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

[Marymog]

A perpetual virgin can't have other brothers for Jesus.

'"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?' (Matt 13:55 NIV). Here these 4 males are called 'his brothers' and the context includes 'his mother's name Mary'.

Oz

Hi Oz,

You have me a bit confused on your belief of this topic.

You agree with Thayer's etymology of adelphos which is a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or the same mother, but you then go on to suggest that Jesus had brothers that were born from Mary's womb. You seem to be taking a strong stance that Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus.

Since scripture calls Mary the mother of Jesus and it does not list any other children for Mary other than Jesus does not the above Thayer's definition fit that Joseph would be the father of Jesus "brothers" and that Mary does not necessarily have to be their birth mother?

Would you agree that the ONLY historical writings we have support this belief AND Thayer's definition?

Would you agree that for the first 1,500+ years of Christianity this was the predominate belief and teaching of The Church?

I agree with the above reference from scripture. Jesus mother name is Mary AND Jesus had brothers of the same earthly father (Joseph) AND those brothers names were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Scripture and historical Christian writings back all of that up.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary could you please back quote so that I know to which post you refer?

My response was to twinc, not you. Did you think it was to you?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

And that response is a red herring.

Hi Oz,

I was expecting a red herring or some type of 'fallacy' response from you.

It's a simple question based on what YOU HAVE WRITTEN and SUPPORTED in the past: Using CF to support your theories.

If you believe what you write and how you come to your conclusions then back it up or stop throwing out false accusations.

So I ask again: If Augustine doesn't matter in this conversation then why does he matter when you use him (or any CF) to back up your beliefs on your website?

Is it because I want to use him, he doesn't matter? Or because Augustine doesn't agree with your theory therefor he must be disregarded?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I'd like to add:

1. It's not really very nice to call someone a liar. I noticed that Marymog did this too and she's also Catholic. Interesting.

2. A person is NOT a liar because they express a different POV.
I've already stated this. You should not call someone a liar because they don't agree with you.

Be Catholic.
Be Christian.

Read the Beatitudes.
Mathew 5:3-10

Some Catholics read the CCC so much, they forget to read the bible.

Hi GG,

I'm not Catholic.

I didn't call you a liar. If I did, please quote me.

Love, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I'm not Catholic.

I didn't call you a liar. If I did, please quote me.

Love, Mary

See post no. 531.

You said I was being dishonest.
Being dishonest is lying.

One is not lying because they don't agree with what YOU believe.

"The bad news is if you pretend that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus, you are being dishonest about what scripture says and what 2,000 years of Christian history has taught.

Mary"

 

[BreadOfLife]

See post no. 531.

You said I was being dishonest.
Being dishonest is lying.

One is not lying because they don't agree with what YOU believe.

"The bad news is if you pretend that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus, you are being dishonest about what scripture says and what 2,000 years of Christian history has taught.

Mary"

This isn't simply "disagreeing".
If you claim that the Scriptures say that Mary had other children - that is a lie.

The fact is that there is not one shred of Scriptural evidence for this false claim.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What's that thing you are holding in your hand?

???

 

[Marymog]

See post no. 531.

You said I was being dishonest.
Being dishonest is lying.

One is not lying because they don't agree with what YOU believe.

"The bad news is if you pretend that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus, you are being dishonest about what scripture says and what 2,000 years of Christian history has taught.

Mary"

Hi GG,

I stand by my statement, however, it wasn't meant for you specifically. It was a general statement.

I should have said, you or ANYONE that pretends that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus is being dishonest. Why are they being dishonest? Because scripture only names ONE person as the child of Mary and that person is Jesus. To say otherwise would be dishonest.

The Protoevangelium of James, written almost 2,000 years ago, backs up what is written in scripture and is the basis for the 2,000 years of Christian teaching on this matter. It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history. It is not a matter of what I believe. Both of my statements are scriptural and historical FACT.

Can you quote from scripture the list of Mary's children?
Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

I hope this clarifies my statement and you can understand it wasn't directed at you, personally.


Curious Mary

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This isn't simply "disagreeing".
If you claim that the Scriptures say that Mary had other children - that is a lie.

The fact is that there is not one shred of Scriptural evidence for this false claim.

There's also not one shred of evidence that she didn't have other children.
So what's your point?

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I stand by my statement, however, it wasn't meant for you specifically. It was a general statement.

I should have said, you or ANYONE that pretends that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus is being dishonest. Why are they being dishonest? Because scripture only names ONE person as the child of Mary and that person is Jesus. To say otherwise would be dishonest.

The Protoevangelium of James, written almost 2,000 years ago, backs up what is written in scripture and is the basis for the 2,000 years of Christian teaching on this matter. It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history. It is not a matter of what I believe. Both of my statements are scriptural and historical FACT.

Can you quote from scripture the list of Mary's children?
Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

I hope this clarifies my statement and you can understand it wasn't directed at you, personally.


Curious Mary

Well Curious Mary,
I still say that because someone does not agree it does not make them dishonest.

Here's an example using a document YOU quoted:
The Protevangelium of James,
Chapter 18:

18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem.

It's "James" telling the story of Mary's birth and her voyage to Bethlehem. The above is saying that Joseph left his two sons with Mary and went to look for a midwife.

1. I've always said that the other children might be half brothers of Jesus. This document would seem to prove that. I say "seem to" because there is some question as to its authenticity.

2. Do you notice that it says that Joseph left his two sons with Mary?
Does it mention this in the account of Luke? No.
So because it is NOT mentioned, does that mean it didn't happen?

If something is mentioned in the N.T., we can be sure that it happened.
If something is NOT mentioned, we cannot be sure that it did NOT actually HAPPEN.

Without looking for it now, there is one gospel writer that says there were two demon possessed men that went to Jesus.
Another gospel writer says that there was one demon possessed man that went to Jesus.
So we could be SURE that there was at least ONE.
Probably two but for some reason the other wasn't mentioned in one of the gospels.

So because the bible does not state names of siblings does not mean they did not exist.

And anyway, they are mentioned but you refuse to accept it.
Mathew 13:55
"His mother, Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas."
NASB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

???

I hope you don't plan on trying to stuff that thing down my throat.
Then you'll really have your hands full.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi GG,

I stand by my statement, however, it wasn't meant for you specifically. It was a general statement.

I should have said, you or ANYONE that pretends that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus is being dishonest. Why are they being dishonest? Because scripture only names ONE person as the child of Mary and that person is Jesus. To say otherwise would be dishonest.

The Protoevangelium of James, written almost 2,000 years ago, backs up what is written in scripture and is the basis for the 2,000 years of Christian teaching on this matter. It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history. It is not a matter of what I believe. Both of my statements are scriptural and historical FACT.

Can you quote from scripture the list of Mary's children?
Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

I hope this clarifies my statement and you can understand it wasn't directed at you, personally.


Curious Mary

Mary, the majority does not rule.
Your claims are ludicrous.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I stand by my statement, however, it wasn't meant for you specifically. It was a general statement.

I should have said, you or ANYONE that pretends that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus is being dishonest. Why are they being dishonest? Because scripture only names ONE person as the child of Mary and that person is Jesus. To say otherwise would be dishonest.

The Protoevangelium of James, written almost 2,000 years ago, backs up what is written in scripture and is the basis for the 2,000 years of Christian teaching on this matter. It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history. It is not a matter of what I believe. Both of my statements are scriptural and historical FACT.

Can you quote from scripture the list of Mary's children?
Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

I hope this clarifies my statement and you can understand it wasn't directed at you, personally.


Curious Mary

BTW,
The same Protoevangelium of James states that Joseph did have other children.

Paragraph 9:


9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

BTW,
The same Protoevangelium of James states that Joseph did have other children.

Paragraph 9:


9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you.

Too bad it's not Scripture.
But catholics use other books, don't they?

 

[GodsGrace]

I hope you don't plan on trying to stuff that thing down my throat.
Then you'll really have your hands full.

It gets cut up into tiny little pieces.
Then the priest and those around the altar get first picks.
Then it goes into the cup to the parishoners.

The tiny amount of water that is added to the wine represents the people.
The wine is PURE. Nothing can be added to it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Too bad it's not Scripture.
But catholics use other books, don't they?

It's doubtful that this is even authentic.
Who can know for sure. They say the writing is not the same as James', Jesus' brother and Apostle.

Frankly, I think the bible has all the information in it that we need for salvation and some arguments and not worth it.

Except to prove which church is right.
Of course---

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It gets cut up into tiny little pieces.
Then the priest and those around the altar get first picks.
Then it goes into the cup to the parishoners.

The tiny amount of water that is added to the wine represents the people.
The wine is PURE. Nothing can be added to it.

Sounds very ritualistic.
Do they light candles and rings bells, and stuff like that?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It's doubtful that this is even authentic.
Who can know for sure. They say the writing is not the same as James', Jesus' brother and Apostle.

Frankly, I think the bible has all the information in it that we need for salvation and some arguments and not worth it.

Except to prove which church is right.
Of course---

The one that is born again is the right church.
Are you born again?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I remember when I was a kid, all us good little catholic boys would buy necco wafers candy.

We use to play and take one at a time and wave them in the air and say, "domini, domini, domini,, and then put them on our tongues and eat them.
We had a lot of fun doing that.

And don't give me none of that blasphemy stuff because we were good little catholic boys.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sounds very ritualistic.
Do they light candles and rings bells, and stuff like that?

You KNOW they do.
I like the incense.
It's a nice odor to God's nostrils.
2 Corinthians 2:14-15

and many more...