1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics Forum' started by twinc, Apr 3, 2017.

  1. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom
     
  2. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom

    it seems you refuse to understand that it is precisely because scripture could be and is wrongly understood and interprfeted that it should not be interpreted by just any Tom, Richard, Harry or Mary - it says Joseph was an honourable man visited by a special angel of the Lord and probably became a eunuch for the Lord's sake and of course as Mt 1:25 states he would not be messing about with her whilst she was pregnant with God nor does it say he was after - there was only one in the same tomb and womb imho - twinc
     
  3. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    That doesn't answer what I wrote.

    Matt 1:25 (NLT) states, 'But he [Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her [Mary]
    until
    her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus'.

    Joseph did have sexual relations with Mary but it was after the birth of Jesus.

    Oz
     
  4. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    525
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    This is what happens when men "lean on there own understanding" and religion gets into it and its all screwed up Well dome mankind, cant get anything right.

    It does not matter if she had children after Jesus, it is irrelevant does not change a thing, but teh devil loves christians arguing over things that matter not, because he knows we are ignorant and proud, should I add foolish into the mix.

    2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  5. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom

    as stated you refuse to understand what is understood by me and others - the bible says nothing about after only you do - nor do you know or accept that we know and accept that Joseph was foster father to Jesus but the bible clearly tells us that the Jews did not know this nor was it or could this be an answer to the dilemma - it seems the last thing you should do is interpret the bible for yourself or others - twinc
     
  6. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    525
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    so how do you know you are right. You clearly stated the bible says nothing so what are you arguing over... nothing, and as I said before, it changes "nothing", but according to you, Mary and Joseph could not enjoy the pleasures of marriage because you say so,

    Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
     
  7. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    EXACTLY SO - but do not just ask or challenge how do I know that I am right but how do we know who is right - the bible tells us who is our final court of appeal - twinc
     
  8. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    525
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    so what are you arguing over??? has no bearing on anything...
     
  9. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom

    one must not add or subtract - this says nothing about Mary as mother but you do - twinc


     
  10. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom


    it seems not just Mary but you have something against St Joan of Arc but you have your facts upside down under as to who exactly burnt her at the stake - twinc
     
  11. twinc

    twinc Active Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    United Kingdom

    no, no, never align yourself with error and/or lies - twinc
     
  12. amadeus

    amadeus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    556
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Twinc does not discuss or argue. He simply presents his case and leaves you wondering at times just what it is that he really believes and why. He still after so much time does not realize that he often confuses people even though the God that he says that he serves is NOT the author of confusion.
     
  13. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    twinc,

    No, mate! You do not understand the meaning of until vs after. If I had no whiskers on my face that needed shaving UNTIL puberty, it means that AFTER puberty came, I needed to shave my whiskers (or grow a beard).

    Therefore, what does 'until' mean in this verse? Matt 1:25 (NLT) states, 'But he [Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her [Mary] until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus'.

    So, for Joseph to not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born, it means that they had sex after Jesus' birth.

    Other translation render Matt 1:25:
    • 'But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus' (NIV).
    • 'but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus' (ESV).
    • 'But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus' (GNT).
    • 'And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS' (Douay-Rheims 1899).
    • 'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus' (KJV).
    • 'He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus' (NABRE).
    • 'but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus' (NET).
    Oxford Dictionaries online gives the meaning of 'until' as 'Up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)' (Oxford dictionaries 2017. s v until). The Merriam-Webster Learners' Dictionary gives the meaning of 'until' as: 'up to (a particular time) — used to indicate the time when a particular situation, activity, or period ends' (Merriam-Webster 2017. s v until).

    Therefore, 'until' in Matt 1:25 means that the end of 'no sexual relations' between Joseph and Mary came when Jesus was born. I'm not 'refusing to understand'. I do understand what the Greek and English mean by 'until'.

    Thayer's Greek lexicon gives the meaning of ἕως (hews =until) as, 'the temporal terminus ad quem, till, until (Latindonee,usquedum); as in the best writings a. with an preterite indicative, where something is spoken of which continued up to a certain time: Matthew 2:9'.

    Your accusation of me is:

    This is false. Do a Google search of 'Matt 1:25 commentaries' and you'll find that I'm not an ignoramus on this topic.

    Ben Witherington in his commentary on Matt 1:18-25 stated:

    This is a narrative of surprising and unexpected events and suggests a God of unexpected actions. Finally, Matthew 1:25 is a crucial conclusion to our passage and suggests Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations until after the birth and naming of Jesus. The stories thereafter (see e.g. Mark 3:21-35 and Mark 6 and the parallels in Matthew) suggest Mary and Joseph, being good early Jews, went on to have numerous children, both boys and girls the natural way who are rightly called Jesus' brothers and sisters. In short, Matthew's Gospel affirms the virginal conception of Mary, but not her perpetual virginity, or for that matter her own immaculate conception by her mother. Those ideas are found only in much later Catholic traditions.​

    I do not appreciate it when you misrepresent what the Bible states and what I have written.

    Oz
     
  14. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    And he doesn't provide biblical support for his unorthodox doctrine.
     
  15. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    I have mentioned not a word about Joan of Arc. You've invented that association.
     
  16. Marymog

    Marymog Active Member

    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hi OZ,

    I know there is no changing your mind. I write this only because I hate to see scripture twisted and I feel I must defend it. Especially if someone that doesn't know scripture very well just read your biased dissertation and they think it's true.

    Jesus will be with us until the end of the ages....then he leaves us? I never drank alcohol until the day I died....but I did after I died? Makes no sense, does it.

    I could go on and on how one sided and biased your translation is. However, we should rely on what was written many years ago instead of what you wrote today. About 1,850+ years ago someone wrote The Protoevangelium of James. There are many men that were greater theologins than you, and a reasonably intelligent woman like me, that settled this issue a loooonnngggg time ago. Men that lived within a few generations of Christ walking on the earth.

    No where in scripture does it say Mary had other children. Jesus is the only person in scripture that is named as a child of Mary. Please, don't add to scripture.

    You, I and the average person may not be able to control our sexual urges but that does not mean that Mary and Joseph weren't able to. Don't put your weaknesses upon them. Mary was called a virgin in scripture and nothing else. Even in all the historical writings AFTER scripture was written she was never called anything but a virgin.

    Respectfully, Mary
     
  17. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    525
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Weakness, why do you put your religion upon them.

    God said "go out and multiply" they would only have being doing as requested. And as I said, it changes nothing if they did. Mary played her part as did Joseph. it is irrelevant what they did after, changes nothing, except for those who wish to raise Mary on a pedestal as so many do.
     
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    duplicate
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  19. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Mary,

    Thank you so much for your response. However, you have judged me incorrectly with the words, 'I know there is no changing your mind'. This is false. Everything I post on this forum is subject to the Acts 17:11 (NIV) test: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true'.

    Because I submit to this Acts 17:11 test, you have picked up something with the word 'until' that I find to be accurate and helpful. Thank you.

    I don't believe I was 'twisting' Matt 1:25 with my understanding of 'until', but the example you gave 'I never drank alcohol until the day I died....but I did after I died' is one view (but somewhat illogical). I could give the example of, 'I never shaved the whiskers from my face until my teens'. By this I inferred that I continued shaving whiskers from my face after my teens. Your example was correct. So was mine. Context determines the meaning of 'until'.

    This is an inflammatory comment, Mary:

    I have a PhD in NT, but that doesn't make me superior as a theologian to the church fathers or you. However, your comment here commits the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

    Again, this is inflammatory:

    That is a disgusting comparison that involves your disparaging comment about my sexual urges, about which you know nothing.

    However, I'm not the only one who concludes that after Jesus birth, Mary and Joseph engaged in marital sexual relations. Let's look at 3 more leading Bible commentators on Matt 1:25.

    The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary supports the point you have made:

    25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS—The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mt 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (See on [1205]Mt 13:55, 56).​

    Albert Barnes' notes on this verse state,

    Knew her not - The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birth of Jesus is a doctrine of the Scriptures, and is very important to be believed. But the Bible does not affirm that she had no children afterward. Indeed, all the accounts in the New Testament lead us to suppose that she did have them. See the notes at Matthew 13:55-56. The language here evidently implies that she lived as the wife of Joseph after the birth of Jesus.​

    What do Matt 13:55-56 (NIV) state? '55 ‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’

    How does Expositor's Greek Commentary interpret Matt 1:25?

    Matthew 1:25. καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν … υἱόν: absolute habitual (note the imperfect) abstinence from marital intercourse, the sole purpose of the hastened marriage being to legitimise the child.—ἕως: not till then, and afterwards? Here comes in a quæstio vexata of theology. Patristic and catholic authors say: not till then and never at all, guarding the sacredness of the virgin’s womb. ἕως does not settle the question. It is easy to cite instances of its use as fixing a limit up to which a specified event did not occur, when as a matter of fact it did not occur at all. E.g., Genesis 8:7; the raven returned not till the waters were dried up; in fact, never returned (Schanz). But the presumption is all the other way in the case before us. Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding.—υἱόν: the extended reading (T. R.) is imported from Luke 2:7, where there are no variants​

    Matt Slick of CARM provides a good explanation of how 'until' can have different understandings. See: Mary's virginity and Matt. 1:25.

    Thank you for correcting me on this one. I've given one understanding of 'until' and missed the other. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. I have to agree with some of these commentators who state that whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or if she had children or no children to Joseph, has no impact on the church's major doctrines.

    I urge you not to presume with your responses and not to be inflammatory in how you express your view.

    Oz
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  20. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    250
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    Hi Oz,

    Catholics are now saying that perhaps Joseph had children from a previous marriage!
    I agree with you on Mathew 1:25. To ignore that verse it quite an undertaking! I've never understood how they explain that one away.

    Since you know Greek, I DID read many years ago that it IS very difficult to get either "brothers" or "cousins" from the original manuscripts.

    In your experience, is the difference between Brother and cousin more clear, or do we just go by the rest of scripture? For instance, Mathew 13:55-56.
     
Loading...