Jon @Jonhatesea

@susieetweets the wizard of loneliness 🤣

Not at all. I am expressing the three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal persons of God. One in substance and essence. Doesn't change the fact that Jesus when incarnate had a mother, Mary. So Jesus, who is God, had a mother. Therefore Mary is the mother of God. Again, she is not the mother of the other persons of the Trinity. She is the mother of the 2nd person of the Trinity, Jesus, who is God.

So your response is to ignore scripture? We are not saying that God the Father or God the Holy Spirit has a mother. We are saying God the son, Jesus, has a mother, Mary. Therefore it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God. Very simple and very biblical.

Cowgyrl will never accept truth. B/c if Cowgyrl did? They would have to admit they have been believing a lie. And human pride is what will continue keeping Cowgyrl from an honest look at their religion. God says pride goeth before destruction. What Cowgyrl posted is a proven lie and yet Cowgyrl is so blinded by their own lies they can't accept the truth and so are bearing false witness. Hopefully Cowgyrl will see the error of their ways.

@todd_thacker @chizzyyoung345 @UcheMaryOkoli I can agree to that. Just because it is not confined to that doesn't mean it doesn't include that. So that doesn't really address my argument or answer my question.

It really does get the to heart of the matter doesn't it. You agree that there is one Church that Christ established. Yet you say that Christians "owe real submission to legitimate church authority." So where was this real Church authority in history that we owe our submission to? It can't be anything that was established 1500 years later like the reformation churches, that is for sure. It has to have historicity. It must be able to trace it's authority to the beginning. We are left with The Catholic Church or maybe the Orthodox Churches. However the Orthodox Churches are not universal as they are generally regional. The Church that Christ established was universal. It was and should be united in belief and authority. It was united under Peter as Christ himself established. Only the Catholic Church is that Church. Show me the case for a different Church being the one that is THE Church which can act according to THE Church as seen in the Bible.

Belonging to "a church" isn't really good enough though is it? The Bible isn't talking about any "church" it's talking about the Church that Christ established. It's talking about a Church that can uphold the Truth. It's talking about a Church that can declare what is to be believed by all of the faithful as we see in Acts 15. That authority did not disappear or die with the last apostle. Notice that it was not only apostles that were at the council. Look at the reformation. The reformers brought their disagreements to the Church as we are told to in Matthew 18:17 and were told they were wrong on certain things and instead of following the Bible and submitting to the Church they left the Church Christ established and cut themselves off from it. The Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church that Jesus established. That is the Church being written about as the "pillar and bulwark of Truth." With all due respect the "church" that you belong to is not able to function as the Church in the Bible functions.

@todd_thacker @chizzyyoung345 @UcheMaryOkoli How would you put those verses I mentioned into practice today?

@SwiftConqueror @WesleyLHuff @gavinortlund This is the view opposing prayer to saints. There is also a view that opposes his view. That is the "opposing view" that I am referring to. I thought that was clear.

I think we will continue to disagree on various points here and how much weight each point has to the overall argument. If only there was some process the Bible mentioned where a Christian institution or Church, that was established by Christ, could act as a "pillar and bulwark of the truth". Then we could turn to that "Church" in order to confirm if one point of view or another is correct if there were ongoing disputes. 🤣 🤔 Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Matthew 18:17; Acts 15

@BibleHulk @WesleyLHuff @gavinortlund Do you know what omniscient and omnipresent mean? If yes then you know that God would not need to give a saint those attributes to allow them to hear that many people.

Yes, but it's not the only part of the mass. There is also the liturgy of the word where there are readings from the Old and New Testament and a homily on those readings. A person who is not able to attend mass, due to sickness for example, can have a Eucharistic Minister visit them so they can receive the Eucharist.

Joe, at best the view Mary had other children is ambiguous. There certainly is no "strong" evidence that favors the view Mary had other children. On the contrary all non-ambiguous evidence points to her not having other chikdren. It's ironic because you are in fact the one "locked into having to defend this [protestant] tradition" of Mary having other children that Christians have rejected since it was first put forth as an "accretion".

Thanks for your response. So #1 and #3 don’t prove anything one way or another. Though it leaves the option open that the siblings are cousins as it was normal to call relatives brother and sister at that time. You do agree that John 19 is evidence for my position. Point in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. You see why Luke: 1:34 might be read as Mary having a vow of virginity. I’ll take that as a point, slightly, in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But it seems you are trying to downplay or dismiss what the text is implicitly stating. You are saying that the angel was just saying that “THIS conception will occur through the Holy Spirit” even though that isn’t what Mary was asking? Mary is asking how she will become pregnant because she, recently betrothed to Joseph which is when people would have sex, has not had sex. She wasn’t asking how she would get pregnant THIS time. The question makes no sense from a woman expecting to have sex with her husband. If she was planning on having sex with Joseph and an angel says she is going to bear a child she would naturally expect to have that child with her husband. Can you imagine a woman that just got married being told they are going to have a child and the woman is unsure how that would happen? A lot of hand waving seems to be going on in order to dismiss this text. #4 your concern is valid. Who is to say that Ezekiel is describing a type of Mary? Don’t take my word for it. If it was just me saying it I would say you have no reason to believe it at all. However, it’s not me who is proposing the reference. It’s the “early” Christians. St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome, St. Augustine of Hippo and a number of others agree that it references Mary. While their word is not infallible their words do, or should, carry theological weight. If their reference was novel and wrong, we would expect to see more early Christians writing against the idea. As we see written again Helvidius and Tertullian. However, we don’t see that. You ask why it would not be fitting? I think we have very different ideas on what being Holy means. I am not saying sex is unholy. Nor is having children. Look at how something that is Holy is treated in the Bible. There is reverence and even caution around those things. They are “set apart” which is what Holy means. Mary is Holy. Joseph would have known that. Mary is Holy because she believed in God and did his will to be the Mother of Jesus. She was set apart for that and so all generations call her blessed. I think it’s important to understand what it means for something or someone to be Holy from a biblical perspective. How the Ark is treated is an example of this whether you agree with the typology or not. I’m glad you brought up the “until” language. The whole point of the beginning of Matthew is to show that Mary is the virgin prophesied that gives birth. The point of the “until” is to confirm that Jesus could not possibly have an earthly father because she was a virgin. I think you already mentioned that the “until” does not necessarily denote a change. So that does not prove anything from the not-perpetual virgin perspective. Based on our discussion there seems to be no evidence that the brothers and sisters had to be biological siblings but there is evidence that they weren’t. So really the only conclusion that should be reached is that Mary did not have other children as the only positive evidence is in that direction.

This is not an exhaustive list of reasons but the ones I recall. I think together they give ample reasons to believe Mary did not have other children. Reason 1: As you mentioned the supposed siblings of Jesus can simply mean cousin and does not necessarily mean brother from the same mother. Reason 2: In Luke 1:34 when the angel makes the announcement that Mary will conceive her response is telling. She says “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” This question from Mary only makes sense if she had no intention of having sexual relations with Joseph whom she was betrothed to. This is evidence pointing towards not having relations with Joseph even after Jesus is born as she seems to have already had a vow of virginity. Reason 3: As we have already mentioned John 19:26–27 provided additional reasoning that Mary did not have other children other than Jesus. From the cross, Jesus gives Mary into the care of the disciple John whom he loved, and from that hour the disciple took her into his home. As I mentioned previously under Jewish custom, care of a widowed mother would fall to her other sons if any existed. This gives reason that Jesus was her only child and she would need someone to care for her afterwards. Reason 4: Traditionally Ezekiel 44:1–2 is seen as relating to Mary as well. The outer gate of the sanctuary “shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” Early Fathers and the tradition interpret this as a figure of Mary’s womb, through which the Lord entered and which remained closed. Reason 5: Mary is Holy. Just as the Ark of the Covenant, which is believed to prefigure Mary, was Holy and not to be touched unless authorized to be. So too it was with Mary. Her womb is something that was set apart for Jesus. It is sacred in that sense. Just as it would not be fitting for the Ark to be used to carry any other things. It would not be fitting for the womb that contained the 2nd person of the Trinity to carry other children. It's important to remember that the things believed about Mary are due to who Jesus is and what that means. She is the Theotokos, the God-Bearer.

@todd_thacker @chizzyyoung345 @UcheMaryOkoli thank you for providing that breakdown. It's helpful for me to see what your understanding is. In order for you to consider it a "good reason" would the evidence need to be explicit or can it be implicit?

@todd_thacker @chizzyyoung345 @UcheMaryOkoli There is more to the belief that Mary had not other children but before I get into that. In your opinion what is the "cumulative biblical evidence [that] favors the biological-brothers reading."?

So, realistically, what evidence would persuade you? What would you view as "overwhelming"? We have limited writings from very early on but what we do have I think should give us a good idea of what the church believed. I am not saying that everything an individual wrote is correct but if there is a majority consensus among many on specific beliefs, to me that is an indication of it's veracity. If a theological belief is introduced and most Christian writers at the time oppose it I think that is good evidence that the introduced belief is false, or at least incompatible with what was previously taught. From the earliest writings we have on the subject which side would the majority fall under? Additionally, are you able to steelman the position of those who believe the bible indicates Mary had no other children?