An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[Mungo]

There goes that spin....

Really?

Facts are spin?

 

[tom55]

***
Mark 6:3
3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.
NKJV

Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" even though he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban. Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins.
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen, as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah.

The people of Nazareth referred to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." Others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "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" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.

Most denominations believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Protestant leaders Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and their respective movements. This idea that she had other children or was not a life long virgin is a recent theory. The earliest writings we have (The Protoevangelium of James from 145AD) concerning this matter is a bit more reliable than the writings of heretics 2000 years later.

 

[tom55]

Doesn't this mean she didn't remain a virgin.
Matthew 1:25

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death....Book of Samuel.

Does this mean she had children after her death?

 

[tom55]

There goes that spin....

Where does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children?

If it is in Scripture please find it for me because I can't!!

 

[FHII]

Really?

Facts are spin?

You are distortong the facts. Read in proper context, there is absolutely no question that these werr Jesus's half brothers and sisters.

Joseph is mentioned. Mary is mentioned. Several men and sisters are mentioned. This is Jesus's immediate family. Elizabeth and John the Baptist are not mentioned, and they were identified as "cousins" (not brethren or sisters) of Mary.

The notion thay Mary remained a virgin is Catholic mythology.

 

[FHII]

Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" even though he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban. Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins.
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen, as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah.

The people of Nazareth referred to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." Others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "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" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.

Most denominations believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Protestant leaders Luther, Zwingli, Calvin,Wesley and their respective movements. This idea that she had other children or was not a life long virgin is a recent theory. The earliest writings we have (The Protoevangelium of James from 145AD) concerning this matter is a bit more reliable than the writings of heretics 2000 years later.

And Cain was the brother of Abel (not his cousin). Dinah was a sister of Rueban ans Levi (not their cousin).

Wonferful spin job Tom! I expect nothing but the best from you....
Proper context.... Mat 13 talks about immediate family. Not cousins or uncles.

 

[FHII]

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death....Book of Samuel.

Does this mean she had children after her death?

That is about the stupidest arguememt I have ever heard!

 

[FHII]

Where does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children?

If it is in Scripture please find it for me because I can't!!

Context dictates they were. Who else would be their mother?

 

[tom55]

Context dictates they were. Who else would be their mother?

Weird....You couldn't answer a simple question. Where does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children?

I will answer it for you. It is NOT in scripture!! See how easy that was?

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). Oh no!! Another fact that destroys your theory!! opcorn:
When trying to understand the verses with the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) in them you have to understand that it has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. Oh no!! Another fact that destroys your theory!!

Why is this recent teaching (since the Reformation) of Jesus having brothers more valid than the 2,000 year old teaching of the Church? Oh no!! History destroys your theory!!

The Protoevangelium of James was written not long after the last Apostle died. Should I believe it or your theory and the writings of the men you trust 2,000 years later?

Tough decision here...What should I do? <_<

 

[tom55]

That is about the stupidest arguememt I have ever heard!

If it is so stupid then it should be very easy debunk it.

Your silence is deafening!! opcorn:

 

[tom55]

You are distortong the facts. Read in proper context, there is absolutely no question that these werr Jesus's half brothers and sisters.

Joseph is mentioned. Mary is mentioned. Several men and sisters are mentioned. This is Jesus's immediate family. Elizabeth and John the Baptist are not mentioned, and they were identified as "cousins" (not brethren or sisters) of Mary.

The notion thay Mary remained a virgin is Catholic mythology.

Well if everything we have to know about our faith is in scripture show us in scripture where it says she stopped being a virgin.

 

[FHII]

Weird....You couldn't answer a simple question. Where does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children?

I will answer it for you. It is NOT in scripture!! See how easy that was?

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). Oh no!! Another fact that destroys your theory!! opcorn:
When trying to understand the verses with the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) in them you have to understand that it has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. Oh no!! Another fact that destroys your theory!!

Why is this recent teaching (since the Reformation) of Jesus having brothers more valid than the 2,000 year old teaching of the Church? Oh no!! History destroys your theory!!

The Protoevangelium of James was written not long after the last Apostle died. Should I believe it or your theory and the writings of the men you trust 2,000 years later?

Tough decision here...What should I do? <_<

No... Whats weird is that you don't have an answer to who their mother is. We have Joseph and Mary.... Immediate family. Then all of a sudden cousins or distant reletives?

No.

You are distorting facts and everything you have to support your mythology depends on "what if" or "maybe this means...".

Let me ask you something: was Jesus's mother at the crucifixion?

 

[FHII]

Well if everything we have to know about our faith is in scripture show us in scripture where it says she stopped being a virgin.

I already did.

 

[FHII]

Here's the thing: to believe that Mary remained a virgin you have to do some very shady thinking. For starters, you have to explain why Mat 1:25 doesn't mean what it says. You've got to make up rediculous scienerios or pull examples from the Bible which simply don't fit.

Then, you have to question the whole context where the Bible clearly lists the names of Jesus's brothers and notes he had sisters. You habe to say, "well maybe it means..."

The next thing you have to do is totally reject the clearest meaning of what is said. When the bible talks about the mother of Jesus and her husband, then its not going to switch to distant reletives and call them brethren and sisters.

Not logical....

 

[Mungo]

According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)…

Without a genealogy or other explicit statement we cannot assume that the "brothers" of Jesus are Mary's children.

Another point that think Tom has not mentioned is John 7:3-4
So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”

If Mary had other children these “brothers” would be younger that Jesus. But in that culture to speak to an older brother in this way would be extremely rude. So it would seem likely they were older than Jesus and therefore could not have been Mary’s children.

There are many other arguments in favour of Mary being ever-Virgin but this is supposed to be a thread about rituals in religion.

 

[Mungo]

I already did.

No you didn't.

See posts #14, #15, #16 which you did not rebutt - you just went into denial.

Linguistically "until" or "til" (or even just "to") do not imply anything beyond the until point.

Tom gave you one example where assuming something changed leads to absurdity. here are some more:

“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84?

Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20). Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age?

Here are some more
but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? NO

For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO

Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO

We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; (Rom 8:22)
Has creation stopped groaning? NO

except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come. (Rev 2:25)
Do we stop holding fast after Christ comes? NO

To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.(Rev 2:26)
Do the victors stop keeping Christ’s ways at the end? NO

keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO

 

[FHII]

No you didn't.

See posts #14, #15, #16 which you did not rebutt - you just went into denial.

Linguistically "until" or "til" (or even just "to") do not imply anything beyond the until point.

Tom gave you one example where assuming something changed leads to absurdity. here are some more:

“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84?

Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20). Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age?

Here are some more
but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? NO

For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO

Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO

We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; (Rom 8:22)
Has creation stopped groaning? NO

except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come. (Rev 2:25)
Do we stop holding fast after Christ comes? NO

To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.(Rev 2:26)
Do the victors stop keeping Christ’s ways at the end? NO

keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO

Yes, I did. Whether or not you accept it does not mean it wasn't given. Mat 1:24-25 say that he [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth Jesus... Yours and Tom's examples do not apply. THey are different circumstances. Furthermore we have written word that says Jesus had brothers and sisters and proper context says that Mary was their mother.

It is nothing more than Catholic spin to suggest that Mary remained a virgin. Worse, there isn't a single verse in the Bible that supports your mythology. So you want to spin what is in the Bible (and there is more) yet you have what????

Nothing.

 

[Mungo]

Yes, I did. Whether or not you accept it does not mean it wasn't given. Mat 1:24-25 say that he [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth Jesus... Yours and Tom's examples do not apply. THey are different circumstances.

Now that is hilarious. The word "until" has very different meaning depending on different circumstances - and you decide on the meaning according to how you see the circumstances,.

You know Humpty Dumpty has something to say about that.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
(Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll)

Well with that attitude no further argument is possible.

 

[FHII]

Now that is hilarious. The word "until" has very different meaning depending on different circumstances - and you decide on the meaning according to how you see the circumstances,.

You know Humpty Dumpty has something to say about that.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
(Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll)

Well with that attitude no further argument is possible.

I give you bible and you give me humpty dumpty..

Nice.

 

[Mungo]

I give you bible and you give me humpty dumpty..

Nice.

Actually I gave ypu lots of scripture. You give me the Humpty Dumpty - words mean whatever I want them to mean.

But I guess you will go into denial over that too!