DEBUNKING RODIMUS – GERRY SOLIMAN – ON HIS USE OF “The First Born Son” TO DENY PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY by Aquino Bayani

The Birth of Mary’s First Born-Son who is also THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.

 Aquino Bayani • a day ago

Debunking Rodimus alias Gerry Soliman on his private interpretation of the Firstborn Son(http://solutions-finder.blogsp…

Here’s another imbecilic meditations of Rodimus alias Gerry Soliman, whose enmity against the Mother of God knows no bound (Gen 3:15):

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Firstborn Son

GS: One of the text that is used to debunk the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is found in Luke 2:7 where Christ is said to be the firstborn son of Mary.

AB: There goes another typical diabolical overture of Mr. Soliman in besmirching the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He even mastered the brazenness to pit the Scriptures against the Mother of God. Can you dig the rancor of this buffoon to the Mother of God? He is hell-bent in deflowering the Blessed Virgin Mary by distorting even the Scriptures inspired by her very own Son (2PT 3:16; 2TM 3:16)? How iniquitous this moronic sham born again could get!

Mr. Soliman is delusional in asserting Luke 2:7 debunks the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, because on the contrary and in truth, it affirms it.

Let’s read the salient message of Luke 2:7 and couple it with the pertinent Matthew 1:21-25:

And she gave birth to her firstborn son. (LK 2:7a)

“She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his
home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. (MT 1:21-25)

Without doubt, the mother and son referred to in the passages above are the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Firstborn Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, respectively.

Luke 2:7a and Matthew 1:21-25, are the realization of Isaiah 7:14 which convey this prophecy:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. (ISA 7:14)

Providentially, Isaiah 7:14 incontrovertibly proves the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ as well as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as revealed in this article: (http://www.splendorofthechurch…

Therefore, Luke 2:7 affirms the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, rather than debunk it as Mr. Soliman would have us believe, as it proves her to be the fulfillment of the Perpetual Virgin prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

Thus, at this very early stage, the erroneous private interpretation of Mr. Soliman on the Firstborn Son falls flat on his face.

*

Moving on, let’s debunk the remaining satanic lies and deceptions of Mr. Soliman.

GS: By stating that Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary, it is implied that she had children after the birth of Christ; otherwise, Luke could have stated that Jesus is the “only son” of Mary.

AB: Let us debunk Mr. Soliman here in two parts.

Part 1:

That’s another inutile attempt by Mr. Soliman to deflower the Mother of God with his satanic dialectics. He would have the whole world deceived into believing his idiocy that the phrase firstborn son always implies having successors.

The literal biblical firstborn means the first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, and it does not imply anything else except that FIRST-BORN OPENS THE WOMB. PERIOD. (See: EX 13:2, 15; NUM 3:12, 8:16, 18:15).

Without doubt, Mr. Soliman consulted the dictionary, instead of the Bible, for the meaning of firstborn, which Merriam-Webster defines as: first brought forth: ELDEST. Hence, if there is an eldest, then there must be a youngest, so goes the logic of Mr. Soliman.

But unbeknownst to Mr. Soliman, the Lord Jesus Christ was never referred to as the eldest, or the oldest, or first brought forth for that matter, but rather, He is called the firstborn of all creation (COL 1:15); the firstborn son (LK 2:7); the firstborn among many brothers (ROM 8:29); the firstborn from the dead (COL 1:18; RV 1:5); the first-born sent by God into the world (HEB 1:6), etc.

Thus, the Lord Jesus Christ was called the Firstborn Son of Mary because His zygote “opens” her womb during His conception, and not for anything else.

In fact, in deeper theology, God allowed Mary to conceive without opening her womb (ISA 66:9). This means the Child Jesus was conceived without opening His mother’s womb in the same manner that He was born without breaking His mother’s hymen as prophesied in Isaiah 66:9 and Isaiah 7:14, respectively. God had painstakingly preserved and maintained the total intactness of His mother to prove to any skeptics at anytime that she was the Perpetual Virgin of Isaiah 7:14 and that He is the Immanuel of the same verse.

Therefore, by the inspiration of God (2TM 3:16), Luke called Jesus Christ the Firstborn Son of Mary (LK 2:7), born under the Hebraic law (GAL 4:4) that even though Mary’s womb and hymen were unimpaired by the conception and birth of her Firstborn Son Jesus, they had to go through the ancient rite of purification to comply with their law:

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. (LK 2:22-24)

Part 2.

AB: In his feeble attempt to propose a premise that he can easily debunk anyway, Mr. Soliman’s seemingly cunning scheme only exposes his boo-boos, shallowness, tactlessness and witlessness.

You see, if Mr. Soliman got his way around and Luke stated that Jesus is the “only son” of Mary, it will not be supportive to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary at all. Why not? For sure, Mr. Soliman would be the first dope to point out: “It says, ‘only son,’ what about her daughters? See, she ain’t any virgin at all!”

On the other hand, if Luke stated that Jesus is the “only child” of Mary, it does support her condition of Perpetual Virginity. However, such felicitous choice of word would have been the “odd man out” in the constancy of Christ’s preeminence being the “firstborn” in all things (See above; COL 1:18, 15; ROM 8:29; RV 1:5; HEB 1:6), and it would have contravened the spiritual motherhood of His mother as prophesied in the following passages:

• “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” (GEN 3:15)

NB: Offspring is both singular and plural, and so is seed (GEN 3:15, KJV).

• I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother’s children. (PS 69:9)

NB: The kin referred to here were the relatives of Jesus (Joseph’s nephews) who did not believed in him at first (except James and Judas, who were Christ’s apostles), while his mother’s children are His disciples that were scattered after abandoning Him following His arrest in Gethsemane. Of course, after His death and resurrection, all His relatives (Joses, Simon, etc.) eventually believed in Him and all His faithful disciples were reunited with Him.

• Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. (RV 12:17)

NB: The rest of Mary’s offspring are those who beheld and took her as their own, which is in obedient compliance to the last commandment of “God is with us,” before He breathed His last:

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home (JN 19:27). When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit (JN 19:30).

For the record, the Lord Jesus Christ is the “Firstborn Son of Mary” or “Son of Mary” and He is the “Only Son of God (JN 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1JN 4:9)” or “Son of God.” Adam is also called the son of God (with small s, LK 3:38), and the angels of God are also called sons of God (with small s).

Thus, the title “Firstborn Son of Mary” is the most suitable description of the Lord Jesus Christ in relation to His becoming flesh (JN 1:14; 1TM 3:16, KJV), as it is inspired by God and in accord perfectly with all His Plans.

*

GS: Roman Catholics have a way of going around this argument. They cite provisions of law where the firstborn child of Jewish parents are to be consecrated before the Lord (e.g. Exodus 13:2, Numbers 3:12, etc.). One need not wait for the second child to be born before the first child can be called firstborn and for the latter to be consecrated. By this argument, firstborn is just a legal title without necessarily to mean that a parent has more than one child.

However, Roman Catholics are just confusing the manner of use of the word firstborn when events in the Bible are being narrated. If you are reporting an event in a perspective of someone who was present there as it happens, or in this case if you are reporting the birth of Christ as if you were seeing it in the manger, you will definitely not say that the child born is an only child. Rather, you will say that the child is the firstborn child. Obviously, you don’t know what will happen in the future yet. But if you’re reporting the birth of Christ several years after it had happened, you would have gathered enough information to whether or not Christ is the only child of Mary.

Luke wrote his gospel after birth of Christ, even as to go on writing about His death and resurrection. Therefore, Luke should know if Christ is really Mary’s firstborn or only child.

AB: For sure, Luke was affirmative that Christ is really Mary’s Firstborn Son and only Child, which is why he confidently called Him Mary’s Firstborn Son without qualms of the supposed existence of her so-called other children. Being educated and a professional physician (COL 4:14), Luke would not have believed Jesus was the promised “God is with us” had He had uterine brothers and sisters as it would have run counter to Isaiah’s prophecy that calls for a virgin conceiving and bearing a son (ISA 7:14).

Luke, like Paul, was not a follower of Christ before His death and resurrection. If Jesus Christ has siblings as the Protestants believed falsely, Paul and Luke would never have been convinced and believed He is the promised “God is with us,” even after His resurrection, for lack of the incontrovertible evidence, that would bolster the veracity of His messianic claim, that only the Perpetual Virginity of His mother can provide.

IN TRUTH, HAD PROTESTANTS BEEN AROUND IN JESUS’ TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO DENY HE IS THE IMMANUEL FOR HIS HAVING SIBLINGS.

As already discussed and explained above, as far as the Bible is concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ can only be called the “Firstborn Son of Mary” or “Son of Mary” for short, in relation to His becoming flesh. Remember that all Scripture is inspired by God, and thus, if Luke said, “She gave birth to her firstborn son,” then by all means, that phrase is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2TM 3:16-17).

Thus, Mr. Soliman’s preferred title of “only son” or “only child” over “firstborn son” falls flat on his face.

GS: Luke had written instances of people having an only child:

As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. Luke 7:12

A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. Luke 9:38

Luke wrote his gospel so clearly that it avoids confusion or mistaking that the firstborn child is an only child.

AB: The Lord Jesus Christ being the Firstborn Son of Mary and her only child was a common knowledge among the Jews in those times. Thus, there is no need to emphasize Jesus as the “only son” or “only child.” Besides, the inspiration of God favors the title, “Firstborn Son” over the “only son” or “only child.”

With regards to the only sons in the two verses quoted above, Luke didn’t describe them as “firstborn son,” unlike the assuming Mr. Soliman would have done, because he has no common knowledge of the background of those
strangers. For all we know, the mother with the only son may have an elder daughter that opened her womb, thus, the only son cannot be called the firstborn son because he didn’t open her womb. As for the father with an only son, he might have been the second husband of a widowed mother, thus, the only son of the father cannot be called the firstborn son because he didn’t open his widowed mother’s womb which was opened earlier by her eldest child from her deceased husband.

*

GS: While it is fair to say that the firstborn child can be the only child, calling the only child as firstborn several years after his birth would make others assume that the child was succeeded.

AB: Mr. Soliman is dead wrong again. Only the likes of him would assume that if the thirty three years old Jesus Christ was called the Firstborn Son of Mary by Luke, then automatically, He has siblings. I wonder what rule, besides unfounded opinions and jumping to conclusions, Mr. Soliman might have applied to his presumptuous assumption there.

Let me educate Mr. Soliman a little bit:

As discussed above, The literal biblical firstborn means the first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, and it does not imply anything else except that FIRST-BORN OPENS THE WOMB. PERIOD. 
(See: EX 13:2, 15; NUM 3:12, 8:16, 18:15).

There are firstborns that remained the only child and there are firstborns that were followed by second sons, etc. The Lord Jesus Christ belonged to the first
group of firstborns.

Here’s an incomplete list of firstborns who are at the same time the only child: Lot, Isaac, Samson, John the Baptist, etc.

In almost all classical novels as are in the modern ones, the main characters are properly introduced, including their relationship with other characters. Thus, if Jesus is the central character of the Bible, from cover to cover, then His relationship with other characters must be introduced quite extensively.

Therefore, if Jesus is the Firstborn Son who was succeeded by many siblings, as the Protestants would have us believe falsely, then He must be introduced with His brothers and sisters in a manner similar to this one:

Mary became the mother of Jesus, her first-born, of James, the second son, Joses, the third, Judas, the fourth, Simon, the fifth, and some unnamed daughters.

But nowhere can we find such enumeration of Jesus’ alleged uterine brothers and sisters. What we have from the Bible was the list of His relatives’ names such as in these verses:

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? (MT 13:55)

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (MK 6:3)

NB: The said “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were actually His relatives in His putative father Joseph’s side, that is, the children of Joseph’s uterine brother Alphaeus aka Clophas (MT 10:3; MK 3:18; LK 6:15; JN 19:25).

If the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed succeeded with siblings, then they must have been introduced properly according to the Hebraic way of enumerating firstborns and their successors such as in the following instances:

These are the names of Ishmael’s sons, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth (Ishmael’s firstborn), Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, ( GEN 25:13)

His first-born was named Joel, his second son, Abijah; they judged at Beer-sheba. (1SAM 8:2)

The three oldest sons of Jesse had followed Saul to war; these three sons who had gone off to war were named, the first-born Eliab, the second son Abinadab, and the third Shammah. (1SAM 17:13)

Jesse became the father of Eliab, his first-born, of Abinadab, the second son, Shimea, the third, (1CHRON 2:13)

The following were the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron: the first-born, Amnon, by Ahinoam of Jezreel; the second, Daniel, by Abigail of Carmel; (1CHRON 3:1)

The sons of Josiah were: the first-born Johanan; the second, Jehoiakim; the third, Zedekiah; the fourth, Shallum. (1CHRON 3:15)

The sons of Samuel were Joel, the first-born, and Abijah, the second. (1CHRON 6:13)

Benjamin became the father of Bela, his first-born, Ashbel, the second son, Aharah, the third, (1CHRON 8:1)

The sons of Eshek, his brother, were Ulam, his first-born, Jeush, the second son, and Eliphelet, the third. (1CHRON 8:39)

Meshelemiah’s sons: Zechariah, the first-born, Jediael, the second son, Zebadiah, the third, Jathniel, the fourth, (1CHRON 26:2)

Obed-edom’s sons: Shemaiah, the first-born, Jehozabad, a second son, Joah, the third, Sachar, the fourth, Nethanel, the fifth, (1CHRON 26:4)

There are more similar enumeration in the Bible, but let’s not belabor the obvious that none was given to Christ’s supposed siblings for the very conspicuous and simple reason that Christ is the only Son of the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

*

GS: Some quotes Zechariah 12:10 to support their meaning of firstborn:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

This prophecy was fulfilled during the crucifixion of Christ in John 19:36-37. Roman Catholics argue that since the prophecy mentioned “only child” and “firstborn” together it strengthened their position that Christ being the firstborn is also the only child of Mary. However, they miss (maybe unintentionally) the conjunction “as” which denotes a simile or idiomatic expression. Example, the statement “I’m hungry as a bear,” does not mean I’m a real hungry bear. It is an idiomatic expression to describe that my hunger is at a high degree. Zechariah 12:10 is just describing how lonely the people will be during the actual fulfillment of the prophecy. The people who were at the cross during the death of Christ were mourning as if they lost a firstborn and as if they lost an only child. It doesn’t say they were mourning for the death of a firstborn who is also an only child.

AB: As if his display of nincompooperies above wasn’t enough to induce hearty guffaws, Mr. Soliman even hastens to add his extremely ludicrous stupidity on Zechariah 12:10.

Even a kindergartner will tell you that those people mourn for Jesus Christ as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son, because He wasn’t their child. They were just commiserating with Mary, who alone has the maternal right to mourn for her only child, and grieve for her firstborn son.

Therefore, any which way you look at it, the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly and faithfully the Perpetual Virgin of God and Joseph.

Thus, all the lies and deceptions of Mr. Soliman again falls flat on his face.

Source: splendorofthechurch.com.ph