Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity

[Selene]

2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).

The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?

 

[LightHammer]

2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).

The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?

 

The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to? If He did I doubt the Successors would've split apart. Error lies some where and the repetitive "Do you think you know more than the early church fathers" or "The what makes you think you can measure up to 2000 years of congruent doctrine" is no longer going to cut it in a generation that is being trained to doubt the crowd and trust only in scripture.

[Selene]

The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 

[LightHammer]

The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 

Impossible when the Successors the early church are divided over ced doctrines.

[Selene]

The question isn't can He. The question is did He.

Did God isnpire all the doctrines that Rome adheres to?

Yes. 

Impossible when the Successors the early church are divided over ced doctrines.

What is ced? 

[John 10:10]

For a Muslim to question whether or not Muhammad was Allah's (Arabic for God) true and last representative on earth completing God's message to mankind regarding how man should submit to Allah is nothing short of blasphemy for Muslims.

The same is true for any member of the RCC to question the beliefs that have been formulated by RCC fathers that are not clearly revealed in Scripture. 

When Luther and the early church reformers began to do so, they knew exactly what they were doing.  Many Believers in the Lord lost their lives standing up for their faith that salvation was by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no man could either give God's salvation or take it away.

Do Protestants now have a lock on God's truth regarding His salvation?  No we don't!  When anyone ignores the clear teaching of God's Word using God's truth that Scripture interprets Scripture, then any Believer or church can get into error.  The wonderful truth of God's Word is that "the Lord adds day by day those who are being saved" (Acts 2:47) to His church family.

[Josiah]

 What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  Obviously.
It's just an EVASION of the question, using the exact same "tack" as was used in the LDS for nearly a century and is still used in many American "Christian" cults, the circumvention of the question of correctness by insisting that if self says it - it is just to be embraced with quiet, docilic submission (truth being moot).  "Just go with whatever I say cuz I'm saying, insists I alone" has nothing to do with that one being correct, follow?

Now, my friend, you certainly MAY simply wave the issue of correctness for anyone who so suggests that you must in the singular case of that self alone - I'm NOT going to dispute that act of pure faith (in you, a Mormon, or anyone else).  That's a different issue for another day and thread.  The issue before us here is not whether you choose to just docilicly submit to one who insists that you do but rather a DOGMA that divides Christianity, the insistence that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Here's the issue of dispute:  Does truth about Mary matter?   Does dogma that divides us matter?  The Protestants are rather consistenly saying YES and the Catholics and Orthodox are insisting NO (submission to the teacher so requiring such does).   Out of respect for truth AND FOR MARY, out of a desire NOT to gossip, out of a desire to NOT needlessly divide the church, Protestants here seem to be saying we need to determine if this tidbit of bedroom info is true.   As I see it, the "other side" if you will is saying, no we don't, or is presenting a plethora of diversions (suggesting things not related to the issue) or simply wrong things (a verse for example but changing the verb tense from what is it to what it is NOT so as to suggest some support).  


 

Now, back to the issue.   Since you insist that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever - where's the substantiation for this?   Why is it true?  Why does this matter to such a very high level and degree?  You care if what Protestants say is true (not giving them a "pass" on the issue of correctness), well - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  





.

[John 10:10]

Let’s consider doing a case study experiment.  Find 1000 people who have never before read or heard about the Bible, or know anything whatsoever RCC and Protestant churches teach/believe, and let them read the Bible straight through as many time as they like.  Then bring them all together and ask them this one question,

“Has anything you have read in the Bible led you to believe that Mary remained a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus; and if you believe this, where in the Bible did you find reference to this belief?

[Ryan2010]

You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem

[Snargles]

2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

First of all, Mary was already immersed in the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (See Luke 1:35).  How is one baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Is it not when the Holy Spirit comes upon the person?  Where in the Bible did it say that Mary had doubts about Jesus? 

3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

It was the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Bible in the fourth century through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  What makes the Church more reliable is the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide her in all truths (John 14:26).  The Catholic Church acts in an authoritative way simply because Christ, who is the authority, is the Head of the Church.

