How The King James Bible Absolutely Disproves The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

One of the arguments presented by the Catholic Church is that if Jesus really did have other brothers and sisters, then why did He have to tell His disciple John to care for Mary? The answer is quite obvious - the all deserted Him in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. Only John, the "disciple that Jesus loved" remained till the bitter and glorious end.
virgin-blessed-mary-had-other-children-besides-jesus-bible-doctrine-roman-catholic-church

Today we are going to see where the King James Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, reveals that Mary the mother of Jesus absolutely had other children.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3 (KJV)

One reason why the King James Bible is hated by the Catholic Church and Laodicean “christian” scholarship is because of the treasure trove of information it contains that no other version of the Bible does to disprove so many false doctrines taught in our day. For example, only in the KJV can you run the references to discover that the identity of the coming Antichrist is none other than Judas Iscariot, the ‘son of perdition’ revealed by a sop. It also shows you what the word Selah really means, and it has nothing to do with meditating on peaceful thoughts of  sweet baby Jesus. It reveals a global war.

Today we are going to see where the King James Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, reveals that Mary the mother of Jesus absolutely had other children.

The Bible verse at the top of this article clearly shows that Jesus, the carpenter son of Mary, had four brothers named James, Joses, Juda and Simon. Not only that, He had an unnamed number of sisters, but two at the very least. The Catholic Church lamely attempts to dispute this by saying that the word “brother” doesn’t always mean brother, and that they could have been cousins. Then they run to the “teachings of the early church fathers” to try and show Mary’s “perpetual virginity”:

“The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained [Sermons 22:2 (A.D. 450)]. – Pope St. Leo I

But in all their blather about attempting to cast doubt on the clear teaching of Jesus’ siblings in Mark 6, they forgot all about Psalm 69.

Psalm 69 is one of those great psalms of David where he starts out talking about himself, but winds up prophesying about the crucifixion of the Messiah Jesus on the cross. Let’s start with the very well-known passage talking about events leading to His death:

“For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” Psalm 69:9 (KJV)

We know that this is talking about Jesus driving out the moneychangers in the Temple because John 2:17 says it is. This is what John recorded:

“And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” John 2:15-17 (KJV)

When the disciples watched the action in the Temple, they remembered that David had prophesied this about the Messiah, and they rightly connected it with Jesus. But have you ever stopped to see the verse that immediately precedes it in the context? It’s a verse that talks about the rejection of Jesus by both His people the Jews in general, and his brothers and sisters in particular:

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69:8 (KJV)

Well, will you look at that? David records Jesus talking about the two-fold rejection of Jesus by brethren and brothers. One of the arguments presented by the Catholic Church is that if Jesus really did have other brothers and sisters, then why did He have to tell His disciple John to care for Mary? The answer is quite obvious – the all deserted Him in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. Only John, the “disciple that Jesus loved” remained till the bitter and glorious end.

“But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” Matthew 26:56 (KJV)

Now you can go on believing that Mary remained a “perpetual virgin” if you want to, but you have to do it in spite of clear Bible teaching from both Testaments that Mary had other biological children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

 

NTEB is run by end times author and editor-in-chief Geoffrey Grider. Geoffrey runs a successful web design company, and is a full-time minister of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to running NOW THE END BEGINS, he has a dynamic street preaching outreach and tract ministry team in Saint Augustine, FL.
  • Itiswritten

    Where did the Selah explanation go??

    • Stephen Vosler

      I learned it as “Stop, look and listen”. The word itself did not need to be spoken.

  • And I am a KJV believer BUT how is it that the other Bibles do not make this connection. I would like you to explain that further as well.

    • The others were edited by catholics, and a Jesuit priest has been on the Nestles/UBS committee from the beginning. See this brief explanation below:
      https://wordpress.com/post/followingjesuschrist3.com/3490

      The KJV(and the Reina Valera in Spanish) is the only English Bible where the Greek that underpins it, has not been altered by the catholic church and unbelievers.

      • I understand this as well. I was looking for information on how the new translations specifically edit out this doctrine…comparisons/verses specifically.

      • Diego David

        For all you Mary bashers and biblical geniuses, a few questions.

        So Mary carries and gives birth to the baby Jesus, The Son of God, The Word Incarnate, The Almighty, The Great I Am, El Shaddai, etc, then she submits herself to a mortal sexual union afterward? Really?

        Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of the concept of adoption?

        That said, if we are being honest, we really CANNOT say with complete conviction either way about this particular issue regarding Mary.

        So now, the next question is why spend so much energy on denigrating this special, holy woman, the mother of God?

        I wonder if her Son approves of all your efforts trying to prove a point about her that you CANNOT really prove one way or another.

        • You negate the word of God by the traditions of men. The “Mary” you worship is truly Semaramis, wife of Nimrod, mother of Tammuz. This…is what Jesus Christ himself says when someone tries to praise Mary:
          “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.”
          ‭‭Luke‬ ‭11:27-28‬ ‭KJV‬‬
          http://bible.com/1/luk.11.27-28.kjv

          As for Mary not having any more kids, Jesus answers that too, while making the same point as above…his family are those who obey rather than fleshly vessels:
          “Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
          ‭‭Luke‬ ‭8:19-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬
          http://bible.com/1/luk.8.19-21.kjv

          Trust the word and not the traditions of pagans masquerading as Christians.

          • Diego David

            You’re killing me…no where in my post did I ever mention worshiping Mary.

            And you totally ignored the possibility of Jesus’ siblings being adopted.

            Also pretty presumptuous on your part to assume I subscribe to pagan teachings just because I mention the possibility of Jesus’ siblings being adopted.

            It matters not one whit to me in this life or the next how Jesus siblings came about, as the bible does mention Jesus’ siblings and that is good enough for me.

            The point I was trying to make is no one this side of heaven really knows whether Jesus’ siblings were from a conjugal relationship between Joseph and Mary, whether they were adopted, or whether Joseph and Mary took them in by some other means.

            So the difference between my belief on this issue and yours is you say you KNOW how any of Jesus’ siblings came about, I am saying we I don’t.

            While you are looking up scripture to quote to me, look up the references to pride and judgement.

          • Hmmmm I hear pride and judgement, but it ain’t coming from me.

        • Dianne

          Hello Diego David,
          I do not believe that anyone who treasures God’s inerrant word in the Holy Bible can be considered a “Mary basher”.

          Mary was a precious servant of the MOST HIGH GOD. Please read Luke 1:26-38. Her reply to the Angel of the Lord in verse 38 of Luke 1 is indicative of this. ” I am the Lord’s SERVANT”, Mary answered. May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the Angel left her.

          Because of her humility she has been honored in scripture with these words ” And the Angel came in unto her, and said Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Hail ( verb) meaning to cheer, salute, or greet; welcome. It DOES NOT MEAN to worship her.

          Mary the mother of Jesus is NOT a deity. Exodus 20:3-5 Thou shalt have NO other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, or any LIKENESS of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN thyself to them, nor SERVE THEM: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

          Joseph ” knew” ( means consummated the marriage) Mary after the birth of Jesus. Please read Mathew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:7
          And he (Joseph) knew her NOT till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. Verse 25

          The names of Jesus’ brothers that are from the consummated marriage between Joseph and Mary are James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. There were also sisters. Mathew 13:55; Mark 6:3

          I hope that you will study these scriptures that you may know the TRUTH and be made free. John 8:32

          2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

          Peace and blessings,
          Dianne

          • Diego David

            Hey Dianne: thanks for the condescending reply – that was really sweet, it was very sincere on the surface.

        • Dianne

          Hello Diego David,
          I was not trying to condescend to you in my post. I was showing you the truth in God’s word concerning HIS humble and obedient servant Mary.

          I did not intend to cause you offense. I sincerely meant only to share the truth in scripture with you.

          Mary gave birth to children conceived through conjugal relations with her husband Joseph. They were not adopted.

          The word adoption is used in scripture in regards to those who have become born again as sons through Christ Jesus. Please read Romans 8:15, 2 Corinthians 6:18 and Ephesians 1:5

          Here are more clear biblical examples of adoptions.
          1) Moses Exodus 1:15-22
          2) Esther ( by her cousin Mordecai Esther 2:7
          3) Jesus Mathew 1:18 By HIS stepfather Joseph

          The Bible does not create confusion about Mary’s humanity and her role as a mother of children that she conceived in holy matrimony with Joseph. Mathew 1:25, Mathew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3

          Examples of women who were barren and still miraculously conceived children through the marriage bed are: Sarah(mother of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-3) Hazelelponi (mother of Samson) Judges 13:3-5, Hannah( mother of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1:6) Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) Luke 1:36

          So as I hope that you can see that the Lord does not keep HIS children in confusion about such matters. Again I send this with peace and blessings.

          Sincerely,
          Dianne

  • The psalm Messiah prophecy’s are absolutely amazing to me. They seem to cover ever conceivable question you might have concerning the Messiah and the amazing part they where written ahead of time.

    • Dan

      Greetings brother AndrewA ,

      I happen to have been led to watch this pastor debate a rabbi over this very issue yesterday and I loved every minute of it.

      You see we are not the only ones who believe the signs of Messiah are being shown to us and I have been following some of the Rabbis

      who claim we are in the end of days and in fact they believe the Messiah is already here and just hasn’t revealed himself yet.

      Spoiler alert : the pastor wins the argument .

      Blessings

      • Thankyou for the video. It was interesting to watch. Most the arguments are the very arguments Paul dealt with in acts. Interesting how some things do not seem to change.

  • DC

    Greetings,

    Many have been led astray in the last 30 years because they began placing books written by church leaders and scholars with great credentials, in the place of the King James Bible. These leaders have convinced each other and their followers of how much they know and how their books and the newer versions of GOD’s Word were needed for understanding of how to become and how to perform as a Christian.

    Consequently, we now have most of the Christian believers competing to become sweet faced, complacent, quite, goody-two-shoes, fit in and let the degradation of GOD’s Word and Ways happen. I just want to quietly as possible say – DON’T follow those leaders or their offerings of their books but especially – Don’t study from other versions other than the King James!!!

    If you study from the King James then your “R”eading will cause your to become stu”R”dy in GOD’s WORD.

    Below, you will see why I am a meat eater in GOD’s Word and while many others are sipping on soy milk and eating tofu.

    Everything Mr. Grider wrote below is absolute truth and i stand behind it 100%!!!

    I recommend to get the earliest text of the King James Bible version possible and use it for your study Bible. I do NOT recommend the New King James Version as I have proof that it is filled with error.

    dc — daughter of CHRIST

    P.S. They have thrown the Baby out with the bath water and Mr. Grider and Christians like me have been their to catch it and let it live!

  • Larry Stanford

    I do not understand Geoffrey why you state that the King James Bible is the only valid translation. I know this position has caused much turmoil among Christians. Just because it is translated from the earlier manuscript does not necessarily make it more correct. And many of these King James only come across as self righteous and prideful. They believe that the King James is the only ture word of God and if you read anything else – you are not reading the word of God and actually involved in hersery. Well I think many of the latter translation such as NASB and NIV actually are more correct than the King James bible. And if the King James is the only one how about people who don’t read English? Geoffrey I think you write such good dispensational articles and I truly like your website – I just don’t understand your view on the King James. So God bless you my brother and please keep up the great articles.

    • Simple…just compare Revelation 13:1 with the KJV vs NIV and tell me what you see.

    • Larry – I was a huge NIV 84 guy and I did not want to switch. I though the whole issue was stupid…and then I studied the issue for close to a year, and I realized…Satan couldn’t burn all the Bibles so he brilliantly used scholars who waxed catholic, to change them from the inside. Please read this brief explanation:
      https://wordpress.com/post/followingjesuschrist3.com/3490

      • The NASB and NIV are based on the Westcott & Hort Greek translation, which uses outrageously false Greek manuscripts. The Reina Valera is a Textus Receptus translation, and thus, was not corrupted by catholics and men who did not believe that Jesus could have possibly paid the debt for our sins. Please see the charts I linked on the article above.

    • The KJV was not translated from the earliest manuscript, Larry. But the KJV was translated from the only COMPLETE manuscripts, where westcott and hort used only 2 manuscripts that had whole books missing and most of the O.T. (NIV was taken from westcott and hort) The manuscripts, known as the T.R. of “received text”, from which the KJV was translated come from 5000 manuscripts and fragments found in the Catacombs in Antioch Syria, where believers, were first called “christians”. These were “perserved” through God’s Holy Spirit, via copies. Psm 12:6-7

      As far as the ‘dispensational’ articles–NTEB has foolishly followed “books” written by men who push another ‘gospel’ for Jews and one for Gentiles and not the scriptures. Luke 24:44-49 proves the Gospel Jesus told Peter to preach was to GO TO “ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM.” Those are Jesus Christ’s own Words. The message was “repentance and remission of sin, in His name. Grider and Randolf both say Peter preached “baptism and the remission of sins”, and “remission of sins” was only ‘temporary’ likening it “cancer in remission”. This is a lie. The word Greek word ἄφεσις, “remission” means “forgiveness”, “deliverance”, “pardon” and was used when Peter preached to the FIRST GENTILE who was SAVED, in Acts 10:43 Thus proving G. Grider is in gross error, saying the Gentiles believed the “secret gospel” of Paul that was different than what Peter taught. Acts 13:38 Paul preached THE SAME GOSPEL THAT PETER PREACHED at Pentecost, and the SAME GREEK WORD “ἄφεσις” is translated “FORGIVENESS” in this verse, proving “remission” and “forgiveness” are translated from the SAME GREEK WORD and mean THIS SAME THING! Geoffrey Grider and Jimmy Randolf are teaching and spreading a false gospel, Paul said is “cursed”.

    • WME

      I question this myself. The KJV is not the original Christian bible, the Latin version is. That is the version which was used by the Catholic faith (sorry folks, I hate to break it to you- but if you are now a Christian, your early ancestors were all Catholic at one time) until the Protestant Reformation movement was started by Martin Luther in the 1500’s. That, as you know, started the whole process of people breaking away from the Catholic Church in order to set up religions that met with their individual desires and ideologies. Take, for example, King Henry the VIII starting his own Church of England religion to accommodate his desire to divorce and remarry as he please. The KJV was written in the early 1600’s. Parts of this “bible” were changed and omitted from the original Catholic (Christian) Latin bible.

      I find it interesting that certain religions and websites continue to insult the Catholic Church – the one started by Jesus, himself, in order to support their own ideologies. I would think the first Christian Church would be the one and correct church, unlike the Johnny-come-lately religions that have sprung up over the years. Please see below:

      How Old Is Your Church?

      If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

      If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

      If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

      If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

      If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

      If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

      If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

      If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

      If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

      If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

      If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

      If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

      If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as ‘Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

      If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

      I think that says it all.

      • NF

        Amen

      • Catholic church was establish by pagan emperor Constantine at 324. From there and until now this organization hasn’t any common things with Christianity.

        • NF

          That’s a lie from the pit of hell!! The Catholic Church originated from the Apostle Our Lord Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter and is the church that has continues to be around from that time.

          • 01e1ngvar

            Where’s proofs, sir? At least I see, what neither Catholic nor Orthodox churches (both claims same) didn’t do, what Apostles taught. Question – do you have Gifts of Holy Spirit?

        • NF

          I’m a woman. Anyway I did my own searching. The proof is where the original church’s originated from. One if the church’s that the apostles originated was in Syria, another is in Jerusalem, author in Greece. They mention those church’s in the Bible and some are in the area now or were before Isis started destroying them and beheading and Crucifying the Christians from those church’s. Strange also how the Christians from those regions dying for their faith are Catholics (Orthodox) that are the true Christians. Also aren’t the ones dying for there faith for Jesus going to be under the altar in Heaven? Put two and two together and see who the real Christians are. I am not condemning anyone. I believe Jesus is coming soon and in the Rapture. Jesus is my Savior. He died for me too and I’m a Catholic. Time to stop condemning Catholics!

          • Ole Ingvar

            Ma’am, if human accepts Jesus in his heart and earn spiritual reborn and gifts of Holy Spirit and use them for Kingdom – such person will be save. And it doesn’t matter what church does he visit.
            And I don’t condemn Catholics. I condemn Catholicism. It’s quite different, as far as I see.

  • One must not question the Bible. St. Joseph was married and had children. The children Mother Mary had were the children from that former marriage.

    • And what verse are you using to show that Joseph was previously married and brought those children into the marriage?

    • Kerry

      Patricia I hope and pray you would consider… The writer is not questioning the Bible he is referencing the Bible showing in scripture to point out that what has been told by the heirarch’s of the RCC is false. If you will please reread the article from a place of consideration rather then an attack. It may very well read very differently to you. We always pray first for His Holy Spirit to reveal His Word. 🙂 Mary doing as a married woman would and is called to do which is lay with her husband and to bore children does not take away from her or our Savior.

      And to speak to your use of “St. Joseph.” Please read this article on that. :)… and I get it Patricia I was raised Catholic many of us here were. I was raised in a very Roman Latin mass sect so it can be very hard to shake.. But I always desire His truth first before any man’s take, control and manipulation of it as I have witnessed myself. 🙁

      (Mr. Grider if you have a better reference or article to speak on this please by all means… 🙂

      http://www.compellingtruth.org/Christian-saints.html

      • John Stevens

        “The writer is not questioning the Bible he is referencing the Bible showing in scripture to point out that what has been told by the heirarch’s of the RCC is false.”

        Sorry, he’s not doing that at all. What he is giving is his personal interpretation of scripture. Now, why should I acknowledge his authority in this matter? God gave the authority to write, interpret, teach and categorize scripture to the Church, not to the author of this article. Were I a Protestant, wouldn’t I have as much authority to interpret scripture as does the author? Indeed, is that not one of the five solas? So should I not prefer my own interpretation over the author’s, when I see quite clearly that the author is wrong?

        “Mary doing as a married woman would and is called to do which is lay with her husband and to bore children does not take away from her or our Savior.”

        I’m sorry, but your ignorance of history is tripping you up here. Mary was consecrated to a sect that vowed perpetual celibacy. St. Joseph was a much older man than Mary, and married her in what would loosely be translated today as a “spiritual marriage.” This, by the way, is the traditional roots of the the vows women religious take when entering a religious order, one where they become “brides of Christ.” An old Catholic joke is based in this truth: Joseph married Mary knowing that he would never lay with her, which is why we call him a Saint! 🙂

        The use of words like “brother” and “sister” are equivocal, more so then than now precisely because Aramaic is a highly contextual language with had much fewer words than English. This means that a single word had to be interpreted according to context, and thus to believe that this word referred to the biological relationship requires contextual analysis. Such an analysis reveals that Jesus regularly used the words to refer to people who clearly were not biologically related to him. No where in the Bible does it say that Mary gave birth to other children. To assume that people called “brother” or “sister” to Jesus meant that Mary gave birth to other children is to do just that: assume. This is “adding to” the text of the Bible, and a clear Protestant no-no.

        “But I always desire His truth first before any man’s take”

        As do I, which is why I converted to Catholicism, and reject the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the even more false belief of the KJV being the only valid Bible.

  • SS

    Never understood why catholics (or many of them) were so ignorant to think that a married woman would remain a virgin throughout her married life? I seriously doubt God would want this for her. Sometimes common sense is lacking in RELIGION.

    • When she mentioned the fact that “she did not know man,” in Luke 1, it is indicative that she took a vow of chastity. This is brought forth by numerous scholars. Even the founders of the Protestant Revolution, e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc., believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.

      • nF

        Bless you!!

    • John Stevens

      “Never understood why catholics (or many of them) were so ignorant to think that a married woman would remain a virgin throughout her married life?”

      Because that was 2,000 years ago, they were Jews, Mary was a consecrated woman, and they had the concept of a “Spiritual Marriage.”

      Mary was consecrated to a sect that vowed perpetual celibacy. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was a spiritual marriage. Otherwise, Mary would have been breaking her vow when she married Joseph.

      In short: our modern conception of marriage is not the only one that has ever existed. In a very real way, you are acknowledging the impact of Catholic philosophy and tradition when you believe that only those who are open to new life should get married: a deeply Catholic view of the sacrament of marriage.

    • John Stevens

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

      Read this for a fuller explanation of what I posted.

      • Phil

        John Stevens,

        The link you posted is interesting enough. But nothing offered there can get past the clear indications of Matthew 1:25. Joseph waited until some time after Jesus was born, and then consummated a normal marriage with Mary. Apocryphal works cannot displace the lucid and information presented in the Gospels.

        • John Stevens

          The clear indication of the verse you give is that that Mary was a virgin at the time of her marriage, and that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Would you agree with at least that part?

          You are interpreting “until” in the sense of a 21st Century English speaker. The original language was not English, the context was the culture, traditions and faith held by the people of 2,000 years ago, and your interpretation is an inference, not an explicit statement.

          You infer that “until” implies the beginning of an act, while the original text indicates the form of a past constraint: it refers not to the future, but says what has not happened up UNTIL to this point in time: the birth of Jesus. It is a mistake to infer that this implies something about future time. A deeper reading of the Bible shows other places where the word “until” is used in this sense and form. A more correct modern translation would have used something like before, but even then it is always possible to simply assume that “after” includes acts or conditions not explicitly stated. That is the risk of inference: that one may infer what was not implied.

          However, that assumption runs afoul of the historical context and facts. The historical context (given in the link I posted) makes it clear that this perpetual virginity was not only expected by everybody concerned, but that in fact the birth of Jesus was considered a grave insult to God, as Joseph had entered into this marriage knowing that it would be a celibate one, and that he had to answer to the Temple authorities for what they perceived as proof positive (a baby) that he had violated his and Mary’s vows.

          Note what doesn’t exist in any passage of the Bible: that Mary gave birth again, or that Joseph ever had relations with Mary. In short, you are assuming what isn’t there, and not using the principles of Biblical exegesis.

          • Phil

            John Stevens,

            “The clear indication of the verse you give is that that Mary was a virgin at the time of her marriage, and that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Would you agree with at least that part?”

            Of course. That is what the Bible unequivocally teaches.

            ===

            “You are interpreting “until” in the sense of a 21st Century English speaker.”

            “until” means to a 21st century person what it meant to Adam. Sorry, but there is no reasonable way to go into Matthew 1:25 and come out on the other end with Mary still a virgin. Try starting with verse 24:

            “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” **

            Matthew wrote these verses for a reason. Mary was a real wife, and Joseph was a real husband, and they had real children. People were very aware of the household Jesus came from:

            “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

            “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?”

            These easy verses are the basis for my beliefs about Mary. Yours depend on special pleading, obfuscation, and peculiar information coming from dubious sources.

            -“until” can’t mean until.
            -“brothers” can’t mean brothers, and “sisters” can’t mean sisters.
            -Mary was not a normal, orthodox Jew. She and Joseph were members of some cult that frowned on marital flat-dancing.
            -Their marriage was loveless and non-committal. Joseph just picked her up in a lottery.
            -Someone called Salome gave Mary a finger exam and was momentarily punished for it.

            All of these things, and many more in regards to the Marian doctrines, are abnormal and extreme. My beliefs are simple, uncomplicated and parsimonious. Honestly, I don’t see how you can stand yours.

            ===

            “Note what doesn’t exist in any passage of the Bible: that Mary gave birth again, or that Joseph ever had relations with Mary. In short, you are assuming what isn’t there, and not using the principles of Biblical exegesis.”

            That’s not a good thing for you to invoke. The Bible is silent almost every Catholic institution and practice. There are some things that are gloriously correct. But overall, the Roman church is hostile to New Testament doctrine. I do not consider Catholics to be lost, but I do think they are wasting their lives and their time in vanity, following the traditions and commandments of men, to the exclusion of their Bibles. Jesus reserved His harshest words for such impropriety.

            ===

            **I think there are 46 translations of Matthew 1:25 here:

            http://legacy.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%201:25

            Notice how many of them begin with “but” instead of “and” to supply the contrast with the previous verse.

        • John Stevens

          Phil, Adam didn’t speak English, and yes, translating from one language to another will drag in meanings and context that are not present in the original language.

          Sorry, but there is no reasonable way to go into Matthew 1:25 and come out on the other end with Mary still a virgin.

          Sorry, but yes there is: that passage simply means this: That Joseph followed God’s command and married Mary, even though at first, to his eyes, it appeared as if she had broken her vow of celibacy. It does not say that Joseph ever did consummate his marriage, nor does any other passage of the Bible, and if you knew the vows Mary had taken, then you would know that both she and Joseph expected their marriage to be and remain celibate.

          You are imposing your cultural context and the extra baggage of English on a bit of scripture that, even in English, never says that Joseph did consummate the marriage he had with Mary.

          Here’s a more complete explanation of how to properly understand this passage:

          Scripture stating Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they “knew” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means! A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the “until” is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples that may help clarify things:

          II Samuel 6:23: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until the day of her death.” Does this mean she had children after she died?
          I Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after St. Paul comes?
          I Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “[H]e will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

          “All of these things, and many more in regards to the Marian doctrines, are abnormal and extreme. My beliefs are simple, uncomplicated and parsimonious. Honestly, I don’t see how you can stand yours.”

          Well, your statement of Catholic beliefs is a caricature, and in some cases an outright misrepresentation of what they actually are. As I’ve shown you above, the word “until” is used in other places in Scripture to refer only to the past tense.

          Your beliefs require you to assume facts not in evidence, to ignore actual historical facts, and to ignore the fact that this has been a Christian belief since about 100 AD. In fact, your whole argument is simply this: that every marriage throughout history has been exactly identical to yours. Sorry, but there were celibate marriages in the time of Jesus, and such marriages were not an offense against God, but precisely the opposite, they were a dedication of the lives of the married couple to God.

          “The Bible is silent almost every Catholic institution and practice. ”

          No, it is not, not if properly interpreted and understood. More to the point, the Bible is not the whole of Christianity: it is only a part of it. That something is not in the Bible does not make it not Christian. Only if some belief is contrary to the Bible, properly interpreted and understood, is there any cause to question that belief. This follows logically from the simple fact that the Church produced the Bible, and that the Bible itself speaks of knowledge given to the Apostles that they did not write down.

          Let’s go through this caricature of yours, point by point:

          1) “until” can’t mean until.

          No, I did not claim this. This is your caricature, not a fair representation of what I said. What I said is that “until” speaks of the past, it makes no representation of the future. More to the point, I’ve given you three examples from Scripture where the word until was used, and it obviously refers ONLY to past time, it says nothing about that act or fact coming into being, and in point of fact, to assume such would be both an error, and flatly ridiculous.

          In short, your interpretation includes an assumption, one that is counter factual, and ahistorical.

          2 “brothers” can’t mean brothers, and “sisters” can’t mean sisters.

          Again, a caricature. What I said was that “brother” is an equivocal word, one that has at least three meanings in scripture. You assume that that word has only one meaning: that the person so labeled is the biological brother of Jesus, when the context and the rest of scripture make it clear that the word is being used either as a label for a close friend, or to refer to a son of Joseph by a previous wife.

          Joseph was much older than Mary, and most likely agreed to the celibate marriage required by Mary’s vows in order to serve God, give protection to Mary, and to have her as his help meet.

          3 “Mary was not a normal, orthodox Jew.”

          She wasn’t. She was a consecrated virgin. Just like a woman religious is not a “normal” Christian, in that she takes vows, Mary was not a “normal Jew”. Marriage was not frowned on, it was just not the only vocation.

          4 Their marriage was loveless.

          No, sexless, not loveless. This is your assumption: that a marriage without sex is loveless.

          “and non-committal. Joseph just picked her up in a lottery”. Do I even need to address such a ridiculous claim?

          “All of these things, and many more in regards to the Marian doctrines, are abnormal and extreme.”

          No, they aren’t, and we have such women even today. That they live in a community together, instead of being the responsibility of individuals, is simply a practical difference.

          You have, however, aptly demonstrated the flaws of Sola Scriptura, and especially a naive and historically ignorant use of same.

          • Phil

            John Stevens,

            “it appeared as if she had broken her vow of celibacy. It does not say that Joseph ever did consummate his marriage, nor does any other passage of the Bible, and if you knew the vows Mary had taken, then you would know that both she and Joseph expected their marriage to be and remain celibate.”

            What vows? Where does the Bible mention these vows?

            Where does it mention that Mary was conceived without sin?

        • John Stevens

          Phill,

          More from the link I posted:

          In Luke 1:34, when the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

          When we consider Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph to then have had what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean St. Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point. Normally, after the espousal the husband would prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why St. Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) when he discovered she was pregnant.

          This background is significant, because a newly married woman would not ask the question, “How shall this be?” She would know! Unless, of course, that woman had a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with St. Joseph.

          So the Bible does say that Mary was a virgin after her marriage, and believed she would remain so.

          As you see, the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary does have Biblical support. Do some reading on the Essene’s, and you’ll learn a bit more about Mary, and her marriage to Joseph, the difference between Essene’s and “normal Jews”.

          At the end of the day, however, your question assumes that the Bible and only the Bible is Christianity. This goes contrary to what Jesus taught, ignores the authority Jesus gave to his Church, ignores what Christians believed since the time of Christ, and is contrary to both historical fact and practical reason (the Bible did not even exist until almost 400 years after the death of Christ).

          The Church has the authority to resolve these questions. Note that the time that the Pope infallibly declared the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was not the beginning of the belief: that belief had been held for more than 1,800 years before the Pope issued his proclamation. This is because the Church does not declare a thing true when its truth is not currently being questioned, the Church only addresses such beliefs when they become contentious.

          It wasn’t until the 1,800s that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was questioned. Protestants believed in the perpetual virginity, as well, including Luther, until the third wave Protestants began to oppose it.

          • Leonard

            Actually,the Textus Receptus makes it clear that Mary had a normal life after the birth of Jesus: “Matthew 1:25 and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.”.

          • Phil

            John Stevens,

            “ “How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.”

            Mary was asking Gabriel how she could be pregnant if she had not been with a man. There is nothing in that question that suggests any kind of vow.

            ===

            “When we consider Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph to then have had what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married.”

            This is nonsense. The word ‘espoused’ is mnēsteuō. It means betrothed, engaged, to be promised in marriage. The word for ‘married’ is gameō. It means married.

            ===

            “This is precisely why St. Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) when he discovered she was pregnant.”

            The word for ‘divorce’ is apostasion. It is not in this verse. The word that is used is apolyō, which means to send away, set loose, dismiss, release. Divorce, according to the Mosaic law, required a writ of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1). That requirement is not mentioned because they were only engaged.

            That said, I can see why the New American Bible would go with “divorce her quietly” instead of the Douay-Rheims rendering “put her away privately”. It isn’t honest, but it is consistent.

            ===

            “Do some reading on the Essene’s, and you’ll learn a bit more about Mary, and her marriage to Joseph, the difference between Essene’s and “normal Jews”.”

            The Essenes were reclusive, monastic and uninterested in the Temple in Jerusalem. Nothing about Mary, Joseph or Jesus supports the idea that they were Essenes.

        • John Stevens

          Just in case you’d like to read it for yourself:

          http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/how-we-know-mary-was-a-perpetual-virgin-0

          Tim Staples was a dedicated and quite committed Protestant, one who was planning a life as a Pastor. He made the mistake of studying Church history (“To be deep in history is to discover that the Catholic Church is the Church God founded.”) and the history of the Bible, and found that after much arguing and study that he had no choice but to convert to Catholicism.

          • NF

            This happened to me. I went on a journey to find the true church of Christ. The first. In the meantime I joned different Protestant churchs.but kept looking. The only churchs that had any connection to Jesus were the Churchs in Syria etc. So the Catholic Church has all the components to be the true Church. Also as I said before the Protestants at least the last church I was in couldn’t stop bashing Catholicism. Catholics have Mass and are concerned with God. The Rapture I believe and that we are in the end times. But I also believe that Catholics is the true church and Catholics will be in Heaven too.

        • NF

          The Blessed Mother was concieved without sin, because God didn’t pick someone sullied to have his son.

          • If Mary was born sinless, then her mother would have had to have been sinless, and so forth and so on. But, the sin nature is in the blood and the blood comes from the father. That is why Jesus was sinless. His blood came from the Father and was sinless. As we have learned over the years, the blood of the mother, and the blood of the baby, never blend or touch. So, a sinful woman giving birth to a sinless God Man is not a problem. But truthfully, this whole Mary thing is designed to take ones love and devotion off Jesus and put it on something else. The Catholics who believe the Mary teachings, have been so indoctrinated by their leaders for so long, they cannot think any of way. It’s very difficult to overcome a life time of programming.

          • Phil

            Richard O. Mann,

            “That is why Jesus was sinless. His blood came from the Father and was sinless.”

            Check, and thank you. Bildad the Shuhite asked this question in Job 25:4b,

            “how can he be clean that is born of a woman?”

            It doesn’t require an immaculate conception.

        • John Stevens

          “This is nonsense.”

          No, it’s not. Biblical Exegesis requires you to study history and the languages and cultures of the time to determine the proper meaning to bring to the words.

          One does not divorce a woman one is not married to, and more to the point, one does not question where babies come from if you are married. The angel was not announcing a completed fact, he was asking Mary to give permission. Such permission was required, as God always gives us a free choice. The only reason that Mary would have even asked the question, is that she could not conceive having not known, and not planning to know, a man. Otherwise, the question would not have arisen at all, as even if I granted your rather tortured argument, the question would not have needed to be asked, as she would not have had to ask the question.

          That Mary had entered into this marriage with Joseph is precisely because of what I had said earlier: she was part of a break away sect of the Essenes. She retained her status as a consecrated virgin, but had taken a position in Joseph’s household (the Essenes normally lived communally). This position was best formalized as a kind of marriage, but since Mary was a consecrated virgin, Joseph had already had children (he was much older than Mary), and Mary could not return to her family, then the arrangement worked for both of them. Mary would be mother to Joseph’s children, the homemaker and caretaker for Joseph, and he would give her name, shelter and position.

          This is part of what makes Mary special: she was conceived immaculate (that doesn’t mean sinless, that means “free of original sin”, and original sin is not a sin per se, but more an inherent separation from God, said separation being repaired by baptism) but also a consecrated virgin.

          • Phil

            John Stevens,

            “Biblical Exegesis requires you to study history and the languages and cultures of the time to determine the proper meaning to bring to the words.”

            Not very often. In most cases, you can arrive at a solid interpretation using context and comparative scriptural analyses. What you are doing is not exegesis. You are appealing to external sources to build doctrines that are never mentioned in the Bible.

            In regards to that record, Mary was not in view in the days leading up to the crucifixion. She, and her sister, were close enough to the cross to hear Jesus address her and John, but she is not mentioned as being present when Jesus’ body was prepared for burial, and didn’t go to the tomb. There is no record of her ever being baptized (which shouldn’t surprise anyone since the disciples weren’t either). She (and Jesus’ half-brothers) are mentioned as being in attendance for the events of Pentecost, but that is the last time her name appears in the New Testament. If God intended for Mary to be any kind of central figure, He would have had Paul or one of the other apostles at least mention her in passing, but they don’t even do that.

      • Phil

        John, I found the “Protoevangelium of James” online here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html
        It seems to the basis for some of the Marian doctrines, and is also interesting reading. It turns out that Mary didn’t give birth to the Lord in Bethlehem. Here’s what really happened:

        “…Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead thee, and cover thy disgrace? for the place is desert.

        18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem. And I Joseph was walking, and was not walking; and I looked up into the sky, and saw the sky astonished; and I looked up to the pole of the heavens, and saw it standing, and the birds of the air keeping still. And I looked down upon the earth, and saw a trough lying, and work-people reclining: and their hands were in the trough. And those that were eating did not eat, and those that were rising did not carry it up, and those that were conveying anything to their mouths did not convey it; but the faces of all were looking upwards. And I saw the sheep walking, and the sheep stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the current of the river, and I saw the mouths of the kids resting on the water and not drinking, and all things in a moment were driven from their course.

        19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither art thou going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit. And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things — because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth — a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

        20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for Thou knowest, O Lord, that in Thy name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Thy hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath heard thee. Put thy hand to the infant, and carry it, and thou wilt have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things thou hast seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.”

        ===

        If Joseph saw what happened to Salome’s hand, I can see how she would have remained a virgin.

        • Reads like a good fairy tale. There a reason why the King James council left those books out. They just did not ring true, and I believe the Holy Spirit moved on the men there to not include these writings.

          • NF

            Really I’m puzzled why the Protestants bend over backwards to make Jesus Mother a sinner. What’s the point of this. I like to see that my Savior loves His Mother and she would be honored and loved. Just like you wouldn’t like someone to say bad things about your mother, I don’t believe Jesus will be pleased with someone besmirching His Mother, especially when she was pure living and endured so much. Think in your own mind Richard pray for understanding.

          • Phil

            Richard O. Mann,

            It reminded me of the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are lots of flaws and contradictions. No mention of Nazareth, etc. It’s a mess. But it gives them what they want.

  • HD

    If Catholics have it all wrong regarding the Virgin Mary, why does she continue to reveal herself throughout the centuries, to people only of the Catholic faith?

    • Kerry

      Same as those who have said they have had a visitation by Buddha, Mohammad, and so on…. Please HD read His Word.. It is all about the Creator, the Most High, thee Heavenly Father.. Even Jesus Christ our Savior points to when He speaks to the Father. Not His mother or any “Saint”… Please please I implore you to search His Word it is all there.. 🙂 I had a girl I worked with tell Buddha visited her in her dreams.. The enemy can and does mimic, imatate, twists, distorts, and impersonates himself and false teachings as “truth”, “knowledge.” He bodily told his Creator, he wants to be like him and be exalted over him. :/
      Please humbly consider 🙂

    • Leonard

      How do you know that it is she?

    • Richard

      They are demonic deceptions. Mary is dead, and I’m guessing, in heaven, not as the Mother of God, but as Mary, the woman chosen by God, to give birth to the Son of God, in the flesh. These manifestations of Mary over the years are just more confusion thrown in by Satan, to keep people from the truth.

    • It’s called demonic and satanic deception.

  • Larry/vietnamvet1971

    the Catholics have always been deceiving people.

    • Could you please back up your accusation with evidence?

      • Larry/vietnamvet1971

        I don;’t need too I have the Holy Spirit living in me…..you just keep being the Number 1 FAN and cheerleader, RAH, RAH your pope is your holy father and Mary is your IDOL.

        • In other words, you just make up things without any evidence. Does not sound like the Holy Spirit working inside of you to me. Also, would not anyone, who accepts beliefs contrary to you, say that they have the Holy Spirit inside of them as well? How do you know which is true? Do you think that Our Lord Jesus would have authorized such chaos as that?

          • Larry/vietnamvet1971

            glad you have plenty of time to waste pushing your false roman catholic religion looks like not to many takers but you do have a few YEPPERS agreeing with you. I do NOT need a priest, pope, bishop, or you to explain the Word of GOD to me.Take off your deceived glasses and read it yourself with out having one of your catholic cohorts to tell what you are reading.You need to worry about your holy spirit. When I read the catholic junk my spirit & the holy spirit is like an alarm it goes OFF with FALSE.

            Evidently you do not know who the author of confusion & chaos is.

            Just keep your Pomp & Ceremony going it looks impressive to people that are deceived like MILLIONS around the world.

      • Jimmy

        Compare Catholic doctrine with the Holy Bible and you’ll have your evidence.

        • i have and there is nothing that contradicts Catholic belief with the Bible. The Scripture supports Catholic belief.

  • ben from canada

    Also is interesting how when hucksters/ false teachers Kenneth Copeland & Jesse Duplantis PARTNERED with the Pope/ Catholic church. Then Copeland went silent with the teaching that Mary had other children and did not remain a virgin. yet both their video’s and monthly magazine’s confirm and prove it.

    Jesse Duplantis also stated in a 2001 Magazine Catholic’s are not Born again. yet Copeland thinks the ecumenical charismatic renewal was great flopping around on the floor proves their conversion

    They Both must have got a slap on the hand at the last visit to the Vatican.

  • HD

    I would suggest that all of you go to this website:

    http://www.tldm.org/

  • The Catholic Bible render Psalm 69:8 almost the same as the KJV. Now, if there is a big conspiracy to mistranslate the Scripture in order for it to better follow Catholic teaching then why is the Catholic translation virtually the same as the KJV? What Mr. Grider does not tell us is that the Psalmist is referencing Job 19:13-15. Mr. Grider’s argument does not demolish the fact that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin throughout her life.

    • If she did remain, then Joseph should be equally admired.

      • I agree. To think that a man who was in good physical condition, was married to a young woman as Mary has been described, and not had sexual relations with each other after the birth of Jesus, is just plane stupid. Also, once Jesus was born, that would have been the end of virginity for Mary. He “opened the matrix” of her birth canal. I don’t know why the Catholics have this insanity as part of their beliefs. Does anyone know when this first came to be in the Catholic church?

        • BK

          @ R.O. Mann

          “Does anyone know when this first came to be in the Catholic church?”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Semiramis, a.k.a. the “Catholic Mary” is reported to have been an inn/brothel keeper in the city of Erech.

          Her son Nimrod was king, and at some point became the sungod of the Babylon religion – she was instructed by the high priests to marry her son and have sexual relations with him to open her “third eye” (symbolic for receiving the gift of “secret knowledge” for this abominable act).

          Being married to a ‘god’ bestowed upon her the title of a goddess – hence, Queen of Babylon and Queen of Heaven.

          Tammuz, born from the union of Semiramis and Nimrod, was born after Nimrod’s death and his birth was considered a “miracle” birth by way of Nimrod impregnating Semiramis “through the rays of the sun” – Nimrod had ‘ascended into the sun’ upon his death – so the story goes.

          Of course, we know her pregnancy didn’t happen this way, but it surely helped her to not only keep her goddess status, but to strengthen it in the minds of the people.

          Tammuz, being born by ‘miracle’ birth and whose mother was a god(ess) was to become the ‘savior of the world’ – this caused Semiramis to be known also as “The Mother of God”.

          The name Semiramis is a later, Hellenized form of the Sumerian name “Sammur-amat”, or “gift of the sea.”

          Of course, it would not do to have an ex-harlot ‘giving birth to god’, so the “polite” story was invented that she was ‘a VIRGIN sprung from the sea’ .

          Semiramis was known as [a, the] ‘Virgin’ – in Babylon .

          The idea that [the true] Mary remained a virgin is nothing more than ‘a religious psych-job’ to continually honor Semiramis to this day!

          Queens are married to kings.

          By catholics, the catholic ‘Mary’ is known as The Queen of Heaven …

          Then, who is “The Queen of Heaven’s” husband?

          Is she married to The King of all Creation, YHVH?

          Is she married to The King of Kings, Yahushua ?

          Catholics never consider this question. I think they should!

          The obvious answer is “Neither one” !

          Semiramis, The Queen of Heaven, was married to Nimrod – Before that, she was married to his father, Cush.

          • BK, you quoted,
            “Tammuz, born from the union of Semiramis and Nimrod, was born after Nimrod’s death and his birth was considered a “miracle” birth by way of Nimrod impregnating Semiramis “through the rays of the sun” – Nimrod had ‘ascended into the sun’ upon his death – so the story goes.

            Of course, we know her pregnancy didn’t happen this way, but it surely helped her to not only keep her goddess status, but to strengthen it in the minds of the people.

            Tammuz, being born by ‘miracle’ birth”

            If you honestly believe, what you are quoting, then EvangelicalsFundamentalists/Protestants are no better than Catholics because they believe in a “miracle birth” and people “ascending in Heaven” etc. i guess that you are just as pagan as we are.

          • BK

            “If you honestly believe, what you are quoting, then EvangelicalsFundamentalists/Protestants are no better than Catholics because they believe in a “miracle birth” and people “ascending in Heaven” etc. i guess that you are just as pagan as we are.”

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            You may want to re-read my post again (a little slower this time) and you will understand that I clearly don’t believe that Tammuz was born by way of a miracle.

            However, I absolutely DO BELIEVE that the TRUE MESSIAH was indeed born of a miracle birth!

            And, I believe He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, Yahuah!

            But …

            I don’t celebrate Tammuz’s birthday on Dec. 25th ! …

            Another religious “psych-job” on the gullible, un-educated masses (no pun intended)!

            I don’t celebrate Tammuz’s (albeit false) resurrection on Easter “sun”day morning, either ! – as the sun(god) “resurrects” itself – I’m sorry, I meant sun “rises”! …

            Another religious “psych-job” on the gullible, un-educated masses!

            So, let’s be clear! … I’m not a pagan.

            But, for those with (spiritual) eyes to see, and (spiritual) ears to hear – the modern-day, Babylonian pagans aren’t hard to spot!

            BTW, I’m no protestant, either.

      • He is admired. He is patron of the Universal Church.

    • avidtrober

      Mary is dead.

      • Are you sure? The Blessed Mother and I worship the same God and the KJV states that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”Matt. 22:32

        • Mary is dead, like every other person and Deuteronomy 18 makes at clear that we do not pray to dead people (all of whom are either in heaven or hell), we pray to the Living God only.

          • The KJV refutes you on that. I showed one verse that suggests otherwise.

      • NF

        The Blessed Mother is in Heaven whether you like it or not.

    • tasdgs…study to show yourself approved amigo. There are HUNDREDS of differences in the translations, many of which justify catholicism, like in James 5 when James said to confess our “faults” to one another, while the new versions change it to “sins” to justify the confessional. We approach the throne of grace to confess our sins per Hebrews 4 and 1 John. It is a wicked, but subtle lie to replace God with men who are very often occultic child molestors. My article linked on a previous comment has charts showing many of the changes. Study study study.

      • Yes, it is important to study and I agree that there are many translations but, for this thread, I’m just using the KJV which proves the claims of the Catholic Church.

    • nF

      Bless you!!

  • SouthernBelle

    This type of teaching is so helpful to my study of the Word! Two hours of studying Psalm 69 followed after my reading of this article. And I’m not even halfway done, but will resume tonight. I saw Christ all throughout and cross referenced every verse through verse 11. Thank you so much! Please write more soon!!!

  • MIKE WATCHINSKI

    “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not “TILL” (my emphasis) she had brought forth her firstborn son: and she called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:24-25)

    After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph settled into a somewhat “normal” family life.You and just imagine the every day activities in the house of Joseph. They had a large family.

    Looking…

    • avidtrober

      Good luck getting a Roman Catholic to accept the Bible’s plain message.

    • That does not imply that they had relations after Our Lord was born. Why? What you pointed out was in reference to a fulfillment of certain conditions. If we use your reasoning of this elsewhere, in Scriptures, we come to mixed up conclusions. Let me give you an example from the KJV:

      1 Cor. 15:25
      25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

      So does that mean that after He has put all of His enemies under His feet He stops reigning? Surely Evangelicals don’t believe that Christ the King stops reigning.

  • John Stevens

    The King James Bible is just that: the Bible as edited and modified by King James.

    Sadly, the King James has more than 2,000 edits that were made to give “scriptural support” to Protestantism, and to the Monarchy, and is missing parts of two books, and the whole of seven others.

    • avidtrober

      There is nothing missing from anything God intends to be His Witness.

      The judgment will prove that.

      What vulgate Latin entered in is known.

      Ditto for other twists.

      The truth is Bible study is best done with at least three translations. All the original texts and words are known well enough to accept a Character Witness from God, who will bow to no lesser form of life mortals demand.

    • John Steven – it sounds like you believe the propaganda. The KJV had 54 of the most brilliant scholars alive (I have read their CV’s), on both sides of the theological aisle. That is easily provable.
      Erasmus exposed the wicked lies of the catholic church when his latin translation proved that Jerome’s vulgate had much man-made catholic doctrine (penance, purgatory) woven in…doctrines that were not in the original Greek. Satan wants you in hell, and the RCC will get you there quickly.

      • John Stevens

        Sorry, no, it’s not propaganda. In fact, you believe in a logical fallacy: that a text has inherent meaning. Formal linguistics disproves this, conclusively. More to the point, you are trying to refute the truth by referring to it as “propaganda”, which is nothing more than the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.

        In fact, you refute your own argument by attempting to refer to a source of authority. Yet the Bible itself tells us that Jesus gave authority to the Catholic Church, not to your “brilliant scholars.”

        The Catholic Church is the Church that God founded while incarnate. To reject it knowingly is to reject God. Your only hope is to plead invincible ignorance.

        • That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. The Rcc is Babylonian paganism revived – yet only those at the top know it. You are their slave. God will judge the veracity of his word at the end – and it’s going to be ugly for the wicked men who burned thousands at the stake to keep the scriptures out of the hands of men, and then, when that failed, they changed the bible to fit their perverse doctrine. I very much look forward to that day of judgement. You must repent or you will find yourself in the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of God Almighty.

          • John Stevens

            “That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.”

            That’s not an argument, it is avoiding the argument.

            The rest of your reply is just lies and ad hominem attacks.

            Semiotics 101 (part of the discipline of formal linguistics): “Signs have no meaning. Meaning is what we bring to signs, not what we take from them. It is impossible for a sign to have innate or inherent meaning.”

            “Sign” is a technical word meaning (and here I’m demonstrating the truth of the above statement by telling you want meaning to bring to that word in this context) a word, or a picture, or a vocalization, or a meaningful pattern of pre-existing objects, or colors in certain contexts.”

            The proof of this basic fact (that signs have no meaning) lies in the necessity to teach your children to read. If signs had innate meaning, you could simply pick up a book in any language, and simply start reading it. But go to any first grade class on the days that they are teaching the children to read, and what do you see? A teacher, telling the children what signs to bring to the words.

            God is perfect reason: he does not make mistakes. Jesus wrote no scripture, did not command his Apostles or disciples to write scripture, and he certainly didn’t wait more than a thousand years to do so, either, then intend for some English King to do so.

            God founded the Catholic Church. He did so precisely because a book has no meaning, and a book cannot care for, shepherd, teach and love the people of God. A Church can, and does, and through the ministering of the sacraments, the Church acts as a conduit through which God gives his graces and blessings to said people.

            The Bible serves the Church, and has no meaning outside the Church, precisely because it is the Church who teaches us what the proper meaning is to bring to the signs in the Bible, because the Church has the authority to write scripture, and the authority to declare existing texts to fall into the category of “scripture”. We know that the Church is the only proper institution (not an English King, a thousand years later) to accomplish this end, precisely because God gave the Church this authority.

            You claim that the authority to teach and interpret scripture lies . . . where? In some English King, or some unnamed “scholars”? Sorry, no, my Lord and Master told me who has this authority: The Catholic Church.

            “You must repent”

            Of what? Loving and serving God and his people? Of choosing to belong to the assembly that is God’s own? Of seeking him daily, and doing my utmost to live my life in accordance to his plan?

            Nope. Not gonna repent of that.

            Sola Scriptura is irrational and far too easily falsified to be a true dogma.

          • John Stevens

            Sorry, typo:

            “A teacher, telling the children what signs to bring to the words”

            should have been:

            “A teacher, telling the children what meanings to bring to the words”

          • NF

            The Babylonians will turn out to be the Islamic religion. They are beheading Christians now!! Wake up!!

          • It’s both. Despite appearances the rcc and Islam are one. the rcc created Islam. It will be revealed soon enough….

          • NF

            It is not nor ever will be the Catholic Church. It is Islam. It is clear.

          • All Catholic symbology, from the montrance to the host points to Baal and thus, Nimrod, the father of Babylonian paganism. The rcc runs the show. Every other false religion does their bidding…but just like with freemasonry only those at the very top know the deal. We shall see…..

          • NF

            Protestansts use the host too. It is Jesus whether you believe it or not. This is the true Chruch nothing else.

          • Protestants do not use a round, sunlike disc. We use pieces of bread or broken up crackers. God will one day reveal who is the harlot who wears robes of purple and scarlett. Hmmm. Sounds familiar – but I’ll let God make that call.

        • Leonard

          Can you offer a scriptural reference to back up your claim that your “…lord and master…” gave ANY authority to a gaggle of child-molesting men in dresses to do ANYTHING?

          • John Stevens

            Matthew 16:18

            There are other passages, and the one good thing about having only a book is that you get to know that book pretty well. So I suspect a Protestant can find the others quite easily, though I am equally certain that such clear and unambiguous passages will somehow need to be “explained away.” Or you could, just once, meditate on this passage and its context as if Jesus meant what he said.

            Or you could study Church history, and the history of the first 400 years of Christianity. The form of Christianity up until the great schism between East and West was distinctly and uniquely Catholic.

          • Leonard

            Howdy, John! Can you show me where popes–the “vicars” of Christ or priests that can absolve one of sin are mentioned here:
            Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I’m seeing an actual apostle of Jesus appointed by Jesus Himself to pick up the ball and run. I’m not seeing catholicism or any mention thereof.

          • John Stevens

            Read John 20. Specifically, verses 20-23 where Jesus proves he has been resurrected (and is therefore the Messiah promised in Scripture, though not the Messiah in the form expected by the Jews), baptizes them in the Spirit, then gives them the power to forgive sins in his name.

            These are the first priests, who where then sent out in to the world to teach and serve. Jesus prefigures the sacrament of confession in the washing of the feet, as well, and gives some guidance as to the meaning of the sacrament of reconciliation (and a metaphor of it as the sacrament that “washes away the dirt of sin”) and that the power to do so comes from him (as the washer).

            See also:

            http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-confession-in-scripture-0

            and watch:

            http://www.catholic.com/video/why-do-catholics-confess-their-sins-to-a-priest

            The word “Catholic” simply means “universal”:

            cath·o·lic
            ˈkaTH(ə)lik/Submit
            adjective
            1. (especially of a person’s tastes) including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.
            synonyms: universal, diverse, diversified, wide, broad, broad-based, eclectic, liberal, latitudinarian; More
            2. of the Roman Catholic faith.
            noun
            1. a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

            Which is of course true: The Church is universal, as it teaches the Truth, and Truth is universal, and Jesus came to save everybody (he is the universal savior).

            The Church is one because Love is unifying, because God is perfect simplicity and brooks no division, and because Jesus founded one and only one Church, just like it says int the Bible.

        • NF

          Yes!!! Amen!! The Catholic Church is the True Church. I did my studies and even joined for awhile the Protestants. Strangely they all had things missing. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. You will find out at the end of this life and you will regret talking about the Mother of Jesus like she is nothing.

          • John Stevens

            I went further afield than you. I studied and tried a great many religions, seeking the one true faith, with the sole requirement being that it must be rational. Some religious traditions require more work than others to falsify, but in the end I falsified all but one: Catholicism.

            Amusingly enough, before I started on this search, I prayed: “God, if there is a one true faith, it must conform to reason. If I can find a religion that I cannot falsify, I promise to join it . Except for Catholicism, of course, because that would be just plain silly!”

            God must have been ROTFLHAO Easter Vigil, 2015, when I entered the Church.

            Yeah, I also tried a number of different forms of Protestantism. After falsifying three of the five solas, I had to give it up as a corrupt and irrational system. It wasn’t until I had studied Catholic teaching and philosophy that I began to truly understand Protestantism, and understand why the Church refers to it as a heresy.

            This is not to deny the ability of God to reach his people in a multitude of ways, but any group that includes mainline sects that believe in female ordination, that gay marriage is biblical, and that God would be incarnated in a filthy and impure vessel no different from any other, and more over one that ties reason, hermeneutics and tradition into pretzel shapes in order to try to explain away some of what Jesus said is working under some pretty severe, but self-imposed handicaps.

            One can almost admire the Protestants for their willingness to take such risks: they discard so very much of what God intended for them to have and tough it out with what little remains. I, personally, prefer not to reject God’s gifts, but that’s just me.

  • Phil

    “only in the KJV can you run the references to discover that the identity of the coming Antichrist is none other than Judas Iscariot, the ‘son of perdition’ revealed by a sop.”

    This is a very interesting subject. For anyone interested in further, I would recommend a theologian by the name of Arthur Pink. He died in 1952, but did very exhaustive work on the identity and nature of the antichrist, and all the verses that pertain to him. His studies are online.

    • tiptopsaidhe

      Even revealed by the sop, Judas died in the first century. He won’t be alive again. It is once for a man to die and be judged.

  • avidtrober

    To be a Roman Catholic is worse than being Biblically ignorant, it’s WILFULLY tossing the Word of God out the door.

    First, the Roman Catholic church is a led by the doctrine of demons:

    “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons…They forbid people to marry ” 1 Tim 4:1, 3

    What is God’s intention with sex in the first place?

    “And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.” Mal 2:15

    fact: there will be NO offspring without sex.

    God honors the marriage bed:

    Second, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Heb 13:3

    as well as the sex organs themselves given specialty modesty:

    “and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,” 1 Cor 12;23

    And, yes, God made sex for enjoyment:

    “God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” 1 Tim 6:17

    FACT ONE: MARY IS DEAD. Scores of bible verses proving that. (Along with every other single Bible character sans Enoch and Jesus Christ).

    FACT TWO: MARY IS 100% HUMAN WITH ZERO REDEEMING POWERS FROM GOD. Just toss the Bible if you believe ANYONE other than Jesus Christ has that power.

    FACT THREE: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE BEAST AND THE POPE IS A FALSE PROPHET.

    • avidtrober wrote,

      “To be a Roman Catholic is worse than being Biblically ignorant, it’s WILFULLY tossing the Word of God out the door.”

      If that is the case then why is the Mass saturated with Scripture?

      “First, the Roman Catholic church is a led by the doctrine of demons:

      “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons…They forbid people to marry ” 1 Tim 4:1, 3”

      No one is coerced not to marry. In fact, St. Paul speaks highly of those who remain celibate for the sake of Heaven, 1 Cor. 7:32-35, 37-38. Does that mean that St. Paul was preaching a “doctrine of demons”?

      “What is God’s intention with sex in the first place?

      “And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.” Mal 2:15”

      And the Catholic Church has been preaching that for the past 2000 years.

      “fact: there will be NO offspring without sex.”

      Yes and there will be no offspring if one practices artificial contraception either but that does not stop Evangelicals from not condemning artificial contraception. In fact, it is promoted in their communities. If the purpose of sex is to raise Godly offspring then would you not think that artificial contraception is a great offense against God?

      “God honors the marriage bed:

      Second, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Heb 13:3

      as well as the sex organs themselves given specialty modesty:

      “and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,” 1 Cor 12;23

      And, yes, God made sex for enjoyment:

      “God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” 1 Tim 6:17”

      Sound Catholic teaching there. The only thing that I would like to make mention is that enjoyment of sex is not the be all to end all. Sex was made for the procreation of children. If the enjoyment aspect of sex was the be all to end all then that would open the door to pornography and fornication.

      “FACT ONE: MARY IS DEAD. Scores of bible verses proving that. (Along with every other single Bible character sans Enoch and Jesus Christ).”

      The Blessed Mother and I worship the same God. The KJV states that, “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” If that is the case then she is not dead. Either your accusation is wrong or the KJV is wrong.

      “FACT TWO: MARY IS 100% HUMAN”

      When did the Catholic Church teach otherwise?

      “FACT THREE: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE BEAST AND THE POPE IS A FALSE PROPHET”

      Pure Protestant propaganda that is 500 years old without nothing to back it up with.

      • It is a SIN for a wife to defraud her body from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:4-5 KJV)

        If Mary was a “perpetual virgin” she was a habitual SINNER.

        • NF

          Do you really believe what you say? Calling the Mother of God a sinner. St. Joseph knew she was hand picked by God and I believe they remained chaste for that reason. I’m not going to keep on talking about this.You will probably have some explaining to God. Also I’m not an idol worshiper. I love Jesus. You don’t know me or my relationship to my Lord and Savior.Your hate ( not just you, but All) for the Catholic Church blinds you.

    • nF

      That’s what you say! The end time evil will be islam

      • NF

        my comment was for avidthrober

  • CHAR

    tasdgs, in your comment you think that Mary stayed a virgin because of the verse in Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” It doesn’t say I will NEVER see a man. As of that very moment she was a virgin. AFTER she married Joseph, she became a wife and mother of other children.

    • But where is the evidence for that? By her comment to the angel, it is evident that she must have taken a vow of celibacy.

      • Phil

        tasdgs,

        “But where is the evidence for that? By her comment to the angel, it is evident that she must have taken a vow of celibacy.”

        That isn’t good scholarship. Even the Douay Rheims resists the idea that Joseph and Mary didn’t consummate their marriage.

        “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Matthew 1:24,25 DR

        Same story with these verses:

        “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?” Matthew 13:55 DR

        The book of Jude begins with this:

        “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God…”

        There is no basis for assuming these men were Jesus’ cousins.

        I’ve heard the explanations but they are terribly overwrought. It is much easier to just take the scriptures at face value. Mary is not diminished in doing that. She was chosen for a special mission. Jesus acquired His human nature and Davidic heritage from her. But every last human who descended from Adam was born spiritually dead, and Mary was no exception. Catholic theologians are way off track with the notion of an immaculate conception.

        • Phil, let’s look at the verses in question more closely. As I mentioned to a previous poster, the word “until” is used in Scripture to signify something that has come to fulfillment. It does not mean that something only begins or stops after something else has occurred. For example in 1 Cor. 15:25 we read, [25] “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” Does that mean that Our Lord stops reigning after He has put all of His enemies under His feet?

          You made mention about taking the Scripture at face value in relation to the term “brothers.” If that is the case then would 1 Chron. 6:18-28 be incorrect? We have two men by the names of Heman and Asaph but they have different fathers and grandfathers but the Scripture says that they are brothers.

          Let’s take a closer look at Matt. 13:55. If we examine it closer we see a couple of the men named James and Joseph. Later on the in the Book(chapter 27) there names appear again in relation to a Mary but this is not Jesus’ mother. This is also evident from Mark 15:40. These men are clearly not Jesus’ blood brothers. In Matt. 10:2-4 we read the same regarding James. Also, none of the Apostles mentioned say that they are the biological children of Blessed Mary so that rules out Simon and Jude. In Lk. 2:41-52 we see where Our Lord being found by Blessed Mary and St. Joseph but we see no other siblings here.

          • Phil

            tasdgs,

            “…the word “until” is used in Scripture to signify something that has come to fulfillment. It does not mean that something only begins or stops after something else has occurred.”

            Of course it does. “till” (heōs) is a conjunction linking different circumstances together.

            ===

            “For example in 1 Cor. 15:25 we read, [25] “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” Does that mean that Our Lord stops reigning after He has put all of His enemies under His feet?”

            It means there is a situational change, as verse 28 explains:

            “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

            Here’s the verse again:

            “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

            The word you need to dwell on is “knew” (ginōskō). In this verse it is idiom for sexual intimacy. Mary used exactly the same word in exactly the same way when she told Gabriel “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Joseph didn’t “know” her until sometime after Jesus was born.

            ===

            “You made mention about taking the Scripture at face value in relation to the term “brothers.” “

            Read it again:

            “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

            Father, mother, brothers and sisters. The people asking the questions recognized the family and the household Jesus came from. This is not that hard.

            ===

            I have a question for you. You said:

            “By her comment to the angel, it is evident that she must have taken a vow of celibacy.”

            I assume you are talking about Luke 1:34, which I quoted above. In verse 26 and 27, it says: “Gabriel was sent from God…To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph…”

            So Mary was engaged to Joseph prior to her encounter with Gabriel. Why would she have taken a vow of celibacy if she was going to be married?

    • John Stevens

      Except at that time, she was already married to Joseph. So, the only way this makes sense is if Mary had vowed to remain celibate, and was wondering how she could get pregnant when she did not “know” a man.

      Remember, Joseph was thinking about getting a quiet divorce from Mary precisely because she had gotten pregnant. If the marriage between Joseph and Mary included knowing each other, then Joseph would not have been at all surprised that Mary had gotten pregnant. Yet, he was so upset this fact, that he was planning to divorce her.

      One does not need to get divorced, if one is not married. One would not be surprised by one’s wife becoming pregnant, unless the marriage was a celibate one.

      Research the Essenes to get a better feel for who Mary was.

  • This should stimulate thought on the part of those who are open to learning.

    Many here value testimony about how God speaks to them. My encounter with this book is as follows: I was enquiring about the virgin birth in the week before a trip to the bookstore to gain more insight into Jesus as God. I walked into the bookstore knowing I would find the right references and on a “SALE” table this book “THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VIRGIN” stuck out like a magnet. I intuitively knew what the book would describe which is consistent with science–yet, affirms the spiritual divinity of Jesus.

    That we exist is sufficient miracle for me to KNOW we are the creation of the ONE TRUE GOD.

    An “immaculate conception” is possible (without coitus) through artificial insemination. Translations of the Dead Sea scrolls describe an Essene ceremony (region known as Qumran) for conception of a spiritual leader without coitus. A virgin is laid on an altar and a eunuch delivers the semen in a warmed golden vessel to the virgin while the tribe prays for conception of a spiritual leader.

    The book reporting the ritual as translated from the Dead Sea scrolls is entitled, “THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VIRGIN” https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Virgin-Ritual-Scrolls/dp/0826408168

    “(The authors) have come closest to unlocking the scrolls’ innermost secrets by brilliantly analyzing two unique rituals performed at Qumran”. — Old Testament Abstracts

    • Celibacy and betrothed women living apart from men was practice in Qumran by Essenes. The sex act was considered base and one born out of the sex act was not considered clean/holy.

      Interesting that no one here has commented on the 6 July 2016 at 5:35 pm post as this translation from the Dead Sea scrolls is additive to our understanding of what is considered to be an “immaculate conception”.

      Of course, some reading this “already know all there is to know”. Do realize that the scrolls “chosen” to become The Bible were chosen at the council of Nicea. Discovery of new scrolls can supplement our knowledge.

      I’m very OK with an artificial insemination conception–as it is consistent with biological science and fits with the concept of “divine (immaculate) conception”.

      I’m ready for attacks by the evangelicals and the Catholics on this new (to most everyone here) information.

      • John Stevens

        No attack, just a point of logic: one may discover new texts in archaeological dig sites, but that doesn’t make that text scripture.

        Indeed, categorization of extant texts as either “scripture” or not is part of the authority granted to the Church by God. Even a Protestant must agree that just because a text is old, does not automatically make it scripture, which begs the question of authority once again.

  • God bless you Geoffrey, another eye opening article! 🙂

    • Amen 🙂 I was a Catholic for 30 years. I stopped being a Catholic they day I opened up a King James Bible. What I read there showed me I was taught lies.

      • Leigh

        Amazing!! God is good!
        🙂

  • Drgold

    Simple proof beside Mk6:3.. Joseph ‘..knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS’ Mt1:25. See http:drgold.wordpress.com

  • nF

    Do think Jesus would be happy that you talk about His Mother like she is common. If you were God and you had a Mother you would see to her every want and need. She was a Virgin whether you like it or not.

  • Richard

    Mary, was common. She did nothing to make herself special. She was chosen by God to be the path that Jesus, the Son of God, God become flesh, used to enter this world. She and Joseph were tasked to raise Jesus just as they would any other child. Mary has no special place in the God Head. She is not part of it. But, I know that those who are in the Catholic church have been so brain washed by the Mary teaching, it is hard to not believe it.

    • Richard, do you know why Catholics give the Blessed Mother such honor? It is because God did first. No one has ever nor will ever say that they gave birth to God incarnate. That, in itself, is an honor worth celebrating and cherishing.

  • nF

    She is Jesus mom and she is important and in Heaven. Let someone bother your mom would you let it go. Jesus is that much over you and in Heaven if you get there, I m pretty sure you will have to answer(all of you) talking Jesus Mother down to Jesus and what your motivation is.

    • Mary is a SINNER. It took as much sinless blood to save Mary from Hell as it did me.

      Cease from your idolatry.

      • But could it not be possible for God to have saved her before he was crucified? Is His redemptive act bound by space and time? If it is then God has His limits and is thus not omnipotent. Let’s consider one other thing. In the O.T. it says that they made a box and covered it with gold(the ark of the covenant) and they believed that God resided there. Now, if that was commanded of them of a box, so that God could reside there, then why would God incarnate reside in a sinful vessel? Does it not follow that if God was so meticulous in crafting a box so that He could reside there then would it not be even more imperative of Him to be so careful in crafting a human being so that He may be incarnate through her?

  • taboo

    Just as there are fake Jews, there are fake Christians. The moronic Evangelical Protestants are a case in point. They worship a criminal headquarters rather than God. The EP do not even believe the words of their own Savior, especially his numerous warnings, as in John 8:44.

    There are contemporary Christians who are awake and have not fallen for the Scofield Bible (Rothschild sponsored) hasbara margin notes which are the talking points for the mega church billionaire preachers that idiots follow, who cannot think for themselves.

    The Christians who are not fooled are the Orthodox Christians–the original and ancient church of the Bible which will never perish. The ignorant hardly know of the existence of this church and it’s unchanging worship and values.

    The above commenter speaks of the EP, the most manipulated sheep, who do not even realize what a real Christian is.

    • NF

      When I was briefly with the Protestantss all they could do is bash Catholics, while the Catholics Also the Eucharist they tell people they shouldnt have sins if partaking. They dont even know why that is they say that. Without knowing they repeat the truth since the Eucharist is the Actual Body and Blood of Christ. Also in this particular church they only had the Eucharist is only once every 3 mts. Ridiculous.

  • This is what the Holy Bible states about Mary, the mother of Jesus:

    Lk1:44,47 state ‘Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour’. Like all of us, Mary was a sinner also, and needed a Saviour. Ro3:23 tells ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’. Mt1:25 states Joseph ‘.. knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS’. Joseph had normal relationship with his wife Mary, and Jesus was her firstborn son.

    Mk6:3 referring to Jesus states ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?’ Here we see that Jesus had 4 brothers and at least two sisters.

    It is very sad & grievous that many people refuse to believe the Word of God, but the tradition of men and false teachings. 1Ti4:1 states ‘Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils’.

    When a person strongly believe in a lie, he is then in bondage to that lie and his personal salvation will be at stake. Please see https://drgoldsite.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/true-love-vs-false-love-the-apostasy-of-todays-churches/

  • A number of you here refer to each other as “brother” and “sister”. Surely you refer to the spiritual ‘parentage’ (Father God) and not to an actual biological connection.

    What’s interesting is how interpretation is not recognized as an interpretation. Strong insistence that statements are ‘absolute fact’ ignores that well meaning faith from a slightly differing viewpoint may also be a valid path to salvation. I would expect more respectful dialogue coming from real Christians than some here demonstrate.

  • Dan

    Geoff , have you seen this

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/pamela-geller-milo-yiannopoulos-geert-wilders-ann-coulter-headline-historic-wake-lgbtrump-rnc-event/
    I’ve forgotten ; do we love the sinner but hate the convention (laugh)

  • Wow! This gets as much flack and feedback as the Pretribe rapture debate. Just about as contentious.

  • CHAR

    John Stevens, I believe that I know who Mary was. She was a virgin when the angel came to her and told her she would have a son. Then after she had Jesus, she KNEW Joseph and had several children with him, so that’s my story (and the bible’s) and I’m stickin’ to it. God Bless!

    • NF

      I believe your wrong.

  • CHAR

    NF, okay, that’s your prerogative. We will have to agree to disagree, because unlike all those that like to squabble back and forth, I’m not one of them. We both stated our opinions. That’s all we can do. One of us is correct. We will find out soon!

  • SDG

    I feel sad reading all the negative comments about the Blessed Virgin, hence, I’ll throw my two cents in. I have prayed to The Holy Trinity many times for guidance and discernment, that I will not be led astray from the right path, and to always be focused on Jesus. I have prayed that I will not be misled from the Truth and this has led me deeper into my Catholic faith.

    Mary is not common as you and I are. When God told Adam and Eve that He will send a savior for mankind, she was already selected to be the mother of the Incarnate Word. God the Father, who has much higher standards than us, chose Mary who is ” full of grace” to be the stainless vessel to bear Jesus. Her humility and obedience to God, her stating ” Let it be done according to thy word” shows her focus is only on God and following His will. She is the new Eve, and as the downfall of man started with a woman, the salvation of mankind began with a woman’s “yes” to God. The ark of the covenant in the OT contained manna and the tablets of the ten commandments; so did she, as the new ark of the covenant, contained Jesus, the Bread of Life, the Incarnate Word of God.

    Catholics pray to Mary because we give her the great honor she deserves as the mother of God. Her heart is so united to Jesus and just like a good mother wants to direct everyone to her Son for their salvation. If Jesus sent his apostles to preach the good news to everyone that we may be saved, why wouldn’t you listen to His mother who has supported Jesus’ ministry and suffered alongside Him on the cross? Her love for her Son is so great and she only wants the same thing He does: for the souls to return to Jesus.

    She is in heaven and she is not powerless; her prayers carry infinitely more merits than all of us in the world combined. For us, she is like an attorney; albeit a very humble and loving one, pleading our case before God. If you were on trial and you were to defend your case yourself, present your arguments yourself before a judge without having a lawyer represent you, chances are great that you’d not be taken seriously and you may lose. On the other hand, having Mary by your side, who is far more pure and perfect than any of us could achieve, is like having the best legal representation you could only dream of. And which sinner would not want that?

    Bottom line is: We worship Jesus. We honor Mary.

    • NF

      Amen

    • Phil

      “Catholics pray to Mary because we give her the great honor she deserves as the mother of God”

      She can’t hear you. Mary was and is a human being. She does not have the unlimited mentality that only God possesses, and she cannot field or comprehend millions of prayers simultaneously. You are ascribing divine attributes to her that does not have.

  • Diego David

    For all you Mary bashers and biblical geniuses, a few questions.

    So Mary carries and gives birth to the baby Jesus, The Son of God, The Word Incarnate, The Almighty, The Great I Am, El Shaddai, etc, then she submits herself to a mortal sexual union afterward? Really?

    Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of the concept of adoption?

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join Our FREE Subscription Service!

End times Bible prophecy news happens fast, add your email now to get our latest articles sent to your inbox in real-time.

Join 12,360 other subscribers

SUPPORT NTEB

24 hours a day, seven days per week, Now The End Begins keeps you informed of what's happening around the world as it relates to the end times and Bible prophecy. Your generous non-tax deductible contribution helps us to do that. Thank you in advance for your much-needed support.

CATEGORY SEARCH