Search results

Because I am accustomed to ruling out improbable explanations for presumed facts, and this one is improbable in the extreme.

Yes.

Heck, why not just assume that Joseph was a eunuch, was ashamed of it, and marrying an avowed perpetual virgin was his way of hiding it from the world? Possible, right? Look, you can pile improbabilities on top of improbabilities until you reach the moon -- but I'm not climbing on board. This...

No, it's because presuming the improbable is just poor logic. No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign.

Yes I have. There is just no reason to presume such a state of affairs. Joseph simply would have declined to marry if he too had decided to be a perpetual virgin.

The presumption that Mary both (a) made a vow of virginity and (b) was engaged to be married is ridiculous. Such a vow would have made it sinful on her part not to disclose it at once so that the engagement could be called off immediately. So, if she wasn't sinful, it means she disclosed her...

Why are you guys continuing to debate this? The Greek is ambiguous. Period. End of discussion. It could mean that these folks were Jesus's actual brothers and sisters, or cousins, or kinsmen of some degree removed, or half-brothers/sisters from Mary, or step brothers/sisters from Joseph...

Good to know. Meanwhile, the oldest Greek manuscripts of NT writings we have do not all agree on the wording. The discipline of Textual Criticism attempts to discern the actual original wording in various ways. I guess you think those scholars all have their heads up their asses.

Believe what you want. We've beaten this horse to death.

Let's look at 1 Cor. 15:3-7: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve...

Nothing in these verses is "specifically referring to the original twelve."

Disagree. Just because Peter is one of the Twelve original apostles doesn't mean all "other apostles" were as well in Paul's view. We know he was not of that view, given all of the other men he calls apostles elsewhere.

Disagree. The "other apostles" Paul was referring to need not have been only the original Twelve just because Peter was one of those Twelve.

I'm not disputing the "family member" conclusion. But I don't read Gal. 1:18-19 to call James one of the Twelve.

I don't see that in the text.

There could have been other men named James who qualify as "apostles" -- including some who never laid eyes on Jesus. The Greek word apostolos means “delegate,” “ambassador,” “one who is sent.” In this sense Paul calls himself an apostle, e.g., Gal. 1:1. In this sense Paul calls James the...

An accusation of being a liar and a bigot is hardly less offensive than an accusation of being psychotic. No matter how emotional you get on discussion forums like this one, you don't have to click the "Post reply" button before reading your words to see if they offend. Why not take that extra...

While I disagree with @Keiw far more than I disagree with you, @Kiew is hardly psychotic. Even if you had the competence to diagnose psychosis and the opportunity to examine @Kiew, posting this type of conclusion would be wholly inappropriate. What does it avail you? Why do it?

The inspiration of the originals (now lost to us) is a different question. My question is on the exactness of the copies. And nobody has proven that, or ever can.

You think the Scriptures are exact copies? Since none of the originals are around, how would you know?