6.  . I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).

The Apostles were also men.  Do you think that only the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that inspiration ended with their deaths?  Do you honestly think that God can no longer inspire men after the Apostles were gone?

The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

The passage in Mark can also be used to address the question of whether scripture should say "cousin" or "brother." Mark 3:32-35, "'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and brothers ', he asked. Then he looked at those seated in circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'"
If we say the word in question should be translated as cousins the passage doesn't have much impact. "Your cousins are here", "No, these are my cousins" doesn't make it. This only makes sense if we are talking about brothers.

You ask if only the apostles were inspired by God and I say YES. Do you think men are still inspired today? How can you tell? Is the pope inspired? Is Billy Graham inspired? Is Binny Hinn inspired? All three have their supporters but to me they are only men. God could inspire men today if he chose to (he can do anything) but I have seen no indication that he continues to do so. To say that we need the help of someone who wrote in AD 200 to understand the Bible means that a person who lived in AD 190 could not have that understanding.

You say Christ is the head of the church but then you equate church with RCC. I agree that Christ is the head of the church but I don't consider the RCC to be a part of the church, having aposticized. In the verse you use, John 14:26, Jesus is talking to the apostles, not to all who would later be a part of his church. The apostles were to receive teaching from the HS so that they could go out and teach the gospel. Since the Bible did not yet exist they needed this help. We don't need this particular gift today because we can go to the Bible and understand all that we need to know to receive salvation. God and his spirit have taken care of us by supplying us what we need to know through the inspired writings found from Genesis to Revelation.

[Snargles]

Reply to Selene Part II

I think it was you who said that it would have insulted Jesus' brothers if he had asked John to watch their mother. In light of the verses I quoted above showing that his brothers did not believe, consider this situation:

As the oldest girl in the family you have been taking care of your elderly widowed mother. Your employer is transfering you to his call center in India. Your brother Bill could take care of Mom but he is in and out of jail for dealing drugs and pimping. Your sister Sue has converted to Islam and thinks the US got what it deserved on 9/11. Would you rather have one of them watch Mom or would it be better if your best friend Jill who always went to your house after school, who ate Sunday dinner with you and who refers to your mother as her second mother took over her care. Would you care what Bill and Sue thought about your asking Jill to take over for you?
It was the same thing for Jesus. John and Mary were already close and Jesus brothers thought he was "out of his mind" as scripture puts it. Better to insult the brothers and sisters than think they would take good care of Mary. Sometimes you follow tradition and sometimes you do what is right.  Hey  might this apply to religion, also? Tradition has its place but it cannot replace the truth.

[Selene]

The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

Jesus who had no sin did not need to experience water baptism because he had not sins to repent from.  Neither did Mary.  Mary also did not have any sins unless you believe that Jesus was born from sin.  Mary already had a Savior.  The blood of Christ who died 2000 years ago also effects us and all those who are not yet born in the future.  In the same way, His blood also effected those who died before Christ was born in Bethlehem.  His redemption on the cross is for all who were not only there at the time that He died, but also for those in the future and in the past.  

You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

First of all, you need to read the entire story.  It wasn't Jesus' home that He was in.  He was in the house of Levi.  Jesus' mother was not even in the house.  It was after the scribes blasphemied against Jesus that his mother arrived and stood outside.  

The passage in Mark can also be used to address the question of whether scripture should say "cousin" or "brother." Mark 3:32-35, "'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and brothers ', he asked. Then he looked at those seated in circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'"
If we say the word in question should be translated as cousins the passage doesn't have much impact. "Your cousins are here", "No, these are my cousins" doesn't make it. This only makes sense if we are talking about brothers

There is no Hebrew word for cousins; therefore, the Hebrew word for brother was used.  It is the same in my native language.  The chamorro word for "brother" is chelu.  We use the same word for cousins or other close relatives.  It is the same in Hebrew.

