MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[tzcho2]

How do you make out I gave up? I have quoted a whole chunk of stuff which point to her having other children but you prefer to believe the RCC's false teaching so good luck with that.

Well, Pearl, the taunting is because the rcc always thinks IT is spiritually superior, because IT declared ITself to be- infallible & higher then the word, didn't you know that? They alone can interpret it, just like in the dark ages. We protestants are looked down upon as the stupid peasants who rejected their (false) divine authority. Nothing has changed.

 

[marks]

Hey Marks,

The James theory was debunked by my use of Scripture in my post #73 and BOL's post......We should move on.

The plain reading of the text DOES NOT call the children of Mary sooooooo stop pretending it does. You are not plainly reading text when you add to it.

Thank you....Mary

PS....I know you are the type of person that has to have the last word soooooo have at it....

Not debunked, you've not debunked any of my simple arguments.

And this will be my last word on this thread. Because we are going in circles.

It doesn't say they weren't and it doesn't say they were but it reads like they were so they were.

All yours.

 

[BreadOfLife]

you have them, and just keep on waiting you'll catch up to them sonner or later.

you can take a horse to the water, but you cain't make it drink..... see ya.

PICJAG.

TRANSLATION:
"I've got NOTHING to show you because the verses simply don't exist."

That's what I thought . . .

 

[101G]

How do you think the Thief on the cross got to be in Paradise BEFORE the Resurrection happened in OUR time??

so you belive the Thief on the cross is in Paradise now? .... yes or no.

PICJAG

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not debunked, you've not debunked any of my simple arguments.

And this will be my last word on this thread. Because we are going in circles.

It doesn't say they weren't and it doesn't say they were but it reads like they were so they were.

All yours.

TRANSLATION:
"I couldn't co up with anything, so I'll just keep quiet now."

Probably a good idea . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

so you belive the Thief on the cross is in Paradise now? .... yes or no.

PICJAG

Yup - because Jesus said so.

 

[Doug]

GINOLJC, to all.

first thanks for the reply, second, our assertion still stand.

for they assume that they was his brothers and sisters, but the scriptures are clear. Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli".

see, they didn't know, but the scriptures are clear on this. and two, Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

so clearly he was not the carpenter son, listen, Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?.

so clearly he's not the carpenter's son?, and not are they his biological sisters or brothers. for Mary was only the BIRTH Mother of the flesh that Jesus came in. for the Lord Jesus is without natural Mother without natural Father. Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

so the Holy Ghost, if you want to use the term "Father" in it's natural use, is the conceiver of that child/flesh".

understand something. only flesh is conceived and spirits are given, (see Isaiah 9:6). the only thing a woman can produce is flesh, not spirit. for the spirit comes from God, which returns to God when death occures. so biologically speaking no connection. only by "BIRTH" ... RIGHT, not by blood or flesh do he have the right to the throne, only by being made of a Woman ... "Born" or "Birthed" he have the right to the throne. another thing, he came out of the tribe of Juda, not "come from it". big difference.

PICJAG.

Hello
I asked how could the multitude call them his brothers and his mother on their own and your response was...."for they assume that they was his brothers and sisters"...and this is not stated in the verses we were considering and it violates common sense do deny that it was his indeed his family. By the way, their assumption would have been correct.

 

[Doug]

Thank you Doug. I agree, you did say that.

It is true that we must put the passages that talk about Jesus brothers/sisters in context. The entire context of the NT Scripture shows that there is NO definitive statement that Mary had other children. Not once does the NT mention the “sons of Mary” or “a son of Mary,” but only the son of Mary. Scripture does allow for Jesus "brothers" or "brethren" (depending on the translation) to be cousins by the use of the word adelphos, however, when one takes the entire context of the NT Scripture and tries to make them blood brothers it just isn't there.

For you to suggest that the person who wrote The Protoevangelium of James 1,900 years ago (closest to the life of Christ) didn't use common sense and that 500 years ago the men of the Reformation did use common sense is not logical.

The big three Reformation leaders, Calvin, Zwingili and Luther all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity sooooo you accept the "common sense" of the men who were the Reformers of the Reformers. They started a new traditional teaching of Scripture based on their interpretation of Scripture and they rejected the teachings of The Reformers. I accept the "common sense" of the men who lived closest to the life of Christ who had the ringing of the Apostles teaching still in their ears.


Mary

Hello
I like your logo

 

[101G]

Hello
I asked how could the multitude call them his brothers and his mother on their own and your response was...."for they assume that they was his brothers and sisters"...and this is not stated in the verses we were considering and it violates common sense that it was his family indeed. By the way, their assumption would have been correct.

here is the scripture concering the father of Jesus which we quoted, Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli".

thanks for the reply.

PICJAG.

 

[Doug]

here is the scripture concering the father of Jesus which we quoted, Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli".

thanks for the reply.

PICJAG.

Hello
I see where you are coming from...but that is a scripture to uphold saying they thought Joseph was his father....there is none to take it further and apply it to the account in Mark 3 we were considering

 

[101G]

Yup - because Jesus said so.

NIP! we will nip that in the bud. ERROR, gross ignorance on your part. let's look at the scriptures and see the truth.
Luke 23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
#1. the Theif said "REMEMBER ME".
#2. and the Lord Jesus responded, "to day thou "SHALT" be with me in Paradise.

remember is in thought, for a book of remembrance was written. Malachi 3:16. and shalt is future tense. for the Lord Jesus himself was not in paradise that "DAY" for he went to the spirit in prison and preached to them, 1 Peter 3:19.

so ERROR on your part as to the theif is in paradise today.


PICJAG.

 

[101G]

Hello
I see where you are coming from...but that is a scripture to uphold saying they thought Joseph was his father....there is none to take it further and apply it to the account in Mark 3 we were considering

no the recorder of the gospel knew, but the hometown folk didn't know that the Lord Jesus was not Joseph son.

PICJAG.

 

[CoreIssue]

Saint James | apostle, the Lord’s brother

 

[BreadOfLife]

NIP! we will nip that in the bud. ERROR, gross ignorance on your part. let's look at the scriptures and see the truth.
Luke 23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
#1. the Theif said "REMEMBER ME".
#2. and the Lord Jesus responded, "to day thou "SHALT" be with me in Paradise.

remember is in thought, for a book of remembrance was written. Malachi 3:16. and shalt is future tense. for the Lord Jesus himself was not in paradise that "DAY" for he went to the spirit in prison and preached to them, 1 Peter 3:19.

so ERROR on your part as to the theif is in paradise today.

PICJAG.

So much ignorance in your post - it's difficult to know exactly where to begin . . .

Let's start with the fact that Paradise and Hades or, the "prison" where Jesus went to preach to the spirits was in the SAME place.
All we need to do is go to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man to see this. There was a great chasm separating the two areas of the SAME place - one of torment - the other of "Abraham's Bosom".

Secondly - the Thief asked Jesus to "remember" Him. Jesus did one better than that and actually SAVED him. There's not a single Theologian or Church Father in the history of the Church that will agree with you on this.

You're DEAD WRONG . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Saint James | apostle, the Lord’s brother

This position was already obliterated in post #21 - and again in post #176.

NNNNNNNNNEXT . . . . .

 

[n2thelight]

Why would one think He didn't?

 

[Pearl]

Well, Pearl, the taunting is because the rcc always thinks IT is spiritually superior, because IT declared ITself to be- infallible & higher then the word, didn't you know that? They alone can interpret it, just like in the dark ages. We protestants are looked down upon as the stupid peasants who rejected their (false) divine authority. Nothing has changed.

Oh yes, sadly I do know that to be true and I also know that trying to get somebody from that 'church' to accept the truth on certain matters is like try to knit spaghetti and you just get tied up in knots. To be honest I don't why I bother.

 

[101G]

So much ignorance in your post - it's difficult to know exactly where to begin . . .

Let's start with the fact that Paradise and Hades or, the "prison" where Jesus went to preach to the spirits was in the SAME place.
All we need to do is go to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man to see this. There was a great chasm separating the two areas of the SAME place - one of torment - the other of "Abraham's Bosom".

Secondly - the Thief asked Jesus to "remember" Him. Jesus did one better than that and actually SAVED him. There's not a single Theologian or Church Father in the history of the Church that will agree with you on this.

You're DEAD WRONG . . .

First error, there was a great gulf fix between the two, nor could they pass between each other, Luke 16:26 "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence". so they are not the same place. your own little silly words adimited that.... ... LOL

second we can care less what any of your Theologian or Church Father say. we have the original letter, from the true church Father God himself. ye seek after what men say, we what God said. that remember in "THOUGHT" got you didm't it...... (smile). next time read God words instead of following the "traditions" of men........... (smile)

You're DEAD WRONG . . .

which means you have no rebuttal to what we have said ...... ... LOL. a cry for help? when one have no evidence to support their claim, just say the other person is "dead wrong" ......

PICJAG.

 

[BreadOfLife]

First error, there was a great gulf fix between the two, nor could they pass between each other, Luke 16:26 "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence". so they are not the same place. your own little silly words adimited that.... ... LOL

second we can care less what any of your Theologian or Church Father say. we have the original letter, from the true church Father God himself. ye seek after what men say, we what God said. that remember in "THOUGHT" got you didm't it...... (smile). next time read God words instead of following the "traditions" of men........... (smile)

It is clear from the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that they could SEE and communicate with each other. I suggest you R*E*A*D the story a little more carefully before responding . . .

which means you have no rebuttal to what we have said ...... ... LOL. a cry for help? when one have no evidence to support their claim, just say the other person is "dead wrong" ......

PICJAG.

Who is "We"?? Do you ave a mouse in your pocket?? Because I don't see ANYBODY agreeing with you on this one . . .

 

[101G]

It is clear from the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that they could SEE and communicate with each other. I suggest you R*E*A*D the story a little more carefully before responding . . .

Who is "We"?? Do you ave a mouse in your pocket?? Because I don't see ANYBODY agreeing with you on this one . . .

you don't see anybody, for we walk by faith and not by sight. hence your problem. Romans 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; (Who is "We"?? Do you ave a mouse in your pocket?? Because I don't see ANYBODY), fleshly minded. lol.

and "Vain babbling". they was not in the same place, a great gulf fix was between them, how hard is it to understand?. see, you told an untruth and now you're stuck with it. your incomprehension of the scriptures needs to be arrested and locked for a long time. and ........ trow away the key........

you said, "they could SEE and communicate with each other". so?, that's nothing new, our brother Stephen saw the Lord, and spoke with him, but they was not in the same place. ..... ... (smile).

just like we have told others, if you just want to run your mouth, that's what facebook and tweeter are for. good day.

PICJAG