Don't read the bible yourself just listen to king Ebuka, he knows all the answers.
You are just trying to prove Jesus didn't have other brothers, just to clarify your argument why the Catholic's call her the Virgin Mary.
You can't beat the bible, its the word of God.

dmandy:


Dear honest born again Christain,

the question you jumped into to answer is this 'Do you think John mentioned this other Mary (mentioned in Matt and Mark which King Ebuka agreed is not Mary the mother of Jesus) in his account of the crucifixion?'

You should learn to read and understand the question before answering.

brocab:
Don't read the bible yourself just listen to king Ebuka, he knows all the answers.
You are just trying to prove Jesus didn't have other brothers, just to clarify your argument and the Virgin Mary.
You can't beat the bible, its the word of God.

You can answer that simple question if know the answer, else allow him to. After all it was addressed to him. You have refused to answer the very simple question that you were asked oh honest Christian.

dmandy:


No you don't school anyone all you do is insult and call people names. When you finally decide to be civil, I have all the time to learn what you have to offer.

2 Timothy 3:7 (KJV)
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ignorance will send many to hell

vooks:

2 Timothy 3:7 (KJV)
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ignorance will send many to hell

Sure, ignorance will send many to hell.

dmandy:


Sure, ignorance will send many to hell.

Make a claim, back it up with proof or withdraw it.

This applies not just in scriptures but in life.

I can imagine when you marry and you accuse your wife of infidelity. She demands proof and you demand she disprove you else she is guilty as accused

Cc brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukaNaija,ichiato,italo,Syncan the high priestess

vooks:

Make a claim, back it up with proof or withdraw it.

This applies not just in scriptures but in life.

I can imagine when you marry and you accuse your wife of infidelity. She demands proof and you demand she disprove you else she is guilty as accused

Cc brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukaNaija,ichiato,italo,Syncan the high priestess

Does that mean that you have agreed that all those your running up and down could not disprove anything? If yes, let me school you.

BTW, your analogy does not apply here, its more like you coming to accuse of me of accusing my wife and demanding I give you prove. And I ask who are you?

dmandy:


As usual you will shy away to tell me what the man in my picture is doing. Life is simple stop making it look complicated. What is that man in picture doing is my question but you will prefer to insult me than answer a simple question, dear Christian.

Lol . Another weak rebuttal . What has this wrong got to do with the idolatry practiced in Catholicism ? Both of two are wrong !

KingEbukaNaija:


Lol . Another weak rebuttal . What has this wrong got to do with the idolatry practiced in Catholicism ? Both of two are wrong !

Sir,

I think you should follow the argument before jumping into it. Your man defined worshipping as act of falling down and bowing down. Then I brought this picture asking him to tell me what that man is doing. An answer which he has been avoiding and which I am sure he will continue to avoid until he sees another opportunity to jump into another discussion.

The question here is not who is wrong or not. But what the man is doing. So I put the question to you sir, What is this man in the picture doing?

dmandy:


Does that mean that you have agreed that all those your running up and down could not disprove anything? If yes, let me school you

Once again,
For every claim you make, give proof or withdraw. It's that simple

1. There is no evidence Mary is in heaven. If you are categorical she is, give us proof

2. There is no evidence of Mary's sinlessness and there is ample evidence that ONLY Jesus was sinless which rules out any other human's sinlessness. In short, there is concrete evidence AGAINST Mary's sinlessness

3. There is no evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity and there is some evidence against it namely, a <=12yrs marriage,children. If you think this is surmountable, take a pass at it and give us your best proof that she is a perpetual virgin.

All these posts and not a shred of evidence coming is evidence of severe bankruptcy of scriptural basis for Catholicism's Satanism's core doctrines

brocab:
dmandy Quoted>I worship the Mary that's written in the bible. dmandy is telling the truth for all you Catholic's isn't he.
So this is how it works-Quote>dmandy are you scared of losing your Catholic faith? So does this mean, dmandy can lose his Catholic faith-if he don't pull his head in and teach the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Interesting.
This proves your faith isn't about Christ-but the Church it's self.

'Catholic faith' refers to his beliefs as a member of the Catholic Church . One of his beliefs he has to relinquish is to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

vooks:


Once again,
For every claim you make, give proof or withdraw. It's that simple

1. There is no evidence Mary is in heaven. If you are categorical she is, give us proof

2. There is no evidence of Mary's sinlessness and there is ample evidence that ONLY Jesus was sinless which rules out any other human's sinlessness. In short, there is concrete evidence AGAINST Mary's sinlessness

3. There is no evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity and there is some evidence against it namely, a <=12yrs marriage,children. If you think this is surmountable, take a pass at it and give us your best proof that she is a perpetual virgin.

All these posts and not a shred of evidence coming is evidence of severe bankruptcy of scriptural basis for Catholicism's Satanism's core doctrines

Prove to me that Mary had other Children, that will settle the rest. That is your claim, isn't it?

vooks:

Make a claim, back it up with proof or withdraw it.

This applies not just in scriptures but in life.

I can imagine when you marry and you accuse your wife of infidelity. She demands proof and you demand she disprove you else she is guilty as accused

Cc brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukaNaija,ichiato,italo,Syncan the high priestess

Sir . I think its ideal to note that our Catholic brother dmandy is cherry picking . Overlooks/suppresses all the evidences against his stance , denies them , picks one or two verses in the whole bible to support his claim .

KingEbukaNaija:


Sir . I think its ideal to note that our Catholic brother dmandy is cherry picking . Overlooks/suppresses all the evidences against his stance , denies them , picks one or two verses in the whole bible to support his claim .

The question Sir, should rather read, do you agree that the one or two or half verses which he picks support his claim? Or do you ignore fact just because it is contained in one or verses?

dmandy:


Prove to me that Mary had other Children, that will settle the rest. That is your claim, isn't it?

You are shifting goalposts. How does this 'settle the rest'?
1. Prove Mary is in heaven
2. Prove Mary was sinless
3. Prove Mary was a perpetual virgin

Concerning her other natural children,I just did,
Matthew 12:46 (ESV)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.

dmandy:


Prove to me that Mary had other Children, that will settle the rest. That is your claim, isn't it?

Please stop this :

Isn't it weird that only catholics deny that the bible was referring to Jesus' half brothers .Sir Vooks , I also understand that catholics developed their own story of Joseph having Mary as his second wife after a failed first marriage and so the kids were of Joseph's first marriage and not from Mary .

How low can they get in order deceive the innocent ? No wonder Martin Lurther protested against such unbiblical beliefs .

The honouring worship of Mary (mother of a God ) had to be blended with the paganism which influenced the Catholic Church .

KingEbukaNaija:


Please stop this :

Isn't it weird that only catholics deny that the bible was referring to Jesus' half brothers .Sir Vooks , I also understand that catholics developed their own story of Joseph having Mary as his second wife after a failed first marriage and so the kids were of Joseph's first marriage and not from Mary .

How low can they get in order deceive the innocent ? No wonder Martin Lurther protested against such unbiblical beliefs .

The honouring worship of Mary (mother of a God ) had to be blended with the paganism which influenced the Catholic Church .

I don't agree that it is only the church that believes that Mary had no other children except Jesus. But, even if I am the only one who thinks so, someone who claims otherwise will have to prove it to me.

Do you really think that your dear Martin Luther believed that Mary had other Children apart from Jesus?

dmandy:


Thanks King,

So actually it can be inferred from those passages that Mary (Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome) is not the mother of Jesus. Can we superimpose this observation with the women listed according to John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Do you think John mentioned this Mary in question?

I think John even made the observation much better to understand . It has nothing to do with Mary not having other Children . Thank God we have four accounts at our beck and call . Phew !

vooks:

You are shifting goalposts. How does this 'settle the rest'?
1. Prove Mary is in heaven
2. Prove Mary was sinless
3. Prove Mary was a perpetual virgin

Concerning her other natural children,I just did,
Matthew 12:46 (ESV)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.

It's still the same goal post. No one is shifting it. Just prove to me that Mary had other Children. Where did you get that from? A proof of that will settle the rest.

dmandy:


I don't agree that it is only the church that believes that Mary had no other children except Jesus. But, even if I am the only one who thinks so, someone who claims otherwise will have to prove it to me.

Do you really think that your dear Martin Luther believed that Mary had other Children apart from Jesus?

It is clearly biblical . Written during the time of Jesus and after the death of Jesus

Here , take a peep :

Acts 1:14
14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

The book of Galatians showed no mercy !!

Galatians 1:19
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Clearly stated ! There is no denying this

KingEbukaNaija:


I think John even made the observation much better to understand . It has nothing to do with Mary not having other Children . Thank God we have four accounts at our beck and call . Phew !

Do are not getting me, I am not talking about other children or lack of it here, just provide an answer, its only a lead question. I will do the same if you ask me.... my question is Mark and Matthew mentioned this Mary whom you agree with me is not Virgin Mary right. Now, do you think John in his own account mentioned this same Mary?

dmandy:


I don't agree that it is only the church that believes that Mary had no other children except Jesus. But, even if I am the only one who thinks so, someone who claims otherwise will have to prove it to me.

Do you really think that your dear Martin Luther believed that Mary had other Children apart from Jesus?

You are the one who has to prove to me that I'm wrong . Holding unto one or two old testament verses and giving YOUR OWN interpretation will not help your cause

KingEbukaNaija:


Please stop this :

Isn't it weird that only catholics deny that the bible was referring to Jesus' half brothers .Sir Vooks , I also understand that catholics developed their own story of Joseph having Mary as his second wife after a failed first marriage and so the kids were of Joseph's first marriage and not from Mary .

How low can they get in order deceive the innocent ? No wonder Martin Lurther protested against such unbiblical beliefs .

The honouring worship of Mary (mother of a God ) had to be blended with the paganism which influenced the Catholic Church .

Thank you sir,
I understand they will next deny that these kids are not Mary's bla bla. To this I will demand scriptural proof and of course they won't. Please note dmandy's desperation; he is now pinning the entire debate on Mary's natural children. How does this prove her sinlessness or that she is in heaven? How does it prove her perpetual virginity?

dmandy:


I don't agree that it is only the church that believes that Mary had no other children except Jesus. But, even if I am the only one who thinks so, someone who claims otherwise will have to prove it to me.

Do you really think that your dear Martin Luther believed that Mary had other Children apart from Jesus?

The onus is on you and ALL who claim the children were never hers to prove it. So seeking refuge in numbers won't save you. It don't matter how many believe something, numbers don't turn unsubstantiated claims into facts

KingEbukaNaija:


It is clearly biblical . Written during the time of Jesus and after the death of Jesus

Here , take a peep :

Acts 1:14
14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

The book of Galatians showed no mercy !!

Galatians 1:19
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Clearly stated ! There is no denying this

St. Paul said that that James is an apostle right? Can we check the list of the apostles (Matt 10:2) to know which of them is being referred to here.

vooks:


The onus is on you and ALL who claim the children were never hers to prove it. So seeking refuge in numbers won't save you. It don't matter how many believe something, numbers don't turn unsubstantiated claims into facts

Of course it doesn't matter how many, and I clearly stated that even if I am the only one. You claim they were children of Mary, right? A prove will do.

dmandy:

It's still the same goal post. No one is shifting it. Just prove to me that Mary had other Children. Where did you get that from? A proof of that will settle the rest.

What do you make of this verse?
How does it 'settle the rest'?

In fact am willing to d,demonstrate they were her biological children as soon as you demonstrate how this proves;
1. Mary's sinlessness
2. Mary is in heaven
3. Mary's perpetual virginity

Otherwise you are just digressing and desperately attempting to shift burden of proof for your Satanic doctrines on me

vooks:


Thank you sir,
I understand they will next deny that these kids are not Mary's bla bla. To this I will demand scriptural proof and of course they won't. Please note dmandy's desperation; he is now pinning the entire debate on Mary's natural children. How does this prove her sinlessness or that she is in heaven? How does it prove her perpetual virginity?

Exactly sir ! His circumvention is becoming weaker . I'm not sure he understands the verses he is providing as 'proof' of his clams .

Jesus came to die for everyone including his mum . His mum witnessed his death and resurrection - this means that she has to follow 'due process' - asking Jesus for forgiveness of sins to ensure she has obtained the pass to Heaven .

Being the Lord's mum is not an automatic ticket to Heaven . She is of the flesh has the propensity to fall out of grace and also ask for forgiveness . If she is sinless or purified before the birth of Christ , then there was NO need for Jesus to die for her sins for such should be done for everyone of good nature . PLUS mankind's relationship with God will be restored without needing the blood of Jesus to be spilled on the cross .

dmandy:


Of course it doesn't matter how many, and I clearly stated that even if I am the only one. You claim they were children of Mary, right? A prove will do.

They for one are called his brethren, and secondly, we are told Joseph never slept with Mary until Jesus was born, a totally irrelevant and redundant point if he never slept with her at all

dmandy:


St. Paul said that that James is an apostle right? Can we check the list of the apostles (Matt 10:2) to know which of them is being referred to here.

Nice try . Paul is also called the apostle , is his name listed among the 12 ?

Even nowadays servants of God bear the title 'apostle' I dont see their names in Matt 10 : 2

vooks:


They for one are called his brethren, and secondly, we are told Joseph never slept with Mary until Jesus was born, a totally irrelevant and redundant point if he never slept with her at all

I never saw my Science teacher until he died. Does this mean that I saw him after he died?

dmandy:


Sir,

I think you should follow the argument before jumping into it. Your man defined worshipping as act of falling down and bowing down. Then I brought this picture asking him to tell me what that man is doing. An answer which he has been avoiding and which I am sure he will continue to avoid until he sees another opportunity to jump into another discussion.

The question here is not who is wrong or not. But what the man is doing. So I put the question to you sir, What is this man in the picture doing?

Worshiping is simply a show of acknowledgement , adoration and respect which also involves glorification . You can acknowledge/respect someone as your king/master/superior or show your submission or obsequiousness by bowing down .

KingEbukaNaija:


Nice try . Paul is also called the apostle , is his name listed among the 12 ?

Even nowadays servants of God bear the title 'apostle' I dont see their names in Matt 10 : 2

Great, does that also mean that Paul never saw any other servant who could be referred to as 'apostle' other than James or was he talking of the twelve apostles? Can we for once read the text in context.