 |
| Mosaic of the Virgin Mary Wearing a Crown |
Debunking Gerry Soliman alias Rodimus on the Interrupted Virginity of Mary
It is absolutely impossible for Protestants to comprehend the great things the Mighty One has done for Mary (LK 1:49) because as a result of their apostasy from the Catholic Church (2THES 2:3), the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1TM 3:15), God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned (2THES 2:11-12).
One of the great things the Mighty One has done for Mary is her Perpetual Virginity. Deplorably, there are vile people who spread profane and silly myths (1TM 4:7) that Mary was deflowered by Joseph after the Lord Jesus Christ was born. These contemptible liars delight in flaunting their profane babbling and the absurdities of their so-called knowledge, that by professing it, some people have deviated from the faith (1TM 6:20) and they even have the effrontery to call themselves born again.
As one of the children of Mary, who is the Mother of God and the Mother of all children of God, it is my filial duty to rally in the defense of her honor against the scurrilous onslaught of the children of the evil one (MT 13:38).
*
Source: http://solutions-finder.blogsp…
Gerry Soliman said:
Does Isaiah 7:14 prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
Nope, it’s a long shot and also wishful thinking. Let’s read the verse:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
This is a prophecy from the prophet Isaiah concerning the birth of Christ. As we all know, Christ’s incarnation was made possible by God through the womb of Mary who was a virgin. The fulfillment of this prophecy is found in Matthew 1:18 to 25.
My rebuttal:
Isaiah 7:14 does prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Soliman, the compulsive liar here, is befuddling the pristine word of God to fool himself and those gullible fools like him.
As is obvious, Isaiah 7:14 is very explicit in affirming that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.” Can anybody fathom that? Yes, the Catholics can comprehend that mystery of God, but unfortunately, it remains an enigma to the rebellious Protestants.
Mary alone is the only mother in the whole world who remained virgin in conceiving and birthing. The great things the Mighty One has done for Mary didn’t stop there – He even allowed her to conceive with an unopened womb (ISA 66:9). Can you imagine that?
In the normal course of things, mothers lose their virginity during copulation which is a prelude to conception. At the instance of conception of their firstborn, the wombs of mothers were automatically opened to accommodate and nurture the newly formed zygotes that will develop into embryos and further grows into fetuses. Thus, natural mothers when conceiving their firstborns inevitably broke their hymens and opened their uteri.
But in the case of the Divine Maternity of Mary, God took utmost care to preserve the intactness of both her hymen and uterus in conceiving and birthing His only begotten Son who is Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the preservation and maintenance of the total virginity of Mary, that is, her Perpetual Virginity, and the divine conception and birthing of God is with us is in essence the pristine message of God in Isaiah 7:14.
Thus, the profane and silly myths of Mr. Soliman fall flat on his face.
*
Gerry Soliman said:
The Roman Catholic argument goes: “Well if Mary did not remain a virgin, then the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 would be false because a virgin is being mentioned here.” In response, a condition after the fulfillment of a prophecy does not necessarily need to be constant for the prophecy to remain true at all times. The Roman Catholic argument is valid if Mary has given a normal birth (from sexual relations with a spouse) to a child before the birth of Christ.
My rebuttal:
Did you catch the fantastic dialectic of Mr. Soliman?
He is fooling himself and his ilk again with his gangrenous extrapolation.
Mr. Soliman is insinuating that the deflowering of his hypothetical Mary from sexual relations with a spouse and who has given a normal birth to a child prior to the conceiving and birthing of God is with us is the only way to validate the Roman Catholic argument that goes: “Well if Mary did not remain a virgin, then the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 would be false because a virgin is being mentioned here.”
Mr. Soliman had just concocted a fresh satanic formula to deflower the Virgin Mother of God BEFORE the Holy Spirit will come upon her, and the power of the Most High will overshadow her (LK 1:35)! May God rebuke the poor idiot!
What the Roman Catholic position truly meant was this: “If Mary did not remain a virgin AFTER THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF GOD IS WITH US, then the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 would be false because a virgin is being mentioned here.”
Mr. Soliman knew that he cannot rebut the above irrefutable Roman Catholic argument, and so, cunningly as the ancient serpent, he stealthily resorted to his diabolical hocus-pocus of a Mary that was deflowered BEFORE THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF GOD IS WITH US!
Therefore, Mr. Soliman’s profane babbling and the absurdities of his so-called knowledge fall flat on his face (cf 1TM 6:20).
*
Gerry Soliman said:
We know that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, and so the prophecy is true and was fulfilled. But after the birth of Christ, does it negate the prophecy if Mary will have other children? Mary has already given birth to Christ while she was a virgin as prophesied. How can the birth of other children by Mary negate a prophecy that has already been fulfilled?
My rebuttal:
Again, Mr. Soliman is notoriously spreading the lies of Satan. He would have the whole world deceived with his diabolical chicanery that the virgin prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 is violable. How gross can these born again Protestants get!
In asserting that, “How can the birth of other children by Mary negate a prophecy that has already been fulfilled?” Mr. Soliman is insinuating that the word of God is discardable.
Let’s read Isaiah 7:14 again to refresh our memories:
THEREFORE THE LORD HIMSELF WILL GIVE YOU THIS SIGN: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Now, let’s find out the character of the LORD in Isaiah 7:14 if His word is really disposable as Mr. Soliman would have us believe.
• The word of God stands forever (ISA 40:8; 1PT 1:24).
• It was impossible for God to lie (HEB 6:18; TI 1:2).
• God is immutable (MAL 3:6; JMS 1:17)
Thus, the sign of God that say, “The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel” stands forever, not a lie and immutable.
Therefore, Mr. Soliman’s diabolical chicanery that the virgin prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 is violable fall flat on his face.
*
Gerry Soliman said:
If one were to use wits, you can argue that the prophecy is also negated by the fact that the verse mentions “child” but Christ grew up as an adult. Does Christ have to remain a child so that the Isaiah 7:14 can be true at all times? Of course not, and Mary does not have to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ just to keep Isaiah 7:14 true .
My rebuttal:
Mr. Soliman is very keen in displaying his shallowness and obvious lack of analytical mind.
Only the witless can come out with such imbecilic musings. Using his wit, probably a half at most, Mr. Soliman said the prophecy can be negated by the adulthood of Christ. How is that again?
Here’s another boo-boo of Mr. Soliman: Mary does not have to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ just to keep Isaiah 7:14 true because Christ does not have to remain a child so that the Isaiah 7:14 can be true at all times. Lol.
The perverted logic of Mr. Soliman goes this way: if the child Christ becomes adult, then it follows that the Virgin Mary becomes deflowered to keep Isaiah 7:14 true. Otherwise, Christ has to remain a child, for Mary to remain a virgin, so that the Isaiah 7:14 can be true at all times. How is that again?
Now, kidding aside, Christ remains the child of Mary no matter His age. At the foot of the cross, Mary wailed, “My child, my child.” It would be ludicrous if the wailing was instead like this, “My adult, my adult.” Thus, if Christ remains the child of Mary, then Mary remains the Perpetual Virgin.
In the eyes of God, Christ also remains the eternal child. After Christ was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high (HEB 1:3), He was never called ADULT, but was forever called CHILD. Here’s the irrevocable proof:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. (REV 12:5)
THEREFORE, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is true and faithful to Isaiah 7:14 at all times, and all the boo-boos of Mr. Soliman fall flat on his face.
I challenge Mr. Gerry Soliman to refute this defense of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary if he is not a fraud like nocturnal transvestites.
Source: splendorofthechurch.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment