MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[101G]

That contradicts Scripture. Which is one of your favorite sports.

no, that confirm scripture. and as for sport, the ball is in your court, please by scripture, post who is the the Lord Jesus biological mother and father, you can try to punt that ball if you wish.......

PICJAG.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Mt 1:25 Joseph knew not Mary...until after the birth of Jesus.
They got busy like any married couple would.

 

[101G]

Mt 1:25 Joseph knew not Mary...until after the birth of Jesus.
They got busy like any married couple would.

this is correct. after the Lord Jesus birth then Joseph had "biological" children from Mary, but not the Lord Jesus.

 

[Pearl]

Mt 1:25 Joseph knew not Mary...until after the birth of Jesus.
They got busy like any married couple would.

I don't know how many times this has been posted and yet still is not believed.

 

[marks]

I don't know how many times this has been posted and yet still is not believed.

Many simple Scriptures are not believed in favor of Systematic Theologies.

Much love!

 

[101G]

Many simple Scriptures are not believed in favor of Systematic Theologies.

Much love!

Systematic Theology is based on simple scripture.
A. the one mentioned and B. Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli".

the bible states out of the mouth of two or more witness let the truth be establish. if Systematic Theology ignore the bible then it must be ignored.

PICJAG.

 

[Marymog]

You're the one that referred to it as a game saying "game set match"
You play games continually in your comments & think yourself quite clever because of it. It is quite sad.

Hi tzcho,

Relax kiddo'....."game set match" is a common idiom. It has nothing to do with us playing a real game.

But I suspect you already knew that and you are just feigning an affront.

 

[Marymog]

But she most assuredly have children the natural way.

Give this "most assuredly" quote from Scripture I will join your ilk.

 

[Pearl]

Hi tzcho,

Relax kiddo'....."game set match" is a common idiom. It has nothing to do with us playing a real game.

But I suspect you already knew that and you are just feigning an affront.

 

[Pearl]

Give this "most assuredly" quote from Scripture I will join your ilk.

 

[Marymog]

When did the RCC's teaching become more of an authority than the scriptures?

Your teaching, that you adopted from the Reformers of the Reformers, says Mary had children. Using Scripture name those children and/or show me the passage that says she had children.

Patient Mary

 

[Pearl]

Your teaching, that you adopted from the Reformers of the Reformers, says Mary had children. Using Scripture name those children and/or show me the passage that says she had children.

Patient Mary

Show me a passage that says she didn't.

 

[tzcho2]

Hi tzcho,

Relax kiddo'....."game set match" is a common idiom. It has nothing to do with us playing a real game.
But I suspect you already knew that and you are just feigning an affront.

Again you are way off. It's obvious by your tone that you treat it like a game , by mocking, disrespect & being disingenous. I've come to expect it.

 

[marks]

Systematic Theology is based on simple scripture.
A. the one mentioned and B. Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli".

the bible states out of the mouth of two or more witness let the truth be establish. if Systematic Theology ignore the bible then it must be ignored.

PICJAG.

I'm missing your conclusion here.

I'm talking about various systematic theologies that people hold, formed from portions of Scripture, and used to interpret other portions of Scripture. Not always, certainly, but certainly some times, systematic theologies are allowed to imprint their ideas onto passages that don't contain those ideas.

I can be more clear on how this relates to the discussion but again I'm not sure your point in posting this passage.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The point is Scripture only calls her a virgin and does not call ANYONE in the NT her child except Jesus.....You accept the 500 teachings of Protestant men. I accept the 2,000 year teaching of Scripture and The Church.

I accept the 2000 year old teaching of Scripture, and we all need to be certain that what our pastors tell us agrees with Scripture, whether they are from 1999 years ago, or 1 year ago.

Much love!
mark

 

[marks]

Sooooo no Scripture to back up what you believe...Thank you.

Game, set, match....

Aha! Aha! I've got you now . . .

Is how it comes across to me.

Much love!

 

[101G]

I'm missing your conclusion here.

I'm talking about various systematic theologies that people hold, formed from portions of Scripture, and used to interpret other portions of Scripture. Not always, certainly, but certainly some times, systematic theologies are allowed to imprint their ideas onto passages that don't contain those ideas.

I can be more clear on how this relates to the discussion but again I'm not sure your point in posting this passage.

Much love!

is not all "theologies" suppose to support scriptures?".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes , I'm sure my posts are annoying to you. I don't need a priest to tell me what is in the Bible, far from that.
The Catholic Church Catechism exposes the false teachings nicely, thanks.

I'm not a Catholic priest - I am a layperson.

I didn't copy this our of the Catechism. this is ALL from Scripture and rudimentary linguistics and history.
If you can't address the points I made regarding Mary's Perpetual Virginity in post #21 - just admit it and move on.

But, don't blame the Catholic Church because somebody gave you a badly needed Bible lesson . . .

 

[101G]

why is Mary is still called a virgin. not any more, scripture, Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

firstborn here is indicating another son was born unto her.

so Mary is no longer a virgin.

PICJAG.

 

[marks]

is not all "theologies" suppose to support scriptures?".

yes, sure, but not all take into account all Scriptures.

It's like the dinosaur thread. The underlying supposition is that dinos lived pre-adamic. That being the case, verses that seem to disagree are reinterpretted to agree.

I'd rather take what every verse says about a topic, and reach a conclusion that takes into account everything that the Bible says about it, so far as I can find, without having to do these kinds of mental gymnastics to make it work.

And If I find a passage that conflicts with my view, I'll change my view before changing the passage.

Much love!