shadeyinka:



Just a few questions.

1. Do you know that Jesus had brothers and sisters (at least two of His younger brothers were named in the scriptures)?

2. If Mary had other siblings, were they also immaculately conceived? (I.e. Joseph never ever slept with Mary)?

3. Is there any scriptural evidence to suggest the perpetual virginity of Mary?

4. Suppose I say that Joseph was perpetually a virgin, would you agree?

I wish other Catholics will clear these questions above.

Cc: SalC

I will answer question 2.

After Jesus was born his subsequent younger brothers were a product of sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Jesus was the only human who came to the world through immaculate conception

dangotesmummy:
I will answer question 2.

After Jesus was born his subsequent younger brothers were a product of sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Jesus was the only human who came to the world through immaculate conception

Thank you o!
Most Catholics however thinks opposite as if , sex by Mary is derogatory to her status and personality. Jesus didn't preach celibacy as act of piousness.

The "First Pope" was married, wasn't he?

Mary was ordinary, just as Joseph. The difference with them was their faith and faithfulness to God. That is probably why the scriptures didn't concentrate on them

shadeyinka:


Thank you o!
Most Catholics however thinks opposite as if , sex by Mary is derogatory to her status and personality. Jesus didn't preach celibacy as act of piousness.

The "First Pope" was married, wasn't he?

Mary was ordinary, just as Joseph. The difference with them was their faith and faithfulness to God. That is probably why the scriptures didn't concentrate on them

that was why Joseph was initially surprised when Mary told him she was pregnant because he knew he didn't have sex with her whilst they were courting. It took the conviction of the holyspirit to assure Joseph that her pregnancy was an immaculate one and not a consequence of sex with anyone then he became calm

God IS not AN author of confusion. He knew Mary and Joseph were dating. He knew Mary was a virgin yet he chose Mary out of the billion women in this world because his ways cannot be fathomed by man.

dangotesmummy:
that was why Joseph was initially surprised when Mary told him she was pregnant because he knew he didn't have sex with her whilst they were courting. It took the conviction of the holyspirit to assure Joseph that her pregnancy was an immaculate one and not a consequence of sex with anyone then he became calm

God IS not AN author of confusion. He knew Mary and Joseph were dating. He knew Mary was a virgin yet he chose Mary out of the billion women in this world because his ways cannot be fathomed by man.

Perfectly said!
Joseph wasn't planning celibacy when he got Mary betrothed to him. Neither was Mary planning celebacy else, why get engaged to a man in the first place.

Mary wasn't even expecting to be the Mother of the Christ else she wouldn't have told the Angel "How can this be since I have not known a man?"

A lot of Catholics don't know that the first split within the Church centered on the issue of Marys eternal spiritual status "Mother of God!" versus "Bearer of God!"

shadeyinka:


Perfectly said!
Joseph wasn't planning celibacy when he got Mary betrothed to him. Neither was Mary planning celebacy else, why get engaged to a man in the first place.

Mary wasn't even expecting to be the Mother of the Christ else she wouldn't have told the Angel "How can this be since I have not known a man?"

A lot of Catholics don't know that the first split within the Church centered on the issue of Marys eternal spiritual status "Mother of God!" versus "Bearer of God!"

and that is why the bible said God destroys the wisdom of the wise to show them that they're not as wise as they think by using things that are logically unreasonable
He also said OF you don't praise me I'll raise the stones to do what you can't do

dangotesmummy:
and that is why the bible said God destroys the wisdom of the wise to show them that they're not as wise as they think by using things that are logically unreasonable
He also said OF you don't praise me I'll raise the stones to do what you can't do

Of course. God chose the mundane to confound the wise with the birth, death and resurrection of Christ

FMary:
2

I have just given you 2 Scripture verses to teach you that it must not be in the Bible for it to be the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit.



So I wonder even where it is written that the Scripture MUST be the basis of every Christian conclusion.

Did Jesus not tell us that He will send the Holy Spirit after He left this world? HE specifically said that He could not tell everything to His disciples but that when the Holy Spirit comes, He the Holy Spirit would lead them into all TRUTH.

What would the Holy Spirit be teaching us again if all the basis of our discussion has been written down

Hello, I am not really interested contributing to the discourse itself I was just reading through as usual and I saw these set of statements and I was . I couldnt just let it pass.I have not read the comments after this post yet.


Why shouldn't the scripture be the basis of every Christian conclusion , If its not biblical then its not right. In fact the holy spirit will NEVER contradict the bible and that's one way to be sure its the holy spirit that is speaking.

So Yes the bible should be the basis of everychristain conclusion .

yetseyi:


Hello, I am not really interested contributing to the discourse itself I was just reading through as usual and I saw these set of statements and I was . I couldnt just let it pass.I have not read the comments after this post yet.


Why shouldn't the scripture be the basis of every Christian conclusion , If its not biblical then its not right. In fact the holy spirit will NEVER contradict the bible and that's one way to be sure its the holy spirit that is speaking.

So Yes the bible should be the basis of everychristain conclusion .

Thanks o! My sister.
History is OK But doctrinal issues must be settled ONLY with the scriptures. Perpetual virginity of Mary falls under doctrines unfortunately it doesn't have any iota of biblical basis

shadeyinka:


Perfectly said!
Joseph wasn't planning celibacy when he got Mary betrothed to him. Neither was Mary planning celebacy else, why get engaged to a man in the first place.

Mary wasn't even expecting to be the Mother of the Christ else she wouldn't have told the Angel "How can this be since I have not known a man?"

A lot of Catholics don't know that the first split within the Church centered on the issue of Marys eternal spiritual status "Mother of God!" versus "Bearer of God!"

You have enter the ally of speculation, what if, maybe, she didnt know and ignorance. your ignorance of church history just reared its ugly head, theotokus and mother of God are d same thing.

I wanted to simply sit on d sidelines and watch d thread but c'mon limit urself to what u know dont turn d thread into speculation and ignorance parade.

yetseyi:


Hello, I am not really interested contributing to the discourse itself I was just reading through as usual and I saw these set of statements and I was . I couldnt just let it pass.I have not read the comments after this post yet.


Why shouldn't the scripture be the basis of every Christian conclusion , If its not biblical then its not right. In fact the holy spirit will NEVER contradict the bible and that's one way to be sure its the holy spirit that is speaking.

So Yes the bible should be the basis of everychristain conclusion .

Actually d op made a fine point, nowhere is it written in scriptures that the bible should be the only basis for every christian conclusion. if u have such a passage provide it.

shadeyinka:


Thanks o! My sister.
History is OK But doctrinal issues must be settled ONLY with the scriptures. Perpetual virginity of Mary falls under doctrines unfortunately it doesn't have any iota of biblical basis

This is ur private opinion.

Ubenedictus:
You have enter the ally of speculation, what if, maybe, she didnt know and ignorance. your ignorance of church history just reared its ugly head, theotokus and mother of God are d same thing.

I wanted to simply sit on d sidelines and watch d thread but c'mon limit urself to what u know dont turn d thread into speculation and ignorance parade.

Interestingly I haven't used any Greek word.
Bearer and Mother aren't the same. It wasnt even supposed to be an insult to any denomination. It was just a presentation of facts.

There was a split within the church
The split was about the divinity of Mary

Mary is Pius but not Devine!


Modified:
Bearer of Christ versus Mother of God
I meant to say:
Instead of Bearer of God vs Mother of God
my error.

Me Apologizes!!

Ubenedictus:
This is ur private opinion.

Supported only from the scriptures

Ubenedictus:
Actually d op made a fine point, nowhere is it written in scriptures that the bible should be the only basis for every christian conclusion. if u have such a passage provide it.

Someone clarified this which I present below:

hemartins:
There are several important differences between Catholics and Protestants. While there have been many attempts in recent years to find common ground between the two groups, the fact is that the differences remain, and they are just as important today as they were at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. The following is brief summary of some of the more important differences:

One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the source of God’s special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “sola scriptura” and is one of the “five solas” (sola is Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation as summaries of some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

While there are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and its sufficiency for all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16, where we see that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc., have little or no basis in Scripture but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. Essentially, the Roman Catholic Church’s denial of sola scriptura and its insistence that both the Bible and tradition are equal in authority undermine the sufficiency, authority, and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many, if not all, of the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

yetseyi:


Hello, I am not really interested contributing to the discourse itself I was just reading through as usual and I saw these set of statements and I was . I couldnt just let it pass.I have not read the comments after this post yet.


Why shouldn't the scripture be the basis of every Christian conclusion , If its not biblical then its not right. In fact the holy spirit will NEVER contradict the bible and that's one way to be sure its the holy spirit that is speaking.

So Yes the bible should be the basis of everychristain conclusion .

At bold...because Jesus did not leave us any scripture as our basis of conclusion when he established the way.
...because it isn't in the scripture that only the scripture is our basis of conclusion
...because it actually contradicts scripture to claim that only the scripture is our basis of conclusion.
...because the scripture contains only a part of what is known as the Christian tradition, hence cannot be the basis for all conclusions.


Lastly, it's important to take note that those names mentioned by the OP are the Originators of "sola scriptura" ie they believed in only scripture as the basis of conclusion, yet they believe in the perpetual Viginity of Mary, this should make a humble person ask what he is missing, find out which scripture guides them, and not dismiss them all as not following scriptures.

God bless you.

Ubenedictus:
Actually d op made a fine point, nowhere is it written in scriptures that the bible should be the only basis for every christian conclusion. if u have such a passage provide it.

Syncan:

At bold...because Jesus did not leave us any scripture as our basis of conclusion when he established the way.
...because it isn't in the scripture that only the scripture is our basis of conclusion
...because it actually contradicts scripture to claim that only the scripture is our basis of conclusion.
...because the scripture contains only a part of what is known as the Christian tradition, hence cannot be the basis for all conclusions.
L

Ubenedictus post=51987568:
Actually d op made a fine point, nowhere is it written in scriptures that the bible should be the only basis for every christian conclusion. if u have such a passage provide it.

God bless you.

Seems there are other stuffs you guys refer to as scriptures apart from the bible but if not I just observed that the 3 of you are still using the scriptures as a reference in this discourse


I really can't believe what I am reading, The Bible cannot be used as the sole authority in faith conduct or our Christian life? traditions seem greater than the Bible? Issorait.

May the eyes of our understanding be enlightened Amen.

God bless you too.

yetseyi:


Seems there are other stuffs you guys refer to as scriptures apart from the bible but if not I just observed that the 3 of you are still using the scriptures as a reference in this discourse


I really can't believe what I am reading, The Bible cannot be used as the sole authority in faith conduct or our Christian life? traditions seem greater than the Bible? Issorait.

May the eyes of our understanding be enlightened Amen.

God bless you too.

No point being sentimental about it, I laid out points. Are they true or do you have any thing to counter them?

Syncan:



No point being sentimental about it, I laid out points. Are they true or do you have any thing to counter them?

Well they are not true and you didn't comment on my veiled question,
Are there other materials or books you classify as scriptures ?

yetseyi:


Well they are not true and you didn't comment on my veiled question,
Are there other materials or books you classify as scriptures ?

By scripture in this discuss, I understand we are talking about the books of the Bible. Isn't that what you also understand?

Now tell me why those my points are not true.

Hehe I came to read comments, I will speak when the time comes.

shadeyinka:


Interestingly I haven't used any Greek word.
Bearer and Mother aren't the same. It wasnt even supposed to be an insult to any denomination. It was just a presentation of facts.

There was a split within the church
The split was about the divinity of Mary

Mary is Pius but not Devine!


Modified:
Bearer of Christ versus Mother of God
I meant to say:
Instead of Bearer of God vs Mother of God
my error.

Me Apologizes!!

better to keep quite and allow people assume u are ignorant than to speak up and confirm it.
there is no split in d church based on any arguement about mary's divinity, it is heresy to ascribe divinity by nature to mary, anyone who does that is teaching heresy. the church never considered such an absurd idea.


now u can go and read up d nestorian heresy, d council chair by st cyril of alexadria on behalf of d pope. the topic was d nature of Jesus. read up council of ephesus nd chalcedon.

shadeyinka:


Supported only from the scriptures

Where does d bible say that scriptures is d sole authority on christain issue?

What scripture support that?

yetseyi:


Seems there are other stuffs you guys refer to as scriptures apart from the bible but if not I just observed that the 3 of you are still using the scriptures as a reference in this discourse

as 4 d discussion, scriptures refer to d bible.

I really can't believe what I am reading, The Bible cannot be used as the sole authority in faith conduct or our Christian life?

where is it taught dat d bible is d sole authority

traditions seem greater than the Bible? Issorait.

hope u are not trying to lie against sum1, who said this?

May the eyes of our understanding be enlightened Amen.

God bless you too.

amen

shadeyinka:


Perfectly said!
Joseph wasn't planning celibacy when he got Mary betrothed to him. Neither was Mary planning celebacy else, why get engaged to a man in the first place.

Mary wasn't even expecting to be the Mother of the Christ else she wouldn't have told the Angel "How can this be since I have not known a man?"

A lot of Catholics don't know that the first split within the Church centered on the issue of Marys eternal spiritual status "Mother of God!" versus "Bearer of God!"

To correct d record, d first major issue in d church were d judaizer, d 'law of moses keeper', it led to d council of jerusalem in act 15, after dat there were many minor heresies...d next major one is arianism and it spilt the church it was on d nature of Christ, it lead to d council of nicea.

Ubenedictus:
better to keep quite and allow people assume u are ignorant than to speak up and confirm it.
there is no split in d church based on any arguement about mary's divinity, it is heresy to ascribe divinity by nature to mary, anyone who does that is teaching heresy. the church never considered such an absurd idea.


now u can go and read up d nestorian heresy, d council chair by st cyril of alexadria on behalf of d pope. the topic was d nature of Jesus. read up council of ephesus nd chalcedon.

I wonder why this your statements are full of self. Since you know all, speakup.

Under what conditions should traditions replace the scriptures.

Just these 3 in one question?
Is Peter the first Pope?
If he is, why is he Married?
Shouldn't Popes be celebrate?


If you answer these three questions satisfactorily, then, you would have convinced me beyond all doubt that we can follow traditions as Authorities just like the Scriptures.

Other than that, you are just speaking from sentiments

Ubenedictus:
Where does d bible say that scriptures is d sole authority on christain issue?

What scripture support that?

Kindly furnish me with other recognized authorities and criteria for accepting them as representing scriptural truths?

Ubenedictus:
To correct d record, d first major issue in d church were d judaizer, d 'law of moses keeper', it led to d council of jerusalem in act 15, after dat there were many minor heresies...d next major one is arianism and it spilt the church it was on d nature of Christ, it lead to d council of nicea.

"Major" is relative isn't it?
You will note that the church didn't split because of most of what you stated as "major issues".

Ubenedictus:
Where does d bible say that scriptures is d sole authority on christain issue?

What scripture support that?

1cor 4:6

JMAN05:


1cor 4:6

Really

Are you saying that you understood, what Paul wrote in 1cor 4:6 as a contradiction and nullification of, what he wrote in 2 Thess 2:15?

shadeyinka:


I wonder why this your statements are full of self. Since you know all, speakup.

Under what conditions should traditions replace the scriptures.

Just these 3 in one question?
Is Peter the first Pope?
If he is, why is he Married?
Shouldn't Popes be celebrate?


If you answer these three questions satisfactorily, then, you would have convinced me beyond all doubt that we can follow traditions as Authorities just like the Scriptures.

Other than that, you are just speaking from sentiments

it was never stated that peter had a wife....only mother-in-law...

My brothers wife's mother is still my mother -in-law right?

MrMontella:

it was never stated that peter had a wife....only mother-in-law...

My brothers wife's mother is still my mother -in-law right?

You know that that is very wrong!
Yes, Peter has a mother in-law which implies that hebhas a wife. I have never heard a person call the in-law of ones brother mother in-law. Its an over stretch of basic logic.

Let me clear this with another scripture:

1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

I believe this has made it plane. And that is why traditions should not override the scriptures. Traditions could have been embellished along the line.

With love. Shalom

Please tell us the people you know that knew Christ first-hand and their testimony about His mother. FMary it is fruitless to argue with protestants they are always right. Most here don't even know the people you listed yet follow their teachings.
There are over a billion Roman Catholics and over 600million Orthodox Christians and these are well over 2000 years old and they believe in the perpetual virginity of the Holy Theotokos including many Anglicans. Who told you the Virgin Mary had other children and why should we listen to you when you don't even know about these people mentioned in the original post?
Stick to what works for you and don't try to teach someone when you don't know your church, protestant, bible or chritianity's history yourself.

shadeyinka:


All Human beings are fallible including the early protestant church fathers. My source is the Scriptures and testimonies from those who knew Jesus firsthand.

Other than this, one can always find people who could even say that Jesus was married and had one daughter.

So, my Bro, let's use the scriptures as the basis of our conclusions.