Search results

Thank you for submitting a new reply to the challenge. But your reply still doesn’t address the challenge because it only discusses Mary’s present circumstances during betrothal. The challenge is about Her future expectations. Your own position requires that Mary expected future marital...

You asked: And I answered directly:

You know that I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin. Virgins don't have sex lives, so there's no sex life for me to "obsess over"...

You attributed a claim to me that I never made, and thus answered a question that I never asked. Therefore you didn't address my actual textual challenge. You're making yourself look like you're just saying you did to avoid actually doing so and save face. I already told you that if you ask me...

Neither does that answer the textual challenge you claimed you could "refute so easily": Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph — how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible...

You already claimed to have answered it, and I explained you actually didn't because you misunderstand the premise of the challenge, which led to you addressing a claim that I didn't even make. Now its your turn to respond to that reply, since you assert "discussion is meant to go two ways."...

You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you...

That is not an answer to the question. Post #246 does not answer the question. Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2. Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions. I asked: "So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"...

That is not an answer to the question. Post #246 does not answer the question. Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2. Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions. I asked: "So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"...

That is not an answer to the question. Post #246 does not answer the question. Post #246 does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2. Post #246 does not resolve your contradictions. I asked: "So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings?"...

Post #246 does not answer the question. It does not choose one of the three interpretations of John 11:2. It does not resolve your contradictions. I have quoted all three of your different and mutually exclusive positions directly: (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79)...

So you’re asserting that you have always argued in defense of four anointings? Again, you did not “define it” as a single category. I have quoted all three of your different and mutually exclusive positions directly: (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event given.” (post #79) (b) Specific...

The position being challenged is simple: Mary had marital relations with Joseph. Everyone who has attempted to defend that position — including you — has done one of two things: addressed questions I never raised, and/or reframed my point into something I didn’t claim So I’m not sure how my...

There's no "again" because we haven't even finished our discussion on this topic in this thread. In fact, you haven't even responded to my last post addressed to you there. And what you’re offering here is actually the first time you’ve attempted the textual challenge itself. Thank you for...

But your contradictions are not valid. You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times: a. Non‑specific event You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given." This fits the definition of a...

Since you repeated your “four anointings” claim again, I need to confirm something clearly: Is “four anointings” the number you are now committing to going forward? You have previously argued: 2 anointings 3 anointings 3 + 1 (John 11:2 as a separate category) and now 4 anointings Before we...

If Matthew 27:56 “doesn’t correct anything,” then by your logic Matthew 1:18–20 doesn’t correct anything either — which would mean Joseph is Jesus’s biological father. But Matthew explicitly says he isn’t. So you do accept Matthew’s correction in chapter 1. You just refuse to accept Matthew’s...

Saying “there is no correction needed” doesn’t make Matthew’s correction disappear. Matthew does correct the crowd’s genealogy — twice — and both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene. Matthew 1:18–20 corrects the crowd’s assumption about Joseph. Matthew 27:56 corrects the crowd’s...

Common names don’t override explicit genealogy. Matthew 27:56 doesn’t just list “a James” and “a Joseph.” It identifies their mother. Matthew says: Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph (27:56) Matthew never says: Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of James and Joseph So...

You just affirmed the contradiction: (a) non‑specific event — “No specific event given… correct.” (b) specific event — “Correct.” (c) no event — “It is an event that John noted,” even though you previously said it is “not a timeline.” These three categories are mutually exclusive. You cannot...