Oldbear83 said:
That's a lot of words to argue against plain statement in Scripture. I will stick with Scripture, thanks.
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
That's a lot of words to argue against plain statement in Scripture. I will stick with Scripture, thanks.
The author of the text and all Catholic are sticking with scripture as it was originally written and understood for 1500 years.
It's the protestant view that is not understanding the scripture.
Horrific.
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) June 29, 2026
Actress Justene Alpert announced that she and her husband aborted their son due to a "rare genetic disease."
She framed the decision as loving.
She claims she was "ready" to be his mom. But that they had to say "goodbye..."
In reality, they rejected their baby boy… pic.twitter.com/sZmQiL0Ch9
Oldbear83 said:
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Oldbear83 said:
Please pray for guidance before posting a blast, brother. Otherwise you will have to explain attacking a brother to our Lord.
I can only say again that I do not depend on any human tradition. Scripture is there for us all, and it is both trustworthy and consistent. The errors happen when people start looking for reasons to claim Scripture is not saying what it plainly says.
Finally, FLBear speaks wisely when he commends us to make arguments only to essentials when addressing other Christians. Looking for reasons to be angry with fellow Christians certainly grieves the Holy Spirit.
Oldbear83 said:
Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Please pray for guidance before posting a blast, brother. Otherwise you will have to explain attacking a brother to our Lord.
I can only say again that I do not depend on any human tradition. Scripture is there for us all, and it is both trustworthy and consistent. The errors happen when people start looking for reasons to claim Scripture is not saying what it plainly says.
Finally, FLBear speaks wisely when he commends us to make arguments only to essentials when addressing other Christians. Looking for reasons to be angry with fellow Christians certainly grieves the Holy Spirit.
Fair enough, I ask that you do the same when you post about the Church when you post comments like this -Oldbear83 said:
Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.
Having said that, do you disagree that Catholics (and Orthos) are reading what the Greek says plainly?
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
The ("until") argument doesn't hold up. That word doesn't imply whatever was negated before the threshold starts happening after it. That's just not how Koine Greek works.Oldbear83 said:
https://r.bing.com/rp/eCgvJl1QRtQFRkpvWTUD2vjLsqQ.svg
The Greek text of Matthew 1:25 is as follows: . This translates to "And he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus" in English
It certainly appears then that as written, Matthew 1:25 supports that after Jesus, Mary and Joseph had other children.
Strong's uses word G2193 translated clearly as "till" in that text.
Do not see any verses elsewhere to contradict this point.
Oldbear83 said:Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Please pray for guidance before posting a blast, brother. Otherwise you will have to explain attacking a brother to our Lord.
I can only say again that I do not depend on any human tradition. Scripture is there for us all, and it is both trustworthy and consistent. The errors happen when people start looking for reasons to claim Scripture is not saying what it plainly says.
Finally, FLBear speaks wisely when he commends us to make arguments only to essentials when addressing other Christians. Looking for reasons to be angry with fellow Christians certainly grieves the Holy Spirit.
Fair enough, I ask that you do the same when you post about the Church when you post comments like this -Oldbear83 said:
Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.
Having said that, do you disagree that Catholics (and Orthos) are reading what the Greek says plainly?
I want to address first a few of your recent comments, as they speak to the tone of the discussion, and my response may help illuminate my perspective.
Coke Bear: "Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago."
This is, in my opinion,, a common but false allegation. I understand that Roman Catholics are biter about the Protestant Reformation, but it sometimes feels like a guy who speeds on his way to work getting angry about the ticket he receives from the cops, because he feels like he established a precedent by getting away with speeding for so long before he got pulled over.
I certainly agree that there are a few people so bitter that their religion becomes opposition to Roman Catholicism. I would caution my RC brothers to not become the counterparts, hating Protestants automatically on the assumption that we are all haters of Roman Catholics. Frankly, it is a wrong path for any Christian to make a decision about our brothers or sisters based on hatred, or its close friend, hot anger.
I accepted Christ not out of tradition, but out of contrition for my sins, belief in the Gospel, and faith in Christ's promise to all who accept Him as Lord. I believe in God the Father, Christ His Son Our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit. No human tradition drove that decision, then or now.
Coke Bear: "First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly."
You seem to have forgotten that I was addressing the Roman Catholic claim that your position is superior because you came first, and that Protestant denominations only had what you gave them. I simply demonstrated that coming first, of itself, proves nothing. Your last sentence: 'your argument is silly' - sums up my message to you.
Coke Bear: "You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek."
What precisely did Jesus say, that you claim I am rejecting? Keep in mind that rejecting your interpretation of what Jesus said is not at all rejecting what Jesus clearly said, and nowhere - with regard to this topic - did Jesus deny that Mary had other children after having Jesus, and nowhere did Jesus ever say that Mary was a 'perpetual virgin'. Those are human inventions, and it is no sin to note that.
Coke Bear: "Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin."
As I noted in the first part, and several times before, what one or many humans believe in no way drives what is true, and in no way compels me to agree with them simply because they were famous in their time.
The Roman Catholics seem to put great stock in human opinion, especially if that human was famous or prominent or popular. But God often prefers men willing to stand alone, and the Bible is plain on that truth,
Gideon was such a man, and God counseled him to reduce the number of his men in order to find victory.
Jeremiah was an unpopular man, and suffered much as a prophet for that reason, but he was a true and worthy prophet of the Lord.
Joseph the son of Isreal was hated by his brothers and sold into slavery, but he was right.
Job lived righteously but when his troubles came upon him, his family and friends deserted him. God alone vindicated Job.
Being right in God's eyes, therefore, is not a matter of popularity with men, but by walking faith according to the Holy Spirit. I do not follow Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. I follow Christ. And I do not accept the word of man according to what men find popular, but try all claims by Scripture, and so trust in the Lord for my beliefs.
I hope this brings light to the discussion.
Doc Holliday said:Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Well said.
And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.
Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.
I cringe every time they say "just read the text".
They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.
Oldbear83 said:
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
FLBear5630 said:
Good point, these discussions are always positive, anytime discussing God and his message is time well spent. Sometimes answers come from the strangest places, it stands to reason even a message board.
We all go through tough times, never know when someone gets help through these discussions.
Oldbear83 said:
What you are trying to do, intentionally or unconsciously, is frame everything within your traditions and rules.
I also notice you really get itchy to talk about 'catachesis' rather than what the text specifically says.
As for Biblical support, I have noted two places where the Bible says Mary and Joseph had other kids after Jesus. For your part, you have not shown even one verse which denies this or claims Mary remained a virgin forever.
But your last line is correct: You will do what you will, of course.
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
What you are trying to do, intentionally or unconsciously, is frame everything within your traditions and rules.
I also notice you really get itchy to talk about 'catachesis' rather than what the text specifically says.
As for Biblical support, I have noted two places where the Bible says Mary and Joseph had other kids after Jesus. For your part, you have not shown even one verse which denies this or claims Mary remained a virgin forever.
But your last line is correct: You will do what you will, of course.
Please be careful about what you are claiming. No where in the NT explicitly state that Mary was the mother of anyone but Jesus.
We can argue about the meaning of adelphoi, but it is clear that the NT NEVER claims that she had other children.
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
What you are trying to do, intentionally or unconsciously, is frame everything within your traditions and rules.
I also notice you really get itchy to talk about 'catachesis' rather than what the text specifically says.
As for Biblical support, I have noted two places where the Bible says Mary and Joseph had other kids after Jesus. For your part, you have not shown even one verse which denies this or claims Mary remained a virgin forever.
But your last line is correct: You will do what you will, of course.
Please be careful about what you are claiming. No where in the NT explicitly state that Mary was the mother of anyone but Jesus.
We can argue about the meaning of adelphoi, but it is clear that the NT NEVER claims that she had other children.
ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
What you are trying to do, intentionally or unconsciously, is frame everything within your traditions and rules.
I also notice you really get itchy to talk about 'catachesis' rather than what the text specifically says.
As for Biblical support, I have noted two places where the Bible says Mary and Joseph had other kids after Jesus. For your part, you have not shown even one verse which denies this or claims Mary remained a virgin forever.
But your last line is correct: You will do what you will, of course.
Please be careful about what you are claiming. No where in the NT explicitly state that Mary was the mother of anyone but Jesus.
We can argue about the meaning of adelphoi, but it is clear that the NT NEVER claims that she had other children.
Also no where in the NT does it explicitly claim she was without sin. Nor does it explicitly claim she was a forever virgin, or bodily assumed into heaven, or born without sin. If you want to go with explicitly claimed stuff, you will have to give up all of the Marian dogmas as well as purgatory, indulgences, the Papacy, and much more.
Meanwhile we have multiple scriptures which clearly states that Jesus had brothers & sisters, and none of them explicitly claim that they are cousins or half-siblings. It explicitly states that Jesus was the son of the carpenter and his mother's name was Mary and his brothers are named but his sisters are not. No where in the scriptures does it ever state that Joseph had another wife.
Going by explicit claims is not going to work well with many of the RCC doctrines since even the magisterium admits that they are not found in scriptures but come from traditions.
Realitybites said:Oldbear83 said:
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
You are the founder of your own faith, sometimes accepting, sometimes rejecting what was settled truth for the first 1000 years of Christianity based on an abridged form of the Bible that is a translation from a translation. Your personal opinion about the Bible *is* your faith.
James 1:8.
Oldbear83 said:Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Please pray for guidance before posting a blast, brother. Otherwise you will have to explain attacking a brother to our Lord.
I can only say again that I do not depend on any human tradition. Scripture is there for us all, and it is both trustworthy and consistent. The errors happen when people start looking for reasons to claim Scripture is not saying what it plainly says.
Finally, FLBear speaks wisely when he commends us to make arguments only to essentials when addressing other Christians. Looking for reasons to be angry with fellow Christians certainly grieves the Holy Spirit.
Fair enough, I ask that you do the same when you post about the Church when you post comments like this -Oldbear83 said:
Again, I go by Scripture. Never by what some guy with a title and pride says.
Having said that, do you disagree that Catholics (and Orthos) are reading what the Greek says plainly?
I want to address first a few of your recent comments, as they speak to the tone of the discussion, and my response may help illuminate my perspective.
Coke Bear: "Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago."
This is, in my opinion, a common but false allegation. I understand that Roman Catholics are bitter about the Protestant Reformation, but it sometimes feels like a guy who speeds on his way to work getting angry about the ticket he receives from the cops, because he feels like he established a precedent by getting away with speeding for so long before he got pulled over.
I certainly agree that there are a few people so bitter that their religion becomes opposition to Roman Catholicism. I would caution my RC brothers to not become the counterparts, hating Protestants automatically on the assumption that we are all haters of Roman Catholics. Frankly, it is a wrong path for any Christian to make a decision about our brothers or sisters based on hatred, or its close friend, hot anger.
I accepted Christ not out of tradition, but out of contrition for my sins, belief in the Gospel, and faith in Christ's promise to all who accept Him as Lord. I believe in God the Father, Christ His Son Our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit. No human tradition drove that decision, then or now.
Coke Bear: "First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly."
You seem to have forgotten that I was addressing the Roman Catholic claim that your position is superior because you came first, and that Protestant denominations only had what you gave them. I simply demonstrated that coming first, of itself, proves nothing. Your last sentence: 'your argument is silly' - sums up my message to you.
Coke Bear: "You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek."
What precisely did Jesus say, that you claim I am rejecting? Keep in mind that rejecting your interpretation of what Jesus said is not at all rejecting what Jesus clearly said, and nowhere - with regard to this topic - did Jesus deny that Mary had other children after having Jesus, and nowhere did Jesus ever say that Mary was a 'perpetual virgin'. Those are human inventions, and it is no sin to note that.
Coke Bear: "Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin."
As I noted in the first part, and several times before, what one or many humans believe in no way drives what is true, and in no way compels me to agree with them simply because they were famous in their time.
The Roman Catholics seem to put great stock in human opinion, especially if that human was famous or prominent or popular. But God often prefers men willing to stand alone, and the Bible is plain on that truth,
Gideon was such a man, and God counseled him to reduce the number of his men in order to find victory.
Jeremiah was an unpopular man, and suffered much as a prophet for that reason, but he was a true and worthy prophet of the Lord.
Joseph the son of Isreal was hated by his brothers and sold into slavery, but he was right.
Job lived righteously but when his troubles came upon him, his family and friends deserted him. God alone vindicated Job.
Being right in God's eyes, therefore, is not a matter of popularity with men, but by walking faith according to the Holy Spirit. I do not follow Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. I follow Christ. And I do not accept the word of man according to what men find popular, but try all claims by Scripture, and so trust in the Lord for my beliefs.
I hope this brings light to the discussion.
I pray that you realize how wrong you are before it is too late.. God is real, Jesus is real, the Holy Spirit is real. If you had ever had a true encounter with the Holy Spirit, you would not post stuff like this..joseywales said:
Santa clause, lepercrons , wizards, witches, Val halla, heaven, hell. Mary, Jesus, Allah all the same superstars, born from mouths and minds of mankind and nothing to whatsoever with a supreme being....amazing bs
Oldbear83 said:
We all have direct access to the Father through the Son.
Only you require a pope.
So please stop lying on that point.
Quote:
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
FLBear5630 said:
There is some truth to what he says, like all missions or outsiders Christianity adapted Pagan aspects to the religion to help bring people over and have a level of comfort and familiarity.
The question is whether the Christ "story" is considered true by those and only they can believe. It is all a story until it is believed.
I for one can say there are times i struggle with it based on science.
I read The Believing Scientist, Language of God and follow the Vatican Observatory (real priest physicist). Jesuits are good as they recognize the issue.
But he brings up a legitimate discussion point.
In my opinion.
