 |
| The Virgin and the Child |
Isaiah 7:14 Incontrovertibly Proves the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Debunking Rodimus alias Gerry Soliman on his utter ignorance of Isaiah 7:14:
GS: Aquino Bayani slips on Isaiah 7:14
AB: No siree. I’m surefooted on Isaiah 7:14 and I’ll use it to rebut Mr. Soliman and all Protestants in their diabolical deflowering of the Mother of God.
GS: Mr. Aquino Bayani once again shows us his bizarre way of doing apologetics in his so-called debunking of my article on Isaiah 7:14.
AB: To Mr. Soliman, who is plagued with grave deficiency in reading comprehension, bereft of an analytical mind, and the inescapable truth that God is sending him a deceiving power so that he may believe the lie (2Thes 2:11), it’s no surprise my unorthodox apologetics comes to him as bizarre.
GS: In my previous article, we have shown that Isaiah 7:14 does not prove the Roman Catholic teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
AB: I beg to disagree, but Mr. Soliman has proven nothing except his blatant lies and deceptions. No one in his right mind would ever believe the trickeries of Mr. Soliman, save for his ilk who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing that they may be condemned (2Thes 2:12).
GS: But here comes Mr. Aquino Bayani with his grand arguments hoping to defend their teaching.
AB: Yes, I come to debunk Mr. Soliman, and all haters of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on their muddling the pristine teachings of God concerning her in His Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1TM 3:15).
…
…
GS: If you read his article, 80% of it are totally irrelevant.
AB: I’m elated Mr. Soliman considered the 20% of my article relevant – the ones that have clobbered his lies and deceptions the most.
GS: For every response, he always starts off by demeaning yours truly. The gullible will of course find it believable because that’s just the packaging of things.
AB: Nobody is demeaning Mr. Soliman except by his own undoing. We are just returning the countless derogatory accusations he accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary. As he himself said, “Dose of their own medicine.”
GS: But when you try to analyze each and every response of Mr. Bayani, it’s hardly sensible.
AB: It’s highly understandable that the truth of God which I revealed in my article are imperceptible to the likes of Mr. Soliman because God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that they may be condemned (2THES 2:11-12).
…
…
GS: Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ. Analyzing the verse and even reading its context, you won’t find anything that supports the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nothing more is said in that verse that is supportive of the perpetual virginity. I’d like to challenge Mr. Bayani to show a scholarly exegesis of the text that is supportive of its stand.
AB: I graciously accept the challenge. My article posted by the good Father Abe Arganiosa on the wall of his blog is more than scholarly exegesis. It is a revelation of the truth of God. See:
…
AB: 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?
GS: We really don’t know what Mr. Bayani is trying to assert with that paragraph. Is he asserting that Protestants don’t believe in the virgin birth? We can sure fathom it because we believe in the virgin birth of Christ. But Mr. Bayani is confusing his audience (just as he himself is confused) about virgin birth and perpetual virginity.
AB: Like I said, Mr. Soliman has an acute problem in reading comprehension and a zero analytical mind. On top of that, God sent him a power of deceit so that he may believe the lie and thusly, earmarked for condemnation (2THES 2:11-12). Isaiah 7:14 is about the virgin birth as well as the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mr. Soliman is the one confused here and the contagion of false doctrines, as foreseen and forewarned by Paul in this wise:
I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not toteach false doctrines or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith. (1TM 1:3-4)
Before moving on, let us read first Isaiah 7:14:
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)
Have you discerned the virgin birth and the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary in that controversial verse? Or, have you seen only the virgin birth sans the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary like Mr. Soliman, and all Protestants, mistakenly did?
To ferret out the inconspicuous message of Isaiah 7:14, let me relate the parodistic parable below with fake characters based on the false doctrine of Protestants regarding the deflowering of their unbiblical invented Mary:
After the news had spread that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Jews gathered around him, his mother Mary, and his siblings: James, Joses, Judas, Simon, and his unnamed sisters.
The Jews asked Jesus, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus answered them, “Yes, I am.”
The Jews murmured among themselves, and then someone told Jesus, “The prophet Isaiah says, ‘The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son.’ What proof has you that your mother is that virgin of the prophecy?”
The fake Jesus answered them, “My mother was a virgin when she conceived and delivered me. Thus, she is truly that virgin of the prophecy. Take my word for it for I don’t tell a lie.”
The crowds shouted: “How can you prove your mother is that virgin when we can plainly see she has many children besides you?”
