False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Armour of God]

Refer to post #493.



The Koine Greek language can distinguish “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin,” but Scripture does not consistently use those distinctions—especially in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament that shaped New Testament vocabulary.

Koine Greek includes:

• ἀνεψιός (anepsios) — cousin (Colossians 4:10); also used more broadly in Greek for “nephew”
• συγγενίς (syngenis) — female relative (Luke 1:36)
• συγγενής (syngenes) — relative/kinsman, fellow countryman (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24; Romans 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21)
• ἀδελφός (adelphos) — brother, kinsman, relative, fellow Israelite, fellow believer
• ἀδελφή (adelphe) — sister, kinswoman, female believer

These distinctions exist, but Scripture does not use them with modern English precision.

The LXX routinely uses adelphos to translate the broad Hebrew term ’ach, which covers many kinds of kinship. As a result, adelphos often refers to relatives who are not biological siblings:

1. Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew)

• Genesis 13:8 (LXX): “We are adelphoi.”
• Genesis 14:14 (LXX): Lot is called Abraham’s adelphos.

2. Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew)

• Genesis 29:15 (LXX): Laban calls Jacob adelphos.

3. Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins

• 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX): their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is not an anomaly—it is the standard LXX pattern. In scriptural Greek, adelphos has a much wider semantic range than modern English “brother.”

So in scriptural Greek, adelphos has a much wider semantic range than modern English “brother.”

Even when a more specific term existed, NT writers did not always use it. For example, when Luke identifies Elizabeth as Mary’s relative, he uses syngenis, not anepsios, even though Christian tradition understands them as cousins (Luke 1:36). This shows NT writers were comfortable using broader kinship terms, just as the LXX did.

More importantly, the Gospels explicitly identify another Mary—not Mary the Mother of Jesus—as the mother of James and Joseph, the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi:

• Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less), and Salome (Mark 16:1).
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) (Luke 24:10).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph (Matthew 27:56).
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Younger (the Less) and of Joses (Joseph) (Mark 15:40).
• His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary (the mother of James the Less and Joseph) the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (John 19:25).

So yes, Greek can say “cousin.” But:

• Scripture often uses broader family terms instead of the narrowest one.
• Adelphos frequently includes relatives who are not biological siblings.
• NT writers did not feel obligated to use anepsios even when a cousin‑type relationship was involved.
• And Scripture itself identifies two of Jesus’ “brothers” as the sons of another Mary, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

I don't see the gospels explicitly referring to another Mary.

But if Mary really did refuse to submit to her husband as scripture demands then I would consider Mary to be a bad wife for creating an unhealthy relationship and defying Gods word

 

[Armour of God]

As for the claim that Mary “refused to submit” or was a “bad wife,” Scripture never says anything of the sort

Yes there are other Mary's but they are not referred to when people claim that Jesus has siblings.

Scripture says that she must love her husband. Not doing so would be a sin. So if she actually never let her husband love her she would indeed be bad wife. That would be a toxic marriage to be in.

All the ifs buts and maybes just look like excuses to protect the perpetual virginity dogma
To me it looks much more probable that Joseph did love Mary and they did have more children.

If not then Mary was a bad wife

 

[Armour of God]

There is no verse anywhere in the Gospels that portrays Mary as refusing Joseph’s love, resisting him, creating a toxic marriage, or failing in Her duties as a wife

Your asserting that Mary remained a virgin. Scripture never says that. That's refusing to love and refusing to be loved. That's a sin.
A man doesn't marry a woman to work for her and remain unloved, that would be absurd

If you want to argue from Scripture, then we need to stay with what Scripture actually says — not introduce imagined marital problems that the text never mentions.

But your not arguing from scripture. It clearly says that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary and clearly says that Jesus had siblings

As for being different Mary's, so what, it means nothing. None of them are mentioned when scripture refers to Jesus's siblings

 

[Titus]

You keep asserting that I’m “claiming Mary remained a virgin,” but I haven’t made that argument. What I have argued — and what you still haven’t addressed — is that the Gospels identify another Mary as the mother of James and Joseph, the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. That is a textual claim, not a doctrinal one.

The moral accusations you’re making about Mary are not found anywhere in Scripture. There is no verse that portrays Mary refusing Joseph’s love, resisting him, creating a toxic marriage, or failing in her duties as a wife. Every biblical scene involving Mary and Joseph shows the opposite: Mary is obedient to God, Joseph is righteous and protective, and their household is marked by faithfulness. You are introducing sins the text never mentions.

But all of this still avoids the central issue.
The Gospels explicitly identify the mother of James and Joseph as Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas — not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• Mark 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All five passages say the same thing. John even calls her Mary’s “sister,” showing the Evangelists are distinguishing two different women named Mary.

So the question remains:

If James and Joseph — two of the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — were Mary’s biological sons, why do the Gospels repeatedly say their mother was someone else?

That is the textual problem you still haven’t answered.

God had the book of Matthew written in greek.
adelphos means brother.
The Greek new testament has a specific word for cousin: anepsios.

There is  no unambiguous new testament passage where adelphos means cousin.

The distinction,
adelphos = brother or used figuratively for fellow believer or broadly in certain texts kinsmen.

anepsios = cousin it is used in Colossians 4:10, Mark is Barnabas' cousin.

 

[Titus]

The Koine Greek lexicon can distinguish “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin,” but Scripture doesn’t consistently use those distinctions—especially because New Testament Greek inherits the kinship patterns of the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament.

Koine Greek includes:

• ἀνεψιός (anepsios) — cousin (Colossians 4:10), also used more broadly for “nephew” in Greek literature
• συγγενής / συγγενίς (syngenes / syngenis) — relative, kinsman, countryman (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36; etc.)
• ἀδελφός / ἀδελφή (adelphos / adelphe) — brother/sister, but also kinsman, fellow Israelite, fellow believer

The categories exist, but Scripture does not use them with modern English precision.

The LXX regularly uses adelphos to translate the broad Hebrew ’ach, which covers many kinship relationships. As a result, adelphos often refers to relatives who are not biological siblings:

1. Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) — Genesis 13:8; 14:14 (LXX)
2. Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) — Genesis 29:15 (LXX)
3. Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins — 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX)

This is not an exception; it is the standard LXX pattern. New Testament writers grew up on this usage, and they follow it.

Even when a more specific term existed, NT authors did not feel obliged to use it. For example, Luke calls Elizabeth Mary’s syngenis (Luke 1:36), even though Christian tradition understands them as cousins. He does not use anepsios, showing that NT writers were comfortable with broader kinship terms.

So yes, Greek can say “cousin.” But:

• Scripture often prefers broader family terms over the narrowest possible one.
• Adelphos frequently includes non‑sibling relatives in biblical Greek.
• NT writers do not consistently use anepsios even when a cousin‑type relationship is involved.
• And the Gospels identify another Mary—not Mary the Mother of Jesus—as the mother of James and Joseph, the same individuals listed among Jesus’s "brothers."

The existence of anepsios does not settle how adelphos is used in Scripture, because biblical Greek follows the LXX’s broad kinship patterns, not classical Greek’s stricter distinctions.

You need to go to old testament Hebrew to make your argument seem credible.
Again no new testament passage uses adelphos as cousin.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
All you have accomplished is the septuagint quoting the old testament can mean brother.
But what you will never be able to prove is that adelphos means Jesus' cousins.

You must prove the new testament passages being discussed means cousins by the context.
Not that it could be interpreted as cousins.

Also it's a strange doctrine to promote Mary never had children.
You must also give the verses that prove she never had other kids.
That's impossible.

 

[Titus]

Taken together, the lexical, contextual, and genealogical data show that the NT’s use of adelphoi reflects extended‑family kinship, not additional children of Mary

Wrong.
If those passages you posted were strictly to be interpreted as cousins the Greek would use anepsios.

Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and John 19:25 all make this identification

None of these passages use anepsios or adelphos.
The Greek reads,
- now there stood by the cross of Jesus  His mother and His mothers sister Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene

Only Jesus is ever called “the Son of Mary,” and the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are identified as the sons of another Mary

Wrong.

Big problem with your argument is none of these passages refer to Mary's children as cousins.
That's what you must prove by the context.

New Testament writers use adelphos the way they do. The NT authors grew up on the Septuagint, and the LXX consistently uses adelphos for a wide range of kinship relationships. That background shapes NT usage. This is standard lexical method, not a detour

NT Greek scholars do not interpret adelphos as Jesus' cousins.
They say it can have a broader meaning.
Not what you're claiming that it means cousins.

Give the context to prove your belief.
Claiming what men think doesnt prove anything really.
Scripture is what proves who's correct.

 

[Titus]

Your response keeps repeating a claim I’m not making. I’m not arguing that adelphos “means cousin” in some technical sense, or that the NT should have used anepsios. I’m arguing that the NT’s use of adelphoi for Jesus’s “brothers” does not require them to be Mary’s biological children, and that the men so labeled are identified elsewhere as belonging to another mother and another household. That’s a contextual argument, not a lexical one.

Appealing to anepsios doesn’t help your case. Greek has both narrow and broad kinship terms, and Scripture does not always use the narrow one. The Septuagint repeatedly uses adelphos for extended‑family relationships, and the NT writers inherit that usage. The existence of anepsios does not force adelphos to mean “biological sibling” every time it appears. It simply means Greek has both specific and general kinship terms, and the NT often uses the general one.

You say Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and John 19:25 “don’t use adelphos or anepsios.” Exactly. Those passages aren’t about the word; they’re about the identities. They name the women at the cross and the tomb, and they identify “Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas” as the mother of James and Joseph—the same men called Jesus’s adelphoi in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. John calls Mary of Clopas/Cleophas “Mary’s sister.” Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so the natural reading is that she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law. That places her and her sons in Joseph’s extended family, not as additional children of Mary.

You say “none of these passages refer to Mary’s children as cousins.” But I haven’t claimed the NT uses the word anepsios. I’ve said the NT never identifies any child of Mary except Jesus, and that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are identified as the sons of another Mary. That’s what the text actually gives you. The cousin language comes from the family structure implied by those identifications, not from a single Greek word.

As for “NT Greek scholars”: they say exactly what I’ve said—that adelphos has a broad semantic range and does not always mean biological sibling. They don’t claim the word itself “means cousin”; they acknowledge that context determines the relationship. And the NT context identifies another mother, another household, and a kinship term broad enough to cover extended family.

You keep saying I must “prove by the context” that these men are cousins. The context I’ve given is the NT’s own: named individuals, named mothers, named relationships, and a kinship term that is broad enough to include extended family. Taken together, that context shows that the NT’s use of adelphoi for Jesus’s “brothers” fits extended‑family kinship and does not support the claim that Mary had other children. If you want to insist they are Mary’s biological sons, you need a verse that actually identifies them as such. There isn’t one.

If these passages were cousins then,

If those passages you posted were strictly to be interpreted as cousins the Greek would use anepsios

The NT writers inherit the kinship patterns of the Septuagint, where adelphos regularly covers a wide range of family relationships, including non‑sibling relatives. This is why NT authors freely use broader kinship terms even when more specific ones exist

This is why your argument is so weak.
Not one of your supposed passages for cousins uses specific Greek word for cousin.
And you are wrong about your claim that new testament scholars use adelphos for describing Jesus' cousins.
You only can assume it you cannot use scripture to prove it.

 

[Titus]

Luke 1:36,
- and behold thy cousin(syngenis) Elizabeth she hath also conceived a son in her old age KJV

syngenis means a female relative, kinswoman.
It does not specifically mean cousin. It has a broader meaning.

This is important about the words chosen by God when describing Jesus' brothers, James, Joses
Simon, etc.
God chose to repeatedly use adelphoi, the plural of adelphos.

And anepsios is the specific Greek word for cousin as in Colossians 4:10.

So there is the distinction made,
The distinction is extremely important when examining the context of each passage.
To claim adelphoi were actually cousins when the Bible writers had specific words for cousin and used these specific words in passages where a cousin was being spoken of.

 

[LoveYeshua]

i was raised RCC

Then i was Born-Again by the Spirit and batptized in the Holy Spirit.

Now i am FREE from religion and waiting for my Savior, the LORD Jesus Christ

Amen brother exact same for me.

 

[David in NJ]

Amen brother exact same for me.

Born of His Spirit
Washed in His Blood
This is our Story
This is our Song
Praising our Savior
All the Day Long

 

[Titus]

The question is not “does the NT ever use anepsios of Jesus’s relatives?” but “who are the people called Jesus’s adelphoi, and which mother and household does the NT assign them to?” On that question, the text is clear: they belong to Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, not to Mary the mother of Jesus.

