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior.

Repeating Mothra's point, which is frankly undeniable unless you are willing to lie about what Scripture plainly tells us.

---

I didn't claim Mary didn't need a savior.

Her Savior was capable of acting preemptively. That's not contradicting Scripture, that's a high view of grace

I don't operate by scripture alone. That's your man made rule system.

---

Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.

So this is your problem, not mine. I trust the consistency of the Gospel throughout Scripture, not some interpretation which changes the rules for one person not names Christ because it serves a cult.

---

What you're missing though is a churxh. A magisterium. Youre being your own pope which youre told in scripture not to do. It is why Jesus left a church and not a book.

What % of Catholics before 1523 or so created a new "church" even read a Bible you think? Venture a guess.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

---

When you allegedly attended this Protestant Church, were you five, or did you just sleep through Sunday School? I ask because I've never met a former Protestant as glib about his former congregation as you appear to be.

At the core, this isn't really about whether God could have done these things - of course He could. The real issue is whether He actually did them in the specific ways you're claiming, and whether the apostles clearly passed those teachings down. Saying something is possible isn't the same as showing it's true.

When Scripture talks about Mary, it presents her as someone who received grace and still needed a Savior, like everyone else. So if you're claiming something unique like the Immaculate Conception, the responsibility is on you to show that it's part of the original apostolic teaching, not just something that developed later.

When it comes to tradition, I'm not denying that God worked through people orally as well as in writing. The problem is figuring out how we can reliably tell which traditions actually go back to the apostles and which don't. Different groups all claim to have that continuity, but they don't agree with each other, so something has to serve as a standard to test those claims. That's where Scripture comes in - it's the only source we have that is clearly tied to the apostles and publicly available for testing. So it's not that I think "if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true," but rather that teachings need a clear apostolic basis if they're going to be treated as binding doctrine.

The same kind of issue applies to the idea of a perfectly reliable, visible Church. Yes, God used flawed people to write and preserve Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean He created an institution that can't err. In fact, Scripture itself shows leaders making mistakes and even churches drifting into error. So pointing out that God worked through fallible people doesn't prove that everything later attributed to the Church is guaranteed to be correct.

As for relics and physical objects, I don't disagree that God sometimes used material things to accomplish miracles. But those were specific situations where God chose to act in that moment. They don't automatically establish an ongoing practice or system for using objects in devotion. There's no clear evidence that the apostles taught or organized that kind of practice.

---

Are you claiming Ireneus made up a bunch of nonsense?

---

I respect many of Ireneus's writings. On this issue, he indeed missed the mark.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. Scripture makes that plain.

Bluntly, I firmly believe that when someone says Scripture is not true, that human is the liar.

---

Makes it plain…how?

Joseph is never called the father of Jesus' brothers. Mary is never called their mother. These men appear in the text without any birth narrative or maternal connection to Mary whatsoever. Scripture never says Mary had children with Joseph.

The Greek word is adelphos to describe them and was used regularly in the Septuagint to mean kinsmen, not biological siblings. Lot is called Abraham's adelphos in Genesis 13. he was his nephew…so how do you know for a FACT what that word means here?

You're interpreting scripture incorrectly. You don't even agree with the reformers on this and by your logic they're liars.

---

Your argument mainly depends on reading into what isn't said and stretching word meanings instead of following the most natural reading of the text.

Saying "Joseph is never called their father" or "Mary is never called their mother" doesn't really prove anything, because the Bible doesn't always repeat obvious relationships every time it mentions people. If we used that kind of reasoning consistently, we'd end up doubting a lot of basic family connections in Scripture. What is clearly stated is that Jesus had "brothers and sisters," and in a normal, straightforward reading, that points to immediate family members.

---

None of that is even really necessary given the multiple logical arguments I've already laid out on this topic.

The leaps youre required to make to dispute it are like the silence and shock to find out it doesn't really make sense that Jesus died, went to heaven, then went to hell then came back to earth on Sunday and then went to heaven again a month and a half later.

Don't need a magisterium (such a pompous word, though).

I have Christ.

You have a good evening.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

---

When you allegedly attended this Protestant Church, were you five, or did you just sleep through Sunday School? I ask because I've never met a former Protestant as glib about his former congregation as you appear to be.

At the core, this isn't really about whether God could have done these things - of course He could. The real issue is whether He actually did them in the specific ways you're claiming, and whether the apostles clearly passed those teachings down. Saying something is possible isn't the same as showing it's true.

When Scripture talks about Mary, it presents her as someone who received grace and still needed a Savior, like everyone else. So if you're claiming something unique like the Immaculate Conception, the responsibility is on you to show that it's part of the original apostolic teaching, not just something that developed later.

When it comes to tradition, I'm not denying that God worked through people orally as well as in writing. The problem is figuring out how we can reliably tell which traditions actually go back to the apostles and which don't. Different groups all claim to have that continuity, but they don't agree with each other, so something has to serve as a standard to test those claims. That's where Scripture comes in - it's the only source we have that is clearly tied to the apostles and publicly available for testing. So it's not that I think "if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true," but rather that teachings need a clear apostolic basis if they're going to be treated as binding doctrine.

The same kind of issue applies to the idea of a perfectly reliable, visible Church. Yes, God used flawed people to write and preserve Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean He created an institution that can't err. In fact, Scripture itself shows leaders making mistakes and even churches drifting into error. So pointing out that God worked through fallible people doesn't prove that everything later attributed to the Church is guaranteed to be correct.

As for relics and physical objects, I don't disagree that God sometimes used material things to accomplish miracles. But those were specific situations where God chose to act in that moment. They don't automatically establish an ongoing practice or system for using objects in devotion. There's no clear evidence that the apostles taught or organized that kind of practice.

---

Are you claiming Ireneus made up a bunch of nonsense?

---

I respect many of Ireneus's writings. On this issue, he indeed missed the mark.

---

Wow.

So the laying on of hands stopped mattering after the apostles died? What's your scriptural support for that?

I know some Protestants believe the church went into the dark until the reformation. Do you believe that? The early church fathers almost unanimously affirm the Eucharist and Mary as we understand it today.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Another example of Mary's perpetuity virginity is, as tradition would have it, Mary was espoused by the Holy Spirit ajd as such, was not appropriate for Joseph to Have relationship with her, as he never did.

This is also reflected in the Old Testament Deut 24:1-4 and Jer 3:1-2

NT reflects OT over and over

---

Scripture never describes Mary as being married or espoused to the Holy Spirit. Instead, it teaches that she conceived Jesus through the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), which refers to divine action, not a marital covenant.

In contrast, Joseph is clearly identified as her husband, indicating a real, ordinary marriage rather than a symbolic or abstinent arrangement. The idea that Joseph was obligated to refrain from marital relations because Mary belonged to the Spirit simply is not stated in the text.

More importantly, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph "did not know her until she had given birth to a son," and the most natural reading of "until" suggests that normal marital relations followed afterward. Given the fact that the New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters (e.g., Matthew 13:5556), and the plain reading of these passages indicates they were His biological siblings, not cousins or extended relatives, it is clear that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is completely made up.

As for Deuteronomy 24:14 and Jeremiah 3:12, those laws concern marital unfaithfulness and remarriage, not a unique, miraculous conception by God. Mary's situation does not fall into the categories those laws address, since she did not commit adultery and Joseph was explicitly told the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

---

In fact Joseph believed he needed to behave as was directed in the OT which is further explained in the text. Otherwise theee was no need for Joseph to be explained to not do what he was planning to do.

---

To the extent I understand what you're saying, I don't disagree. I am just trying to understand the relevance of your comments.

---

I can explain it to you but cant understand it for you. Maybe it's a bit above youre understanding.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't need a magisterium (such a pompous word, though).

I have Christ.

You have a good evening.

---

Who hurt you? You are such a clear judge of other peoples "pride" and "pompous words".

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ezekiel 44:1-2

Simply another verse speaking to the perpetual virginity of Mary


In fact St Jerome Spoke of this in the 4th century explicitly. Hidden in plain sight fir those with eyes to see.

---

Every saint grows in theosis through struggle and cooperation. Mary simply represents the fullness of what that cooperation can produce when grace is given without reserve and met with total fidelity.

Protestant theology can't allow for it. They believe in total depravity as a fixed natural property of humanity rather than a condition that entered history and can be addressed by grace.

For them, grace is a legal cover, not actual participation in the divine life, which can genuinely transform and even preemptively sanctify a human person.

They have no concept of this which is also why they don't understand the bones of Elijah, Paul's handkerchiefs healing people or why saints decompose slowly. The genuine participation of the human person in the divine life, becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

It's the inauguration of deified matter. Christ's glorified body is the first and fullest example of what theosis does to human flesh taken all the way to its completion. That's how he resurrected.

---

You continue to display a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of Protestantism. "Total depravity" doesn't mean people are as evil as possible; it means sin affects every part of us and that we can't fix ourselves without God taking the initiative. My reformed faith believes grace transforms, but rejects the idea that anyone besides Jesus was exempt from needing salvation or was kept sinless ahead of time without clear biblical support.

Pointing to miracles like Elijah's bones or Paul's handkerchiefs doesn't prove that people or objects become "divine." Those passages show God working powerfully through ordinary means. The focus is always on God's power, not on matter being transformed into something divine or humans reaching a higher state like Christ. Jesus' resurrection is unique because He is the Son of God, not because He demonstrates a process that turns other people into something like Him before the final resurrection.

As for Mary, the idea that she represents the highest possible cooperation with grace just isn't stated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that Jesus alone is sinless, while everyone else - including Mary - needed a Savior. Elevating her to that level goes beyond what the text actually says is an example of the heresy that Catholics and Orthodoxy consistently engage in.

---

I was a Protestant. No misunderstanding whatsoever.

What prevented God from taking the initiative preemptively with Mary? The Immaculate Conception (Catholic) or Orthodox All-Holy Panagia don't claim Mary fixed herself, they claim God acted first. Your own definition of grace permits it. Your objection isn't theological, it's just "I don't see it explicitly in Scripture," which is a sola scriptura assumption. You seem to believe that if something isn't in scripture, then it can't be true? Why?

We're not operating on the same starting point. I believe God absolutely has the ability to work through fallible men to pass down the word of God both written and orally. Scripture shows that the word of God isn't just written text. Did you know that?

I get your position, you don't think it was possible for oral tradition to be passed down from the apostles nor possible for them to setup a visible church that maintained continuity and safeguarded the faith once delivered. Even though God worked through fallible men to write scripture, translate it, canonize it…you completely say it's impossible for a visible Church to have been established that practiced specific traditions that aren't written down.

The argument for holy relics isn't that Elijah's bones became ontologically God. Matter can be a genuine vehicle of divine energies, which is the essence/energies distinction. The consistent pattern in Scripture is that God dwells in and acts through sanctified matter in ways qualitatively different from ordinary matter.

Jesus didn't just speak the blind man's sight back. He spat in the dirt, made mud, and applied it to his eyes (John 9:6). He could have healed with a word, and did so elsewhere, but deliberately chose to work through matter. Clay. Spit. Physical stuff.
Why? He didn't have to.

The Incarnation itself is a statement about matter. God doesn't redeem us by extracting us from physical reality, He enters it, sanctifies it, and works through it. If God truly took on flesh, then matter is permanently and irreversibly dignified as a vehicle of divine presence. You basically have to deny this in your framework.

---

When you allegedly attended this Protestant Church, were you five, or did you just sleep through Sunday School? I ask because I've never met a former Protestant as glib about his former congregation as you appear to be.

At the core, this isn't really about whether God could have done these things - of course He could. The real issue is whether He actually did them in the specific ways you're claiming, and whether the apostles clearly passed those teachings down. Saying something is possible isn't the same as showing it's true.

When Scripture talks about Mary, it presents her as someone who received grace and still needed a Savior, like everyone else. So if you're claiming something unique like the Immaculate Conception, the responsibility is on you to show that it's part of the original apostolic teaching, not just something that developed later.

When it comes to tradition, I'm not denying that God worked through people orally as well as in writing. The problem is figuring out how we can reliably tell which traditions actually go back to the apostles and which don't. Different groups all claim to have that continuity, but they don't agree with each other, so something has to serve as a standard to test those claims. That's where Scripture comes in - it's the only source we have that is clearly tied to the apostles and publicly available for testing. So it's not that I think "if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true," but rather that teachings need a clear apostolic basis if they're going to be treated as binding doctrine.

The same kind of issue applies to the idea of a perfectly reliable, visible Church. Yes, God used flawed people to write and preserve Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean He created an institution that can't err. In fact, Scripture itself shows leaders making mistakes and even churches drifting into error. So pointing out that God worked through fallible people doesn't prove that everything later attributed to the Church is guaranteed to be correct.

As for relics and physical objects, I don't disagree that God sometimes used material things to accomplish miracles. But those were specific situations where God chose to act in that moment. They don't automatically establish an ongoing practice or system for using objects in devotion. There's no clear evidence that the apostles taught or organized that kind of practice.

---

Are you claiming Ireneus made up a bunch of nonsense?

---

I respect many of Ireneus's writings. On this issue, he indeed missed the mark.

---

Standard. I shall just pick and choose and ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary because…..reasons.