It is not in the bible.....but believed

[twinc]

It does at Matt 13:53-56

it does not at Matt.13:53-56 but it does state she was a perpetual virgin at Matt.16:19 as above - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

Matt.16:19 as above - twinc

Says nothing about Mary and perpetual virginity??

 

[twinc]

Says nothing about Mary and perpetual virginity??

yes it does but only to those with eyes to see and ears to hear - so far this only excludes you ? - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

yes it does but only to those with eyes to see and ears to hear - so far this only excludes you ? - twinc

Only to those who want to see, It speaks nothing of teh sort. Like UFos and aliens,you need it to be because your churches doctrines demand it, who cares about the truth.??

 

[twinc]

so you think and would have us accept that Matt.16:19 applies to you - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

so you think and would have us accept that Matt.16:19 applies to you - twinc

You throwing mud into teh ring as well?? Eh.. What has what Jesus given to Pete4r got to do with me. or any one else for that matter, It was for Him alone.

 

[twinc]

You throwing mud into teh ring as well?? Eh.. What has what Jesus given to Pete4r got to do with me. or any one else for that matter, It was for Him alone.

who says so - so we see you presume Matt.16:19 applies to you and Peter - this is ridiculous - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

who says so - so we see you presume Matt.16:19 applies to you and Peter - this is ridiculous - twinc

Im not so sure you can read, read what I wrote, seems you are in for an aruguement not a discussion. I said WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH ME.

 

[twinc]

it seems you are not even aware or prepared to grant that I can read - this also is ridiculous - please no more ridiculous statements mistaken as profound - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

it seems you are not even aware or prepared to grant that I can read - this also is ridiculous - please no more ridiculous statements mistaken as profound - twinc

Trolling is the word is it not. If you had read my other post your previous post would never have happened, would It.???

Now what was this topic about???

 

[twinc]

the topic was about 'not in the bible' just as trolling is 'not in the dictionary' - so why not roll and stroll home instead and come home now - twinc

 

[brionne]

That is exactly what I've been saying. Worrying about what is not in the Bible is of far less value than worrying about what is in the Bible.

but then that begs the question, is it wise to create a theology or doctrines on what is not in the bible?

 

[brionne]

I agree with you that it is of no consequence if she did have sex and other children, and in all likelihood she did.

But, there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she did. The only evidence is the references to "Brothers" and "Sisters" which could mean that she had other children, or that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, or that these terms are being used figuratively to refer to Disciples.

I think given our human nature, the fact that she was living with Joseph who was her husband, that the jews who lived in the community viewed Jesus as having brothers and sisters, then we can pretty much be sure that she did have other children.

There was no contraception in those times...and a man could not spill his sperm on the ground, that was against the mosaic law. So its not likely that Joseph and Mary were lawbreakers. They would most certainly have been having sex and the result of sex always leads to children.

There is more evidence that she did, then did not

 

[Joshua☩]

but then that begs the question, is it wise to create a theology or doctrines on what is not in the bible?

No, of course not, that's what I was trying to say, but it works both ways. Some say that she was a perpetual virgin because the Bible never says that she had sex, others presume that she was not a perpetual virgin based on human nature and the typical understanding of marriage, but that is never stated in the Bible either.
My point, though I got kinda sidetracked for a while, was that either belief can be justified but neither has any meaningful impact on our salvation, so we should worry about what is in the Bible, rather than worrying about what is not.

 

[brionne]

No, of course not, that's what I was trying to say, but it works both ways. Some say that she was a perpetual virgin because the Bible never says that she had sex, others presume that she was not a perpetual virgin based on human nature and the typical understanding of marriage, but that is never stated in the Bible either.
My point, though I got kinda sidetracked for a while, was that either belief can be justified but neither has any meaningful impact on our salvation, so we should worry about what is in the Bible, rather than worrying about what is not.

Yeah good point agreed.

When it comes to the bible, it seems to deliberately not state every little fact and my suspicion is that God deliberately had the bible written in such a way so that people would need his spirit to be able to understand it. Jesus said that we must 'keep on asking' God for wisdom and spirit.

 

[twinc]

okay then - lets try what is in the bible that Joseph was father to Jesus and as you have finally gathered the bible is written in such a way so that scripture is not for private interpretation but needs an interpretor and exactly who this and these interpretors are - twinc

 

[Joshua☩]

okay then - lets try what is in the bible that Joseph was father to Jesus and as you have finally gathered the bible is written in such a way so that scripture is not for private interpretation but needs an interpretor and exactly who this and these interpretors are - twinc

The Bible is quite clear that Joseph was not the father of Jesus; Joseph himself had a vision explaining how Mary came to be pregnant. It seems that Joseph did act as an earthly father figure to the Christ child, but Joseph was most certainly not his father.

The interperator is the Holy Spirit, which guides each believer into truth when studying the scriptures.

 

[Mungo]

The Bible is quite clear that Joseph was not the father of Jesus; Joseph himself had a vision explaining how Mary came to be pregnant. It seems that Joseph did act as an earthly father figure to the Christ child, but Joseph was most certainly not his father.

The interperator is the Holy Spirit, which guides each believer into truth when studying the scriptures.

The Holy Spirit seems to guide each believer into believing different things.

 

[Joshua☩]

The Holy Spirit seems to guide each believer into believing different things.

As do man-made institutions and biased Bible commentators. Why the Holy Spirit seems to work so differently through so many people is a mystery that as way beyond our human understanding. We can only trust that God is at work in all interpretations.

 

[brionne]

As do man-made institutions and biased Bible commentators. Why the Holy Spirit seems to work so differently through so many people is a mystery that as way beyond our human understanding. We can only trust that God is at work in all interpretations.

I dont think it is the holy spirit which guides people in different directions. It is more likely to be a lack of holy spirit which leads people into different directions.