[Snargles]

The passage in Luke 1:35 tells how Mary was to be with child when she had not yet had sexual relations with her husband. "Baptism with the HS", which I don't believe this refers to, is not the same as baptism for the remission of sins. To be saved, one must contact the blood of Jesus (which had not yet been shed) and that comes with baptism. Even Jesus, who had no sin, had to experience water baptism.

Jesus who had no sin did not need to experience water baptism because he had not sins to repent from.  Neither did Mary.  Mary also did not have any sins unless you believe that Jesus was born from sin. 

You ask, "Where does it say Mary had doubts about Jesus?" Mark 3:21 "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" That "family" included Mary is shown in Mark 3:31, "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived." John gives further proof that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him at this time, "For even his own brothers did not believe in Jesus."

First of all, you need to read the entire story.  It wasn't Jesus' home that He was in.  He was in the house of Levi.  Jesus' mother was not even in the house.  It was after the scribes blasphemied against Jesus that his mother arrived and stood outside. 

The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.
Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

(Angelos says Josiah doesn't quote scripture. I am trying to do that.)

[Visionary]

Mark 6:3

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon?
Aren't his sisters here with us? (Matthew13:55,56)

Not to be confused with his disciples. These are Jesus brothers, sons of Joseph-daughters names not given.

[trifecta]

Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?

[Snargles]

Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?

Honest question: Does the same reasoning apply to "sisters"? Do you have an example in scripture where the word translated here as sisters is translated as something else?

Anybody out there know how this verse is translated in Martin Luther's German Bible?

[trifecta]

Oh please.  Not all languages are like English.  "Brothers" in ancient tmes went well beyond mother's sons. (and does in many languages today).  Wouldn't have the early church been laughed out of existance had they interpreted brother as you did?

Honest question: Does the same reasoning apply to "sisters"? Do you have an example in scripture where the word translated here as sisters is translated as something else?

I'm not sure about this one, but wasn't the other Mary a cousin of Mary (not her sister).
So, I guess the idea of cousin being a sister was around then. Not sure about the sister equivalence of brethren.  I'm guessing no, because male pronouns prevailed when talking about more abstract concepts (esp. brothers in Christ).
 

Anybody out there know how this verse is translated in Martin Luther's German Bible?

How ever he wanted.   

My point is the early church believed in the virginity of Mary.  Don't you think that claim would be ridiculous if there were brothers and sisters of Christ walking around?

[Snargles]

My point is the early church believed in the virginity of Mary.  Don't you think that claim would be ridiculous if there were brothers and sisters of Christ walking around?

How early is "early"? If by early you mean AD 100, then all of Jesus' brothers and sisters could have already died a natural death and they wouldn't be walking around. We need something from say AD 60 that says Mary was always a virgin. It doesn't take long after any noteworthy act or long after any important person's death for legends to spring up. That is how modern saints get miracles credited to them.

Last post for the evening; I am going to bed so I can stay awake in church tomorrow.

[Selene]

The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

The story began in Mark Chapter 2.  

Mark 2:1  When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.  

Jesus was not from Capernaum.  He was from Nazareth.  The Bible, however, says that He was at home.  This simply means that he was back or He returned.   It does not mean that He was home in Nazareth.  He was preaching in someone else's house...not His house.  When people heard that Christ returned, they brought many of the sick and the disabled to Him so He could cure them.  The story goes on and Jesus met Levi.  Jesus was having dinner in the Levi's house.  

Mark 2:14-16 As He was walking on He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting by the customs house, and He said to him, "Follow me" And he got up and followed Him.  When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were at the tablw with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them among His followers.

Jesus did not leave Capernaum.  In Chapter 3 of Mark, He was still in Capernaum.  Mark 3:1 starts out with Jesus going into the synagogue AGAIN just as Mark 2:1 says that He was in the synagogue.  Then we get to Mark 3:20, which says "He went home AGAIN."  He was once again in Levi's house.  His mother and his relatives are not in the house because it's not even their house.  The ones who seized him out of concern were His friends.  Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims Bible used the word "friends" instead of relatives.    

You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.

Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes, not to take away any personal sins He had because He had none.  

Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

Then I guess you believed that Jesus was born from sin and came from sin.  The Catholics do not believe this.  We believe that Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with sin whatsoever.  

[trifecta]

My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Thanks for reading. Goodnight.

[John 10:10]

My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, and salvation in Christ Jesus were clearly known in the churches Luke wrote about in Acts and in Paul's letters. 

God has always had a remnant of His children in every age who remained true to the truth of His Word.

Protestants choose to believe what we believe based on what the inspired words of the Bible say.  If the term "ever-virgin Mary" was God's truth, He would have inspired the writers of the books/letters of the Bible to clearly pin these words and doctrine there.

[Snargles]

The verses from Mark 3:20 through 3:35 form one continuous account. Jesus went into a house, a crowd gathered, Mary and the family heard about it and went to get Jesus, Jesus talked to the crowd in parables, Mary and the family arrived, the family sent someone in to call Jesus, Jesus said "these are my brothers." Even if you dispute the first part of the story being connected to the second part verse 21 says Jesus family said "he is out of his mind" and family includes the mother.

The story began in Mark Chapter 2. 

Mark 2:1  When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. 

Jesus was not from Capernaum.  He was from Nazareth.  The Bible, however, says that He was at home.  This simply means that he was back or He returned.   It does not mean that He was home in Nazareth.  He was preaching in someone else's house...not His house.  When people heard that Christ returned, they brought many of the sick and the disabled to Him so He could cure them.  The story goes on and Jesus met Levi.  Jesus was having dinner in the Levi's house. 

Mark 2:14-16 As He was walking on He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting by the customs house, and He said to him, "Follow me" And he got up and followed Him.  When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were at the tablw with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them among His followers.

Jesus did not leave Capernaum.  In Chapter 3 of Mark, He was still in Capernaum.  Mark 3:1 starts out with Jesus going into the synagogue AGAIN just as Mark 2:1 says that He was in the synagogue.  Then we get to Mark 3:20, which says "He went home AGAIN."  He was once again in Levi's house.  His mother and his relatives are not in the house because it's not even their house.  The ones who seized him out of concern were His friends.  Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims Bible used the word "friends" instead of relatives.   

You say that Jesus did not need to be baptized but Matthew 3:15 reads, "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this [john baptize Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus said he needed to be baptized.

Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes, not to take away any personal sins He had because He had none. 

Mary had sin because scripture says all have sinned. I think it was John who said if a man says he has not sinned the truth is not in him. Mary was a human being so she sinned and needed to be baptized, "baptism that now saves you" (I Peter 3:21)

Then I guess you believed that Jesus was born from sin and came from sin.  The Catholics do not believe this.  We believe that Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with sin whatsoever. 

NIV and New Revised Standard say family and they are better translations than KJ and D-R. You are right that the activity did not take place in Jesus' home. Mary and her children were somewhere else when they heard that Jesus was teaching so they went to him and in verse 31 they arrived.

Jesus was not baptized because he had sin but because all must be baptized. Jesus was partly divine and partly human. Mary was 100% human and therefore had to sin. If Mary was not 100% human then Jesus would not have able to experience the life that we do which is what makes him such an effective advocate for us.

The key to your arguments is when you say "Catholics do not believe this." We should not think as Catholics or Lutherans or Presbyterians. We have to think as Christians and not rely on the traditions of men.

[Snargles]

My last post too.  St. Athanasius, 4th century, wrote a letter with the term ever-virgin Mary in it.  Of course, we have the Nicean Creed , very early 4th century, with the reference to the Virgin Mary.

Do we have references earlier than that?  I think so.   Note that major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, were not spelled out in the form we have them until late in the 4th century?  So, why don't we apply the same standard (if it's not from the 2nd century, it's crap) to these doctrine?

Ultimately, because Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe in the early church, rather than follow what the early church actually believed.

If the church had gone off the rails by the 4th century, Jesus's promise that gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matt 18:16) had a short run.

Major doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, and salvation in Christ Jesus were clearly known in the churches Luke wrote about in Acts and in Paul's letters. 

God has always had a remnant of His children in every age who remained true to the truth of His Word.