The fake Jesus answered them, “But the prophecy of Isaiah was already fulfilled in me when James was conceived and born after me. For your information, 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 crowds were clamoring all at once, “Those are your unfounded opinions. The Scriptures cannot be wrong or set aside (JN 10:35)! It says ‘The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son.’ It does not say, ‘The virgin shall be with children, and bear many sons and daughters.’ Add nothing to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver (PROV 30:6). You are a liar and a blasphemer! You are all deceivers and impostors, the whole lot of you! Death to the impostors!”
Immediately, hails of stones rained down on the fake Jesus, the fake Mary, and the fake siblings, and that’s the end to the myth [of the deflowered Mary] brewed by Satan as bait to the unwary, which Mr. Soliman and all Protestants gobbled up hook, line and sinker, with great relish and much gusto. Bon appétit, idiots!
…
…
AB: 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.
GS: There is really no problem with this. We believe in the virgin birth, period. The issue is did Mary remain a virgin after the birth of Christ. I don’t think Fr. Abraham Arganiosa even understand what his constituents are posting in his blog. If I were him I’d throw out this kind of article.
AB: Mr. Soliman again proved himself the perennial liar here. What fools would think that God preserved the total intactness of Mary, both hymen and uterus, only to allow it to be corrupted afterwards? Or, had they forgotten that God is all-knowing (1SAM 2:3)? If God foreknew that the virginity of Mary would be compromised after delivering Jesus Christ, why would He bother to take utmost care in preserving and maintaining the total intactness of Mary in both her hymen and uterus? Surely, it takes the kind of Mr. Soliman and his cohorts, who insatiably lust to deflower the Mother of God at all cost, to think like the fools that they are. Shame on them, and may God rebuke them all for all their impure thoughts on His mother.
God preserved and maintained the total Perpetual Virginity of Mary, both hymen and uterus, for three purposes only, which are:
• To achieve the Salvific Plan of God (explained below).
• To signify that the miraculous Child conceived, gestated, and born of Mary is truly Immanuel, that is, God is with us (ISA 7:14, 9:5, 66:9; MT 1:23).
• To preserve and maintain the sinlessness of Mary, the Immaculate Conception Mother of God, so she can be assumed into Paradise (PS 15:10; ACTS 2:27, 13:35), because copulation defiles (WIS 3:13; RV 14:4).
Mr. Soliman is downplaying his big problem that Mary did not only delivered the virgin birth but most importantly, that she is indeed the Perpetual Virgin, as contrasted with the fake deflowered Mary of the parodistic parable above. Mary had to be the ever virgin in order to justify Jesus is truly the promised Immanuel, conceived and born of a virgin, from skeptics like the Jews, Mr. Soliman and all Protestants, otherwise the Salvific Plan of God would have been thwarted as in the said parable where the false Christ was stoned to death by the unconvinced Jews.
Mr. Soliman even has the insolence to accuse Fr. Abraham Arganiosa of ignorance of his constituents’ contributions in his blog. He also has the thickness of face to advice the good Fr. Abe to throw articles that shame and debunks him for his own personal comfort and convenience. If he is looking for a lame duck opponent that he can easily play around with, then I advice him to infiltrate the blogs of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Anyway, they are of the same feathers, aren’t they?
Actually but surreptitiously, Mr. Soliman is wishing for a reprieve, but that
pleasure won’t come his way after all the lambasting he’d done to the Mother of
God.
…
Actually but surreptitiously, Mr. Soliman is wishing for a reprieve, but that
pleasure won’t come his way after all the lambasting he’d done to the Mother of
God.
…
AB: 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.
GS: Mr. Bayani misses the point. God had to preserve Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ. It doesn’t follow that after the birth of Christ, Mary would remain a virgin. We don’t see Mr. Bayani do an analysis of the verse. What we see are his unfounded opinions.
AB: On the contrary, it was Mr. Soliman who misses all the points. God had to preserve Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ, during the birth of Christ, and after the birth of Christ in order to justify in any people’s court that Mary was the prophesied Virgin in Isaiah 7:14 at any given time. Mr. Soliman is so blind he can’t see my analyses of the verse. He is the biblical blind person leading the blind person, that both will fall into a pit (MT 15:14). It’s the unfounded opinions of Mr. Soliman that is despoiling the truth of God.
…
…
AB: 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 7:14would be false because a virgin is being mentioned here.”
GS: Well this is sure funny because I didn’t insinuate this. We are analyzing the merits of their one-liner argument. As said previously, their argument is valid if Mary had sexual relations before the birth of Christ. It is not absolutely necessary that a condition remains constant even after the prophecy has been fulfilled. Mr. Bayani has a reading comprehension.
