Martin Q. Blank said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

I grew up Protestant and married a catholic.

I can't figure out why Catholics want to argue so much that Mary was a virgin for her entire life and didn't have other kids.

Seems like the natural state of things that Joseph would want to have some sex. Especially after sticking with Mary after the whole her getting pregnant without them having sex.

If Mary was a virgin her whole life great. I just don't see the need to focus on that at all.

But it does seem a lot more natural for these two humans to have had sex at some point while they were married kind of like all (most) humans do.

---

3. Catholics aren't the only ones who argue this. All Protestant reformers believed this. And not only the reformers, but the scholastics too. Please trace the history from your belief to them to find out when and why it changed.

---

Pierow said:

---

"So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For not even his brothers believed in him."
John 7:3, 5 ESV



"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Matthew 1:24-25 NASB1995


"But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
Galatians 1:19 NASB1995

Why do Catholics want to die on this hill? Because they want to venerate someone other than Jesus himself.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
1 Timothy 2:5 NASB1995

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.""
Acts 4:12 NASB1995

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

That's not true. That is a very much works righteous religion. They work, and work, and work. Christians do not. Many who have left the Mormon religion tell the same tail. They were burnt out, trying to do good.

---

You don't understand. I'll try again:

You. I know I am saved because I feel different. I feel like reading the bible and thinking about Jesus all the time

Mormon: I work on my salvation because I feel like the BoM is the truth. I do the things the faith tells me to do because I feel it.

You arrive at opposite conclusions but both offer the same evidence of feelings, or what you called an "attitude change". So whose attitude change/feelings should I trust?

---

I'm sorry, I should've posted scripture. The apostle John explains it way better than I could. The Mormons don't believe any of this. They say they do, but the book of Mormon is contrary to this following piece of scripture. They believe Jesus is a created being, and his brother is Satan. They also believe that we can all become little gods. It's not even close to being scriptural. So it's a false dichotomy that you are portraying here.

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the worldour faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us."
1 John 5:4-14 NASB1995


SO THAT YOU MAY KNOW.

If you still don't understand, I don't know how I would ever persuade you.

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

I'm sorry, I should've posted scripture. The apostle John explains it way better than I could. The Mormons don't believe any of this. They say they do, but the book of Mormon is contrary to this following piece of scripture. They believe Jesus is a created being, and his brother is Satan. They also believe that we can all become little gods. It's not even close to being scriptural. So it's a false dichotomy that you are portraying here.

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the worldour faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us."
1 John 5:4-14 NASB1995


SO THAT YOU MAY KNOW.

If you still don't understand, I don't know how I would ever persuade you.

---

So we've moved from feelings and attitude change tothe words of scripture. That is progress. So John says we should have confidence because of the words he has written. This leads to at least 2 additional questions:

1. Why should we trust the words John wrote?

2. Why should we trust these words were even written by John the Apostle to begin with?

---

Why is automatic transmission better than standard? Why would God make the duck billed platypus? Why does the American League still have the designated hitter? How do we know we're not living in a matrix?

If you don't believe what John wrote, what has been canonized, then you probably wouldn't believe what Jesus said. How can you trust the writers of any of the books? We can go round and round about that, either you do or you don't. Either you were in-dwelt by the Spirit, and let Him guide you through scripture and everyday life, or you don't. Believe me, it's a very noticeable change. A change that I could never have done myself. But using your reasoning, how do you trust me?

---

Pierow said:

---

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God's imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired."

What's your point?

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

What's your point?

---

We're getting somewhere. So the first Christians said this was inspired scripture, and you trust those men were telling the truth and that they were protected by God from making a mistake?

---

Absolutely. You don't?

---

Quote:

---

Why does the American League still have the designated hitter?

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

What's your point?

---

We're getting somewhere. So the first Christians said this was inspired scripture, and you trust those men were telling the truth and that they were protected by God from making a mistake?

---

Absolutely. You don't?

---

Absolutely I do. I also trust that they were correct and protected from error when they also taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, the real presence in the Eucharist, the need to participate in the sacraments. You don't?

---

Fantastic. Why are we arguing?

---

Quote:

---

You want to worship Mary. You say you don't, but you do. You pray to her, ask for intercession, that's Jesus's position ONLY. It's idolatry, and you wish to continue to idolize.

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

What's your point?

---

We're getting somewhere. So the first Christians said this was inspired scripture, and you trust those men were telling the truth and that they were protected by God from making a mistake?

---

Absolutely. You don't?

---

Absolutely I do. I also trust that they were correct and protected from error when they also taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, the real presence in the Eucharist, the need to participate in the sacraments. You don't?

---

Fantastic. Why are we arguing?

---

Because you came into a thread to say there was no way that Mary was ever virgin and that I personally (and other Catholics and EOs around the world) worship her as our idol. Moreover, the reason we don't accept your "truth" about her is because we want to keep idol worshipping her. It's not even a mistake on our end, but an active choice to reject God in favor of her. Oh, and we lie about it too.

Quote:

---

You want to worship Mary. You say you don't, but you do. You pray to her, ask for intercession, that's Jesus's position ONLY. It's idolatry, and you wish to continue to idolize.

---

So we started asking how we can know what the truth is and who we can trust. You trust the early fathers (men, which you said we shouldn't trust) because you think they were divinely protected. Why do you believe that they were?

---

But that doesn't have anything to do with Mary.

---

Quote:

---

Why do Catholics want to die on this hill? Because they want to venerate someone other than Jesus himself

---

Pierow said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Pierow said:

---

"So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For not even his brothers believed in him."
John 7:3, 5 ESV



"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Matthew 1:24-25 NASB1995


"But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
Galatians 1:19 NASB1995

Why do Catholics want to die on this hill? Because they want to venerate someone other than Jesus himself.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
1 Timothy 2:5 NASB1995

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.""
Acts 4:12 NASB1995

---

How does a layman 2000 years after the fact have a better understanding about what happened when the book they are using as evidence for their position was not preserved by them, and was written in a different language and culture than the one they are currently in?

Mary's perpetual virginity was a constant church belief for 1600-1700 years. Even Luther held she was a virgin. It didn't start seeping in reality until scriptural discernment got ripped fully from the church and protestant groups started writing their own interpretation of the scriptures based upon their school of thought.

Joseph was an old man, he was the protector of Mary
Mary is the ark that held God. Theotokos - Bearer of God (not just Christokos - bearer of The Christ)
Mary is the new Eve. She obeyed and accepted what God's roll for her was, where Eve disobeyed.

To venerate is not to worship. Do you worship the flag when you stand for the pledge of allegiance? Do you worship your parents when God commands you to honor your father and mother?

Worship means very specific things that are lost to evangelicals because the do not hold sacraments are doing something in the spiritual realm. Partaking in the eucharist (communion) is par excellence of worship. Having a meal together is par excellence of worship in the ancient world across both christian and pagan cultures.

Man we can on and on.

Divine counsel.
Where are the saints right now? Can they help you?
Asking your friends to pray for you vs asking the saints.

Evangelicals have no frame of reference for preserving the lives of the saints. So they don't have stories of these saints, that have passed on, performing miracles in people's lives to this very day.

I'm not trying to come across as combative here, but when an evangelical starts throwing up cherry picked verses, we are beginning at the end of a conversation about the early church and its teachings.

---

I don't mean to be combative either, but I would wish everyone would use scripture to support their beliefs. Without the Bible, it's just opinion. Sometimes even WITH the Bible. But it is the standard of authority for anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It's paramount. I'm going to be quoting a bunch of scripture in here. Can you refute any of it using scripture of your own?

What came first, the church or the bible? Did Jesus give us a church first or a bible first? Who interprets and preserves scripture? All of these answers are, the church. The bible didn't fall from the heavens bound.

Firstly, was Mary's mother a virgin? Was she perfect? I mean, if she was carrying the woman who was carrying the Christ child, shouldn't she be perfect and sinless too? No, Mary's "sinlessness" was not generally accepted.

I see a bit of catholicism seeping in here! The line of questioning your begging is, 'How do you grapple with original sin and how it affects the human nature of Christ?' Orthodoxy views the consequences for original sin as death, not damnation. Your own sins damn you per se. Mary was full of grace from God upon her conception. It was not without removing original sin though. It was not immaculate as the catholics call it. But Mary and John the Baptist, among others in the OT also had special graces given by God to assist them in doing the will of God. The orthodox do believe that Mary did not commit any sins. And this perfect alignment of the nous, (a perfect Torah observance) is what allowed her to be holy enough to bear God. Just like the high priest was expected to be extremely devout and pious to be able to enter into the holiest of holies so they didn't receive death by holiness. Mary was raised in the synagogue. Mary was part of the tradition of pious families offering their young daughters as helpers of the synagogue from toddler age until menstruations. Mary spent time in the holiest of holies throughout her whole childhood. It was very obvious to those within the priesthood that Mary was special. She left this position at the age appropriate time and was given a protector like the other girls were. This is preserved by the church in the Protoevangelium of James. Mary's first encounter with the spiritual realm wasn't the angels heralding her.

But the orthodox hold that Mary still suffered the consequences of original sin - her own death. This is a small (big in orthodoxy) difference between catholics and orthodox. That Mary died in orthodoxy, but in catholicism she bodily assumed into heaven. Catholicism has to hold that because they have logic-d themselves into a corner with the immaculate conception.

So how did Christ not assume original sin then? Because the whole story of Christ is that sin does not stain Him, he erases the stain of sins.

I know you've read this:

"And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name."
Luke 1:46-49 NASB1995

Why is God her savior? I mean, she's sinless, right? Why does she need a savior? Why does she call herself his bond slave? Bond slaves were purchased, why would he need to buy her? Again, she is sinless, right? Any reasonable human being could look at that, and read it, and know what it means. One would think.

Where are you getting these notions from? They come from somewhere. Someone has taught you how to read the bible, in your mind, correctly. But without any authority over the bible. How you get your line of thinking from that one bible verse is hugely implying things that aren't in the text. The bible is not the complete history of Mary or even Jesus. But for you, it has to be, because you only hold to The Bible (TM) as being the only preservation of anything church related.

"The Bible is clear that we are to worship God alone. The only beings in Scripture who seek or accept worship besides God are false gods associated with Satan and demons (Deuteronomy 32:1617). All followers of the one true God refuse the worship of others, as Peter, Paul, and Barnabas demonstrate (Acts 10:2526; 14:1314). (Peter would've made a lousy Pope, by the way. He said he was just a man, a fellow Elder). Even the angels of God refuse the worship of people (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). Scripture's charge is clear: "Worship God alone!"

Despite these clear biblical principles, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that its devotion to Mary and the saints is not "worship" but "veneration." Yet, simply using a different word does not change the nature of the practice. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with respecting faithful Christians who have lived before us (Hebrews 11). In this limited way, Mary is worthy of honor as the earthly mother of Jesus (Luke 1:38). Yet the Bible never instructs us to offer worship to her or to any other believers, whether on earth or in heaven.

You don't understand what worship is and isn't. Mary is honored within orthodoxy and catholicism because of her devotion to God. Not to herself. She is the saint of saints. The bible is not an instruction manual on what is and isn't exactly liturgical practices in the NT. It is not a complete manual on how to exactly set up worship. In the OT it is. But do you realize how circular logic it is for the apostles to write about how to hold church, but the fact it is written or that it made it to scripture is more important than who is writing it? Clearly the church, as a body is more authoritative than scripture- as they are writing the scripture. And thats where the liturgies start taking from the second temple practices of an invocation, prayers, readings, homilies - and then adding onto it with communion and celebration of communion.

And again, catholicism and orthodoxy do not worship Mary because nobody thinks that it is Mary in the cup of communion, or that Mary is source of our salvation. Mary is a worthy provider of the human nature of Christ, and a worthy vessel to carry Christ.

If you were to visit any of the memorials for the wars America fought in, and you felt a deep appreciation for the sacrifice those men made. And that appreciation softened your view of America and appreciation for it. Did you worship those men or America? No, you venerated and honored their sacrifice.

Roman Catholic teaching argues that it does not worship Mary but rather reveres her in a way that directs worship to God. According to this teaching, Mary is the greatest and most beautiful of God's creations, and by praising her, people are praising her Creator. Catholic doctrine suggests this is analogous to directing praise to an artist by praising their sculpture or painting.

The problem with this reasoning is that God explicitly forbids worshiping Him through His creation. We are not to bow down before or worship the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth (Exodus 20:45). Romans 1:25 is clear that such practices are sinful: "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen." It's true that God has created wonderful and amazing things. It's also true that Mary was a godly woman who is worthy of appropriate respect. But the appropriate response is not worship.

Again, you have a warped idea of what is worship and what isn't. Does your church believe that baptism and communion are merely symbolic or that they are doing things in the spiritual realm? What are they doing exactly?

The primary way Roman Catholic teaching encourages the veneration of Mary and the saints is through prayer to them. Yet Scripture never instructs us to pray to anyone but God alone. Whether Mary and the saints are addressed directly in prayer or merely petitioned to pray on our behalf, neither practice is taught in the Bible. Prayer is an act of worship (Psalm 65:2; Matthew 6:913; Philippians 4:6). When we pray to God, we acknowledge our dependence on Him and our need for His help. Directing prayers to anyone other than God robs Him of the glory that belongs to Him alone.

Scripture does not predate the church. Scripture comes out of the church and cannot be separated from it. Why does the united ortho-catholic church that preserved the scripture and its interpretation get thrown to the side. Do you know more than them?

Another way Roman Catholic teaching encourages the veneration of Mary and the saints is through the use of statues and images. Such images are often used as aids in prayer and devotion and, in some cases, are also treated as objects of special spiritual benefit or protection. Scripture consistently warns against using images in worship (Exodus 20:46; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 John 5:21). Practices such as praying with rosary beads, lighting candles before a statue or image of a saint, or burying a statue of Joseph in the hope of selling a home are examples of practices that direct devotion toward created things rather than God. According to Scripture, such practices are idolatry.

Iconography is not idolatry. Idolatry is very specifically the creation of statues made of earthly materials, invoked for a god to inhabit them, and then you pray and worship (offer meals) to. This is the pagan world. How the pre-Christ world worked. Pagan gods demanded sacrifice and worship for their 'protection' and transactional material blessings. Pagan gods were cruel and their rule over humans was one of subjugation. Because they are demons.

Christianity is compelled to make iconography, not just tolerated or banned. Because Christ is the prototype of man we are all made in His image. We celebrate Gods creation of man and are thankful for it. The image of man isn't bad. These icons are windows into the spiritual realm. Edifying depictions of these saints. Now, catholic and orthodox iconography differ because catholic iconography has slipped into more modern art first, symbolic representation of the spiritual realm second.

Again, where are the roots of these view points coming from? You need to walk through church history and see if you arrive at decision points of these people you have no idea shaped your interpretation of scripture 500,1000 years ago.

Whether the practice is described as "worship," "veneration," or by any other term, the underlying problem remains the same. Whenever we ascribe to someone other than God what belongs to God alone, we commit idolatry. The Bible never instructs us to revere, pray to, or place our spiritual trust in anyone but God. We are to worship God alone. Glory, praise, honor, and adoration belong to Him. Only God is worthy to "receive glory and honor and power" (Revelation 4:11). He alone is worthy to receive our worship, adoration, and praise (Nehemiah 9:6; Revelation 15:4)."

When I venerate an image of Paul, or St. Joseph, or Mary. Do you think that I think that the spirits of these people imbue their images and that I offer food to them in order to recieve material blessings through these people's own power?

Of course not. I venerate and honor them for their devotion to Christ. I don't leave sacrifices in their name for them, alone, to bless me as some transaction. I ask for their prayers, their intercessions, to plead my case to God. God distributes authority to include man in His governance even though he doesn't need to. What do you think the final role of man is? To join God in his kingdom.

There's only one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is also scripture, but Catholicism does not practice that. You're not to call anybody on earth father (Matthew 23:9), but the Catholic Church practice is counter to that.

Christ made one sacrifice for sins for all time (Hebrews 10:12), catholics don't practice that, and don't even realize they're doing it. Don't believe me?


"Paragraph 1367 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. . . . In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." Rome may see the Mass as an "unbloody" sacrifice, but they see it as a sacrifice nonetheless."

According to your own doctrine, you're basically sacrificing Christ over and over and over again.

I am not catholic, but I don't understand your complaint here. Should we only take communion once then? What is the purpose of gathering then if not to partake in Christ in the Cup?

There are so many things in scripture that we could debate about what Catholics believe, and protestants believe. The most important difference is whether or not you could work your way into heaven or not. Protestants, thankfully say no. We work, but it has no bearing on our salvation.

Oh but you do. Everyone is judged by their works. And works are all incompassing. Your thoughts, your motivations, your actions. Does Christ not say, 'If you love me keep my commandments.'

And this is a huge part of protestantism going back to Luther. That salvation is this one time thing. A password that I say that gets me into heaven that doesn't take into account any of my future actions. You can certainly lose your salvation, is it not a violation of free will for God to adhere to an utterance in your youth if you fall away and worship Satan later, and fully for the rest of your life?

Again you are chock full of scriptural interpretations that have their historical roots outside of the Bible. Men who read their own interpretations into scripture. You condemn the Pope, but decide to put the Pope hat on yourself. You need to learn where these major themes come from and what has been cut away from the fullness over time in your denomination. From the first century onward. No jumping straight to the 1800s like you're mormon.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hey hey another orthodox! Gotta update the spreadsheet.

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Because they made up the concept of original sin in a long standing tradition of guilt shaming the laity. Even though Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the burden of his father's sin. And since they made that up they got backed into a corner with "how could Mary bear Jesus if she had sinned. Despite the fact that Romans tell us all me have sinned and fl short of the glory God.

So now we have a theological conundrum. Good news is we can make up a story for that one too, and we call it the Immaculate Conception. So cool, we've successfully worked that problem and now we have a "sinless" Mary. Which kinda makes her divine. But let's forget about that.

Okay so we've got a perfect Mary and Jesus, cool. Yeah but we can't have Mary being an actual human and wife. Cause you know we got that whole Immaculate Conception thing we made up in place.

Got it. What about "perpetual virginity?" Okay that could work but what about all the stuff about Jesus' brothers? Not a problem, we'll just tell the people what we want them to believe and threaten to withhold the Eucharist if they don't.

Well that sums it up. Although, we've already gone pretty far in making her Jesus 2.0 might has well have her ascent into heaven as well. We can call it "the assumption". Yeah but the Bible doesn't mention that at all, and it seems like it might have been pretty important to bring up.

See previous cohersion, either believe it or we're gonna keep you from partaking in the pretend "real flesh" of Jesus. They'll be so afraid of hell, they'll believe whatever they're told.

---