Protestants choose to believe what we believe based on what the inspired words of the Bible say.  If the term "ever-virgin Mary" was God's truth, He would have inspired the writers of the books/letters of the Bible to clearly pin these words and doctrine there.

I don't reconize the Nicean Creed as having any validation and have never heard it refered to in church. It came after the close of scripture so it is only the opinion of men.

I believe in the literal inspired word of God as found from Genesis to Revelation.

The majority of the church had gone off the rails before the 4th century but has now been restored to what God intended.

[Visionary]

If you have never heard the Nicene creed in church snargles then what church do you belong?

The nicene creed declares the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The sound doctrine that is taught in every church belonging to God.

One doctrine Jesus taught that is not included in the nicene creed is the doctrine of the laying on of hands.

More examples....

Jesus virgin birth...Son of God and Son of Man is doctrine taught.

The forgiveness of sins through Jesus blood is doctrine taught.

Jesus resurrection is doctrine taught.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost is doctrine taught.

Baptism is doctrine taught.

Of which are included in the nicene creed. SOUND DOCTRINE!

[4Him]

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!

[trifecta]

Snargles,

I appreciate your honesty and your attitude.  I really disagree with your (and most
Baptist traditions) take in church history.   Fortunately, we worship the same God.

I don't reconize the Nicean Creed as having any validation and have never heard it refered to in church.

Most Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, and I think Lutherans recite the Nicene Creed each
week in their services.  That's more than three-quarters of churches that are called Christians. 

More importantly, the Nicean Creed is the historical test of genuine Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism and host of other heresies during its time.  The Creed has had
staying power all this time.

It came after the close of scripture so it is only the opinion of men.

I understand what you are saying, but you and many evangelicals have reduced the Christian faith to a book.  I believe in a living God who works through history.  History is a record of how God works.

I believe in the literal inspired word of God as found from Genesis to Revelation.

No argument here.

The majority of the church had gone off the rails before the 4th century but has now been restored to what God intended.

I know you are not alone in believing this, but was the church really lost for more than
1000 years?   Doesn't this invalidate Jesus's promise that the gates of Hades will not
prevail against it?

Here is the truth, IMHO:  Those radical Reformationists and other Protestants leaders didn't know what to do when their reading of Scripture contradicted with what the early church taught.  Rather than agree with the early church, they proclaimed their own doctrine as not only divine but the teaching of the early church.   Talk about traditions of men.

The other major problem with this viewpoint is who came up with the idea of a New Testament?  Those same people you (and others) say went off the rails.

So, according to your view, the early church goes apostate very early on, but at the end of the 4th century, it comes out of its apostate funk to decide which books should be in the New Testament.  Then, falls back into their bad ways.

The argument of some is the now-apostate church was affirming what was obvious (the books that belong in the New Testament).  There were many books and lists that were floating about in those times.  The list of books was not so obvious.  Even so, if the church were so apostate, how could they be trusted to compile the Word of God?

[trifecta]

4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Christians do not deny her virginity.  But I do deny the perpetual virginity.

Do you consider Calvin and Luther to be Christians?  They believed in her perpetual
virginity - Luther insisted on it.

The Scriptural evidence that people use (mention of brothers and sisters of Jesus and
the use of "until" in a reference that was not about the Mary's virginity) is scant.

What about when Jesus turns Mary over to John?.   All those other younger sons of Mary died before age 32 else they would be obligated culturally to care for her.   Then we have to assume that any of Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters would not have had any children who would give testimony to Mary's lack of virginity--or maybe they all died young too.

Then, there is the fact that creator of the Universe was contained for 9 months in
the womb of a woman.  It is a holy place.  Did the Jews have a concept of holy place?
Hmm, let see:

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Exodus 3:5.


I can't prove Mary's virginity; no one can.  But to insist that our post-Freudian values
MUST be applied to a time where many women were dedicated virgins and that the birth of the Saviour of the World would have no impact of Mary's sex life borders on disrespectful.

Thanks for reading.
 

[Visionary]

4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

Why did Jesus say this?

John 19
 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Christians do not deny her virginity.  But I do deny the perpetual virginity.

Do you consider Calvin and Luther to be Christians?  They believed in her perpetual
virginity - Luther insisted on it.

The Scriptural evidence that people use (mention of brothers and sisters of Jesus and
the use of "until" in a reference that was not about the Mary's virginity) is scant.

What about when Jesus turns Mary over to John?.   All those other younger sons of Mary died before age 32 else they would be obligated culturally to care for her.   Then we have to assume that any of Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters would not have had any children who would give testimony to Mary's lack of virginity--or maybe they all died young too.

Then, there is the fact that creator of the Universe was contained for 9 months in
the womb of a woman.  It is a holy place.  Did the Jews have a concept of holy place?
Hmm, let see:

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Exodus 3:5.


I can't prove Mary's virginity; no one can.  But to insist that our post-Freudian values
MUST be applied to a time where many women were dedicated virgins and that the birth of the Saviour of the World would have no impact of Mary's sex life borders on disrespectful.

Thanks for reading.
 

OHHH! What a waste of time to read presumptuous posts when the scriptures and history show us plainly After Jesus was born Mary had other children fathered by Joseph! Luke 1:26-38 How can I be with child having not known a man? Polite way of saying had not had sexual relations with man.

Mark 6:3 Why do they take offense that Joseph married Mary? 1Corinthians 7:5 Matthew 1:18-23 Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife...

I hope you realize that those that are mentioned in the bible are there for a reason and those who are not mentioned in the bible are not there for a reason! John 5:39 These are the scriptures that testify about me, Jesus said.

His lineage is recorded!!! All the way back to Adam!!!

People ask, who was the first Jew(natural) ADAM! The son of God.(natural)

[4Him]

4Him,

Admittedly this is not a salvation issue, but I don't understand why certain people
are so insistent that she lost her virginity.

No, it is not a salvation issue.  In fact it is totally irrelevant whether she did or did not have other children.

But the RCC has made this to be a dogma. Those that claim to be Catholic HAVE to believe this, regardless of the fact that Scripture doesn't say this, and indeed implies that Jesus did in fact have blood brothers and sisters. 

[Visionary]

Reality Check! There is no debate when it comes to scripture!

"Did God really say" is what the devil says to cause you to doubt and he wants to keep you in unbelief...debator!

Jesus said "if you do not become as little children you shall not enter the kingdom."

Matthew 12:36 for you who would debate Gods word.

Psalm 45:17 Whose name is perpetuated from beginning to end? From the first announcement Genesis 3:15 to his Amen! Revelation 3:14 ...JESUS!

[Ryan2010]

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray a first-born?  

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray an only-begotten?


It can't be both.

It can't be both unless the "brothers" depicted in the photograph have a different Mother.  




Not every first-born is an only-begotten but every only-begotten is a first-born.  







Christ is risen.

[Visionary]

God bless 4him.

We must hold to ALL truths. As we see many look for reasons not to belive or for proofs.

John 20:31

But honestly, these debators have been a benefit causing me to seek things I might not otherwise have looked into.

2Timothy 3:15,16

And also at times you just know what is said is not true but don't know why...

1Corinthians 2:10-12

[4Him]

God bless 4him.

We must hold to ALL truths.

I agree.  But there are many that believe as truths, things that are not grounded in God's word.

[Visionary]

Amen 4him.

Everwhere the full gospel message is given opposition arises.

So I wont tell you the words that were said to me the very very first time I testified to Gods salvation.

[Nyoka]

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray a first-born? 

Does this photograph of "brothers" portray an only-begotten?


It can't be both.

It can't be both unless the "brothers" depicted in the photograph have a different Mother.   




Not every first-born is an only-begotten but every only-begotten is a first-born. 







Christ is risen.

I don't normally post here as no side, in this debate, will convince the other side that they are wrong.  I had to answer this post though.  The bible tells us that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of God:

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1Jn 4:9  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Please show me where the bible says that Jesus was the 'only begotten' son of Mary.