/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>I mean if I were married to literally best woman, I would

You know God killed lots of people who touched the ark of the covenant, Joseph would have understood the significance of what had just happened i'm sure he would never think about it.

>>610366

What a raw deal. Well, at least he’s got heaven going for him.

>>610368

sex isn't everything lad, everyone even Christians are obsessed with it today though. I can't remember how many times someone said "sex is a gift from God" their reasoning being it feels gud so must be given to me by God.

>>610365

Of course he did. Jesus had several brothers, one of which was active in the early church once Jesus was gone.

>>610370

I get that (or don't, get it at all, rather, considering I haven't had sex and dislike the notion of casual sex) but I can't imagine a married man whose wife was/is the best humanity has to offer in a woman didn't at least consider it once or twice.

>>610371

This is the view I also take as I don't believe in the divinity or innocence of Mary, but I guess others interpret Jesus' brothers as simply being relatives instead.

Catholic doctrine is that Mary never had sex with anyone at all. This doctrine is called the perpetual virginity of Mary, I think.

I remember hearing that Joseph was an old man, a widower, when he married Mary. He married Mary to financially support her because no other husband was found for her. He wasn't looking for a sex partner. This would explain why Joseph decided to put her away quietly when he found out that she was pregnant rather than divorcing her publicly like he could have chosen to. Sexual jealousy wasn't a factor. I think there's a tradition that he died of old age before Christ began His ministry, but I have no idea where I heard that, or if it's consistent with the Gospels.

Jesus' siblings are interpreted as half-siblings from Joseph's previous marriage(s).

I think Protestants reject most of these claims, depending on the denomination.

>>610378

I hadn't heard that before, but it does sound pretty interesting.

>>610380

Here's a Wikipedia article on the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

>>610378

>I think there's a tradition that he died of old age before Christ began His ministry, but I have no idea where I heard that, or if it's consistent with the Gospels.

Joseph only appeared in the Gospels when Jesus was of young age.

>>610391

Yeah I don't remember him appearing during the wedding with the wine or anytime after. Presumably he died before Jesus reached 30 or so. At the Crucifixion, Jesus entrusts Mary to one of the Disciples if memory serves.

>>610365

Yes, catholics just believe she didn't so they can worship their virgin goddess

>>610378

Literally all of those are man's traditions and not biblical

>>610395

Also about the half-siblings it calls Jesus the first born son so it can't be from Joseph's previous marriage

also if it was then that wouldn't be a halfsibling but a step sibling

>>610401

>also if it was then that wouldn't be a halfsibling but a step sibling

Technically. But remember that Jesus' genealogy in Matthew goes through Joseph.

Am I in the twilight zone? The answer is obvious considering Christ had siblings.

No. Read this http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

tl;dr St. Jerome BTFO Helvidius on this very matter

Imagine knowing that your womb bore the Incarnate Logos, would you consider anything but total chastity? To think that the Mother of God was anything but ever-virgin is Prot-tier idiocy.

>The natural function of God's creation and design for Mankind is sinful

Smells like Gnosticism.

>>610453

Smells like Calvinism, so yeah.

>>610378

I'm protestant and believe Mary was perpetually a virgin.

>>610452

See

>>610469

Most high-church protestants (which is most protestants) agree.

>>610453

>>610462

see >>610450

22. And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, Genesis 1:28 Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth; and Cursed is the barren woman that bears not seed in Israel, they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, 1 Corinthians 7:29 The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none: cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:34 She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind.

etc.

>>610438

see >>610450

Let me point out then what John says, John 19:25 But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the Less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus, For neither did his brethren believe in him. If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says, Galatians 1:18-19 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. And in the same Epistle, Galatians 2:9 And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist Mary of Clopas, whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, Mary the mother of James the Less, and here, Mary of Clopas, you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.

>>610484

>Christ probably had step brothers, but to claim Our Lady wasn't a perpetual virgin is outrageous and it stems from the immense hate some people hold towards her.

It's not immense hatred. Most of us assume Mary did her duty to God wonderfully being a vessel for our Lord. We don't debate her virginity at Jesus's birth.

We just see her as a better than average women who still needed Christ's death to be saved from her sins. To us, she's a normal person caught up in supernatural affairs and handling them as best she could. We don't think her having marital relations speaks poorly of her- we don't think it was sinful.

Protestants think you're making an idol of a normal woman used in an extraordinary way by God. Mary did some great stuff, and Christ also chided her occasionally. From the vibe I get from Christ's words about her she seems to not understand the depth and necessary extremeness of his positions. She probably just wanted him to live a quiet, happy life in Nazareth and was scared to death for him despite the miracles he could do. I'm sure she came to understand it all after the resurrection.

Anyway, I think that's how most of us see Mary. A believer, a saint, but still a woman from whom marital relations were not sinful.

>>610484

I don't think it's hatred but that they're unknowingly Nestorian in their Christology. Same reason they REEE at the title Mother of God. They think this necessarily makes Mary the mother of God's divinity which illustrates their error.

>>610488

There's an apocryphal document called Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, which shows what early Christians believed and it says in chapter 10:

>Therefore Joseph, according to the command of the angel, took the virgin as his wife; nevertheless he knew her not, but took care of her, and kept her in chastity.

The first sentence of the text says:

>The blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mary, sprung from the royal stock and family of David, born in the city of Nazareth, was brought up at Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord.

This has always been believed by whole Christendom until Luther. So I'm sorry, I'm not going to pay attention to anyone's conjecture.

>>610491

>There's an apocryphal document

If it's true why was it decided to be apocryphal?

>>610491

Further, the only scholarly dating I found on it was that it was written about 600 AD to falsely attributed authors. Which is probably why it was apocryphal and why it isn't good evidence of your point.

>>610484

1. It says Jesus was the first born of many brethren which you don't tend to say if they aren't real brothers

2. It's better to take what the Bible says over man's traditions

3. If you're married you're commanded to have kids and have sex unless you fast. So did Mary never eat after getting married?

4. Nothing in the Bible ever says Mary stayed a virgin

>>610495

I'm not saying it's infallible, I'm just saying it's something that illustrates the belief that was held. If you will, look at what st. Justin the Martyr says about it. That's a reliable source I'd say.

>>610496

Oh really so it took 1600 years to come to that conclusion? To claim that 'brethren' means brothers from the same mother and father is to be woefully ignorant of both Greek and Aramaic and of the use of the word brother in the Bible, as I've shown above.

In Jewish law, the first male child (not the female one) is called the firstborn even if the mother has no kids afterwards. Look up Pidyon ha-Ben, the firstborn is the first male child, it has absolutely no implications on the number of further siblings.

>The Lord was called Firstborn because the firstborn was considered the Priest of the family. So also Christ

is our “Great high Priest” (Heb 4:14). Also, in the time of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament ( Abraham, Isaac, Joseph etc), there was no official priesthood, therefore the Priestly duties were done by the head of the family- the father. Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all built altars and offered sacrifices and they passed those priestly duties to their firstborn sons. So to say that Christ is Firstborn is to say HE is a priest.

>Nothing in the Bible ever says Mary stayed a virgin

Doesn't say she wasn't either. You can talk about human traditions all you want, but it was never a point of contention in all Christianity, I'm talking Copts and Syriacs too.

>If you're married you're commanded to have kids and have sex unless you fast.

We're talking about the Mother of God, not ms. James from across the street.

>>610496

Oh, and take a look at Ezk. 44: 1-3

The Copts even have a hymn about it:

>Ezekiel witnessed and told us: I have seen an eastern gate. The Lord, the Saviour entered it, and it remains shut as it was before.

>One of the titles given to the Virgin Mary in the Byzantine rite is: Hail O unique gate, through which only the Word passed.

To claim that someone shared a womb with Christ is preposterous.

>>610496

>1. It says Jesus was the first born of many brethren which you don't tend to say if they aren't real brothers

<He who is first begotten is called first-born, whether he is only-begotten or the first of a number of brothers. If then the Son of God was called first-born, but was not called Only-begotten, we could imagine that He was the first-born of creatures, as being a creature. But since He is called both first-born and Only-begotten, both senses must be preserved in His case. We say that He is first-born of all creation since both He Himself is of God and creation is of God, but as He Himself is born alone and timelessly of the essence of God the Father, He may with reason be called Only-begotten Son, first-born and not first-created. For the creation was not brought into being out of the essence of the Father, but by His will out of nothing. And He is called First-born among many brethren, for although being Only-begotten, He was also born of a mother. Since, indeed, He participated just as we ourselves do in blood and flesh and became man, while we too through Him became sons of God, being adopted through the baptism, He Who is by nature Son of God became first-born amongst us who were made by adoption and grace sons of God, and stand to Him in the relation of brothers. Wherefore He said, I ascend unto My Father and your Father. He did not say "our Father," but "My Father," clearly in the sense of Father by nature, and "your Father," in the sense of Father by grace. And "My God and your God." He did not say "our God," but "My God:" and if you distinguish with subtle thought that which is seen from that which is thought, also "your God," as Maker and Lord.

– St. John Damascene

>2. It's better to take what the Bible says over man's traditions

agreed

>3. If you're married you're commanded to have kids and have sex unless you fast. So did Mary never eat after getting married?

false equivalence

>4. Nothing in the Bible ever says Mary stayed a virgin

Nothing in the Bible ever says that Joseph didn't play the ukulele, but no one would suggest he did because it's preposterous.

>>610488

>We just see her as a better than average women who still needed Christ's death to be saved from her sins. To us, she's a normal person caught up in supernatural affairs and handling them as best she could.

That implies that God does not give sufficient and necessary graces to his elect. For you say that she was "caught up in supernatural" while we say that she was made for this very reason and that Grace of God helped her through this way.

>We don't think her having marital relations speaks poorly of her- we don't think it was sinful.

It does speak poorly of her. And of Christ and his followers too, since to say that virginity is lesser than marriage is sinful for it's heretical. Not that marriage is not sacred but that more sacred is virginity.

>Protestants think you're making an idol of a normal woman used in an extraordinary way by God.

She was not "normal" for she was not of normal. She was of God as all saints were. And she is greatest of them all for she is full of grace.

>Mary did some great stuff, and Christ also chided her occasionally. From the vibe I get from Christ's words about her she seems to not understand the depth and necessary extremeness of his positions. She probably just wanted him to live a quiet, happy life in Nazareth and was scared to death for him despite the miracles he could do. I'm sure she came to understand it all after the resurrection.

Did we read the same Gospel? For I saw a woman that perfectly understood that Christ was Messiah. That he was Son of God. That was first hand witness of two first miracles of Christ, him being incarnated and being born of a virgin. That asked him to do the first public one, that would start his ministry. And I saw women who her son obeyed and cared about even unto Cross under which she stood among few. And I saw women clothed in Sun that is Sun of Righteousness.

>>610494

Same reason why your math book is not in the Bible - not everything true is or should be in it. Tradition and Scripture have bare minimum that one have to believe to get saved so why bother with pi or specifics of virgin marriage of Joseph and Mary when Tradition and Bible say all that one have to know?

>>610496

>1. It says Jesus was the first born of many brethren which you don't tend to say if they aren't real brothers

This phrase "firstborn among many brethren" appears only in Romans 8 and here brethren means all elect and saved.

Or maybe you want to say that he was first born at all so that means that he have to have other siblings. But that's not true since Numbers command to consecrate first borns 40 days after their birth and pregancy does not last 40 day so there cannot be any more borns here.

>2. It's better to take what the Bible says over man's traditions

Bible says that James, Joseph, Simon and Jude we're all sons of different Mary. God's Tradition say the same. Men traditions (protestantism) say against it.

>3. If you're married you're commanded to have kids and have sex unless you fast. So did Mary never eat after getting married?

But as to the second perfection, which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 1:26-27: “Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union.” Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. 1): “All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ’s parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus. There was faith, for there was no adultery. There was a sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none” (Summa theologiae III, q. 29, a. 2).

>4. Nothing in the Bible ever says Mary stayed a virgin

John 19:25-26 is enough of a proof.

>>610499

>is called the firstborn even if the mother has no kids afterwards.

It says fismrst born son and says among many bretheren so he's not the only ond

>>610504

>Doesn't say she wasn't either. You can talk about human traditions all you want, but it was never a point of contention in all Christianity, I'm talking Copts and Syriacs too.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

faggot

>We're talking about the Mother of God,

No

>not ms. James from across the street.

Where does the Bible say she's an exception?

>>610378

Seriously is Catholicism even Christian? Forgive me as this probably deserves its own thread, but when I was a kid I always thought catholics were christians. However the more I hear about them the more I wonder.

When its said that catholics think Mary is "divine", do they mean like a saint or something? Or do they actually elevate her to the level of the trinity?

>>610510

>Seriously is Catholicism even Christian?

>I don't actually know your doctrine but I'll accuse you of not being Christian anyways!

Fuck you, actually read up on our beliefs and doctrines before you pop off and accuse us of not loving our Lord

>>610503

Well then it could just say onlyborn or just not even that since if she stayed a virgin then she wouldn't have more kids

I think there was two James since one dies and there seems to be another. May be wring though. Also he could have had brothers that weren't named. Also how would sola scriptua teach man's traditions? Are you retarded?

You didn't even answer it

wut? He tells the disciple to behold his mom?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/1-25.htm

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

>until

Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born, after which they had loving, passionate, intimate, God-approved marital sex. Joseph put babies in Mary. Sorry if that triggers you.

>>610511

Yeah you're right that I do need to study more, but for the record I'm not accusing you of not loving the Lord, but of being misled.

>>610514

<Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death

2 Samuel 6:23

Michal did not have children until after she died, after which she had many. Sorry if that triggers you.

>>610514

not suprised the NWO versions change it

New International Version

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

New Living Translation

But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

English Standard Version

but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

>>610515

they also call her "the queen of heaven" which is so ething pagans in Jeremiah did

>>610517

What does Michal have to do with Mary?

>>610517

>>610520

Also it means she did giving birth or later that day you dingus

>>610521

>did

died*

>>610517

>>610521

Also KJV says "unto" which also can mean "to" so it may mean she nver had a kid

23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

either way you're autistic though

>>610521

I really hope English isn't your first language.

>>610520

>get called out for blatant eisegesis

>"I don't understand what you're talking about"

Like pottery

>>610531

Stop using nonKjV

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It says means "to"(like your version says) not "untill" like in

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Also that would be pointless to say in Mattew 1:25 if theg bever did. That would be like if I said "I ate the fries not untill after I ate the burger" but bever ate the fries, that woukd be retarded.

Also about the Michal one it is that she died the day she gave birth. It would be like if it said "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till she was 30" that would mean she did have a kid at 30

>>610513

>Well then it could just say onlyborn or just not even that since if she stayed a virgin then she wouldn't have more kids

But he was first born.

Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, as well of men as of beasts: for they are all mine.

Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb for the Lord, and all that is first brought forth of thy cattle: whatsoever thou shalt have of the male sex, thou shalt consecrate to the Lord.

>I think there was two James since one dies and there seems to be another. May be wring though. Also he could have had brothers that weren't named

There is two James' in NT. James brother of John the Evangelist and James the Less, also called the Just. Latter was son of Alphaeus, brother of Simon, Jude and Joseph, son of Mary of Clopas who is the same as Mary of Alphaeus.

> Also how would sola scriptua teach man's traditions? Are you retarded?

Sola Scriptura is human tradition.

Notion that Mary was not ever-virgin is human tradition.

>You didn't even answer it

Answer what exactly.

>wut? He tells the disciple to behold his mom?

He said behold "YOUR Mother" when pointing to Virgin Mary. Meaning that if she had children they should protect and take care of her. But she had none, so John was to do it.

>>610515

>They think she neaver sinned,

Not a big deal really, Jeremiah and John the Baptist did that also. Being full of grace and such.

>never had sex after getting married,

Protestants walk after flesh and focus on flesh. Mary, a Catholic, like her Son, walked after flesh with no regard to flesh.

>and never died but ascended to Heaven.

She did die and then was assumed to Heaven.

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.

>Literally all man's traditions

To say otherwise is man tradition. For what we say is Sacred Tradition, deposit of Faith, given once to apostles.

>>610514

Our reply is briefly this — the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not. Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? Although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

>>610538

I don't have time right now to respond to the whole thing but

>Not a big deal really, Jeremiah and John the Baptist did that also. Being full of grace and such.

Are yiu this stupid? Read Romans 3 again especially verse 23. Also ecclesiastes 7:20.

Shiw me one time it says someone never sinned besides talking about Jesus

>>610539

Also don't you believe original sin also? So wouldn't they automatically have atleast one?

>>610540

This is something I don't quite get.

Mary was born free of original sin. Was this because the Flesh of Christ needed to be born free of original sin as well? That's all fine and good, but if Mary was born of two plain ol' people and God could simply rescind original sin from her, why could Jesus not simply be devoid of Mary's original sin (if she were to have it)?

>>610536

>Stop using nonKjV

You people are insane.

>>610541

There's a whole complex and shaky justification for that just like a bunch of other other Vatican Dogma.

>>610541

>Mary was born free of original sin

Where are you getting this from? What scriptures support this line of thought?

>>610637

How does marital sex with one's husband make one impure?

>>610519

>>610452

>>610490

Biblical proof that Mary should not be given titles like "mother of God" or "queen of heaven":

Luke 11:27-28

>And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

>>610637

By this logic, Mary's mother must have been eternally pure.

>>610667

And her mother, and her mother before her, so on down the line to Eve (wait a minute).

>>610519

I think "co-redemptrix", which the Catholics also call her, is even worse.

>>610527

In the old times many women died giving birth.

>>610653

>>610650

If Mary is not the Mother of God, then how can Christ be God?

>>610667

Mary was born without sin, it has nothing to do with her own parents.

>>610653

btw, watch your words, mocking your Judge's mother isn't smart

>>610724

>Jesus can't be sinless without Mary, but she can be without her parents

It sounds like you believe Mary is better than Jesus

>>610637

There is literally nothing impure about marital conjugation

>>610726

Protestants are not the ones making a mockery out of Mary here.

>>610728

>It sounds like you believe Mary is better than Jesus

Putting words in my mouth.

>Jesus can't be sinless without Mary, but she can be without her parents

wut

>>610729

haha, just like they haven't made a mockery of the Eucharist right

>>610728

>There is literally nothing impure about marital conjugation

and where did that anon imply that?

>>610732

>and where did that anon imply that?

Here:

>>610637

>If you deny that Mary is a permavirgin, you're denying the pureness and divinity of Christ. The Son is forever pure and therefore the Theotokos must also forever be pure.

He said essentially that if Mary had marital sex she would have become impure and passed that impurity on to Jesus.

>>610733

…if Mary had intercourse before the Holy Spirit descended upon her, then Christ wouldn't be of a virgin birth.

you understand the difficulties this would present, right

This point is even completely besides the argument about whether she stayed a virgin or gave birth to children/copulated with Joseph afterward.

>>610733

additionally, where in the Gospels or in the Early Church are recorded the blood brothers of Mary and Joseph, literal Brothers and Sisters of God, Jesus Christ?

Do you believe that they existed?

>>610736

*blood children

>>610724

>If Mary is not the Mother of God, then how can Christ be God?

that's not the problem

the problem is that Christ himself said not to venerate her

>>610735

Dude.. No one is arguing that she had intercourse before the virgin birth. The guy said if you deny Mary IS a PERMAvirgin you deny Christ. Not just that if you deny the virgin birth you deny Christ.