It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

bbyrd009 · Apr 13, 2017

well that is not true, tradition lends Jesus biological siblings, as does Scripture, below, but because they are irrelevant to the mythology, that's surely why. The Bible tells us that

25 but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

also you have

46 He was still speaking to the crowds when suddenly His mother and brothers were standing outside wanting to speak to Him.

36 A crowd was sitting around Him and told Him, "Look, Your mother, Your brothers, and Your sisters are outside asking for You."

So then they remain unnamed because they are spiritually disowned as family strictly on the basis of biology, to further develop the "hate your family" theme; biology cannot play a role in the mythology without wrecking it. Mary is not accepted for bearing Jesus, but for following Christ; biology is firmly disavowed as a mechanism to enter the kingdom, seems to me anyway.

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Why do you keep making the moronic assertion that Mary wouldn't be around unbelievers. This is a really WEAK claim.
There are members of my extended family who are unbelievers yet we hang out together at family reunions. These "adelphoi" were Mary's step-children??

Is she supposed to abandon them because they're not her biological children??
Your position is pointless.

As to the Early Church Fathers - who do YOU think they were. There was only ONE Church - and these are the men who carried the Gospel message from the Apostles down through the centuries.
Not ONE of them ever wrote about Mary having "other" children. You can look into it until the cows come home and you won't find one. Gee - I WONDER why that is??

Finally - no, you haven't answered my questions.
Why can't you find the names of the "siblings" of Jesus in Scripture OR tradition?? Why aren't they named ANYWHERE??

There is nothing to indicate the 'brethren' are Mary's stepchildren. There is nothing to indicate Mary had step children except your assumption based on 'adelphos'. It could just as easlily mean Mary had children by another man. Poor Joseph. He must have been forced into virginity yet Mary could have had children by another man. That is all you can gather from 'adelphos'.

According to you these 'adelphoi' could be Mary's biological children. They could be from Joseph or another man.

The Apostles never said anything about a perpetual virgin Mary. You can look till the cows come home and not find it. I wonder why?

I did answer your questions. God didn't want to name them here in (Matt. 12:46-50), just like you can't name all of Adams sons and daughters. (Gen.5:4) If there were names, you wouldn't believe it anyway. You would just cry, 'adelphoi'. Ready?

(Matt.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?"

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
There is nothing to indicate the 'brethren' are Mary's stepchildren. There is nothing to indicate Mary had step children except your assumption based on 'adelphos'. It could just as easlily mean Mary had children by another man. Poor Joseph. He must have been forced into virginity yet Mary could have had children by another man. That is all you can gather from 'adelphos'.

According to you these 'adelphoi' could be Mary's biological children. They could be from Joseph or another man.

The Apostles never said anything about a perpetual virgin Mary. You can look till the cows come home and not find it. I wonder why?

I did answer your questions. God didn't want to name them here in (Matt. 12:46-50), just like you can't name all of Adams sons and daughters. (Gen.5:4) If there were names, you wouldn't believe it anyway. You would just cry, 'adelphoi'. Ready?

(Matt.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?"

Stranger

And you list the same verse that uses the word "Adelphoi" - knowing that this word encompasses MANY meanings other than uterine sibling.
Were the 120 "Adelphoi" mentioned in Acts 1 15 children of the SAME mother?? You never answered that question.

YOUR problem is denial - pure and simple.
You deny the linguistic reality of the word "Adelphos(oi)" because it doesn't fit YOUR theology. You keep dodging my questions because you're up against a linguistic wall on this one.

AGAIN I ask you:
Why isn't there ANY mention of these "other" children of Mary in ALL of Early Christendom.
Why did the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY agree on her perpetual virginity??

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
There is nothing to indicate the 'brethren' are Mary's stepchildren. There is nothing to indicate Mary had step children except your assumption based on 'adelphos'. It could just as easlily mean Mary had children by another man. Poor Joseph. He must have been forced into virginity yet Mary could have had children by another man. That is all you can gather from 'adelphos'.

According to you these 'adelphoi' could be Mary's biological children. They could be from Joseph or another man.

The Apostles never said anything about a perpetual virgin Mary. You can look till the cows come home and not find it. I wonder why?

I did answer your questions. God didn't want to name them here in (Matt. 12:46-50), just like you can't name all of Adams sons and daughters. (Gen.5:4) If there were names, you wouldn't believe it anyway. You would just cry, 'adelphoi'. Ready?

(Matt.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?"

Stranger

I'm glad you finally brought this verse into the conversation because it pretty much PROVES my point about these "Adelphoi" being cousins or some other relation to Jesus.
Ready?? Here goes . . .

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (Adelphe) (John 19:25).
We know that this "Adelphe" of Mary couldn't be her uterine sister because they are BOTH named "Mary". They had to have been some other relation (cousin, in laws, distant relative, etc.).

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 (Joses), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

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".

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.

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
And you list the same verse that uses the word "Adelphoi" - knowing that this word encompasses MANY meanings other than uterine sibling.
Were the 120 "Adelphoi" mentioned in Acts 1 15 children of the SAME mother?? You never answered that question.

YOUR problem is denial - pure and simple.
You deny the linguistic reality of the word "Adelphos(oi)" because it doesn't fit YOUR theology. You keep dodging my questions because you're up against a linguistic wall on this one.

AGAIN I ask you:
Why isn't there ANY mention of these "other" children of Mary in ALL of Early Christendom.
Why did the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY agree on her perpetual virginity??

But only His brethren that believe not are the ones with Mary. Thus they have to be of Mary. They can't be uncles, or neighbors or what not. And there is nothing in Scripture to indicate Mary had step children. That is an assumption without any base.

(Acts 1:15) is speaking to believers. Big difference. Jesus brethren didn't believe. (John 7:5)

"Adelphos" can fit my view just as easy as yours. But it would only be an assumption as yours is. But I am not trying to use it to prove that Jesus brothers were the sons of Mary and Joseph. I have showed you that it can only be sons of Mary and Joseph because they were Jesus brethren who didn't believe.

I just showed you in Matt. (13:55) There is the mention of of Mary's other children. The eary church did not believe in any perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman church does.

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
But only His brethren that believe not are the ones with Mary. Thus they have to be of Mary. They can't be uncles, or neighbors or what not. And there is nothing in Scripture to indicate Mary had step children. That is an assumption without any base.

(Acts 1:15) is speaking to believers. Big difference. Jesus brethren didn't believe. (John 7:5)

"Adelphos" can fit my view just as easy as yours. But it would only be an assumption as yours is. But I am not trying to use it to prove that Jesus brothers were the sons of Mary and Joseph. I have showed you that it can only be sons of Mary and Joseph because they were Jesus brethren who didn't believe.

I just showed you in Matt. (13:55) There is the mention of of Mary's other children. The eary church did not believe in any perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman church does.

Stranger

This is ludicrous.

Are you saying that unbelieving relative of Jesus could ONLY be uterine siblings?? Can you explain that one, please??
Are you saying that they couldn't be unbelieving cousins or step-siblings?? If not - then WHY not?? Can you explain this??

As for the Early Church - there is not ONE writing about Mary's "other" children. There is absolutely, positively ZERO mention of these "siblings"??
WHY is that, Stranger?? There are a LOT of Early Church documents where Mary is mentioned and NONE of them speak to your myth.

As I educated you earlier - even your Protestant Fathers unanimously believed in her Perpetual Virginity.
YOUR view is a relatively new invention.

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
I'm glad you finally brought this verse into the conversation because it pretty much PROVES my point about these "Adelphoi" being cousins or some other relation to Jesus.
Ready?? Here goes . . .

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (Adelphe) (John 19:25).
We know that this "Adelphe" of Mary couldn't be her uterine sister because they are BOTH named "Mary". They had to have been some other relation (cousin, in laws, distant relative, etc.).

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 (Joses), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

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".

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.

I know your glad. You have been fishing for it for a while. The point is it is not necessary because (Matt.12:46-50) proves that Mary had other sons.

Let's see. (Matt.13:55-56) says "Is not this the capenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas...?" But you are saying this is not Mary, the mother of Christ as (55) clearly says?

Your gymnastics with the Scripture are confusing at best. You show the Scriptures but do not explain why it is so clear. None of what you have said proves Mary in (Matt.13:55) is not Christs Mother. Only in your mind.

Stranger

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
This is ludicrous.