AB: See the brazen lies and deceptions of Mr. Soliman? He denies insinuating it, but here are his exact words from his article (http://solutions-finder.blogsp… 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.
In the case of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is absolutely necessary that her condition remains constant even after the prophecy has been fulfilled, otherwise, if Mary cannot be proven as the prophesied virgin of Isaiah 7:14, then, Jesus cannot be proven as the prophesied Immanuel of the same verse. Ergo, if that was the grim scenario, then the Salvific Plan of God would have been thwarted and aborted.
I thank Mr. Soliman for acknowledging my reading comprehension, a skill he miserably lacks.
Isaiah 7:14 Incontrovertibly Proves the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
…
AB: In the following exchanges, Mr. Soliman slyly trimmed my statements to render it out of context and to suit his wiles of vile hypocrisy. So, with due respect to Mr. Soliman, I have provided the missing paragraphs in square brackets [] which he chopped off. Here goes:
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.
GS: And Mr. Bayani continues to put malice in my words. Let’s ride with him for a while. He wants the condition of Mary being a virgin constant even after the prophecy has already been fulfilled. There is another prophecy in Zechariah 13:7: Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. This prophecy was fulfilled in Mark 14:27 to 50. Christ’s apostles deserted him after He was captured.
Now if Mr. Bayani will be consistent, he should profess that the apostles remained scattered even after Christ’s captivity just like how he wants Mary a virgin even after the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. But the apostles were reunited with Christ after His resurrection (John 20:19 and 26). Will Mr. Bayani profess that the apostles remained scattered?
AB: Mr. Soliman had just delivered another of his imbecilic musings which is totally irrelevant to the present topic. He is comparing apples with oranges. Nevertheless, let us not disappoint Mr. Soliman and let’s toy with him awhile and indulge him with his inane arguments, which are:
Case 1: The apostles must remain scattered even after Christ’s captivity.
Case 2: Just like Mary must remain a virgin even after the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:1.
I wonder if Mr. Soliman ever heard the adage that goes, “The end justifies the means?” because we are going to use it in testing if his thoughts agrees with the thoughts of God.
(Definition of the end justifies the means from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press: said about a situation in which the final aim is so important that any way of achieving it is acceptable: http://dictionary.cambridge.or… )
The “end” targeted by God is His Salvific Plan which is summarized in this verse:
Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. (1JN 3:8)
In Case 1: Does the end (Salvific Plan) justify the means (The apostles must remain scattered even after Christ’s captivity)? Obviously, the answer is NO. Why? Because, if the apostles remained scattered, even after Christ’s
captivity, then His ministry to destroy the works of the devil would have fizzled out. Thus, the given means in this case cannot achieve the end, unless the apostles reunited with Jesus Christ, which they did. And that would be the right means to achieve the end.
captivity, then His ministry to destroy the works of the devil would have fizzled out. Thus, the given means in this case cannot achieve the end, unless the apostles reunited with Jesus Christ, which they did. And that would be the right means to achieve the end.
In Case 2: Does the end (Salvific Plan) justify the means (Mary must remain a virgin even after the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:1)? Obviously, the answer is YES. Why? Because, if Mary remained a virgin even after the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:1, then the disciples would have been convinced to believe Jesus Christ was truly the promised Immanuel (God is with us), conceived and born of a virgin, and therefore, His mission to destroy the works of the devil remained on course. Thus, the means (Perpetual Virginity of Mary) in this case can achieve the end (Salvific Plan). Otherwise, if Mary did not remain a virgin, then no one would have believed Jesus Christ was truly the promised Immanuel (God is with us), conceived and born of a virgin, and thus, His ministry to destroy the works of the devil would have been extirpated prematurely. Thus, the latter means (Corrupted virginity of Mary) cannot achieve the end (Salvific Plan). (See the parodic parable above).
To Satan and all Protestants, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is definitely a no-no and absolutely the most foul. Thus, the litmus test of the saying, “The end justifies the means,” is a slap to their callous faces, because, the end (Salvific Plan of God) justifies the means (Perpetual Virginity of Mary).
Therefore, the thoughts of Mr. Soliman and all Protestants are light-years upon light-years away from the thoughts of God.
The nerves of these buffoons calling themselves Christians and yet they have ostracized His mother. They did not take Mary into their own, as what the disciple whom Christ loved had done, in compliance with the last command of the dying God is with us (JN 19:25-30).
While we are at it, we might as well use the same adage to present more proofs on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Matthew 19:12 speaks of Joseph and Mary, among others, who renounced their marriage, that is, the consummation of their marriage, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Thus, the end (Salvific Plan aka for the sake of the kingdom of heaven) justifies the means (Joseph and Mary renounced the consummation of their marriage).
In fact, 1Corinthians 7:36-37 speaks of Joseph, among many, who keep his virgin wife to remain virgin by not lusting towards her, thereby never consummating their marriage:
If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. (1Cor 7:36-37)
Mary, already the virgin espouse of Joseph, proclaimed to God through the angel that she has no relations with a man (LK 1:34). If Joseph and Mary really had urged for one another, they should have had a congress before the angel Gabriel had a chance to make the announcement of the Divine Maternity. And because the Annunciation was pushed through, then it only meant that Joseph and Mary are indeed among the Perpetual Virgins of God. Included in the list are, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the two Johns, which are, the Apostle and the Baptizer, and many more.
Joseph was the metaphorical eunuch whose hand wrought no misdeed, who held no wicked thoughts against the LORD (and the Perpetual Virgin espouse of the Holy Spirit) – For he shall be given fidelity’s choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD’S temple (cf WIS 3:14).
In keeping his virgin wife Mary remain virgin, Joseph had done well (1COR 7:37), that is why Matthew described him as a righteous man (MT 1:19) and for that and WISDOM 3:14, Joseph was justly rewarded in Paradise in this wise:
They were singing (what seemed to be) a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb. (RV 14:3-4)
In opposing adamantly the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Mr. Soliman and the Protestants at large are equating their human wisdom with the wisdom of God. They are dead wrong, as proven above and as these verses attests:
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1COR 1:25)
So that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1COR 2:5)
Again, Mr. Soliman just proved his lack of reading comprehension and analytical mind, not to mention the deceiving power God is sending him for his inevitable condemnation (2THES 2:11-12).
…
…
AB: 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.
GS: Uhm, the prophecy said, the virgin shall be with child, not adult. Mr. Bayani uses the fallacy of equivocation here. The word child in the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 primarily pertains to the physical features of a child and thus mothers give birth to a child; while the word child in the phrase “My child, my child” refers to a parent-child relationship. Oh boy!
AB: Oh girl! Again, Mr. Soliman mutilated my debunking of his article to hide his humiliating defeat. (Please go to the link above and see how the arguments of Mr. Soliman were completely confuted).
Now, now, Mr. Soliman is the one guilty of applying the fallacy of equivocation here. He said, the word child pertains to the physical features of a child, but then again, it also refers to a parent-child relationship. What now, brother? Hey, I just called Rodimus brother, does that make him my blood brother then? OMG! No siree, no way.
Let’s analyze the childish argument of Mr. Soliman in reference to this verse:
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. (RV 12:5)
Without doubt, the mother and son referred to here were none other than Mary and Jesus. When Mary’s child was caught up to God and his throne, Jesus was already more than thirty years old man (LK 3:23; HEB 1:3).
So, if Mary gave birth to a son, a male child (0 years old), and her child (33 years old) was caught up to God and his throne, then, in the eternal thought of God, Jesus Christ is the eternal child as His mother Mary is the Perpetual Virgin.
Here’s more: did you know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Lamb of God from everlasting to everlasting? Here are the proofs of Christ as the metaphorical Lamb of God:
From eternity, Christ is the Lamb: MICAH 5:2; REVELATION 13:8
In Moses time, Christ is the Lamb: REVELATION 15:3
In John the Harbinger’s time, Christ is the Lamb: JOHN 1:29, 36
To eternity, Christ is the Lamb: REVELATION 22:3
Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, never grew into a sheep, but rather, He is the Good Shepherd.
Therefore, if Jesus Christ is the eternal Lamb of God and also the eternal Child of God, then His virgin mother (ISA 7:14) is also the Perpetual Virgin!
…
…
AB: 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.
GS: Your so-called defense has been refuted Mr. Bayani. Now it’s my turn to challenge you: show me a textual criticism of Isaiah 7:14 that should lead anyone to conclude that Mary remained a virgin even after giving birth to Christ and show me historical proof in the early church (first 300 years) that Isaiah 7:14 was used to prove the perpetual virginity along with the virgin birth of Christ.
AB: I just showed above that Isaiah 7:14 incontrovertibly proves the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. As to why Isaiah 7:14 was not used to prove the Perpetual Virginity in the early church (first 300 years), the answer is elementary my dear Watson: I wasn’t born then.
Will that be all, Mr. Soliman?
My turn to challenge all Protestants: refute the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as revealed in this article and prove to the world that you are not a bunch of fatuous nincompoops.
Source: splendorofthechurch.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment