False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Ghada]

This is essentially your argument:

"The word "until" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born:"
"And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

It's not an argument, but a common sense reading of words and their context.

I find it fascinating that the Bible is the only book on earth, where otherwise reasonable readers apply normal grammatical skills in order to better understand the intent of the authors. But with the Bible, such simple reasoning and skills are checked at the door, for the sole purpose of changing what the Author is plainly saying.

It's because it's God's word, and some readers want to change it to fit their own doctrinal faith and lives.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This isn't even something remotely hard to understand but quite simple. The nature of false teaching of the Bible is to make the understandable into confusion.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

A great rule of thumb for Bible teaching, is if a child can understand it from the words written. Little children have yet to learn the dark art of manipulating simple things for the purpose of introducing mysterious things.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Therefore, according to your logic, you should also argue the following:

"The word "until" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:"
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

I showed you already how God uses the word two different ways in the Bible. If you're either not going to read what I write, or just ignore my points made, then I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

You can back and apply it to this case also.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

Repeating yourself doesn't make anything more true. I've already responded to this sufficiently for myself.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse,

It's not a 'belief' but a simple reading of the narrative. Neither God nor I need to write the obvious in order to please the naysayers.

but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

You've decided it would be sin for Mary and Joseph to be a married couple having sex, so as not to taint your Mary with 'sacred womb'.

The Mary myth is really just a Christianized rip-off of Rome's Mother Vesta with Sacred Fire.

It was done when the old Roman religion was replaced with the Christian religion by Constantine as the state religion. Some of the defunct priests of Rome successfully persuaded some Christian bishops, and other likeminded fable-lovers of mystery, to incorporate it into their newly dominant state religion.

No doubt it was partly justified under a delusional notion of charity and fairplay, in order to make former enemies into new bedmates.

 

[Sigma]

It's not an argument, but a common sense reading of words and their context.

Your argument that Matthew concluded speaking about the Messianic prophecy with the random tidbit that Joseph had sexual intercourse after the birth of the Savior shows you're ignoring the context. The word "ἕως" doesn't mean "until after" in 2 Sam. 6:23 and Matt. 1:25, because in each it's used to refer to a specific period. The period of the former is pre-death of Michal and the latter pre-birth of the Savior.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

 

[Ghada]

We agree its familial definition "a near kinsman, or relative" applies in those verses, which isn't a "non-familial" definition as you claim.

The only thing I agree on is your practice of changing things in the Bible for your tradition, and now doing it with my Bible teaching.

God's use of brother and sister and mother in a familial context, is always the family by birth.

As I have shown, and you disregard, whenever God does use mother and brother without birth, it is always plain to read.

You also have to provide evidence for Jesus's mother in these verses was an aunt of His.

No, you must show honesty and consistency of apply your argument to mothers, and not just to brothers and sisters.

All false arguments made in order to introduce men's doctrines and traditions, are inevitably exposed by inconsistency, when it doesn't suit the doctrine and tradition.

God has purposely written His words in such a way as to force the inconsistency and expose the manipulation:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

However, I know you can't, because in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings?, I provided evidence that confirms they were brothers, as in "a near kinsman, or relative," and shows the type of kinship was cousins. And, in Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31, and Lk. 8:19, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II,, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

No, I'm still not going to grind through it, just to see the errors behind it. And arguing from poems? Seriously? Well, I guess it makes sense to eulogize a tradition with poetic myth, since there's nothing about it in the Bible.

Remember, this is not an argument between us. Once one indisputable verse is rejected, then all that remains is an ongoing effort to change other verses by unbelief. It can be a good exercise to continue correcting them in turn, but it's not something I am willing to do endlessly.

 

[Ghada]

Your argument that Matthew concluded speaking about the Messianic prophecy with the random tidbit that Joseph had sexual intercourse after the birth of the Savior shows you're ignoring the context. The word "ἕως" doesn't mean "until after" in 2 Sam. 6:23 and Matt. 1:25, because in each it's used to refer to a specific period. The period of the former is pre-death of Michal and the latter pre-birth of the Savior.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

Seriously? Repeating yourself? Do you copy and paste?

Since you have nothing new, then until you address the main error of word definition without context, then we're done here.

That means we're done here, till after you do so.

 

[Sigma]

No, you must show honesty and consistency of apply your argument to mothers, and not just to brothers and sisters.

Why would I apply to the Koine Greek word "μήτηρ," translated to "mother" in English, the definition "a near kinsman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, or aunt, etc., of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brothers" in English?? Apparently, that's what you're doing when you argue Jesus's mother in certain verses was His aunt.

Seriously? Repeating yourself? Do you copy and paste?

In reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior?

 

[Ghada]

Why would I apply to the Koine Greek word "μήτηρ," translated to "mother" in English, the definition "a near kinsman, or relative,"

Because the word mater is also used both for near and distant relatives, as well as unrelated neighbors, just as adelphos.

The challenge once again, is to be consistent with your principle, and apply it equally to mother, sister, and brother.

If you can willy-nilly change the words brother and sister to their distant meaning, without regard to context, then so can we with mother.

If you are justified in making Jesus' brothers and sisters to be cousins waiting for Him, then so can we make Jesus' mother to be an aunt, or even a neighbor being mother to Him, or He being a son to her.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

You refuse to allow for it, because it turns against your own tradition.

The first thing to go out the window, when changing the Bible for personal reasons, is consistency in the principle used to do it.

Once again, if you can making it cousins waiting, then by your own principle I can make an aunt waiting.

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior?

And that is a perfect question, that exposes your whole purpose: Post-birth sex has nothing to do with pre-birth abstinence.

Your doting about words and dragged in Greek has nothing to do with defending the virgin birth of Jesus. It only has to do with defending your 'sacred womb' Mariology myth.

And because of your sacred myth, you try to make post-birth sex somehow defile pre-birth abstinence, which is not possible. The only thing it 'defiles' is a 'sacred womb' idol. You speak of Mary as some adulterous having sex with her husband, because you demand her womb be off limits for life. You want her womb for yourself to idolize.

Her sharing her womb with her lawful husband, after having her firstborn son Jesus, is sacrilege to you.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Which leads to another undeniable truth in the same verse: Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.

Now you get to play with more words and make firstborn also mean onlyborn or only son born.

 

[Ghada]

Further undeniable verse of Joseph and Mary consummating their marriage.

It's really amazing, that God not only supplies one, but two definitive proofs in one single verse:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

They not only abstained until after Jesus was born, but Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.

The firstborn is never applied to an only born son in the Bible. Never. There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

The only exception is Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Father and firstborn among many brethren. He was firstborn among many after the flesh and after the Spirit.

Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.

When Hanna had her only son Samuel, she did not bare a firstborn son.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I've often wondered in passing, why it is necessary to include that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son. Why not just her son like Samuel of Hanna? And now I know it is God making doubly sure no one can possibly teach she had no born babes after Jesus.

And how would God know the need? Because God has known every lie and false tradition to ever come down the pike ahead of time, so that He inspires His words to be written beforehand to expose them.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[Sigma]

Because the word mother is also used both for near and distant relatives, as well as unrelated neighbors, just as adelphos.

The challenge once again, is to be consistent with your principle, and apply it equally to mother, sister, and brother.

If you can willy-nilly change the words brother and sister to their distant meaning, without regard to context, then so can we with mother.

If you are justified in making Jesus' brothers and sisters to be cousins waiting for Him, then so can we make Jesus' mother to be an aunt, or even a neighbor being mother to Him, or He being a son to her.

What makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. The scenes with Jesus's brothers you assume were His siblings were actually some or all of those cousins. There's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt.

And that is a perfect question, that exposes your whole purpose: Post-birth sex has nothing to do with pre-birth abstinence.

It's a question I asked you to answer. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior in verse 1:25?

There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

Do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "υἱός," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to an only born son?

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
υἱός, -οῦ, ὁ
Greek transliteration: huios
Simplified transliteration: huios

Numbers
Strong's number: 5207
GK number: 5626

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 377
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-2a

Gloss: son, child (of either gender), descendant (in any generation); by extension: a term of endearment; one of a class or kind

Definition: son, child (of either gender), descendant (in any generation); by extension: a term of endearment; one of a class or kind, for example, a son of the resurrection is one who participates in the resurrection. The Son of Man is an OT phrase usually meaning human being, that in the NT is used almost exclusively as a messianic title (see Da 7:13), emphasizing Jesus' humanity. a son, Mt. 1:21, 25; 7:9; 13:55 freq.; a legitimate son, Heb. 12:8; a son artificially constituted, Acts 7:21; Heb. 11:24; a descendant, Mt. 1:1, 20; Mk. 12:35; in NT the young of an animal, Mt. 21:5; a spiritual son in respect of conversion or discipleship, 1 Pet. 5:13; from the Hebrew, a disciple, perhaps, Mt. 12:27; a son as implying connection in respect of membership, service, resemblance, manifestation, destiny, etc., Mt. 8:12; 9:15; 13:38; 23:15; Mk. 2:29; 3:17; Lk. 5:34; 10:6; 16:8; 20:34, 36; Jn. 17:12; Acts 2:25; 4:36; 13:10; Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 5:5; 2 Thess. 2:3; υἱὸς θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ., son of God in respect of divinity, Mt. 4:3, 6; 14:33; Rom. 1:4; also, in respect of privilege and character, Mt. 5:9, 45; Lk. 6:35; Rom. 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal. 3:26; ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ., a title of the Messiah, Mt. 26:63; Mk. 3:11; 14:61; Jn. 1:34, 50; 20:31; υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, a son of man, a man, Mk. 3:28; Eph. 3:5; Heb. 2:6; ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, a title of the Messiah, Mt. 8:20 freq.; as also, ὁ υἱὸς Δαβιδ, (Δαύιδ) Mt. 12:23​

 

[Ghada]

What makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. The scenes with Jesus's brothers you assume were His siblings were actually some or all of those cousins. There's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt.

Avoided the challenge again.

Consistency of your principle to use word definitions without context, so as to say they were cousins, can also say she was an aunt or motherly neighbor.

It's a question I asked you to answer. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

Since you agree, how could and why would Matthew imply at the same time that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior in verse 1:25?

Avoided the point of my answer and only repeat yourself.

Post-birth sex, and your objection to it, has nothing to do with pre-birth virginity. You're not defending the virgin birth of Jesus, but only doing away with post-birth sex in order to insert your 'sacred-womb' Holy Grail.

Do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "υἱός," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to an only born son?

Now you've left normal grammatical sense.

Uios is never translated as firstborn. Prototokos uios is translated firstborn son. And as stated, a firstborn son is never used in the Bible for an only son. Twice God says Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, specifically to ensure no one can honestly think, believe, nor teach Jesus was her only son.

We're back to waiting to see if you fairly respond to challenges made.

 

[Sigma]

Avoided the challenge again.

Consistency of your principle to use word definitions without context, so as to say they were cousins, can also say she was an aunt or motherly neighbor.

What are you talking about? Are you ok? Again, what makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. You haven't even attempted to refute that evidence, and if you do decide to try I know you can't succeed because the Truth can't be refuted, only rejected. And, there's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt, only His mother, Mary.

Avoided the point of my answer and only repeat yourself.

Post-birth sex, and your objection to it, has nothing to do with pre-birth virginity. You're not defending the virgin birth of Jesus, but only doing away with post-birth sex in order to insert your 'sacred-womb' Holy Grail.

I repeated myself because you didn't answer the question again. I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer for you. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

So, you agree with the above, but at the same time you think verse 1:25 also implies Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior. How would Matthew implying Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin, when that's the point of verse 1:25?

There is no place where an only son is called the firstborn son.

So, do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "πρωτότοκος," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to Jesus if He was an only born son?

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
πρωτότοκος, ον
Greek transliteration: prōtotokos
Simplified transliteration: prototokos

Numbers
Strong's number: 4416
GK number: 4758

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 8
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: a-3a

Gloss: firstborn (human or animal). In biblical culture, the firstborn had higher status and received a greater share of the inheritance. Jesus Christ, as the firstborn of God, is of supreme status and inherits all things

Definition: first-born, Lk. 2:7; Heb. 11:28; in NT prior in generation, Col. 1:15; a firstborn head of a spiritual family, Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; firstborn, as possessed of the peculiar privilege of spiritual generation, Heb. 12:23

 

[Ghada]

What are you talking about? Are you ok? Again, what makes Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) His cousins is the evidence I provided in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings? that proves they were the sons of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus. You haven't even attempted to refute that evidence, and if you do decide to try I know you can't succeed because the Truth can't be refuted, only rejected. And, there's no evidence Jesus's mother in any scene was His aunt, only His mother, Mary.



I repeated myself because you didn't answer the question again. I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer for you. So, again, in reply to the following you said, "Good teaching:"

"In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior."

So, you agree with the above, but at the same time you think verse 1:25 also implies Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth of the Savior. How would Matthew implying Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary post-birth dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin, when that's the point of verse 1:25?



So, do you say that none of the definitions below for the Koine Greek word "πρωτότοκος," translated to "firstborn" in English, can be applied to Jesus if He was an only born son?

I cannot debate with someone, that does not know what a debate is.

 

[Sigma]

I cannot debate with someone, that does not know what a debate is.

You're projecting your own inability to address my arguments onto me. Your bow out is duly noted.