Wrong,
It's clear when unbiased folks just take the word for what it says.

Matthew 13:53-56
- and it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these parables He departed thence
- and when He was come into His own country He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works
- is not this the carpenters Son Is His mother called Mary and His brethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas
- and His sisters are they not all with us, Whence then hath this Man all these things

These passages do not say these siblings are from another Mary.

The Bible never says James, Simon, and Judas were sons of Mary of Clopas!!!

What the Bible does directly state :
Galatians 1:19,
- but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother

Not once does the Bible directly state that they were sons of another Mary!!!

It makes no sense for Mary mother of Jesus to take a celibacy vow.
It makes no sense for Joseph and Mary to make a vow of childlessness or remain child free.
The Bible nowhere says Joseph or Mary made any decision to not have children.
The Bible nowhere says God instructed Joseph or Mary to not have children.

This doctrine is not found in scripture.

Someone who chooses to remain childless or to abstain from sex DOES NOT GET MARRIED!!!
Child bearing was highly valued.
Children is a blessing from God,
Psalm 172:3,
- lo children are are an heritage of the Lord

Sons had particular importance because they continued the family line.

The great abnormality of a married couple especially in the time and tradition when Mary lived intentionally not having children is very odd. But more importantly never mentioned anywhere in scripture.

So it is not strange to interpret Matthew 1:24-25 as Joseph and Mary having sexual relations.
It is not out of the ordinary to understand that when married couples have sex they do so to produce children especially in Mary's day.

It is odd to interpret Matthew 1:24-25 as a newly wed couple never having sex.

- knew her not till she brought forth her first born Son

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong,
It's clear when unbiased folks just take the word for what it says.

Matthew 13:53-56
- and it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these parables He departed thence
- and when He was come into His own country He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works
- is not this the carpenters Son Is His mother called Mary and His brethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas
- and His sisters are they not all with us, Whence then hath this Man all these things

These passages do not say these siblings are from another Mary.

The Bible never says James, Simon, and Judas were sons of Mary of Clopas!!!

What the Bible does directly state :
Galatians 1:19,
- but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother

Umm, the Bible NEVER says that they were the sons of Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Stop ADDING to the Word of God . . .

Later, we see that they are the sons of Mary’s “Adelphe” - which mean sister, half-sister, cousin, aunt, relative, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc.

These men were Jesus’s “Adelphoi” – which ALSO means, brother, half-brother, cousin, uncle relative, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc.

The NT was NOT written in 21st century English. It was written in Koine Greek.
YOU are arguing from a language and a culture 2000 years LATER . . .

Not once does the Bible directly state that they were sons of another Mary!!!

Correct.
HOWEVER – THESE passages DO . . .

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, AND Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were HIS MOTHER, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

THREE Mary’s - (Mother of Jesus, Mother of James and Joses, Mary Magdaline) ad Salome, Zebedee’s wife and mother of James and John.

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible . . .

It makes no sense for Mary mother of Jesus to take a celibacy vow.
It makes no sense for Joseph and Mary to make a vow of childlessness or remain child free.
The Bible nowhere says Joseph or Mary made any decision to not have children.
The Bible nowhere says God instructed Joseph or Mary to not have children.

This doctrine is not found in scripture.

Someone who chooses to remain childless or to abstain from sex DOES NOT GET MARRIED!!!
Child bearing was highly valued.
Children is a blessing from God,
Psalm 172:3,
- lo children are are an heritage of the Lord

Sons had particular importance because they continued the family line.

The great abnormality of a married couple especially in the time and tradition when Mary lived intentionally not having children is very odd. But more importantly never mentioned anywhere in scripture.

So it is not strange to interpret Matthew 1:24-25 as Joseph and Mary having sexual relations.
It is not out of the ordinary to understand that when married couples have sex they do so to produce children especially in Mary's day.

It is odd to interpret Matthew 1:24-25 as a newly wed couple never having sex.
- knew her not till she brought forth her first born Son

Again – you’re arguing from a 21st century language and culture to another language and culture over 2000 years ago.

According to the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, these Adelphoi and Adelphe of the Lord were Joseph’s children from another marriage. This was written about 100 years after Jesus walked the earth – not 2000 years after. It explains that Joseph was an older widower who became Mary’s protector, as a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

Not ONLY did the Early Church Fathers all agree on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – MANY of your Protestant Fathers did as well. Luther, Calvin, Zwingili, Cranmer and Wesley ALL defended this doctrine.

 

[David in NJ]

Umm, the Bible NEVER says that they were the sons of Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Stop ADDING to the Word of God . . .

Later, we see that they are the sons of Mary’s “Adelphe” - which mean sister, half-sister, cousin, aunt, relative, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc.

These men were Jesus’s “Adelphoi” – which ALSO means, brother, half-brother, cousin, uncle relative, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc.

The NT was NOT written in 21st century English. It was written in Koine Greek.
YOU are arguing from a language and a culture 2000 years LATER . . .

Correct.
HOWEVER – THESE passages DO . . .

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, AND Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were HIS MOTHER, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

THREE Mary’s - (Mother of Jesus, Mother of James and Joses, Mary Magdaline) ad Salome, Zebedee’s wife and mother of James and John.

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible . . .

Again – you’re arguing from a 21st century language and culture to another language and culture over 2000 years ago.

According to the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, these Adelphoi and Adelphe of the Lord were Joseph’s children from another marriage. This was written about 100 years after Jesus walked the earth – not 2000 years after. It explains that Joseph was an older widower who became Mary’s protector, as a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

Not ONLY did the Early Church Fathers all agree on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – MANY of your Protestant Fathers did as well. Luther, Calvin, Zwingili, Cranmer and Wesley ALL defended this doctrine.

Mary lost her virginity after JESUS was born.
Joseph was her HUSBAND = they obeyed GOD and had marital intercourse with children

Mary queen of heaven is from Babylon = Ishtar

Ishtar was the ancient Mesopotamian goddess called the “Queen of Heaven,” associated with love, war, and fertility. She was worshipped especially at Uruk in connection with the Eanna temple and later became widely revered by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians -

and the Roman Catholic religion - Mary queen of heaven = idolatry

The Holy Apostles tell us to "FLEE idolatry"

The Papal System – XXIII. The Worship of the Virgin Mary

THE most popular form of idolatry that ever captivated the human heart is the worship of Mary. To the unwedded priest of contemplative mind, Mary has every beauty, every charm, every divine grace. Pure enough to be the chosen mother of that human body in which Deity dwelt, unapproached in her...

jamesjpn.net

 

[Titus]

According to the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium

Notice, I use scripture to make my case.
Catholics use uninspired writings as this is the only way they can appear to be teaching Biblical doctrine.
Bread of Life always uses uninspired men to promote his doctrine because he cannot prove his doctrines from the Bible alone.

You’re moving away from Scripture and into cultural speculation

Wrong, I only use scripture.
You made a big mistake. That accusation should have been sent to Bread of Life.
Notice Bread of Life is guilty of what you are accusing me of.

Not ONLY did the Early Church Fathers all agree on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – MANY of your Protestant Fathers did as well. Luther, Calvin, Zwingili, Cranmer and Wesley ALL defended this doctrine.

And this uninspired extra-biblical document.

According to the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, these Adelphoi and Adelphe of the Lord were Joseph’s children from another marriage. This was written about 100 years after Jesus walked the earth – not 2000 years after. It explains that Joseph was an older widower who became Mary’s protector, as a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

Catholics overwhelming get their doctrines outside of Inspired Scripture.


I'm not protestant or catholic or orthodox tradition.
Luther NOT MY FATHER!!!!
Calvin NOT MY FATHER!!!
Zwingili NOT MY FATHER!!!
Cranmer and Wesley NOT MY FATHER!!!!
I do not appeal to uninspired men like Bread of Life does to prove my teaching is from the word of God!!!

This is Bread of Life's modus operandi.
Attaching false beliefs to his opponents supposed understanding of scripture.

I'm a member of the churches of Christ.
We reject the doctrinal teaches of protestant fathers and the Catholic church that they divided from.
Bible alone is all we hold to.
Only Jesus and the apostles were Inspired.
Only first century Christians that the apostles laid hands on were given spiritual gifts of miraculous knowledge so they to qualify as Inspired of God.
So for example the gospel preacher Philip in Acts 8 is also inspired.

How many protestants believe water baptism is essential to salvation as the churches of Christ teach, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-7, Colossians 2:12, etc. ?

Bread of Life you are not having a discussion with a protestant who believes in the gospel of faith alone salvation.
So stop wrongly accusing me of something I have no faith in.

Umm, the Bible NEVER says that they were the sons of Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Stop ADDING to the Word of God .

Wrong, as already proven with book, chapter and verse!!!
Matthew 13:55-56.

Bread of Life: prove with Scripture alone Joseph had two wives?

these Adelphoi and Adelphe of the Lord were Joseph’s children from another marriage

No scriptural evidence.
This doctrine is from later "Christian" traditions.

Another teaching from Catholics that is speculation in the least or intentional deception.

You’re moving away from Scripture and into cultural speculation

No, that's what foundation Catholicism is built upon.

 

[Titus]

Again – you’re arguing from a 21st century language and culture to another language and culture over 2000 years ago.

Wrong,
It was their culture to have children!!!
It's our culture today to not have children.
If anyone is arguing about Mary mother of Jesus and not having children.
Those who teach this are not relating to Mary's culture and tradition!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mary lost her virginity after JESUS was born.
Joseph was her HUSBAND = they obeyed GOD and had marital intercourse with children

The Bible doesn't support that.

The onus is on YOU to show this from Scripture. NOWERE in the NT does it say that Mary had other children. NOWHERE.

If YOU think it does - please provide the verses. Beecause, so far, you've FAILED. . .

Mary queen of heaven is from Babylon = Ishtar

That’s as shallow as saying that God is NOT God because some pagan sect believes that Baal or Moloch is their god . . .
Let’s start with the origin of this nonsense.

An anti-Catholic named Alexander Hislop wrote a book called, “The Two Babylons”. It was nothing more than an exercise in sloppy historical research, personal vendetta and false accusations. This book has been debunked, not ONLY by informed Catholics but by Protestants. In fact, a former Hislop devotee named Ralph Woodrow wrote a book called, The Babylon Connection? after doing some ACTUAL historical and archaeological research.

Woodrow debunked the false charges by Hislop that the Catholic Church gleaned their practice of pagan idolatry and goddess worship from the Mesopotamian ruler, Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis (some sources claim she was also his wife). As a result – he pulled his book from publication and now runs a ministry leading people AWAY from Hislop’s lies.

The Davidic Kingdom is modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was NOT the Queen. Rather, his MOTHER was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel - but only to those in the line of David.

Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). It is fitting that His mother has the SAME role that other Davidic Queen had - that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

This is the understanding that Catholics have when calling her “the Queen of Heaven” – and NOT in the pagan sense of that title found in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, & 25, which is a designation for an Egyptian goddess.

1 Kings 2:19-20 tells us: So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down ON HIS RIGHT.
“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
“Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will NOT refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King and Mary is the Queen Mother.

Perhaps, YOU should take some time OFF of this forum and do some homework so you don’t embarrass yourself any further . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Notice, I use scripture to make my case.
Catholics use uninspired writings as this is the only way they can appear to be teaching Biblical doctrine.
Bread of Life always uses uninspired men to promote his doctrine because he cannot prove his doctrines from the Bible alone.

Churches of Christ, eh?
YOUR sect emerged from the Restoration Movement in the early 19th century by men like Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, who led that movement.

In other words – YOUR sect discovered the “REAL truth” some 1800 years AFTER Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth . . .

And this uninspired extra-biblical document.

You mean – like the uninspired writings and doctrines of your Protestant Fathers??

Catholics overwhelming get their doctrines outside of Inspired Scripture.

Not only is this patently FALSE – it’s just flat-out stupid . . .
Remember - if it hadn't been for the Catholic Church - YOU wouldn't even have a Bible, son . . .

I'm not protestant or catholic or orthodox tradition.
Luther NOT MY FATHER!!!!
Calvin NOT MY FATHER!!!
Zwingili NOT MY FATHER!!!
Cranmer and Wesley NOT MY FATHER!!!!
I do not appeal to uninspired men like Bread of Life does to prove my teaching is from the word of God!!!

If you claim to be a Christian – as your profile suggests – and you’re NOT Catholic or Orthodox - you are by DEFINITION, a Protestant.

Prot·es·tant
[ˈprädəst(ə)nt]

1. a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

You can deny it ALL DAY. But, in the end – you’re just another Protestant, whose faith tradition grew out of the beliefs of MEN like Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, Zwingili, Crannmer and Wesely. . .

This is Bread of Life's modus operandi.
Attaching false beliefs to his opponents supposed understanding of scripture.

I’m just attaching FACTS.
Scriptural and Historical facts . . .

I'm a member of the churches of Christ.
We reject the doctrinal teaches of protestant fathers and the Catholic church that they divided from.
Bible alone is all we hold to.
Only Jesus and the apostles were Inspired.
Only first century Christians that the apostles laid hands on were given spiritual gifts of miraculous knowledge so they to qualify as Inspired of God.
So for example the gospel preacher Philip in Acts 8 is also inspired.

Churches of Christ, eh?

YOUR sect emerged from the Restoration Movement in the early 19th century by men like Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, who led that movement.

In other words – YOUR sect discovered the “REAL truth” some 1800 years AFTER Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth . . .

How many protestants believe water baptism is essential to salvation as the churches of Christ teach, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-7, Colossians 2:12, etc. ?

Umm, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians to name a few . . .

Bread of Life you are not having a discussion with a protestant who believes in the gospel of faith alone salvation.
So stop wrongly accusing me of something I have no faith in.

I agree.

I’m having a discussion with a person who puts his faith in the beliefs of mere MEN in the 16th century and beyond for his beliefs.

Wrong, as already proven with book, chapter and verse!!!
Matthew 13:55-56.

WRONG.

Those verses simply refer to the Adelphoi of Jesus. As I already educated you - Adelphoi is a word that, in Koine Greek can men ANY of the following:

Brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, neighbor, and even a fellow countryman.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

Bread of Life: prove with Scripture alone Joseph had two wives?

Once YOU prove with Scripture that Mary had OTHER children.

Joseph having other children is not a point of doctrine. Whteher or not Mary had children otheer than Jesus IS . . .

No scriptural evidence.
This doctrine is from later "Christian" traditions.

Another teaching from Catholics that is speculation in the least or intentional deception.

WRONG.
Even the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY preached about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

YOUR rejection of this fact came from men during and AFTER the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong,
It was their culture to have children!!!
It's our culture today to not have children.
If anyone is arguing about Mary mother of Jesus and not having children.
Those who teach this are not relating to Mary's culture and tradition!!!

Jesus didn't come to fulfill CULTURE. He came to fulfill the LAW.

It was ALSO in their culture to refeer to their parents aas "Mother" and "Father".
Jesus called HIS Mother, "Woman" because He was associating her with the WOMAN in Gen 3:16., whose offspring would crush the head of the Serpent

This was a title of MUCH more respect and honor than just "Mother".
Do your homework . . .

 

[David in NJ]

The Bible doesn't support that.

The onus is on YOU to show this from Scripture. NOWERE in the NT does it say that Mary had other children. NOWHERE.

If YOU think it does - please provide the verses. Beecause, so far, you've FAILED. . .

That’s as shallow as saying that God is NOT God because some pagan sect believes that Baal or Moloch is their god . . .
Let’s start with the origin of this nonsense.

An anti-Catholic named Alexander Hislop wrote a book called, “The Two Babylons”. It was nothing more than an exercise in sloppy historical research, personal vendetta and false accusations. This book has been debunked, not ONLY by informed Catholics but by Protestants. In fact, a former Hislop devotee named Ralph Woodrow wrote a book called, The Babylon Connection? after doing some ACTUAL historical and archaeological research.

Woodrow debunked the false charges by Hislop that the Catholic Church gleaned their practice of pagan idolatry and goddess worship from the Mesopotamian ruler, Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis (some sources claim she was also his wife). As a result – he pulled his book from publication and now runs a ministry leading people AWAY from Hislop’s lies.

The Davidic Kingdom is modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was NOT the Queen. Rather, his MOTHER was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel - but only to those in the line of David.

Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). It is fitting that His mother has the SAME role that other Davidic Queen had - that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

This is the understanding that Catholics have when calling her “the Queen of Heaven” – and NOT in the pagan sense of that title found in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, & 25, which is a designation for an Egyptian goddess.

1 Kings 2:19-20 tells us: So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down ON HIS RIGHT.
“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
“Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will NOT refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King and Mary is the Queen Mother.

