₦airaland Forum

vooks:
What has the gate got to do with Mary?

You have a habit of ill-thought half-baked asinine arguments you never follow through.
On Revelation 12, you abandon the debate halfway after your illogic was outed, you are busy doing the same here.

I have lost interest in whether the gate is shut or not because this has nothing to do with Mary

Why the back and fort sef. I thought he mentioned earlier that this gate represents Mary.
In Jewish tradition, any sanctified object may not be used for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was sanctified. There are a number of physical objects that would certainly fall under this tradition. The Ark of the Covenant is a good example. In fact, the solemnity of this tradition is witnessed to when Uzzah accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant. He was struck dead by God(2 Samuel 6:6-7)
If it is inconceivable to even suggest that the Ark would be used for something other than carrying Gods covenant, then why does not the same logic not also apply to Mary the Mother of the New Covenant? Why do you reject such a clear biblical analogy as what would regard as more holy that which carried elements which God had sanctified or that which had carried God himself (the source of all holiness)?

Ichiato:
Why the back and fort sef.

Because he is not making sense

I thought he mentioned earlier that this gate represents Mary.

I thought I saw that too. Question is why...WHY the gate?
Answer is simple; circular reasoning. 'The gate represents Mary because Mary represents the gate'

In Jewish tradition, any sanctified object may not be used for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was sanctified. There are a number of physical objects that would certainly fall under this tradition. The Ark of the Covenant is a good example. In fact, the solemnity of this tradition is witnessed to when Uzzah accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant. He was struck dead by God(2 Samuel 6:6-7)

What makes you imagine that Mary was 'sanctified' in any way?

If it is inconceivable to even suggest that the Ark would be used for something other than carrying Gods covenant, then why does not the same logic not also apply to Mary the Mother of the New Covenant?

Because we are not told Mary was 'sanctified' in the first place, nor whether her superhuman 'sanctity' was necessary for her to be Jesus' mother.

The fact that scriptures only speak of one man being without sin (Jesus Christ) is sufficient to rule out claims that long before Jesus happened, a woman was sinless


And it is blasphemous to call Mary the 'mother of the New Covenant'. Desist from blasphemy you foul mouthed Satanist!

Why do you reject such a clear biblical analogy as what would regard as more holy that which carried elements which God had sanctified or that which had carried God himself (the source of all holiness)?

Because such analogies are stupid. You'd need proof Mary was sinless first and also proof that this was a condition for Jesus to be born.

Let me pick your brains
I have heard Catholics Satanists claim that Mary had to be sinless to GUARANTEE Jesus' sinlessness. How did Mary acquire her own sinlessness unless she had been born of equally sinlessness parents....this goes on and on until you create a clear chain of sinless humans who descended from equally sinless humans!

To circumvent this, it is claimed that God somewhat purified Mary of her sins supernaturally despite her being born of sinners.

If Mary could survive sin infection despite being born of sinners, why do you demand that Jesus' mother be sinless to guarantee Jesus' sinlessness?


Cc Syncan,brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukasBlog,dmandy,italo

dmandy:
I understand very well and I also understand that you believe the vooks wholeheartedly. But I actually believe yourself, Can you honestly answer me based on what you wrote up there?

1. Is Jesus the biological son of a carpenter?

2. Is Apostle James a biological brother of Jesus?

3. Do you really believe that all the apostles of Jesus got married?

4 Finally, You acknowledged that Mary was simply used by God to bring forth his son, would it be wrong to believe that God brought Jesus into the world through Mary?

Now, I believe you know the meaning of a gate.

Hullop Hullop

1. Jesus is a member of the Godhead and not of Joseph's seed .

2. He came forth from the same womb as Jesus . So yes they are brothers in the common sense of it , overlooking the spiritual nitty-gritty of this matter .

3. Well they are martyrs . And Paul wrote about marriage possibly from his experience as a married man so ... I cant say . I haven't even thought of it till now

4. I dont see a difference .

Apparently there is very little evidence of your claim of the perpetual virginity of Mary . Oh do you wish to school me on that ? I'm all eyes

vooks:
Let me pick your brains
I have heard Catholics Satanists claim that Mary had to be sinless to GUARANTEE Jesus' sinlessness. How did Mary acquire her own sinlessness unless she had been born of equally sinlessness parents....this goes on and on until you create a clear chain of sinless humans who descended from equally sinless humans!

To circumvent this, it is claimed that God somewhat purified Mary of her sins supernaturally despite her being born of sinners.

If Mary could survive sin infection despite being born of sinners, why do you demand that Jesus' mother be sinless to guarantee Jesus' sinlessness?
Cc Syncan,brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukasBlog,dmandy,italo

Sir ,

Luke 1:28
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

I strongly believe that Mary was predestined to give birth to Jesus and everything about her aligns with the prophecies of the Old Testament prophecies - birthplace , native land - as she was betrothed to Joseph

"O Favored One " - that sounds that fore chosen one to me .

Mary was with sin according to

Ecclesiastes 7:20
20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

If Mary was sanctified spiritually then there was no need for Jesus to die since she has undergone an anomaly and that should be done for anyone who is of good nature .

Jesus died for every one's sin INCLUDING his mum's and his dad's . Being a mother of Jesus is not an automatic qualification for heaven because Jesus died and resurrected before her very eyes . She had to go through the process as everyone of us - accepting Jesus as her Lord an Saviour - in order to qualify for Heaven .

Ichiato

You call yourself a Christian, and you are asking me how to teach?
Once you work out which doctrine you truly believe in-then you will know how to preach which doctrine clearly.
Revelation 3:15 "I know your deeds; you are neither cold or hot, how I wish you were one or the other.
You have showing us the evidence, time and time out, the Catholic Church is lukewarm-it is the Church who follows after another doctrine, mixing your doctrine with the doctrine of Christ.

dmandy:
You did not point out where I insulted you and rejected the word of God.

So how did the lord ask you to teach? Use an example of the trinity dogma, at least I know you believe that one.

brocab:
The problem is, you Catholic's and we born again's, see the bible differently, so what you see-doesn't mean we will see what you have seen, either way.
You may not accept what I am about to say-but the truth is, as a born again, not only do we learn about the scriptures-but we are taught the scriptures by the Holy Spirit, every time we are seeking His word.
So I don't know about you bro, until you become a born again-you won't see the kingdom of God-Jesus told Nicodemus one must be born again before he can enter in to the kingdom of God. And theirs no lie FOUND in the Lord.
Mary can't save you, Mary can't pray for you neither, Mary can't take you to heaven.
Mary can't deliver new souls to Christ. Her Spirit is with the Lord. Her flesh is in the ground.
St Paul is like us-he wasn't talking about his kind, he was talking about your kind refusing to believe.

brocab, long time. I am not going to go into back and forth journey with you, we've had our own fair share on this topic. However, Just from your post alone kindly contemplate the following:

If we are "Catholics" and you "born agains", what were the Christians that laid down their lives during the martyrdom of Rome, what were the Christians who compiled and cannonised the books of the bible, what were the Christians who spread the word of God to all parts of the earth, baptizing them and bringing them to Christ until the 16th Century of the protestants?

If you "born agains" are taught by the Holy Spirit, why are there so many teachings on same issues, why are there so much contradictory interpretations, which can only come from the author of confusion, why does one "born again" demand the wearing of apron and the other "born again"ask people to eat grass?

I agree with scripture when it says to enter the kingdom of God, one must be "born again". But how you became the judge of who is born again is what baffles me.

You say Mary can't do all those, and I say you don't know what you're talking about.

St. Paul's writing is clear, by their fruits we shall know them. Matt.7:16.

KingEbukaNaija:
Sir ,

Luke 1:28
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

I strongly believe that Mary was predestined to give birth to Jesus and everything about her aligns with the prophecies of the Old Testament prophecies - birthplace , native land - as she was betrothed to Joseph

"O Favored One " - that sounds that fore chosen one to me .

Mary was with sin according to

Ecclesiastes 7:20
20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

If Mary was sanctified spiritually then there was no need for Jesus to die since she has undergone an anomaly and that should be done for anyone who is of good nature .

Jesus died for every one's sin INCLUDING his mum's and his dad's . Being a mother of Jesus is not an automatic qualification for heaven because Jesus died and resurrected before her very eyes . She had to go through the process as everyone of us - accepting Jesus as her Lord an Saviour - in order to qualify for Heaven .

Thank you sir,
Being chosen/favored can be said of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, I wonder why they never attempt to push sinlessness for these two as well.

vooks:
Thank you sir,
Being chosen/favored can be said of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, I wonder why they never attempt to push sinlessness for these two as well.

To support their catholic beliefs of course

vooks:
Because he is not making sense

He isn't making sense to you cos you have choosen to shut your eyes.

I thought I saw that too. Question is why...WHY the gate?
Answer is simple; circular reasoning. 'The gate represents Mary because Mary represents the gate'

Who gave you this answer? Let me state that mary does not just represent the gate but that which the gate leads into. The temple we know is the dwelling place of the Lord as stated in the bible. Tje bible also stated that the Lord dwelled in Mary.

What makes you imagine that Mary was 'sanctified' in any way?


Because we are not told Mary was 'sanctified' in the first place, nor whether her superhuman 'sanctity' was necessary for her to be Jesus' mother.

Luke 1:28 tells us of Mary's sanctity even before she conceived Jesus. The fact that you need proof of Mary's sanctity is quite telling on the god you claim to worship. Can your God dwell in a place which is not sanctified? Or maybe you need to check what it means to be sanct.

The fact that scriptures only speak of one man being without sin (Jesus Christ) is sufficient to rule out claims that long before Jesus happened, a woman was sinless


And it is blasphemous to call Mary the 'mother of the New Covenant'. Desist from blasphemy you foul mouthed Satanist!

Because such analogies are stupid. You'd need proof Mary was sinless first and also proof that this was a condition for Jesus to be born.

can you desist from the name calling? It only shows how shallow you are. Forcus on the discuss and not my person.

Let me pick your brains
I have heard Catholics Satanists claim that Mary had to be sinless to GUARANTEE Jesus' sinlessness. How did Mary acquire her own sinlessness unless she had been born of equally sinlessness parents....this goes on and on until you create a clear chain of sinless humans who descended from equally sinless humans!

To circumvent this, it is claimed that God somewhat purified Mary of her sins supernaturally despite her being born of sinners.

If Mary could survive sin infection despite being born of sinners, why do you demand that Jesus' mother be sinless to guarantee Jesus' sinlessness?


Cc Syncan,brocab,Ayoku777,KingEbukasBlog,dmandy,italo

Why not lets discuss Mary's perpetual virginity first before moving to her immaculate conception. Let's not jump the gun here. May I ask why you are so sure Mary indeed had children after Jesus Christ?

And Paul is right by their fruits we do know them.
And I do know what I am talking about, Mary can't help you-only Jesus can-Mary can't take you into heaven-only Jesus can-Mary can't lay her hands on anybody for healing-only Jesus can, she can't rise the dead-only Jesus can, she isn't your co-mediator, Jesus is your mediator, she isn't your co-redeemer, Jesus is your redeemer. In the name of Jesus be healed. Amen.
Are you asking-or are you demanding?
Why don't you answer your questions? but this time tell it, as the bible had written it.
People like yourself, can only find mean less arguments, you talk about us Christians knocking your Church-and yet you go on a large mocking spree against us.
If you were a born again Christian, you wouldn't mix your doctrine together with the lords doctrine, this is how I know you aren't a born again Christian.
I have a question for you? why do you preach two different doctrines?
Don't you like the word of God, that you have to mix His words with yours?
I can only say-if people are listening, to preachers who are telling people to wear aprons or eating grass-what ever, then all I can say is, with the experiences I have with the lord, I know these people are not listening to God-but rather they have chosen to listen to man.
Like you when you produce two different doctrines.
You should look at your own Church, and find the many faults your Church believe in, lets start of, with the sexual abuse against children.
Was the Catholic Church listening to God-or were they listening to man?

Syncan:
brocab, long time. I am not going to go into back and forth journey with you, we've had our own fair share on this topic. However, Just from your post alone kindly contemplate the following:

If we are "Catholics" and you "born agains", what were the Christians that laid down their lives during the martyrdom of Rome, what were the Christians who compiled and cannonised the books of the bible, what were the Christians who spread the word of God to all parts of the earth, baptizing them and bringing them to Christ until the 16th Century of the protestants?

If you "born agains" are taught by the Holy Spirit, why are there so many teachings on same issues, why are there so much contradictory interpretations, which can only come from the author of confusion, why does one "born again" demand the wearing of apron and the other "born again"ask people to eat grass?

I agree with scripture when it says to enter the kingdom of God, one must be "born again". But how you became the judge of who is born again is what baffles me.

You say Mary can't do all those, and I say you don't know what you're talking about.

St. Paul's writing is clear, by their fruits we shall know them. Matt.7:16.

Ichiato:
He isn't making sense to you cos you have choosen to shut your eyes.

There is NOTHING to see my broda, what difference does it make shutting your eyes or opening them in pitch darkness?

Who gave you this answer? Let me state that mary does not just represent the gate but that which the gate leads into. The temple we know is the dwelling place of the Lord as stated in the bible. Tje bible also stated that the Lord dwelled in Mary.

Mary is now the Temple?

You recall there were men actively working within the temple?

Luke 1:28 tells us of Mary's sanctity even before she conceived Jesus. The fact that you need proof of Mary's sanctity is quite telling on the god you claim to worship. Can your God dwell in a place which is not sanctified? Or maybe you need to check what it means to be sanct.

Which part of Luke 1:28 points to sinlessness?
Luke 1:28 (ESV)
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Jeremiah and John the Baptist were also sanctified before they were born. Does this make them sinless?

Holy Spirit has concluded ALL as sinners...all barring Jesus Christ. Since Mary is not Jesus, she had sin.

can you desist from the name calling? It only shows how shallow you are. Forcus on the discuss and not my person.

Why are you denying your father(of all lies)?

Why not lets discuss Mary's perpetual virginity first before moving to her immaculate conception. Let's not jump the gun here. May I ask why you are so sure Mary indeed had children after Jesus Christ?

That's what we have been doing and so far there is ZERO proof of perpetual virginity in the scriptures.

She had kids because the bible says so, because she had just been betrothed and this is expected of marriage. Who marries a woman just to retain her a virgin?
Before you flip this on me, it you Catholics Satanists who need to back up your claims. The one who makes a claim has to prove them and not demand we disprove them. If there is no evidence for your claims, then don't make them

KingEbukaNaija:
Hullop Hullop

1. Jesus is a member of the Godhead and not of Joseph's seed .

2. He came forth from the same womb as Jesus . So yes they are brothers in the common sense of it , overlooking the spiritual nitty-gritty of this matter .

3. Well they are martyrs . And Paul wrote about marriage possibly from his experience as a married man so ... I cant say . I haven't even thought of it till now

4. I dont see a difference .

Apparently there is very little evidence of your claim of the perpetual virginity of Mary . Oh do you wish to school me on that ? I'm all eyes

Any proof Of number 2? If yes, please show me

Ichiato:
Any proof Of number 2? If yes, please show me

We need you to prove these
1. Mary was sinless
2. Mary was a perpetual virgin


disproving #2 does not help with any of these Catholicism claims.

Ichiato:
Any proof Of number 2? If yes, please show me

I've already mentioned it on this thread . You can search for it on this page or the one before it - cant exceed that

vooks:
There is NOTHING to see my broda, what difference does it make shutting your eyes or opening them in pitch darkness?

what else can a blind man see? Nothing.

Mary is now the Temple?

I'm surprised this is all you have to say about the post you quoted. You dodged the question. She has always been the temple. You were too blind to see.

Which part of Luke 1:28 points to sinlessness?
Luke 1:28 (ESV)
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Jeremiah and John the Baptist were also sanctified before they were born. Does this make them sinless?

I would like to think you meant Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified after they were born and not before. That infact is besides the point. I wasn't pointing to Luke1:28 as proof of Mary's sinlessness. But to the fact that she was sanctified to carry our Lord who is the new covenant. And as with past covenant that with houses the covenant are not used for any other purpose other than housing the covenant. I gave an example of Uzzah in my past post. Am not talking of Mary's immaculate conception, at least not yet. You're trying to drag this discussion somewhere else without concluding the one at hand.

That's what we have been doing and so far there is ZERO proof of perpetual virginity in the scriptures.

so says the blind man

She had kids because the bible says so, because she had just been betrothed and this is expected of marriage. Who marries a woman just to retain her a virgin?

If one who is married is expected to have kids, why would they wait after the birth of Christ to even try?

Before you flip this on me, it you Catholics who need to back up your claims. The one who makes a claim has to prove them and not demand we disprove them. If there is no evidence for your claims, then don't make them

aren't you also making a claim that Mary did give birth to other children besides Jesus? Just like me are you not expected to prove this?

vooks:
We need you to prove these
1. Mary was sinless
2. Mary was a perpetual virgin


disproving #2 does not help with any of these Catholicism claims.

Wow classic. But disproving the catholic claim helps with your own claims?? Nice try.

KingEbukaNaija:
I've already mentioned it on this thread . You can search for it on this page or the one before it - cant exceed that

can you quote me with it?

Ichiato:
Wow classic. But disproving the catholic claim helps with your own claims?? Nice try.

You claim Mary was sinless, scriptures tell us only Jesus is sinless
You claim Mary was a perpetual virgin. This means no sex with her husband of at least 12 years. This is a devotion from the norm that begs for evidence.

My claim is simple; all your core claims/beliefs are unscriptural and baseless

Ichiato:
what else can a blind man see? Nothing.

I'm surprised this is all you have to say about the post you quoted. You dodged the question. She has always been the temple. You were too blind to see.

You are digressing.

I would like to think you meant Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified after they were born and not before. That infact is besides the point. I wasn't pointing to Luke1:28 as proof of Mary's sinlessness. But to the fact that she was sanctified to carry our Lord who is the new covenant. And as with past covenant that with houses the covenant are not used for any other purpose other than housing the covenant. I gave an example of Uzzah in my past post. Am not talking of Mary's immaculate conception, at least not yet. You're trying to drag this discussion somewhere else without concluding the one at hand.

The question is what 'sanctified' has to do with sinlessness. Why quote it?
It says she is HIGHLY FAVORED not sanctified. At this point I wish to ask you what 'sanctified' means

If one who is married is expected to have kids, why would they wait after the birth of Christ to even try?

Don't be an idiot, would you keep trying to have other kids with your pregnant wife?

aren't you also making a claim that Mary did give birth to other children besides Jesus? Just like me are you not expected to prove this?

Because we have children called Mary's

Syncan:
vooks asked a question thus: "And why can't the rest of her offsprings be natural? Any scripture to support this?" For which I answered using scriptures Ezekiel 44:2. "Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut". May the Lord grant us understanding.
Note that no where did I answer on Perpetual Virginity of Mary, for I gave it to him as an assignment here https://www.nairaland.com/2761616/does-adeboye-now-believe-canonization/9#41281008.

Yet for this scriptural response of mine, he has followed up with the following :












1Tim.6:4 "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself".

St. Paul says it all.

what one gets when he discusses with the protestants: insults.

Ubenedictus:
what one gets when he discusses with the protestants: insults.

What one gets when he discusses with Catholics Satanists; dithering

vooks:
You claim Mary was sinless, scriptures tell us only Jesus is sinless

No where on this thread have I claimed Mary was sinless. You brought it up and I told you to drop that for now and focus on her perpetual virginity.

You claim Mary was a perpetual virgin. This means no sex with her husband of at least 12 years. This is a devotion from the norm that begs for evidence.

deviation from the norm? I believe the blow was bro syncan's quote of what you protestants held to be the norm

Syncan:
I am glad you praise the "gallant reformers", it means you hold their teachings as true. Permit me to notify you about their thoughts on Mary's perpetual Virginity.

John Wesley, in 1749-----"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Letter to a Roman Catholic)

Huldrych Zwingli-----"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)

Martin Luther-----"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)


Martin Luther-----"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)


Maybe the onus lies on you now, to find out why your champions, who are sola scriptura chanters, still proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then you ask yourself, when your pastor and you stopped proclaiming it and why.

Even you have deviated from those who deviated.

My claim is simple; all your core claims/beliefs are unscriptural and baseless

Isn't this funny? You're the one claiming your claims are simple. I have been quoting bible passages to support my claim and you have quoted none to support your claim. Yet somehow it is mine that is baseless and unscriptural.

Ichiato:
No where on this thread have I claimed Mary was sinless. You brought it up and I told you to drop that for now and focus on her perpetual virginity.deviation from the norm? I believe the blow was bro syncan's quote of what you protestants held to be the norm Even you have deviated from those who deviated.
Isn't this funny? You're the one claiming your claims are simple. I have been quoting bible passages to support my claim and you have quoted none to support your claim. Yet somehow it is mine that is baseless and unscriptural.

There is no such thing as perpetual virginity of Mary . Its a Catholic doctrine which is bereft of any biblical support

brocab:
And Paul is right by their fruits we do know them.
And I do know what I am talking about, Mary can't help you-only Jesus can-Mary can't take you into heaven-only Jesus can-Mary can't lay her hands on anybody for healing-only Jesus can, she can't rise the dead-only Jesus can, she isn't your co-mediator, Jesus is your mediator, she isn't your co-redeemer, Jesus is your redeemer. In the name of Jesus be healed. Amen.
Are you asking-or are you demanding?
Why don't you answer your questions? but this time tell it, as the bible had written it.
People like yourself, can only find mean less arguments, you talk about us Christians knocking your Church-and yet you go on a large mocking spree against us.
If you were a born again Christian, you wouldn't mix your doctrine together with the lords doctrine, this is how I know you aren't a born again Christian.
I have a question for you? why do you preach two different doctrines?
Don't you like the word of God, that you have to mix His words with yours?
I can only say-if people are listening, to preachers who are telling people to wear aprons or eating grass-what ever, then all I can say is, with the experiences I have with the lord, I know these people are not listening to God-but rather they have chosen to listen to man.
Like you when you produce two different doctrines.
You should look at your own Church, and find the many faults your Church believe in, lets start of, with the sexual abuse against children.
Was the Catholic Church listening to God-or were they listening to man?

Our Jesus and His Mother Mary are not in any competition. There's nothing like "people like you", My teachings are the teachings of the one Holy Catholic Church. The same one whose princes and theologians Compiled and Canonized the Bible, the one whose glorious sons and daughters shed their blood through out the persecution of the early heathens of Roman Empire and the Bavarian (you may google catacombs). The one voice that continues to defend morality in our modern times. The one whose adherence to Christ words of "love thy neighbor" makes her the greatest charitable organisation the world has ever witnessed. The one Church whose teachings and indeed acts are not based on one man's dreams, another's lascivious desires nor someone's greed. The greatest spreader of the good news to the world through out history, conquering heathen territories, converting nations, and winning souls for Christ. The church that has withstood the gates of hell for about two thousand (2000) years and still stands as promised in Matt.16:18. The Church that is proud of and exalts her Children who are saints , yet is not afraid to acknowledge, instruct, love and pray for her children who are sinners. That's the church we're talking about, the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Tim.3:15. Praise God!


Now you condemn other "born again" as following the words of man, while you are the one with enough experience to follow God's word, yet you called all of you "born again" earlier. Confusion! What makes you more born again than them? Why do you think the "born again" who observes Sabbath day as Saturday is following the words of man as against the one who observes Sunday, one says masturbation is not sin and another says it's sin, yet they are both "born again" led by the "spirit". One says women should not preach in churches, the other says women should preach, yet it all comes from the "spirit". Think brocab, think. One fold, One shepherd, One faith, One baptism, one one one! That's the way of our God, not this Chaos in Protestantism.

vooks:
You are digressing.


The question is what 'sanctified' has to do with sinlessness. Why quote it?
It says she is HIGHLY FAVORED not sanctified. At this point I wish to ask you what 'sanctified' means

She is highly favoured for what? To carry a new covenant? Is this new covenant holy? Can an unholy vessel carry within it that which is unholy? Was the old covenant considered holy in the bible? The ark which carried the old covenant, was it also considered holy? Why is Mary different from the ark of the old covenant?

Don't be an idiot, would you keep trying to have other kids with your pregnant wife?

The only idiot here is you. Does been espoused translate to been pregnant? Why did she keep her virginity till was pregnant. Why would a girl who was already betrothed be surprised she was to conceive in future?

Because we have children called Mary's

where or when was any child besides Jesus called Mary's?

KingEbukaNaija:
There is no such thing as perpetual virginity of Mary . Its a Catholic doctrine which is bereft of any biblical support

If you cant quote me with proof of your claim. Don't quote me with inconsequentialities.thanks

Ichiato:
If you cant quote me with proof of your claim. Don't quote me with inconsequentialities.thanks

check your mentions VERY WELL

Ubenedictus:
what one gets when he discusses with the protestants: insults.

Shameful I must say. However, Christ our Lord bore more for us without retaliation 1Pet.2:23, that's why we keep coming back.


Peace be with you.

Ichiato:
She is highly favoured for what? To carry a new covenant? Is this new covenant holy? Can an unholy vessel carry within it that which is unholy? Was the old covenant considered holy in the bible? The ark which carried the old covenant, was it also considered holy? Why is Mary different from the ark of the old covenant?

M0ron,
Whatever favored means, only Jesus is said to be sinless. So while we may debate the meaning of 'highly favored, we can certainly rule out sinlessness.

The only idiot here is you. Does been espoused translate to been pregnant?
Why did she keep her virginity till was pregnant. Why would a girl who was already betrothed be surprised she was to conceive in future?
where or when was any child besides Jesus called Mary's?

Because betrothal does not mean sex you silly Neanderthal. Do you know anything about Jewish marriages? Do you know what is Betrothal?

Ichiato:
No where on this thread have I claimed Mary was sinless.

Was Mary sinless?

You brought it up and I told you to drop that for now and focus on her perpetual virginity.

Where is proof of Mary's perpetual Virginity? If Syncan,Ubenedictus,dmandy and all other Satanist ret@rds have not adduced ANY evidence to this effect, when will you bring it?

deviation from the norm? I believe the blow was bro syncan's quote of what you protestants held to be the norm Even you have deviated from those who deviated.

Are you a m0ron?
We are discussing proof for Mary's perpetual virginity and the ONLY evidence you have are others who thought or taught thus?

Isn't this funny? You're the one claiming your claims are simple. I have been quoting bible passages to support my claim and you have quoted none to support your claim. Yet somehow it is mine that is baseless and unscriptural.

Which scriptures have you quoted teaching Mary's perpetual virginity because I missed it?

Syncan:
Shameful I must say. However, Christ our Lord bore more for us without retaliation 1Pet.2:23, that's why we keep coming back.


Peace be with you.

Nothing is shameful than departing from the truth and following doctrines of Devils and seducing spirits

1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

Syncan,ichiato,italo,dmandy and all other Satanists,
The temple had two gates, North and South through which men could get INTO and OUT of the Temple.

Please walk me through what these are seeing Mary is the temple and the shut East gate is Mary or one of her orifice

Ezekiel 46:9 (KJV)
But when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the solemn feasts, he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to worship shall go out by the way of the south gate; and he that entereth by the way of the south gate shall go forth by the way of the north gate: he shall not return by the way of the gate whereby he came in, but shall go forth over against it.

Cc KingEbukaNaija,brocab