Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?

[dbj72]

Like dschereck said that would imply that Catholics aren't Christians. Which I find to be a hilarious accusation personally.

implication is yours for the taking, I never said that. I define myself as being a born again believer a catholic usually defines themselves as s catholic. I do not believe all catholics are going to heaven and like wise for born again believers. Your bishops chose your way of baptism and its not for me.

I love unleavened bread after all it is what Yeshua ate.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

"Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?"

"What does Ever-Virgin mean?"

THE GOOD SHEPHERD AUSTRALIAN ORTHODOX MISSION

http:// What does Ever-Virgin mean? Good Shepherd, Australian Orthodox Mission, Monash University


In another thread, I wrongly said that Lot was Abraham's uncle. Actually, Abraham is Lot's uncle. Lot is Abraham's nephew. I got it backwards! Sorry! My mistake.
Lot is called Abraham's "brother", when actually he is Abraham's "nephew". So brother can mean any close male relative. It doesn't have to mean literally brothers. So the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels can be cousins or other non literal brothers and sisters close relatives.

"WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?"
"The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary states that:
... the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the omnipotent God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.
"While the Orthodox Church has never delivered any formal teaching on this matter, they generally reject it because it is based on the false Augustinian belief that Adam's guilt is passed on to us through the conjugal act. ... Some Orthodox theologians have commented that such a belief demands an Immaculate Conception. Also the doctrine "seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendents of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament" (1)....
"The belief never really surfaced until the twelfth century, when it was introduced as a feast in France. While it is certainly true that some Orthodox held to the belief, it is also true that great doctors of the Western church, led by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "strongly objected, occasioning a controversy that divided Catholic scholars for about four centuries. The majority, including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert and St. Bonaventure, opposed the doctrine implied in the feast, arguing that since Christ was the redeemer of all, and hence of Mary, all must have previously sinned (cf. Romans v), including Mary", (2) thus declaring that "in every natural conception, the stain of original sin is transmitted and that, as Mary was conceived in a natural way, she was not exempt from this law." (3) ..." [pp. 110-112:
THE PEARL: A Handbook for Orthodox Converts. by Michael Whelton. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1999.]

Friends:
In her life before she was saved by Jesus Christ her Son, Mary had sin, like everyone else, as all have sinned, as the Bible does say, and fallen short of the glory of God. But she was saved from sin by her Son, and after she was told she would bear the Son of God, and she accepted God's will, she was pardoned, saved, and went and did not sin any more. So what I said in previous threads was meant by me to say Mary did not sin once she had already been saved by Christ. She rejoiced in God her Savior, and was saved from ancestral and any personal sin. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
Notes.
1. Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 264.

2. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1972, vol. 11, p. 1105.

3. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 821.

 

[SantoSubito]

implication is yours for the taking, I never said that. I define myself as being a born again believer a catholic usually defines themselves as s catholic. I do not believe all catholics are going to heaven and like wise for born again believers. Your bishops chose your way of baptism and its not for me.

I love unleavened bread after all it is what Yeshua ate.

What's not for you? Infant baptism? Trinitarian baptism?

 

[Red33]

Friends:
In her life before she was saved by Jesus Christ her Son, Mary had sin, like everyone else, as all have sinned, as the Bible does say, and fallen short of the glory of God. But she was saved from sin by her Son, and after she was told she would bear the Son of God, and she accepted God's will, she was pardoned, saved, and went and did not sin any more. So what I said in previous threads was meant by me to say Mary did not sin once she had already been saved by Christ. She rejoiced in God her Savior, and was saved from ancestral and any personal sin. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Was Mary saved and pardoned from ancestral and personal sin by her Son when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in her womb or just prior to it? Either way you must give the testimony of the scriptures that would support your conclusions. You have told us that we can not imply that Mary had other children through the flesh or that she sinned being a virgin because there is no record of it in the scriptures, then you must do likewise. To simply rejoice in God her Saviour does not imply that the very sin nature that she herself was born with through her parents had been eradicated from the members of her body. As a sinner she would need forgiveness and cleansing from all sin but we know from the scriptures that when we are cleansed from sin that cleansing does not remove the sin nature from us but renders it from having dominion in our life.

When conception took place in the womb, Mary had Adam's (ancestral) sin nature, that was transferred from her parents, the whole time that her son was being developed in the womb. You nor me nor anyone else can disprove that according to the scriptures. It does not matter what the church says or believes about it, it's what the scriptures testifies in context and continuity and through constancy with the whole counsel of God's written word. The church is subject to its head, Christ, and Christ is the Word that became flesh. So the church must be subject to the authority of the word and the Spirit of truth. The church has no authority or doctrine outside of the word and the Holy Spirit that reveals Christ as the head. The church is only the pillar and ground of truth when these are supported and operational through grace in the body of Christ, which consists of its many members that have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit and born of the incorruptible seed of the word.

 

[superdave5221]

The person cannot separate from their body. Humans are integrated beings, made of body, soul, and spirit (for Christians). Soul is simply that which gives the body life. Without soul, the body is dead, and without a body to give life to, soul simply dies. It is not the "essence of you", nor can it live on its own. Paul was referring to the return of Christ, when we WILL be absent from these bodies.


That is what most of Christianity believes, but it is wrong. Our soul is not "who we are". We are people, human beings, made of body, soul, (and spirit). Believing that the dead aren't really dead is believing the lie satan told Eve in Gen 3: "ye shall not surely die". Death is an enemy, not to be welcomed. We certainly do not go to "be with Jesus". The hope of believers is the coming resurrections, when dead people will come back to life.

You are correct in that we are made up of both our bodies and our spirits. It is unnatural for our spirits to be absent from our bodies, and yet that is exactly what takes place when we die. When Jesus died on the cross, he said I commend my Spirit to God, and yet His body was placed in the grave at that point. Jesus, as you know, was the firstfruits of the resurrection. It is this fact that is our hope of being resurrected. If what you say is true, then Jesus was anihillated at death, and was resurrected, therefore, Jesus is not eternal and is instead a created being. That is a very bad heresy.

When Christ returns to claim His Church, we will all be resurrected into new bodies, ones not made of flesh and blood and the materials of this world, but ones which are made for eternal life in our new home which Jesus has prepared for us.


Dead bodies disintegrate into dirt. They are not "waiting". Note the "dead" will be raised. Meaning the dead are dead. Ecc says the dead know nothing.

If you wish, I will start a thread on this topic and consider this issue in more depth.

 

[Red33]

If you wish, I will start a thread on this topic and consider this issue in more depth.

There are others that wish you would, so start a thread.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Was Mary saved and pardoned from ancestral and personal sin by her Son when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in her womb or just prior to it? Either way you must give the testimony of the scriptures that would support your conclusions. You have told us that we can not imply that Mary had other children through the flesh or that she sinned being a virgin because there is no record of it in the scriptures, then you must do likewise. To simply rejoice in God her Saviour does not imply that the very sin nature that she herself was born with through her parents had been eradicated from the members of her body. As a sinner she would need forgiveness and cleansing from all sin but we know from the scriptures that when we are cleansed from sin that cleansing does not remove the sin nature from us but renders it from having dominion in our life.

When conception took place in the womb, Mary had Adam's (ancestral) sin nature, that was transferred from her parents, the whole time that her son was being developed in the womb. You nor me nor anyone else can disprove that according to the scriptures. It does not matter what the church says or believes about it, it's what the scriptures testifies in context and continuity and through constancy with the whole counsel of God's written word. The church is subject to its head, Christ, and Christ is the Word that became flesh. So the church must be subject to the authority of the word and the Spirit of truth. The church has no authority or doctrine outside of the word and the Holy Spirit that reveals Christ as the head. The church is only the pillar and ground of truth when these are supported and operational through grace in the body of Christ, which consists of its many members that have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit and born of the incorruptible seed of the word.

Can you prove your doctrines, all of them, were taught in the first 1054 years of Church history? Can you trace your group to a bishop who can trace his episcopate to one of the 12 apostles or St. Paul, etc.?
Do you have apostolic succession for your group or doctrines?
The Spirit is given to the Church by Christ so the Church can understand the Bible (John 16:13). Without the Spirit in the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), it is lots of bunches of separate, isolated individuals, all preaching their own personal private opinions. When Mary was saved is not a matter for us to argue about: it's pointless to make an issue about it. She was saved. Why couldn't Christ save her whenever He wanted to, even while she was carrying Him in the womb? I do not know what the case is. Only God knows everything. The Church hasn't let me know what the Church believes on this matter. I don't believe it has been definitively defined by an ecumenical council. But I am new to Eastern Orthodoxy, so I may be mistaken about that.
Where are the words "sin nature" in the Bible? If you can't find them in the Bible, with your doctrine of sola Scriptura, you should not believe that. We are sinners because we sin, not because of a sin nature (see Ezekiel 18).

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

[quote

=OldOrthodoxChristian;609931]"Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?"

"What does Ever-Virgin mean?"

THE GOOD SHEPHERD AUSTRALIAN ORTHODOX MISSION

http:// What does Ever-Virgin mean? Good Shepherd, Australian Orthodox Mission, Monash University


In another thread, I wrongly said that Lot was Abraham's uncle. Actually, Abraham is Lot's uncle. Lot is Abraham's nephew. I got it backwards! Sorry! My mistake.
Lot is called Abraham's "brother", when actually he is Abraham's "nephew". So brother can mean any close male relative. It doesn't have to mean literally brothers. So the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels can be cousins or other non literal brothers and sisters close relatives.

[/quote]


"Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?"

http:// orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Sola Scriptula was good enough for the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

Not only did they receive Paul's teachings with eagerness, but they actually examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Which "Scriptures"? Law and Prophets? What was WRITTEN?

That is still not teaching that YOU have to "Search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11), this verse is talking about the Bereans, it is only because of your own presupposed doctrine of Sola Scriptura that you think that it is referring to you. It says, "THE BEREANS DID THIS", it was NOT teaching us anything about Sola Scriptura, it was talking about what the Bereans did. So again, This was just a narrative talking about what the Bereans did, it was not an Apostolic Teaching or Command to us.
Some Protestants must have a pretty big ego to think that everything in the Bible was talking about them, no wonder they're in delusion. I will pray for you, you pray for me too.

By this time in Acts, Jesus has already risen and ascended to Heaven. Paul had already met with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. Paul learned from them. They all "compared notes", if you will.
If there would've been any thing else added, say like, consulting the dead or "previously alive on planet Earth", putting more focus on Mary or whatever, Paul would've learned it and included such things in his Epistles.
He did not.
Instead, he warned of people like you who come with "another gospel" than what he, himself, taught.

Paul did not "compare notes" with James and John, you are making this up. When you say that, "Paul would have learned it and included such things in his letters", Paul did not need to teach this for it was evident in the Holy Gospels that , "All generation shall call me (Mary) blessed" (Luke1:47).
And about praying to the dead, read the book of Revelation. Do not pick and choose the theology from it. It says that the Saints in heaven are praying to God for us, "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." ("Revelation 8:3)


Where are the Saints? In Heaven. The Bible is clear that the Saints in Heaven pray for us, so we can ask for their prayers.

[/QUOTE]

In going back to the "Scriptures" that the Bereans had, check the Law and Prophets. It does NOT say, "a virgin shall give birth and she...." anything.

Sure, all the angels and saints may be in one accord with God in His Will: that all be saved. But it does not mean to pray to any of THEM to pray to God when Jesus taught to go to God, Himself. The parable of the ten virgins: YOU go to WHERE they, the five with oil, WENT to.

She is called the "Ever Virgin Mary" procisely for this reason, the Prophesy in Isaiah which says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14). It is because she needs to be affirmed as a virgin that she is called "Ever Virgin" for it is in the Prophesy. She gave birth to the Pre-Eternal God as a virgin and thus she is "Ever Virgin".


About prayer to Saints again, did you not read what is said in Revelation 8:3?

Outside Scripture is a slippery slope. It's where things like wearing Mary's scapular or using prayer beads (rosary) to pray the same request to Mary over 50 times in one sitting alone.
It's where you wonder just WAS Mary a virgin all her life or not. It doesn't REALLY matter for the Salvation of mankind wether she did or not. It didn't change the fact that Mary WAS a virgin and gave birth, just as prophecised to be a SIGN for the coming Messiah.

So, again, I say that this whole thread is meaningless and is a waste of time.

If you INSIST on investigating and/or discussing whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus, it is not necessary for Salvation and not a requirement for getting into Heaven.

We are NOT Roman Catholic, we do not pray the Hail Mary. We are Eastern Orthodox. How hard is that to get through you guy's heads? Rome is in blatant heresy and schism thanks to the GREAT SCHISM of 1054 AD. It was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church of Christ.


It does matter for the Salvation of Mankind to affirm the Ever Virgin Mary because of the Prophesy in Isaiah 7:14. She is the proof of God come in the flesh and if you do not affirm her you do not have Her Son.

"It is not necessary for Salvation and not a requirement for getting into Heaven". Who says that Salvation and "getting into Heaven" is what we are here for? But pardon me sir, we should be interested in Who God is and what the Knowledge of God is rather than just "getting into Heaven"... But is that all that we really care about? It just seems selfish to me.

 

[dbj72]

What's not for you? Infant baptism? Trinitarian baptism?

I would not do either I was baptised in the name is Yeshua.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I would not do either I was baptised in the name is Yeshua.

The New Testament, inspired by God, uses the name Iesous (Jesus) and not Yeshua. It is not necessary to refer to Christ by His Aramaic-Hebrew name to be considered spiritual.

 

[SantoSubito]

I would not do either I was baptised in the name is Yeshua.

Did not Christ command his disciples to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or if you want to get fancy with Latin, In Nomine Patris et Fillii et Spiritui Sancti or the way I was baptized; Im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes. Point being the Trinitarian Formula, the language doesn't really matter.

 

[SantoSubito]

The New Testament, inspired by God, uses the name Iesous (Jesus) and not Yeshua. It is not necessary to refer to Christ by His Aramaic-Hebrew name to be considered spiritual.

No kidding, it kinda bugs me that people want to use, quite frankly pointless, Hebraisms.

 

[systemdown101]

No kidding, it kinda bugs me that people want to use, quite frankly pointless, Hebraisms.

And I can well understand why you wouldn't want to have anything to do with that. Nevertheless, His eathly name is Yeshua. Jesus has ... well, read here.

It is most proper to call Him Yeshua; only in Hebrew does this name have any meaning. In Hebrew Yeshua means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, is "Lord who is Salvation." The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has been transliterated into Greek as Iesous (IhsouV: pronounced ee-ay-SUS or ee-ah-ZOOS). The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus. Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j" (i.e., it can have a consonantal force in front of other vowels), the latter of which is properly pronounced like the English "y" (which explains the German Jesu, "YAY-su")That is why we spell Jesus as we do, taking it straight from Latin, but we pronounce the name with a soft "j" sound because that is what we do in English with the consonantal "j".

 

[SantoSubito]

And I can well understand why you wouldn't want to have anything to do with that. Nevertheless, His eathly name is Yeshua. Jesus has ... well, read here.

Personally I prefer to simply use the term "Christ" or "the Christ" most of the time. That being said there is no real reason to use Yeshua when the NT, written in Greek, uses Iesus.

 

[systemdown101]

Personally I prefer to simply use the term "Christ" or "the Christ" most of the time. That being said there is no real reason to use Yeshua when the NT, written in Greek, uses Iesus.

Well, except for the fact that I doubt Mary gave her son a Greek name. Might not have gone over too well at the local synagogue.

 

[dbj72]

The New Testament, inspired by God, uses the name Iesous (Jesus) and not Yeshua. It is not necessary to refer to Christ by His Aramaic-Hebrew name to be considered spiritual.

Yeshua is his name why would I call him anything else. Why do you think it is considered to be spiritual to call him Yeshua?

 

[dbj72]

No kidding, it kinda bugs me that people want to use, quite frankly pointless, Hebraisms.

Why pointless? The Jewish people might beg to differ, and why does it bug you? Latin is of no use what so ever to me and I see that as more pointless, but it doesn't bug me.

Shalom

 

[dbj72]

Did not Christ command his disciples to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or if you want to get fancy with Latin, In Nomine Patris et Fillii et Spiritui Sancti or the way I was baptized; Im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes. Point being the Trinitarian Formula, the language doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE

Ask God to open the eyes of your heart as I did and he will. l

 

[Grandpa]

"God's church is made up of people that He has saved, from all the different denominations".

Really? All denominations?

LDS? Mormons? Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers. God is a man, and man can become God or a god?
Jehovah's Witnesses? Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael and is not God. Jesus Christ's body was dissolved into gases, and was not bodily physically resurrected from the dead?
Seventh-Day Adventists? Have to keep Saturday Sabbath to go to heaven? Sunday keeping is "the mark of the Beast?"
Armstrongists? God is a Family with many gods, many members of the God Family, many persons will become God/gods?
People can be "saved" in all these different denominations, believing these false teachings?
People can believe whatever they want to believe the Bible believes, and still be in God's Truth?
Can a person be saved without knowing and believing God's Truth?
In Erie Scott Harrington

Gods Salvation comes from His Power. Not our understanding of it. God doesn't save us because we are the most discerning or the best repenters. God saves us because it is His Will.

Mens understanding and teaching ultimately lead to error. Only the guidance of the Holy Spirit can lead us to the Truth of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we must continually repent. We must try to get rid of the "knowledge" we think we attain by leaning unto our own understanding. We must try to lean unto what the Holy Spirit is teaching us.

The Holy Spirit wants us to stay on the path. HS doesn't want us to diverge onto paths where we think we accomplish Gods will in our own power. HS wants us to seek the Lord Jesus continually. We are not seeking the Lord if we are praying to dead things and worshipping dead things.

All of this reminds me of not trying to take out the splinter in your brothers eye when there is a giant log in your eye. Its like a bunch of people with blindfolds on are yelling to each other that they have the Truth and all others are in error. I hope we can all realize the need for repentance against the ideas that come against the Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

The idea that Mary was a forever virgin is one of those ideas that comes against the Glory of God. God said He would share His Glory with no one, didn't He?