Perhaps, YOU should take some time OFF of this forum and do some homework so you don’t embarrass yourself any further . . .

If you receive the words of the LORD and His Holy Apostles, in faith and you turn away from the RCC idolatry, you will be Saved.

 

[Titus]

Churches of Christ, eh?
YOUR sect emerged from the Restoration Movement in the early 19th century by men like Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, who led that movement

More proof you have no integrity or credibility.
You will perpetuate any lie you find on the internet in an effort to appear to be the true church.
You don't even care that first you framed me as a protestant, without any concern of misrepresenting me.
No apology from you as expected.
Now you misrepresent the Lords church perpetuating the same old lie started by the Baptist sectarian churches.
You are more like the protestants than you realize.
You use the same false claims to further your agenda.
Romans 16:16,
- greet one another with a Holy kiss, the churches of Christ salute you

That's Paul, a member of the churches of Christ!!! Just as all born again christians are added to the Lords church,
Acts 2:47,
- praising God and having favor with all the people and the Lord added to the church daily such as were being saved

Alexander Campbell a former member of the Presbyterian sect studied the Bible. From Bible study he left man made doctrines of the protestant religion and went back to first century christianity.

Mr. Campbell was from Ireland.
He moved to America in 1809.
1809 is not when the Lords church was established.
It was established on pentecost in ad 30-33.

YOUR sect emerged from the Restoration Movement in the early 19th century by men like Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, who led that movement

Wrong. Stone and Campbell did not create their own church/sect.
You are telling the same lies the denominational, protestant churches started.

The protestants are a sect off of the catholic sect.
Never was their intention to go back to new testament christianity.
Their intention was to reform the catholic church to what they wanted.

Therefore it was a reformation.
What men in the catholic church should have done was start a restoration.

Restore the church back to the Biblical pattern, after the apostles teaching.

Campbell did not arrive in America till, 1809.

The Lords church was well established in the new world way before Alexander Campbell.

James O Kelly - 1790's
One of the earliest American restoration movements arose under James O Kelly a former Methodist preacher in Virginia and North Carolina.
OKelly broke with the Methodist Episcopal church in the early 1790's.
His followers rejected denominational authority and emphasized the Bible only as their rule.
By 1794 the group was using the name "Christian church".
Their movement spread through Virginia and the Carolinas before Campbell arrived in America.

The Rochester Christian university history describes OKelly's movement as beginning in the 1790's and says the churches eventually adopted the name Christian only.

A historical account preserved by Abilene Christian University likewise says that OKelly's group changed its name to Christian church in 1794, before the turn of the century spreading into Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Indiana.

Abner Jones - 1801

Abner Jones organized an independent congregation at Lyndon Vermont in 1801.
His group rejected denominational names and called themselves simply christians.
That's eight years before Campbell arrived in America!!!

Elias Smith - early 1800's

Mr. Smith working independently of Campbell also began advocating a return to the New testament pattern.
He and Jones were leaders of what became known as the New England Christian movement.
The churches of Christ were planted in these local areas the same as the apostles planted local ,churches in the first century. They went and taught the Biblical gospel and many in denominational man made churches heard the truth of the kingdom, the only one new testament church and therefore joined the church.

Barton W. Stone -1804

Then there was Barton Stone in Kentucky.
Stone and other Presbyterian ministers separated from the Presbyterian establishment and the Springfield Presbytery was dissolved in 1804.
The resulting movement became known as the Christian Church.

This movement was before Campbell started a movement away from denominationalism.
Later Stone and Campbell eventually united movements in 1832.


Alexander Campbell- 1809
Campbell also studied his way out of protestant religion.
Therefore he knew he had to teach others that they must leave sectarianism and go back to Biblical apostolic doctrine.
That always means if one is already in a church that was founded by man like the Baptist church or Luther church etc.
One had to leave those establishments and join the new testament church founded by Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn't come to fulfill CULTURE. He came to fulfill the LAW

This was a title of MUCH more respect and honor than just "Mother".
Do your homework

You are the one guilty of using culture.
I was only responding to your accusation.
You know this but you will use any trick you can to appear as a sound teacher.

Again – you’re arguing from a 21st century language and culture to another language and culture over 2000 years ago.

Catholic church is just another man made church.
It was and always will be a counterfeit church pretending to be the church Christ established.