Are you saying that unbelieving relative of Jesus could ONLY be uterine siblings?? Can you explain that one, please??
Are you saying that they couldn't be unbelieving cousins or step-siblings?? If not - then WHY not?? Can you explain this??

As for the Early Church - there is not ONE writing about Mary's "other" children. There is absolutely, positively ZERO mention of these "siblings"??
WHY is that, Stranger?? There are a LOT of Early Church documents where Mary is mentioned and NONE of them speak to your myth.

As I educated you earlier - even your Protestant Fathers unanimously believed in her Perpetual Virginity.
YOUR view is a relatively new invention.

You mean unbelieving brethren. I have explained it. That's right. They can't be cousins. They are His unbelieving brethren. There is nothing to indicate Joseph and Mary had stepchildren. That is just an imagination. This was Jesus mother and unbelieving brethren. The perfectly normal reading of this passage shows that it is Mary's other sons. To say it is not, you have to go through a real dog and pony show, like you're doing, to make it say something else.

I'm not taking your word for it, that there is nothing in the early church that writes of Mary's other children. You say things rather loosely but don't offer any support. I think the Bible is the one you need to learn to listen to. Not mans writings.

Just because you say something doesn't mean you educated. Show me where the Protestants believed in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
You mean unbelieving brethren. I have explained it. That's right. They can't be cousins. They are His unbelieving brethren. There is nothing to indicate Joseph and Mary had stepchildren. That is just an imagination. This was Jesus mother and unbelieving brethren. The perfectly normal reading of this passage shows that it is Mary's other sons. To say it is not, you have to go through a real dog and pony show, like you're doing, to make it say something else.

I'm not taking your word for it, that there is nothing in the early church that writes of Mary's other children. You say things rather loosely but don't offer any support. I think the Bible is the one you need to learn to listen to. Not mans writings.

Just because you say something doesn't mean you educated. Show me where the Protestants believed in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Stranger

You're dancing around the issue again.

You haven't explained WHY the "Adelphoi" of Jesus HAD to be uterine siblings. Why couldn't they have been step-siblings or cousins??
Why would the unbelieving Adelphoi HAVE to be uterine siblings in your view??

As I've repeatedly educated you - "Adelphos" cover a LOT of ground and a LOT of meanings. I've proven this using Scriptural examples.
YOU, on the other hand, want us to believe that the Bible ONLY recognizes this word as "uterine sibling" - which it doesn't.. In a court of law - you would have LOST this argument about 30 posts ago.

Finally - I'm glad that you're not taking my word that the Early Church unanimously accepted Mary's Perpetual Virginity or that there are ZERO writings about her having "other" children.
Research it for yourself. You've already swallowed enough lies as a Protestant, so there's no sense in simply accepting something because I said it.

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
I know your glad. You have been fishing for it for a while. The point is it is not necessary because (Matt.12:46-50) proves that Mary had other sons.

Let's see. (Matt.13:55-56) says "Is not this the capenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas...?" But you are saying this is not Mary, the mother of Christ as (55) clearly says?

Your gymnastics with the Scripture are confusing at best. You show the Scriptures but do not explain why it is so clear. None of what you have said proves Mary in (Matt.13:55) is not Christs Mother. Only in your mind.

Stranger

When did I say that These verses are NOT speaking of Mary, mother of Jesus??
That is a ridiculous lie.

I said that other verses show that the "Adelphoi" mentioned in these verses were the children of Mary's "Adelphe", also named "Mary", who was the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) and was at the foot of the cross with her.
James and Joses are the children of the other Mary and Clopas. John 19:25 calls her an "Adelphe" of Mary - probably some relation other than a uterine sister.

The weight of Scripture is crushing your weak position . . .

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
You're dancing around the issue again.

You haven't explained WHY the "Adelphoi" of Jesus HAD to be uterine siblings. Why couldn't they have been step-siblings or cousins??
Why would the unbelieving Adelphoi HAVE to be uterine siblings in your view??

As I've repeatedly educated you - "Adelphos" cover a LOT of ground and a LOT of meanings. I've proven this using Scriptural examples.
YOU, on the other hand, want us to believe that the Bible ONLY recognizes this word as "uterine sibling" - which it doesn't.. In a court of law - you would have LOST this argument about 30 posts ago.

Finally - I'm glad that you're not taking my word that the Early Church unanimously accepted Mary's Perpetual Virginity or that there are ZERO writings about her having "other" children.
Research it for yourself. You've already swallowed enough lies as a Protestant, so there's no sense in simply accepting something because I said it.

I have explained it. There is nothing to indicate Joseph had sons of another marriage. Jesus unbelieveing brethren are Jesus brothers, Mary's other sons. 'Adelphos' could mean it is also Jesus unbelieving brothers from Mary. Why doesn't it mean that instead. When that is the normal natural reading.

As you repeatedly say, you mean. Yes, you do like to cover a lot of ground with 'Adelphos'. It's your go to word.

You have proven you will twist anything in Scripture to fit the Roman doctrine.

So, you don't have any Protestant examples of those who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Do you just say things?

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
I have explained it. There is nothing to indicate Joseph had sons of another marriage. Jesus unbelieveing brethren are Jesus brothers, Mary's other sons. 'Adelphos' could mean it is also Jesus unbelieving brothers from Mary. Why doesn't it mean that instead. When that is the normal natural reading.

As you repeatedly say, you mean. Yes, you do like to cover a lot of ground with 'Adelphos'. It's your go to word.

You have proven you will twist anything in Scripture to fit the Roman doctrine.

So, you don't have any Protestant examples of those who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Do you just say things?

Stranger

Okay - I'll make it easy on you.
I won't even use the word "Adelphos(oi)."

Show me ONE verse of Scripture that tells us Mary had other children.
So far - NONE of the verses you provided make this claim.

My mom has 13 children, 41 grandchildren and over 50 great grandchildren. She also has about 20 living cousins, 8 living in-laws and about 68 nieces and nephews.
What would you assume that she CAN'T walk around with ANY of them except her own 13 uterine children??

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
When did I say that These verses are NOT speaking of Mary, mother of Jesus??
That is a ridiculous lie.

I said that other verses show that the "Adelphoi" mentioned in these verses were the children of Mary's "Adelphe", also named "Mary", who was the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) and was at the foot of the cross with her.
James and Joses are the children of the other Mary and Clopas. John 19:25 calls her an "Adelphe" of Mary - probably some relation other than a uterine sister.

The weight of Scripture is crushing your weak position . . .

You said it when you claim that in (Matt. 13:55) James, and Joses and Simon and Judas are not the sons of Mary. Because Mary in this verse is Christs mother.

The other verses show no such thing. (Matt.27:56) speaks of Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children. (Mark15:40) speaks of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. John 19:25 speaks of Mary, Christs mother, Jesus mothers sister Mary who was the wife of Clophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Where does it say that James and Joses and Simon and Judas and their sisters of (Matt.1355-56) were of Mary the wife of Clophas? James the less is not the James of Christ's mother. And why isn't Judas and Simon mentioned as of Clophas? Or the sisters?

No, (Matt.13:55-56) is clear. The carpenter is Joseph. The carpenters Son is Jesus. Mary is Jesus mother. James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas are Mary and Josephs sons and Jesus brothers.

Strangers

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Okay - I'll make it easy on you.
I won't even use the word "Adelphos(oi)."

Show me ONE verse of Scripture that tells us Mary had other children.
So far - NONE of the verses you provided make this claim.

My mom has 13 children, 41 grandchildren and over 50 great grandchildren. She also has about 20 living cousins, 8 living in-laws and about 68 nieces and nephews.
What would you assume that she CAN'T walk around with ANY of them except her own 13 uterine children??

I've showed you three verses already.

Why do you assume it is not the natural brothers of Christ? Because 'Adelphos' speaks to that also. So, why?

Again you have nothing to show any step-children. You just want them there because you dont want Mary to not be a virgin. Which, while we are at it, bbyrd made a good point earlier. It says in (Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." So whether you agree that Mary had other sons or not, she was defitely not a perpetual virgin.

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
I've showed you three verses already.

Why do you assume it is not the natural brothers of Christ? Because 'Adelphos' speaks to that also. So, why?

Again you have nothing to show any step-children. You just want them there because you dont want Mary to not be a virgin. Which, while we are at it, bbyrd made a good point earlier. It says in (Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." So whether you agree that Mary had other sons or not, she was defitely not a perpetual virgin.

Stranger

I'm so glad you brought that up because it seems that you and bbyrd have the same linguistic handicap.
You're both Scriptural literalists - when it suits you. Let's examine Matt. 1:25 . . .

Bbyrd's “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity because of the word “until”. is a beginner's blunder.
Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says:
"... but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have discussed – the Bible does NOT support this idea.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us:
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21stcentury English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Deut. 34:6 tells us:
He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave

The SAME word for "until" (`ad) is used here that is used in 2 Sam 6:23.
Are we to deduce that they "suddenly" found out where Moses was buried after this was written??

Finally, Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:
Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I HAVE NOT KNOWN a man?” She said “How can this be, since I DO NOT KNOW a man?”
She was stating her intention to REMAIN a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

This actually supports the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, which said Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin by her parents – much like the prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36-38). She was to marry the older Joseph, a widower, who was to be her protector.

Like I said before - you have been defeated by Scripture, Tradition, linguistics and history . . .

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
You said it when you claim that in (Matt. 13:55) James, and Joses and Simon and Judas are not the sons of Mary. Because Mary in this verse is Christs mother.

The other verses show no such thing. (Matt.27:56) speaks of Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children. (Mark15:40) speaks of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. John 19:25 speaks of Mary, Christs mother, Jesus mothers sister Mary who was the wife of Clophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Where does it say that James and Joses and Simon and Judas and their sisters of (Matt.1355-56) were of Mary the wife of Clophas? James the less is not the James of Christ's mother. And why isn't Judas and Simon mentioned as of Clophas? Or the sisters?

No, (Matt.13:55-56) is clear. The carpenter is Joseph. The carpenters Son is Jesus. Mary is Jesus mother. James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas are Mary and Josephs sons and Jesus brothers.

Strangers

WRONG.
I said that they were the children of the other Mary - the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus.
They were adelphoi of Jesus by relation - NOT necessarily uterine siblings.

As for the woman at the cross - pay attention.
THREE Mary's are named:
1. Mary, mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene
3. Mary - ADELPHE of Mary, mother of Jesus. This is the Mary that is the mother of James and Joses and wife of Clopas.

Do you actually believe that this "Adelphe" of Mary was ALSO named "Mary" - and they were uterine siblings??

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
I'm so glad you brought that up because it seems that you and bbyrd have the same linguistic handicap.
You're both Scriptural literalists - when it suits you. Let's examine Matt. 1:25 . . .

Bbyrd's “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity because of the word “until”. is a beginner's blunder.
Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says:
"... but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have discussed – the Bible does NOT support this idea.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us:
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21stcentury English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Deut. 34:6 tells us:
He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave

The SAME word for "until" (`ad) is used here that is used in 2 Sam 6:23.
Are we to deduce that they "suddenly" found out where Moses was buried after this was written??

Finally, Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:
Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I HAVE NOT KNOWN a man?” She said “How can this be, since I DO NOT KNOW a man?”
She was stating her intention to REMAIN a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

This actually supports the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, which said Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin by her parents – much like the prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36-38). She was to marry the older Joseph, a widower, who was to be her protector.

Like I said before - you have been defeated by Scripture, Tradition, linguistics and history . . .

(2 Samuel 6:23) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child 'unto' the day of her death." No problem there. She had no child to the day of her death.

(Acts 2:34-35) "...Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." No problem here. Christ is still on His right hand until the Father makes His foes His footsool. Yet future. Same applies to (Matt. 22:44) and (Psalm 110:1).

Jesus will always have access at the right hand of the Father. But after the Father makes His enemies His foot-stool Jesus is getting off the throne and coming back. Thus, 'until'.

(Deut. 34:6) And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab,...but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." Again, no problem. At the time (Deut.) was written no one knew where it was. And still don't. So, no I don't deduce what you say because I'm not following your translation.

Your change in Mary's statement "since I do not know a man" still says nothing about her intending to remain a virgin. Only in your mind.

Of course, find something outside of Scripture. But I don't believe it one bit.

(Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:" Don't forget the term "firstborn". They are called first born because there is going to be more.

And, you never answered my two questions.

Stranger

Stranger · Apr 13, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
WRONG.
I said that they were the children of the other Mary - the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus.
They were adelphoi of Jesus by relation - NOT necessarily uterine siblings.

As for the woman at the cross - pay attention.
THREE Mary's are named:
1. Mary, mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene
3. Mary - ADELPHE of Mary, mother of Jesus. This is the Mary that is the mother of James and Joses and wife of Clopas.

Do you actually believe that this "Adelphe" of Mary was ALSO named "Mary" - and they were uterine siblings??

Yes, I know what you said, but as I said, there is no proof of that at all. The children listed in (Matt.13:55-56) are not the same of the wife of Clopas. As I said, James the less is not the James in (13:55). And others are listed in (13:55) which are not attributed to the wife of Clopas.

It really doesn't matter if Mary and her sister are both called Mary. That doesn't make those listed in (Matt.13:55-56) as the children of the wife of Clopas. The normal reading of (Matt.13:55-56) is very clear and simple. Those in the synogogue in Nazareth were commenting on Jesus immediate family. They listed the parents and His brothers and sisters.

And, 'Adelphus' means also truly born brothers and sisters. So why do you assume it is not?

Stranger

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
(2 Samuel 6:23) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child 'unto' the day of her death." No problem there. She had no child to the day of her death.

(Acts 2:34-35) "...Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." No problem here. Christ is still on His right hand until the Father makes His foes His footsool. Yet future. Same applies to (Matt. 22:44) and (Psalm 110:1).

Jesus will always have access at the right hand of the Father. But after the Father makes His enemies His foot-stool Jesus is getting off the throne and coming back. Thus, 'until'.

(Deut. 34:6) And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab,...but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." Again, no problem. At the time (Deut.) was written no one knew where it was. And still don't. So, no I don't deduce what you say because I'm not following your translation.

Your change in Mary's statement "since I do not know a man" still says nothing about her intending to remain a virgin. Only in your mind.

Of course, find something outside of Scripture. But I don't believe it one bit.

(Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:" Don't forget the term "firstborn". They are called first born because there is going to be more.

And, you never answered my two questions.

Stranger

Nice try - but epic fail.
Actually - it wasn't even a good try. It's just a failure do to poor research.

As I educated you - the SAME Hebrew word (`ad) is used in all of the OT references i presented - and that word means "UNTIL".
Again, you make the beginner's blunder of trying to impose your 21st century English to ancient Hebrew from a culture thousands of years ago.

Your argument is dead on arrival . . .

As for Mary's statement to the Angel - AGAIN, you fail.
Don't believe me?? Look up the Greek.

Finally - you're ignorance of Jewish traditions is astounding for a guy who likes to argue so much.
the term "Firstborn" does NOT imply that there might be another child afterward. "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture simply meant the one who "opens his mother's womb."

Exodus 13:1-2 tells us something important about the firstborn in Israel:

The Lord said to Moses, “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.”
A "Firstborn" child is firstborn from Birth - and NOT by virtue of his mother having more children.

Again - the weight of Scripture, Tradition and linguistics obliterates your anti-Biblical argument . . .

BreadOfLife · Apr 13, 2017

Stranger said:
Yes, I know what you said, but as I said, there is no proof of that at all. The children listed in (Matt.13:55-56) are not the same of the wife of Clopas. As I said, James the less is not the James in (13:55). And others are listed in (13:55) which are not attributed to the wife of Clopas.

It really doesn't matter if Mary and her sister are both called Mary. That doesn't make those listed in (Matt.13:55-56) as the children of the wife of Clopas. The normal reading of (Matt.13:55-56) is very clear and simple. Those in the synogogue in Nazareth were commenting on Jesus immediate family. They listed the parents and His brothers and sisters.

And, 'Adelphus' means also truly born brothers and sisters. So why do you assume it is not?

Stranger

Because of the overwhelming, corroborative evidence i have presented from Scripture, Tradition, linguistics and history.
All YOU have presented so far are the frustrated ramblings of a guy who wants to believe the exact opposite of what the Church has believed for 2000 years - and you're losing the argument.

You accuse ME of not having any evidence - yet you have presented nothing.

Why did the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary??
Why did the Fathers of the so-called "Reformation" agree with this doctrine?? They were doing everything they could to divorce themselves from the Catholic Church, so why did they ALL believed in this??
Why was YOUR point of view only invented in the last couple of hundred years.??

THAT'S what you have to ask yourself.

It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads