I just read Luke's gospel and can't believe the perpetual virginity is defended

[Anonymous No.19429398]

Luke refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn" (2:7), even though elsewhere he uses a different term for "only born" (7:12, 9:38). Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary's perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that's consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel?

Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between "brothers" and "relatives" in 21:16 if there's no significant difference between the two? In the same way, why does Hegesippus refer to Symeon as Jesus' "cousin" (in Eusebius, Church History, 4:22:4), yet refer to James as Jesus' "brother" (ibid., 2:23:4) and Jude as Jesus' "brother according to the flesh" (ibid., 3:20:1)? We see this over and over again with the earliest sources. They not only use language that seems to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but even use different language elsewhere that's consistent with perpetual virginity, which they could have used in the passages relevant to Mary

[Anonymous No.19429405]

>>19429398
Isn't this explained through people saying Joseph having previous wives?

[Anonymous No.19429413]

>>19429405
To reconcile the passage with perpetual virginity, I think we'd have to take a few problematic steps. We'd have to assume a prior marriage of Joseph, which would be an unusual scenario and one not implied by the text. Second, if the relatives of Jesus in question were regarded as "brothers" without further qualification, the most natural way to take that term is as a reference to individuals with a biological relationship with both Joseph and Mary. If the individuals were all older than Jesus and older than Joseph's marriage to Mary, having been born during a former marriage, it's highly doubtful that they'd all be mistaken for biological offspring of Joseph and Mary. Third, we'd have to assume that Hippolytus failed to mention the first wife of Joseph (by description or name), even though mentioning her would have strengthened his point (by putting even more distance between Jesus and the brothers).

[Anonymous No.19429423]

>>19429405
It's subject to some of the same criticisms as the view that the brothers were cousins or some other more distant type of relative (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, the term "brother" more often refers to biological siblings, etc.). Another problem with the view is the absence of the siblings in the infancy narratives.

It's often claimed that the infancy narratives are meant to parallel Jesus to Old Testament figures. Yet, two of the most significant figures Jesus allegedly is being paralleled to in the New Testament, Moses and David, had older siblings who played a large role in their lives. Moses' older sister even has a prominent role in the Exodus account of Moses' birth. If Matthew and Luke (and other sources) were paralleling Jesus to figures like Moses and David, it would have been in their interest to have mentioned older siblings. Instead, both infancy narratives imply that Mary gave birth to more children (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7), and both leave out any reference to older siblings when the family and their moving from one location to another are described (e.g., "take the child and his mother" in Matthew 2:13).

Any argument that the siblings were old enough at the time to be living apart from Joseph and Mary would run into the problem of offering a weaker explanation for how long the brothers of Jesus lived and were highly active (e.g., 1 Corinthians 9:5, James' death by martyrdom in the 60s while serving as a leader of the Jerusalem church and one of the most prominent apostles). Maybe Jesus' brothers lived unusually long and were highly active at such an old age. But the alternative view that they were younger siblings of Jesus offers a better explanation of the evidence. It's yet another example of how upholding Mary's perpetual virginity requires us to adopt less likely explanations of the evidence on issue after issue after issue.

[Anonymous No.19429425]

why do catholics get so assmad when mary isnt a virgin

mary is just some broad, jesus is the significant one, what makes mary so special, shes just a vessel

[Anonymous No.19429430]

>>19429413
You make good points, but I don't think Joseph having previous wives is any less likely than what you say. And if you're a true Christian you takes Mary's perpetual virginity for granted, then it's the logical solution.

[Anonymous No.19429438]

>>19429425
Mary is a symbol of purity you pleb. There's no such thing as 'just' being a vessel, especially for the son of God.

[Anonymous No.19429453]

>>19429438
in the context of Jesus the unique perfect man, the son of God there is only Jesus and other, flawed people. this second category includes Mary. In this sense she is a mere vessel for the Christ

[Anonymous No.19429454]

>>19429430
We should keep in mind that a variety of terms are relevant to this discussion (why "firstborn" was used, why "cousin" wasn't used, why "relative" wasn't used, etc.). It's not as if Catholics only have to explain why they're defending the use of one or two less natural interpretations. Rather, they have to explain why they're supporting a view that involves multiple Biblical authors intending multiple less natural readings of multiple phrases when they had multiple other phrases available to them that they could have used instead and do use in other passages. The concept that multiple Biblical authors believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet never explicitly expressed that belief and instead repeatedly chose terminology pointing in the opposite direction while rejecting other terminology they could have used and do use elsewhere, terminology that would have been more supportive of the perpetual virginity concept, is dubious.

[Anonymous No.19429476]

Wow. Catholics btfo. I truly don't see how they could ever recover from this. This is a well thought out, airtight destruction of the perpetual virginity. Brb becoming a Protestant.

[Anonymous No.19429481]

>>19429398
>Luke refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn
When you have your first child, it’s your firstborn. That doesn’t imply you will necessarily have more children. I’m an only child, and thus still my mother’s firstborn. Simple as. Anti-Christian debunk attempts are always so desperate

[Anonymous No.19429488]

>>19429481
not OP but please engage with the literal 4 other posts that address that. don't be lazy, anon. Your little knee jerk apologetic only makes your side look weak. It doesn't convince anyone. Remember catholics are rapidly losing members because of weak garbage like this.

[Anonymous No.19429492]

>>19429481
>doesn't read any posts in the thread
>calls others desperate
Pic related. This is your fault.

[Anonymous No.19429510]

>>19429488
>catholics are rapidly losing members because of weak garbage like this.
That's an incredibly optimistic view of why religion is dying

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.19429512]

>>19429398
>Luke refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn" (2:7)[...]

«FIRSTBORN», IN THE SENSE OF: «THE PRINCIPAL ONE WHO WAS BORN OF HER» —ID EST: «PRIMVS GENITVS»/«PRIMOGENITVS»—; THE CONCEPT DOES NOT TRANSLATE WELL INTO ENGLISH BABBLE.


>Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between "brothers" and "relatives" in 21:16 if there's no significant difference between the two? In the same way[...]

«BROTHERS»: SONS OF THE SAME MOTHER, AND FIRST COUSINS; «COUSINS»: COUSINS, TWICE, THRICE, REMOVED —OR MORE—; «RELATIVES» DISTANT FAMILY MEMBERS.


THE FACT THAT HERETICS THEMSELVES ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR PERSISTENT, MORBID, SUPERCASUISTIC SPITE AGAINST THE MOTHER OF GOD, IS EVIDENCE, BY ITSELF, OF THEIR BLIND CALLOUSNESS.

[Anonymous No.19429514]

>>19429453
>Jesus the unique perfect man
*God

>mere vessel for the Christ
*Mother of God

>this second category includes Mary
No, because God choose her

You are either protestant, gay or an atheist

[Anonymous No.19429516]

>>19429510
Its not all religion. Just your shitty false one.

[Anonymous No.19429519]

>>19429512
Wow dude epic you posted like a schizo and specifically didn't refute anything in the thread. Instead you pasted reheated versions of the exact thing the op addressed and debunked from square one.

[Anonymous No.19429559]

>>19429516
That's a bullshit graph in the sense that it accpunts for switching faiths. All of Christianity is dying, post stats on % of atheists. Stop doing this shit where you post whatever infograph makes you look like you have a point, it's slimy as fuck. Also I'm not even arguing pro Catholicism so stop grinding that axe.

[Anonymous No.19429571]

>>19429559
Hey its that "I'm not even catholic I just constantly shit up the board with pro catholic posts" narcissist. Neat. Also, dilate.

[Anonymous No.19429580]

>>19429559
>yeah well your data proves your point so that means its wrong because I assert so
Holy shit kys, its pew research you faggot

[Anonymous No.19429585]

>>19429571
What a baby you are. How do you live just incoherently lashing out like a sperg?

[Anonymous No.19429588]

>>19429585
I don't reply to low content posts.

[Anonymous No.19429593]

>>19429580
I said religion in general is losing ground, which is true. You must be insane if you think only Catholicism is losing ground, and over theological shit to boot. Completely unhinged. Then you post a specific cherrypicked graph that does not address what I said and then you throw a tantrum.

[Anonymous No.19429625]

Perpetual virginity was cooked up by Christian incels who hated women. The idea of a woman remaining a virgin and not going through labour throughout an entire marriage is fucking retarded anyway you look at it.

[Anonymous No.19429634]

>>19429438
how is having sex with your husband impure?

[Anonymous No.19429639]

>>19429398
many speculate jesus was born out of wedlock or some other "shameful" scenario which led to the virgin birth story. this is what i think happened. it's another wonderful biblical irony such as Christ riding the donkey or being called king of the Jews. These ironies undermine the rules & authority of THIS world and demonstrate Christ as the prophet of the world to come. caths & orthos are disgusted by this when they shouldn't be, Christ is the redeemer of the lowly, "the last shall be first and the first last", he ate with prostitutes, how many christians do this today?
>>19429425
Christ says to Mary, "woman what have i to do with thee?" Mary worship is a reversion to goddess cults, pagan heathenry. Christ never condones it.

[Anonymous No.19429647]

>>19429481
James was the earthly brother of Jesus, though. Mary wasn't a virgin perpetually.

[Anonymous No.19429657]

>>19429438
Sex isn't an impure act within the confines of marriage, though. Fornication is impure. Sex between two married people is not impure.

[Anonymous No.19429684]

>>19429514
this is so stupid and obnoxious but i am too tired and disinterested to engage

[Anonymous No.19429740]

>>19429398
>Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary's perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that's consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel?
Luke is the most poetic/literary Gospel (despite John having "the most story"), is Luke using a synonym really that out of the question?

If Mary had children after Jesus, why aren't they present in the story of the presentation at the temple?

[Anonymous No.19429742]

>>19429639
Christ is also the Son of God and God in the flesh. What you are saying is blasphemy and the real irony here is you trying to appeal to the authority of Christ by saying Christ never condones it the aspect related to the Holy Mary.

[Anonymous No.19429754]

>>19429425
She is also Holy and Virgin in the eyes of Orthodoxy. The people that try to downplay the role of The Holy Virgin clearly are unbelievers or have something against the faith.

[Anonymous No.19429755]

>>19429425
Imagine all of the specific autistic rituals the Israelites had during the desert to keep the Ark of the Covenant pure.

Mary is like the Ark of the Covenant for Jesus' testament as opposed to Yahweh's.

[Anonymous No.19429761]

>>19429559
It's just one literal autismo who loves to post the same two years-old "study" images in every thread about Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19429762]

>>19429634
>>19429657
You people assume what is okay for man is okay for God, which is wrong. The birth of Jesus and everything about Him is the miracle of miracles.

[Anonymous No.19429768]

>>19429755
Wrong, Jesus' fleshly body was the new Ark.

[Anonymous No.19429769]

>>19429476
>Wow. Catholics btfo. I truly don't see how they could ever recover from this. This is a well thought out, airtight destruction of the perpetual virginity. Brb becoming a Protestant.

You might want to check with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or Cranmer first. They all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But they obviously didn't understand the Bible as well as OP.

[Anonymous No.19429780]

>>19429769
They didn't have the historical text data to know that it all started in the late 2nd and became part of the "church tradition" in the 4th.

[Anonymous No.19429782]

>>19429742
my faith is not dependent on supernatural mystifications such as "virgin birth" that arose after Christ. my faith is in Christ's revealed truth, that truth never containing borderline deification of Mary.

[Anonymous No.19429787]

>>19429768
The Ark is not God; it is the container of God through which God enters the world in pure removal from humanity.

Mary is the container for the new covenant by being the mother of Jesus. If the Israelites had specific customs relating to the cleanliness of the Ark, wouldn't it make sense for the new covenant to have teachings on the purity of Mary?

[Anonymous No.19429795]

>>19429769
Good thing I don't worship them as infallible because I'm not a mind cuck huh?

[Anonymous No.19429796]

>>19429780
They went according to the Bible alone, just like you, anon.

The details of the Catholic position are rehearsed here, including the "firstborn" vs. "only born" argument: https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/in-defense-of-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-b1925444c6ef

The best, most concise treatment is a chapter in Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, but I don't think that text is online.

[Anonymous No.19429804]

>>19429762

All humans are the product of sex. Mary's virginity wasn't a consensus view among early Christians. I

[Anonymous No.19429805]

>>19429787
>The Ark is not God; it is the container of God through which God enters the world
Like I said:
>>19429768
Jesus' fleshly body was the container for the Logos which had existed long before said fleshly body. His fleshly body itself was not Him, but rather the container He used to tabernacle among us.

[Anonymous No.19429811]

>>19429795
Yes, it's a good thing, since Jesus Christ invested no such authority in them, in distinct contrast to the Petrine Ministry.

[Anonymous No.19429815]

>>19429796
We should keep in mind that a variety of terms are relevant to this discussion (why "firstborn" was used, why "cousin" wasn't used, why "relative" wasn't used, etc.). It's not as if Catholics only have to explain why they're defending the use of one or two less natural interpretations. Rather, they have to explain why they're supporting a view that involves multiple Biblical authors intending multiple less natural readings of multiple phrases when they had multiple other phrases available to them that they could have used instead and do use in other passages. The concept that multiple Biblical authors believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet never explicitly expressed that belief and instead repeatedly chose terminology pointing in the opposite direction while rejecting other terminology they could have used and do use elsewhere, terminology that would have been more supportive of the perpetual virginity concept, is dubious.

[Anonymous No.19429822]

>>19429787
>Mary is the container for the new covenant by being the mother of Jesus. If the Israelites had specific customs relating to the cleanliness of the Ark, wouldn't it make sense for the new covenant to have teachings on the purity of Mary?

Pic related.

Explained in greater detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNWqLSJcJI

[Anonymous No.19429829]

>>19429815
>dubious
This is rather generous. I'd go with "beyond absurd" at the very least.

[Anonymous No.19429841]

>>19429639
>>19429398
The bible is full of incel-tier bad female anatomy. It's up there, with the talk about how big labia = sluts. My ex had the cutest innie pussy I've ever seen (and I watch a lot of porn) and she was a mentally ill whore.

Jesus was an expert at manipulation. He invented a whole ass gaslighting story to glorify his past. This is what mentally ill people do. This is why every guy that climbs to power through psychopathy comes up with a "wonder child" story. They were reading Kant at the age of 4. They were programming since age 3. They wrote their first novel at age 10. The had a job since 12, working at the local coal mine. They're totally self made. So self-made, that their mom's a virgin and he is one with god, and god is his own cause.

This is why expert manipulators (billionaires, presidents, etc.) lie about their past. They come up with a rags from riches story. They claim to have been born into poverty, but through sheer willpower they went to the top! NOBODY helped them. They had no parents. Ever heard of Einstein's parents? They don't exist. I've never heard of them. Might as well call Einstein a second Jesus?

I'm not gonna lie though, Jesus was very intelligent. But the Bible is the biggest gaslighting narcissistic brag cover up story in the entire world. People are so retarded. Just because it's a "holy text" you can't judge it from a common sense, psychological perspective? Jesus, like more religious figures, was a narcissist/schizophrenic. Like all religious figures, it's all about HIM, and listening to other prophets is a sin. Like lots of other religions, the immaculate birth meme is thought to be true, and so on.

[Anonymous No.19429859]

>>19429815
>It's not as if Catholics only have to explain why they're defending the use of one or two less natural interpretations. Rather, they have to explain why they're supporting a view that involves multiple Biblical authors intending multiple less natural readings of multiple phrases when they had multiple other phrases available to them that they could have used instead and do use in other passages.

Yeah, but all these things are addressed in many places. There are points of theology that are interesting to discuss and debate online; this is not one of them from my perspective.

>The concept that multiple Biblical authors believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet never explicitly expressed that belief and instead repeatedly chose terminology pointing in the opposite direction while rejecting other terminology they could have used and do use elsewhere, terminology that would have been more supportive of the perpetual virginity concept, is dubious.

Eh, you're making assumptions about what the writers should, hypothetically, be concerned about. I think that's a very dubious project indeed. Ultimately, the truth is preserved both in scripture, and in the Church's interpretation of scripture. The latter controls in this case, as it does with much of Catholic doctrine. But then, that in itself is consistent with scripture, which teaches that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15. If the Church were to teach error in this matter, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it. But the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, according to Jesus Christ. This is my epistemology, and it has served the Catholic Church well for the past 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.19429902]

>>19429859
>the truth is preserved in scripture
yes
>and in the "Church's" interpretation of scripture
no

[Anonymous No.19429935]

>>19429841
"everything is just will to power." was it Darwin or Nietzsche who poisoned your mind? I have a question, does truth exist?

[Anonymous No.19429948]

>>19429398
>all this debate
The Quran says Mary was a virgin, and that's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.19429977]

>>19429859
Is this the best rebuttal you can make? If so I really think protties won this one dude

[Anonymous No.19429987]

>>19429859
where is the argument here lmao? That creepy incel sanctimony just sends shivers down my spine too. Chill out with the fucking cult speak

[Anonymous No.19430017]

>>19429902
>>the truth is preserved in scripture
>yes

But there is a conundrum: the truth of scripture is only accessible to us through our *interpretation* of scripture.

But long experience teaches that private interpretation cannot preserve the truth of scripture -- because it inevitably leads to conflicting interpretations. Thus, one person says "The truth preserved in scripture is believer's baptism," another says "The truth preserved in scripture is infant baptism." Who is right? Each is sincere, each argues from scripture. The truth *is* preserved in scripture, but how do we *access* that truth given that the practice of private interpretation plainly fails to reliably achieve that goal?

The only solution to this problem - which as a practical matter only arose with the Reformation, btw - is the existence of an authoritative interpreter. And that is the role of the Church. Jesus guaranteed that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. Matthew 18:15-18.

So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just *some kind* of authority, but an *infallible authority*, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.

The Catholic Church is the only authoritative interpreter of Christ's doctrine; to none other has this power been granted.

[Anonymous No.19430027]

>>19429987
I'll throw in a few more "bros" in my next post.

[Anonymous No.19430043]

>>19429514
It's not worth it man, do you actually think the OP actually JUST read Luke? Every thread on this website is a loaded attack meant to provoke, there's no want for actual discussion it always has to be done in a way such as "Wow I can't BELIEVE people think x when CLEARY" this website is poison.

[Anonymous No.19430049]

>>19429977
Is this the best rebuttal you can make? If so I really think I won this one dude

[Anonymous No.19430265]

>>19429438
>wants symbolic status of mother / vessel in religious tradition
>is confronted with metaphor as a way to give symbolic power to said religious entity
>"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! THE SYMBOLISM NEEDS TO BE REEEEEAL AND PHYSICALLY MANIFESTED!!!1 SHOW ME HER HYMEN"

[Anonymous No.19430275]

>>19430043
Yes but sometimes the gotcha thread has one or 2 rational minded people to share thoughts with, which is why people show up to get gotcha'd once again

[Anonymous No.19431418]

>>19429782

Best post.

[Anonymous No.19431426]

>>19429425

Earth mommy worship: the obsession with there being a virgin Phenomenal world, as in one that precedes the Catholic, which would alleviate the unimpeachable fact of the actual Phenomenal world being Evil.

[Anonymous No.19431440]

>>19429398
The perpetual virginity of Mary is in none of the canonical Gospels and first appears in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James.

Christians defending it are literally taking doctrine from apocryphal gospels lmao. How heretical can you get?

[Anonymous No.19431511]

>>19431440
Look at the catholics in this thread. Genuinely retarded people who spam copypasted apologetics, and who 100 percent do not read or engage with any arguments whatsoever. I cornered the one autist earlier and his only recourse was to say "well the church said it so I believe it and that's that" and he thinks he won the debate. He admitted there is no reason to possibly believe this doctrine in any sense outside of a pedophile telling him so. But he is proud of that.

[Anonymous No.19431695]

>>19431511
>Genuinely retarded people

This thread is filled with decidely un-Christian and insulting language such as the above. Do you really expect Catholics to engage with your questions in such a thread?

The fact is, all of the objections posed by the OP have been answered many times over, in many places. One such explanation is linked to in >>19429796.

The sola scriptura approach to this problem, which you implicitly endorse, simply doesn't work. It will *not* get you to the truth of scripture, as explained here: >>19430017

And nor is it taught in the Bible. In fact, the Bible teaches the opposite of sola scriptura.

[Anonymous No.19431754]

>>19431695
And let me add to this, wrt one poster who actually engaged with my remarks in a thoughtful way (>>19429815), I replied to that poster in a detailed fashion:

>>19429859
>>19430017

[Anonymous No.19432118]

>>19431695
>>19431754
Didn't read, no argument. Mean language won't unfuck Mary.

[Anonymous No.19432127]

>>19429762
No ones denying that Christ was born of Mary who was a virgin. We're saying she wasn't a virgin forever, as shown by the scriptures which attest to the fact that Christ had earthly brothers and sisters.

[Anonymous No.19432591]

>>19432118
Then don't whine about Catholics not engaging with your tired arguments.

[Anonymous No.19432655]

>>19429948
Based

[Anonymous No.19432918]

>>19432591
You were already btfo. That's why you're still in the thread coping. We all can see it.

[Anonymous No.19432979]

>>19431754
>>19431695
Your deluded ass has been shitting in this thread for almost 24 hours, which makes me question how sane you are. Get help. Also if there were a good rebuttal to the OP you would have come up with it about 50 posts ago.

[Anonymous No.19433093]

>>19432918
>You were already btfo.

Hardly. The only attempts to rebut what I've written have been non-substantive /b/-style retorts and insults.

>That's why you're still in the thread coping.
This post >>19431511 asked a question that seemed semi-sincere, so I attempted a sincere response, only to be met with a /b/-style retort.

>>19432979
>Your deluded ass
You seem to hold yourself out as a Christian? Is that right? Who is deluded here, anon?

[Anonymous No.19433116]

>>19432918
Why are you still whining even though there are a dozen Catholic posts rebutting the OP that no one has responded to?

[Anonymous No.19433125]

>>19432979
>Also if there were a good rebuttal to the OP you would have come up with it about 50 posts ago.

There are a dozen Catholic posts rebutting the OP that no one has responded to.

[Anonymous No.19434276]

>>19431695
Indeed

[Anonymous No.19434353]

>>19429841
I love how you talk about "They were reading Kant at the age of 4", so I imagine you assume that he is an important philosopher and difficult to read, without knowing that Kant was a Pietistic Lutheran, and the Critique of Pure Reason was a theology project created by Kant from the ideas of Luther. The funny thing is that for Kant, Jesus was his master and LORD, his only God, while you screw Jesus by giving him attributes that are definitely not found in the Gospel and you give some importance to Kant.

Shame on you.

[Anonymous No.19434414]

>>19429398
Perpetual virginity is wrong because it makes Mary a sinner. A wife has a duty to conjugate her marriage and have sex with her husband and vice versa. Spouses are allowed to abstain temporarily to devote themselves to God, but it cannot be permanent.

[Anonymous No.19434425]

>>19429425
>why do Christians grow concerned when heretics attack Christian teachings
Gee, I dunno.

[Anonymous No.19434430]

The Catholic defense of this is wholly unscriptural. They operate by creating typology relating to Mary that has no biblical basis. Scripture creates its own typology and does so explicitly in the NT. Just because something seems similar to you or seems like it has a relation, this does not mean that a type/antitype relationship is present. To act as if it is is to bend the text to your own ideology.
>>19429769
The early Reformers consider perpetual virginity to be an optional "pious belief" and not a dogma in any sense.

[Anonymous No.19434466]

>>19429782
Through Jesus the sacred family is Holy. You are obtuse if you ignore this and the Virgin Birth is another of the prophecies of our Lord Jesus Christ. You are hypocrite if you pretend you believe in Him but ignore some aspects of the miracle that represents His whole life, from His birth to His death and Resurrection.

[Anonymous No.19434468]

>>19429805
>His fleshly body itself was not Him
That's basically a fancy way of saying Jesus was not fully human, which is heresy in not just Catholicism but pretty much all mainstream Nicene Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19434470]

>>19429804
>All humans are the product of sex.
Jesus is God and Human. He was one of us but He was also God.
He was different and also one of us.

[Anonymous No.19434489]

Catholics say "until" doesn't imply a change in status in reference to Matthew. This is based on the claim that there are examples in koine Greek of this being the case. In reality, there are a handful (like, two total) of examples of this being the case in all known koine documents that MAY indicate this sort of usage. That is the foundation of their outlandish claim that "until" doesn't mean "until."

[Anonymous No.19434547]

Gabriel calling her "full of Grace" means that Mary does not possess the stain of Original Sin. This makes her different from literally all of humanity after the Fall. There must be something special about her, therefore.

[Anonymous No.19434589]

>>19434547
>catholic """""logic"""""

[Anonymous No.19434641]

>>19429425
She's the Queen of Heaven you blasphemer.

[Anonymous No.19434650]

>>19429398
It's quite simple, really. The Church must stand for its dogmas, and cannot afford to question some of them, as absurd as they may seem. It's like a company backing a stupid decision made by a ranking officer so it won't look bad. Perpetual virginity is a meme. I respect the catholics and all, but worshipping Mary is a mistake, and claiming she died a virgin is an attempt to justify such mistake.

[Anonymous No.19434744]

>>19429841
nobody on this site can disprove this post

[Anonymous No.19434798]

If Christ had other brothers than they would have taken care of St. Mary after his death in accordance with Jewish law and custom, but instead he has St. John care for her. You won’t find sources from the early Church claiming that Jesus had full siblings.

[Anonymous No.19434950]

>>19434798
>You won’t find sources from the early Church claiming that Jesus had full siblings.
Yeah totally, except for, you know, the gospels and the epistles.

[Anonymous No.19434981]

>>19434547

So why couldn't God just make all humans like that then? Avoid the whole melodrama.

[Anonymous No.19435208]

>>19433125
>There are a dozen Catholic posts rebutting the OP that no one has responded to.

Link to the post and highlight the SPECIFIC salient argument that addresses anything in these posts:

>>19429398
>>19429413
>>19429423
>>19429454

Because there are no posts that address them. These posts are ABOUT the worn out apologetic talking points that catholics keep slinging over and over ITT that are totally indefensible. Simply repeating them again doesn't cut it. You need to specifically respond to what he is saying here and not attempt to shout everyone down by repeating ad nauseum the same thing endlessly.

[Anonymous No.19435369]

>>19434798
>this dumb worn out argument
Christ had specific reasons for wanting it to be John and other plans for His earthly brothers.

[Anonymous No.19435631]

>>19429398
The tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is not explicitly stated in the canon. It first appears in the Gospel of James and was popularized by Ambrose two centuries later.

[Anonymous No.19435740]

>>19429398
Who the fuck cares about what the Bible "actually" says? The practice and rituals of a religion are far more important than its texts. Only Protestants and Muslims do this autistic navel-gazing anti-exegesis, both with appreciably negative societal consequences.
>>19435369
Now it's you who's pulling shit out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.19435748]

>>19429423
Very interesting post

[Anonymous No.19435778]

>>19434353
I don't have any shame. Sorry bro, your shame magic doesn't work outside the bible (with a lowercase b). Ligma & sugma balls.
>>19434744
Based dubs. Jesus was a mentally ill craphead.
>>19429935
Sorry I don't sniff dead people's farts. I use text to generate my own ideas. I don't mindlessly follow bullchit.
>everything is will to power
What I've said has nothing to do with Nietzsche, retard.

Face it, phaggots. It all adds up.
>/pol/ is full of sad incels
>kuk porn posted all day
>4chan is filled with posts about trannies, black pipo and kuk relationships
>shame/victim mentality
>they hate the jews but they follow the bible (which is an anime about jews)
>jesus' parents were literally in a holy kuk relationship (god was the BVLL and Joseph was the Kukold with his tiny jew moshe penis locked up in a tiny rusty iron cok cage. Hint: they were living during the iron age at that time)
no wonder why the west is so fucked up sexually, spiritually and morally. They replaced the based mythology and religions of the old ages with the kuk fetish fanfic AKA the holy bible.

[Anonymous No.19435786]

>>19429423
Imagine if people spent this much effort carefully and analytically dissecting every paragraph of crap spewed by delirious hobos and schizos.
If every time that hobo sitting next to the subway entrance was listened to and followed by pseuds with theology, philosophy and/or literature degrees. Imagine that. Imagine a world where people weren't so retarded as to think with their "feelings".

It's so funny just how robotic most people are. You tell them "hey dude careful, this is a holy text, this deserves special treatment" and they actually believe it.

Muh feelings. Muh "spiritual experiences". Muh "sacredness".

[Anonymous No.19435790]

>>19429811
>First christians
>Quotes 4th century writers

[Anonymous No.19435823]

>>19434547
The Greek does not say "full of grace" in the sense of that being an aspect of Mary, that's an artifact of the Latin vulgate. It means she is graced or favoured by God, the same way anyone else can be graced or favoured by him.

The Greek word used is κεχαριτωμένη, if Luke meant to say "full of grace" he would have used πλήρης χάριτος which is found elsewhere in the New Testament, like John 1:14 describing Jesus, and Acts 6:8 describing Stephen. Even if the Greek said "πλήρης χάριτος" when Gabriel addresses Mary, it wouldn't show a unique status of her, because the disciple Stephen is described as being full of grace at one point and he doesn't have a unique role in salvation.

[Anonymous No.19435840]

>>19435823
>>19435786
>imagine talking to much about a 2000 year old homeless person that couldn't read nor write
alright I get it, it's a "holy" text because you've been told it's holy

[Anonymous No.19435999]

>>19435740
>Now it's you who's pulling shit out of his ass.
Oh ok God just does things willy nilly then everything is random and the only thing that brings any order to the chaos is the customs and laws of men.

[Anonymous No.19436029]

>>19429423
CATHOLICISM AND "ORTHODOXY"
BTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.19436101]

>Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Christ
False. As a wife it was her duty to consummate her marriage to her husband. Obeying her duty to God in the marriage covenant does not make her unclean. The idea that it would pollute her in some way is frankly blasphemous, as marriage is God's prefiguration of the Church.
>Mary was born without original sin and this is necessary because x, y, z
False. Original sin passes down through ordinary generation, the normal means by which humans are conceived. Christ was not conceived by ordinary generation and thus there could be no danger of him being polluted in any way, notwithstanding that any pollution by sin would be impossible to begin with since he is God. The immaculate conception solves a nonexistent problem. Also if Mary could be born without original sin by an exceptional act, so could Jesus, and so could anyone else; and if it were not exceptional it would require the same sinlessness of her entire bloodline. This entire concept is nonsense and it amazes me that anyone believes it.
>Mary is the new ark of the covenant, Mary is the new Eve, Mary is the new [insert thing]
False. Typology is not any similarity between things you can find. Typology is a prefiguration and lat fulfillment that is ordained by God and Scripture is explicit when it occurs, such as the marriage -> church typlogy I mentioned earlier (Eph. 5:31-32) or Adam -> Christ (Rom. 5:14). You cannot make it up. The similarity you think you have found is meaningless if it is not the historical fulfillment that God intended and has revealed to us.

[Anonymous No.19436128]

>>19430017
>But there is a conundrum: the truth of the Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture is only accessible to us through our *interpretation* of the Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture.
I have expanded your logic for you.

[Anonymous No.19436195]

>>19430017
>>19436128
I want to say something more about this. The Catholic apologetics here relies upon the concept that a human cannot be sure of an interpretation, therefore he must submit to a (divinely aided) interpreter. This does not remove the human of course. The human must also ensure that he correctly understands the interpreter and the interpretation. Your subjectivity remains and there is no absolute way of guaranteeing that you are actually seeing eye to eye. But further than that:
>1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
>13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
>14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
>16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
What place is there for spiritual discernment for the extreme skeptic? Are humans not capable of this? To the Catholic there cannot be a distinction, as Paul makes, between the "natural man" and the "spiritual man." All are natural men who can understand nothing. But he will us, "scripture is not of private interpretation." And indeed it is not. So Paul's statements must be reconciled: his teaching is that the truth of scripture can be known by humans, that that which is freely given to us of God can actually be understood by us. We are not gauranteed that we will be correct, but that is within our capability as creates made in the image of God, who possess rational souls, and who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Frankly every manner in which Catholicism defends itself is vile and offensive to faith.

[Anonymous No.19436245]

Do you think that whatever sandnigger schizo wrote that palestinian fairytale garbage thought that his work will be autistically overanalyzed and deconstructed by neurotic virgins with nothing better to do in their free ime.

[Anonymous No.19436345]

Catholics can't stop losing itt

[Anonymous No.19436360]

Yeah, why?

[Anonymous No.19436502]

>>19429398
this is no different from soilords splitting hairs about capeshit lore. xtianity is a joke

[Anonymous No.19436503]

>>19436101
>>19436195

Unimpeachably correct posts.

[Anonymous No.19436995]

bump

[Anonymous No.19437894]

Catholics are pathetic. They really are just wrong on this. Which means their church isn't infallible which means its a false church. Sucks!

[Anonymous No.19437984]

>>19437894
They're idolaters and Mary is their god. You even have many of them who refer to her as "co-redeemer".

[Anonymous No.19438477]

just checking in to say fuck catholics and you all know your church is a false idol

[Anonymous No.19438715]

>>19437984

Just a few weeks ago someone was claiming that she is the "fourth member" of the Trinity in one of these threads. Can't make this up.

[Anonymous No.19439392]

Abrahamic religions are weird

[Anonymous No.19439788]

>>19439392
To an extent. Judaism and Christianity are functions of an ancient near east impulse to make books compilations of disparate points of view without throwing anything out. The result is contradictory holy texts. The problem is both these religions retroactively decided they were perfect and unable to contradict, thus leading to bizarre readings and theology.

This doesn't apply to Islam which is the ramblings of a single schizo that somehow still can't avoid contradiction

[Anonymous No.19439977]

>>19439788
Can you call Islam Abrahamic, or is it Ishmaelic?

[Anonymous No.19440380]

>>19439977
Ishmael was Abraham's son. Either way neither were probably a real person in any meaningful sense. And if they were they were just rich goat-havers.

[Anonymous No.19440393]

>>19437894
>>19437984
If Mary is so unimportant, why does she have so many apparitions?

[Anonymous No.19440889]

>>19440393
Demons fooling people into praying to them instead of God.

[Anonymous No.19440925]

>arrival of the one autistic anti-Catholic you can pinpoint in multiple threads
this gremlin is somehow even more insufferable than butterfly

[Anonymous No.19441050]

>>19440925
>being anti-Satanic paganism is insufferable
OK Legion.

[Anonymous No.19442037]

>>19440925
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.19442148]

>>19440925
>anti-Catholic
Its hilarious that catholics have been trying to make criticism of their shitty church a civil rights issue for like 3 decades by claiming special protection like this. No one now or ever has been buying it. Maybe stop raping kids before you want to cry crocodile tears.

Your religion is almost dead :) while you're whining about muh anti catholic bias, everyone is just becoming evangelical. Oh except for the weird lonely incels who don't go to church anyway.

[Anonymous No.19442178]

>>19440925
>everyone who disagrees with me is one person
Lmao schizo guess what not even catholics like the catholic church so don't be surprised when you pedo death cult is subject to criticism

[Anonymous No.19442783]

>>19442178
>not even catholics like the catholic church
This is not untrue.
t. married an ex-Catholic.

[Anonymous No.19442794]

Christian theology is a mess.

[Anonymous No.19442803]

>>19429425
If she isn't holy, it would mean Jesus was tainted by his birth from her, thereby rendering him not holy and nullifying the validity of his sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.19442804]

>Catholic LARPers lose debate
>retreat to insulting Christianity as a whole
I laugh

[Anonymous No.19442808]

>>19442803
This has been addressed here: >>19436101. What you are saying is evil nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19442834]

>>19442803
>God can be "tainted" by a human
>A woman being obedient to God within marriage makes her unholy
Repent

[Anonymous No.19442836]

>>19440925
He is an idiot, an anti-catholic idiot. I also noticed the style of his posts in different threads.

[Anonymous No.19442845]

>>19442836
>>19442037

[Anonymous No.19442865]

Catholics have no arguments once the simplified apologetics infographics and Youtube arguments stop working

[Anonymous No.19442935]

>>19436101
>if Mary could be born without original sin by an exceptional act, so could Jesus
This right here is *everything* required to burn the whole claim. There was zero need for Mary to have been immaculately conceived. Not to mention Jesus was literally conceived by only one human parent and the Holy Ghost and at that moment the Holy Ghost could have done whatever was needed to prepare the womb.

What happened was that Ishtar, whose very modus operandi is to commandeer the domains of other deities, began whispering puzzle pieces into the ears of various figures of the early church that laid the ground works needed for supplanting Mary and subverting prayers from God to herself (Ishtar, no one is actually praying to Mary despite thinking they are doing so). And of course she was merely a constructed proxy of Satan.

[Anonymous No.19442950]

>>19442836
>gets tricked into praying to Ishtar
>calls others idiot

[Anonymous No.19443023]

>>19442836
samefag, and anyway is there any better sign that catholics are out of arguments than making the groundless claim that "I've seen someone post before"? I mean even if true, does that somehow restore Mary's hymen? I mean disregarding you being a schizophrenic nutjob who believes in gangstalking over 4chan.

[Anonymous No.19443166]

>>19442950
>>19442935
die fatefags

[Anonymous No.19443232]

>>19443166
Those are both me but I have no idea what a "fatefag" is, just FYI.

[Anonymous No.19443316]

>>19443166
>Hears the word Ishtar and thinks of Fate
How does it feel being a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.19445266]

I've just directed a Catholic priest to this link. Good luck during your exorcism and may you come out blessed according to the will of Christ the end.

[Anonymous No.19445283]

>>19445266
He will probably just head straight to /hm/.

[Anonymous No.19445292]

>>19445283
Stand accused, accuser. What will you accuse me with? Accusing? Huh?

[Anonymous No.19445338]

>>19445292
Musta struck a nerve, I think what I'm really hearing there is "so what if we go to /hm/ and /lgbt/ I'm sure you sin in some way too".

[Anonymous No.19445387]

>>19445338
lmao, get em

[Anonymous No.19445420]

>>19441050
>your pagan
your muslim
>>19442148
>becoming evangelical
like evangelical catholics?
you dont even know what your terms mean

[Anonymous No.19445440]

>>19445420
>your
You're ESL.

[Anonymous No.19445462]

>>19445420
Policing terminology, especially when you're wrong, is such a low form of argumentation that its basically a concession. I accept.

[Anonymous No.19445466]

>>19445420
>like evangelical catholics?
>you dont even know what your terms mean
That's so weird that you use terms differently from the mainstream! I guess that means you're NOT in a cult, right?

[Anonymous No.19445473]

>>19429438
>Papists are the original purityfags
Whoa.... sasuga....

[Anonymous No.19445490]

>>19445466
?
>>19445462
just say what you mean, 'protestant'
then you can be more specific on whether you mean babtist, methodist, lutheran, pentecostal, church of christ, presbyterian, episcolian, reformed, or whatever nonsense schism pops up next
a whole thread questioning the church's interpretation as if protestants have settled the issue
what is the possible benefit of constantly fracturing gods church
if luther saw this shit he would have imitated the orthos to at least keep some semblance of unity

[Anonymous No.19445504]

>>19445490
>Protestants are responsible for all things other Protestants do
Nope
>a whole thread questioning the church's interpretation as if protestants have settled the issue
I may not be correct but I am quite sure you are wrong

[Anonymous No.19445508]

>>19435778
>They replaced the based mythology and religions of the old ages
even for a polytheist, this is impressively larpy bait
>>19429805
>His fleshly body itself was not Him
resorting to heresy to disrespect the mother of christ

[Anonymous No.19445518]

>>19445504
>Protestants are responsible for all things other Protestants do
Protestants always use schism to escape responsibility
'look at all the terrible things the church did over centuries while managing a continent'
meanwhile pastor joe's church is a year old and has no power beyond a voting bloc
of course you have nothing to be responsible for, you havent done shit

[Anonymous No.19445541]

>>19445518
What are you even talking about? Your point is bad and it doesn't change the fact that no historian in the world asserts there was apostolic succession or even the existence of popes or bishops in Rome in the first century or two. Nothing you say matters because your church is objectively a lie

[Anonymous No.19445571]

>>19445518
>The truth is measured by worldly accomplishment
lol

[Anonymous No.19445572]

>go on /lit/
>people argue about religion as if it matters
I guess rehashing pointless arguments for millennia is better than being a fedora tipper.

[Anonymous No.19445579]

>>19445518
>'look at all the terrible things the church did over centuries while managing a continent'
It has never been the job of the church to "manage a continent". At that point you are simply the state.

[Anonymous No.19445647]

>>19445541
James became a bishop in 50 AD
others followed shortly after
apostolic succession is historical fact
>>19445571
the city of god takes material victories incidentally even as the faithful forgo the material and dedicate themselves to the eternal truth
>>19445579
>It has never been
it has always been a function of the priest class
just because they've been replaced by secular preachers today changes nothing

[Anonymous No.19445727]

>>19445647
>apostolic succession is historical fact
Please find a historian in a peer reviewed journal agreeing with you. Meanwhile I can produce several Catholic scholars on the Pontifical Historical Commission with papal approval who say you're wrong. Even your own gay church disagrees.

[Anonymous No.19446577]

>>19445647

Not only is apostolic succession Historically tenuous, it is also neither Scriptural nor Rational.

[Anonymous No.19447561]

>>19445727
The modern Catholic must exist in a continual state of cognitive dissonance. He wants the Church of the middle ages, or at least of pre-Vatican II, but it doesn't exist anymore. Imagine spending your time defending the teachings of an institution that doesn't even believe the teachings you're defending.

[Anonymous No.19447585]

>>19447561
lol the modern Catholic doesn't want the Church of the middle-ages, what kind of stupid logic is that? The Church isn't an institution, and why do you think it doesn't believe in its own reality? Seems like the only dissonance here is the one you're showing right now.

[Anonymous No.19447587]

>>19447561
Not only that, but actively goes out of its way to bust the balls of the sedes-in-denial begging, pleading for something resmebling the pre-Vatican Church lol. Just look at the recent *further* restrictions on Latin mass.

[Anonymous No.19447609]

>>19447585
Sorry, the modern Catholic doesn't want it (he doesn't care too much about doctrine), but the internet trad LARPer does.

[Anonymous No.19447621]

>>19429398
>dhristcuckoldry in the year of our present lord father Chris Hitchens
disgust

[Anonymous No.19447628]

>>19447585
>why do you think it doesn't believe in its own reality
Even Catholic Answers admits that the late 2nd century fan fictional "Gospel of James" is the source of "ever virgin Mary".

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.19447640]

>>19429639
John 2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

To Tirzah by Blake

Whate'er is born of mortal birth
Must be consumèd with the earth,
To rise from generation free:
Then what have I to do with thee?

The sexes sprung from shame and pride,
Blowed in the morn, in evening died;
But mercy changed death into sleep;
The sexes rose to work and weep.

Thou, mother of my mortal part,
With cruelty didst mould my heart,
And with false self-deceiving tears
Didst bind my nostrils, eyes, and ears,

Didst close my tongue in senseless clay,
And me to mortal life betray.
The death of Jesus set me free:
Then what have I to do with thee?

[Anonymous No.19447643]

>>19429841
unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.19447762]

Catholicism isn't real Christianity, it has been subverted and destroyed by the inside full of man made teachings being represented as canonical. How can you call yourself a believer of Christ and kneel and pray to Pagan idols recharacterized as saints. For shame.

[Anonymous No.19447849]

Reminder that
Prayer to anyone other than God is forbidden
Veneration of icons, statues, or any image is forbidden
Creating any image of God (including Jesus) is forbidden
Observance of religious holy days (e.g. Christmas) is forbidden
Working on the Sabbath is still forbidden

[Anonymous No.19447860]

>>19429425
By virtue of being the vessel for the human body of GOD HIMSELF means that she is no mere vessel, you absolute mong.

>gives birth to God
>eh, she's just a woman like any other
Mind-numbing logic.

[Anonymous No.19447864]

>>19447860
She is indeed just a woman. Nothing about that would render her more than a human woman. Indeed if she were not merely a human woman then Christ would not have been fully human.

[Anonymous No.19447875]

>>19447860
>how dare you say mary is human!
Just say you want to add Mary to the Trinity dude.

[Anonymous No.19447876]

>>19447864
Never did I claim that Mary is inhuman you ape. I only pointed out the ridiculous of your "there is nothing special about Mary" stance. By virtue of her being chosen by God to be his vessel, she is special. This even while being agnostic on whether she is or isn't the queen of heaven.

[Anonymous No.19447877]

Mark 7:1-2 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

This is Catholics, but with Mary's womb.

[Anonymous No.19447878]

>>19447875
Very low IQ prot. See >>19447876
You're severely dyslexic.

[Anonymous No.19447885]

>>19447876
Tell me specifically in what sense she is "special" then. No one would disagree that she received a unique blessing from God and is due honor for it. We do not disrespect or disparage Mary in any sense.

[Anonymous No.19447913]

How can you defend praying to Mary..?

>Hail Mary
Heretical. Just this phrase is wrong. Pure idolatry.
>Full of Grace
Yes she is full of grace considering God picked her to birth Jesus
>Blessed art thou amongst women,
Yes.
>and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Yes.
>Holy Mary,
Yes she is holy and she should be honored.
>Mother of God
Now this I don't know what to think about, if we agree that the holy trinity is God. The father, the son and the holy spirit then she is technically the mother of God and she should be held to esteem but to pray to her blurs those lines and takes it to far.

[Anonymous No.19447921]

>>19447885
In just that sense.

>No one would disagree that she received a unique blessing from God and is due honor for it
"No one would"? Are you sure? Plenty seem to have a chip on their shoulder over it. I am tempted to psychologize a bit:

>wah wah wah, Mary is no more special than ME ME ME

[Anonymous No.19447924]

>>19447913
The term "mother of God" is technically correct fromg a Christological perspective, but should not be used as it leads to idolatry. I think it ends up blurring the lines in people's minds. The mother is the generator of life, a figure of authority, one who is prior to the child. But here it is used specifically to mean the woman in whose womb Jesus was incarnated in, and many people cannot hold that specificity.

[Anonymous No.19447926]

>>19447913
the finest mental gymnastics at work, truly incredible

[Anonymous No.19447928]

>>19447921
They have a chip on their shoulder regarding idolatry, as any pious man would.

[Anonymous No.19447929]

>>19447926
Keep praying to Pagan Gods buddy.

[Anonymous No.19447931]

>>19447924
(cont.) It would be like if everyone always referred to Christ as "child of Mary." Again that is technically correct but it gives an impression that will lead to error.

[Anonymous No.19447938]

>>19429684
I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.19447954]

>>19447876
>Never did I claim that Mary is inhuman you ape.
I don't pray to humans. I pray to the divine.
I don't think any mere human was ever perfectly free from sin their entire life. That is entirely in contradiction to our fallen natures.

Catholics like you disagree on both counts. Hence idolatry.

[Anonymous No.19447978]

>>19447929
?
Mary is sacred according to catholics, not pagans you retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.19447981]

>>19447978
He's calling you a pagan because you are an idolater.

[Anonymous No.19447996]

>>19447978
brainlet

[Anonymous No.19448016]

>>19447978
Shouldn't you be attending a worship service for the demon Pachamama?

[Anonymous No.19448367]

>>19429398
Jesus at the cross offered Mary to John, wouldnt and couldnt do that if there were siblings.

Starting in genesis we already see the word brother being used for family. Abraham and Lot are called brothers even though they are uncle and nephew.

[Anonymous No.19448402]

>>19448367
He told John to take care of Mary as his own mother. There's no reason that Christ could not do that.

[Anonymous No.19448403]

>>19448367
Address this please: >>19436101
>As a wife it was her duty to consummate her marriage to her husband. Obeying her duty to God in the marriage covenant does not make her unclean. The idea that it would pollute her in some way is frankly blasphemous, as marriage is God's prefiguration of the Church.

[Anonymous No.19448450]

>1 Cor. 7:3-5 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
It is the duty of spouses to have sex with each other.

[Anonymous No.19448830]

>>19447762
This, and endlessly defend it with incredible feats of Scripturetwist.

[Anonymous No.19448851]

>>19447978
>If we change the name of Ishtar to Mary that makes Ishtar Mary.

[Anonymous No.19449175]

>>19429398
I haven't read the thread so forgive me if somebody has already said this however
>When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. -Matthew 1:24-25
>knew her not until she had given birth to a son
Does this not mean they had sex after Jesus was born?

[Anonymous No.19449212]

>>19449175
And somewhat more importantly, it disproves the alternate fan fiction that the Catholic and Orthodox "churches" took on as beliefs, that Joseph was just an elderly man who was marrying Mary out of kindness and had no intentions of a normal marriage.

[Anonymous No.19449233]

>>19449175
>Does this not mean they had sex after Jesus was born?
it does, anon. it does.

[Anonymous No.19449247]

>>19449212
>>19449233
this picture>>19429796 seems to clear up the issue, assuming its argument is factual.

[Anonymous No.19449312]

>>19449247
Its not. Why do catholics go halfway across the Bible for uses of the word until with vague applicability to the usage at hand. Literally one chapter later in Mt 2, it reads:
>So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod

Hey look, until used in the same sentence construction to mean... the word until, as it always does. Why don't catholics cite this passage in their epic word use study?

[Anonymous No.19449377]

>>19449312
Did you even read the image? "Until" is the best approximation of the original text, English doesn't have a word for "up to x point in time" that doesn't imply a change at "x point in time".

[Anonymous No.19449416]

>>19449377
That has no bearing on its usage in Matthew. The best way to understand the meaning of the word is to assess its use within Matthew, and what luck, one chapter later it is used to mean a change in status after a point in time. No one is debating or nitpicking what it means there. Neither are you. Special pleading. Also please inform me as to the relative frequency of the word and its usage to imply a change in status and not. You won't like what you find.

The word can also be used as a conjunction and proposition and that terrible image conflates the two to confuse the reader. The best example of a parallel construction is found in Matthew and its literally right next door.

[Anonymous No.19449547]

>>19449416
It only matters if the original untranslated text contains this repetition. Does it?

[Anonymous No.19449582]

>>19449547
Mt. 1:25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
>ἕως

Mt. 2:15 ]καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου
>ἕως

[Anonymous No.19449586]

>>19449547
Yes, and if you're going that route that means you no longer get to use the OT LXX for counter examples btw.

[Anonymous No.19449630]

>>19436101
No one will ever address this lol

[Anonymous No.19449654]

>>19449582
In this case I agree that her perpetual virginity is called into serious doubt.
>>19449586
I haven't even read the old testament past Exodus I'm new to this

[Anonymous No.19449692]

>>19449654
Its fine, my point was that since the Septuagint was a translation of Hebrew then its use of that word is even more questionable since it involves the nuance of 2 languages.

If you're new to the Bible do yourself a favor and get a critical edition so you're not trapped in this world of pseudointellectual apologetics. Just get the New Oxford. Save yourself the headache of being a larper one day.

[Anonymous No.19449707]

>>19449692
>Just get the New Oxford
I will, thanks.

[Anonymous No.19449753]

>>19449707
I don't know how you are interested in Christianity, but that Bible is written for secular academic study and the translation it uses (NRSV) is theologically liberal and non-Christian. It is translated from the perspective that Christianity is not true, thus things which might contradict must contradict, etc. It is also culturally inaccurate as it forces gender neutral language for political reasons. No orthodox Christian church would use it. The previous Oxford Study Bible using the RSV is better in this regard and still in print the last time I checked.

[Anonymous No.19449772]

>>19449753
>It is also culturally inaccurate as it forces gender neutral language for political reasons
Why should I trust an ideologically motivated interpretation of the bible as the most objective?

[Anonymous No.19449783]

>>19449753
That's hyperbolic. Its not theologically liberal at all. Its historical critical. The NRSV translation is, but it has merits, and the only place the gender neutral crap gets bad is first Timothy but it has a note appended. The New Oxford is good for the notes, not the translation itself. The old Oxford is literally of the same philosophy but with outdated notes.

It is an important read. He should read what scholars say and then decide where he decides to depart from it or where faith takes over. Doing it the other way leads to being a reactionary larper nutjob with no actual grounding in reality.

I read the Oxford and I'm an inerrantist evangelical Calvinist. There is literally nothing wrong with having a grasp on the scholarship whether they're liberal or not. And while some are political and shitty, most are fairly sensitive to Christian concerns.

[Anonymous No.19449789]

>>19449783
and btw the New Oxford itself routinely criticizes the shortcomings of the NRSV translation in the notes.

[Anonymous No.19449809]

>>19449772
An accurate translation should reflect the culture in which the original text was written. If the original text says "brother" it should not be translated as "brothers and sisters" even if the original usage was inclusive of that. This was an issue of note years back, arising from feminist circles, and translations such as the NRSV were created to address it. So it is certainly ideologically motivated in its own right. To continue, I believe that religious texts should be studied in the context of the religion. I would have no interest in a "Study Quran" translated and annotated by atheists, secularists, and theological liberals. It is not going to represent what that religious text stands for within the communities that follow it, but rather represent a purposeful deconstruction of that text. If that's what you want, though, go for it.
>>19449783
I don't agree, but even if I did I would want a person to be aware of what they're actually reading, that it isn't some neutral thing but has a bias clearly against the subject under discussion.

[Anonymous No.19449833]

>>19449809
>I don't agree, but even if I did I would want a person to be aware of what they're actually reading, that it isn't some neutral thing but has a bias clearly against the subject under discussion.
I'm saying the New Oxford is good and it is, and it has good info. The nrsv is readable but not my preferred transaction. The ESV is superior in all but the flow at some places. My go to bible is the ESV with Creeds and Confessions.

[Anonymous No.19449848]

>>19449833
The ESV is shit too and so is the Study Bible. It is shocking how misleading many of the notes are almost as if it was done by cryptoatheists.

[Anonymous No.19449911]

>>19449848
Pic related is the best study bible.

[Anonymous No.19449945]

>>19449911
There are no "best study Bibles". The Holy Bible and commentaries should be kept separate. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, *rightly dividing* the word of truth.

[Anonymous No.19449976]

>>19449945
Hmm, I don't necessarily agree. Bible with annotations have been published for hundreds of years, ever since they were enabled by the printing press, for example the Geneva Bible (1500s) or John Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible (1700s).

[Anonymous No.19450025]

>>19449976
>Geneva Bible
Which specifically caused the King James Bible rule of no annotations other than with regard to alternate word translation possibilities.

[Anonymous No.19450061]

>>19449911
I agree. That is an excellent study bible and a brilliant resource. I feel it is too fundamentalist. And again there's nothing wrong with historical critical notes.

[Anonymous No.19450493]

Bump for catlicks getting btfo again