Mary’s children?

[theefaith]

Seems you may not understand;
•"Intercourse"- is an intimate Act between a male and female. (Scripturally called "know").

To know?


34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know NOT a man?

“NOT”

 

[theefaith]

Lk 1:34 sorry

 

[Wrangler]

I know what you are trying to do here, but it does not work because I was quoting you while applying your own logic to the word "brother."

You were not doing that at all. You were abusing the meaning of words.

Look, logic only works when the premises are true. If the premise is not true, then the conclusion, while logical, is not true. You must understand this.

P1: Brother means male biological sibling.
P2: Jesus had brothers.

ERGO: Soul loses her grasp of logic when it conflicts with her dogma.

Let's try this again.

P1: Brother means male biological sibling.
P2: Soul deliberately uses brother incorrectly.

ERGO: Soul loses her grasp of logic when it conflicts with her dogma - and then attacks logic.

Your turn. Lap 352.

 

[Taken]

"Behold thou shalt conceive (συλλήμψῃ [sullambanó]) in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus." (Lk. 1:30-31)

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee." (Lk. 1:35)

"...for that which is conceived (συλλήμψῃ [sullambanó]) in her, is of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 1:20)

"Behold a virgin in (ἐν [en]) womb (γαστρὶ [gastri]) will hold (ἕξει [hexei]) and bring forth a son..." (Matt. 1:23)

"God was the Word" ([Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος] Jn. 1:1)

"the Word flesh became" ([ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο] Jn. 1:14)

As shown above, the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived, which could not have occurred without fertilization,

What? Uh....No, No, No!

You are Dictating, A Limitation on God!

Gods Seed absolutely DID NOT fertilize any human woman's SEED!
And the Scriptures you posted DO NOT say Gods fertilized a human woman's seed.

and it was done by the power of the Holy Spirit, not "seed," and from Her womb was born Her biological son "Jesus," God incarnate, making Her the Mother of God.

Yipes... "IT"...that "was done" BY the POWER of God...is obviously...clear Scriptural Knowledge unknown to you.

"IT", that IS "POWER", also appears "precisely" unknown to you.

There is ORDER and WAY ...
The ORDER of tid bits of Knowledge, Basic Knowledge, Deeper Knowledge, comes Before the WAY of understanding.

Scripture IS Knowledge.
You are quoting Scripture (knowledge) and then (giving your Mindful understanding).

And...that is a fail.
Scriptural Knowledge is one thing.
The True Understanding of Scriptural Knowledge...is Always, according to Gods Understanding...NOT Carnal MINDS.

 

[Wrangler]

P¹ "Brother" means "biological sibling" by default

P² Soul calls Wrangler "brother"

C Soul and Wrangler are biological siblings

The logic is sound. If P2 were correct, C would be correct. You are confusing what is logical with what is true.

But you are playing word games. Did you admit that it is plausible that James is the biological brother of Jesus, based on the text?

 

[Taken]

I said...

I can read.
Repeating yourself, changes nothing.

You are trying to make the point, Mary's seed was fertilized ....

Yet not one Scripture says so or remotely suggests that God...in any way, shape or form required the SEED of a human female ...

For God IN Heaven,
To send forth OUT of His Mouth,
His Word,
And PUT His Word IN a Flesh Body,
A Body God "Prepared",
And that Body was prepared in the "Likeness AS A MAN,"
Put that body in MARYS Womb,
And according to Natural law, (9 months)
Have that Body come forth from Mary's Womb.
And since that Prepared body, was in the Likeness, as a man, wow, human men could See Him, with their human eyes...and Hear Him, with their Human Ears.

How Handy...God has Such POWER...and could walk and talk face to face with men...
Tribal men, that were being LOST and lead astray From God Almighty...to Heathen WAYS.

No God did not require the SEED of a human woman....God Expressly used "that" virgin woman's WOMB!

Mary was a human that GOD used, for a very particular Service unto God and she agreed.

Every Individual God chooses to use for a particular Service to Effect Gods Will...is Blessed.

The Bible is full of particular people, that were called to do Particular Services To Effect Gods Will....and they Agreed, and Accomplished in Service to God, and they were blessed.

Mary was not a Forever virgin.
David is not a Forever king.
Moses was not Forever in the Ark.

God has no "biological Children"
God has no "mother or father."
God is not a CREATED "human OF Dust!"

 

[Taken]

"soul"

The Blessed Virgin Mary conceived (Lk. 1:30-31, Matt. 1:20),

So? A virgin was Pregnant.

which could not have occurred without fertilizing an egg...

So YOU say. Scripture doesn't!

 

[Taken]

Pregnancy occurs when a woman's egg is fertilized. The Blessed Virgin Mary conceived (Lk. 1:30-31, Matt. 1:20), meaning became pregnant, because Her egg was fertilized by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Lk. 1:35, Matt. 1:20)

As long as you're digging a hole....
What was Mary's egg fertilized WITH?

 

[Taken]

The question was What fertilized Mary's Seed?

... there was a supernatural catalyst for a natural process.

Medical Definition of catalyst : a substance (as an enzyme) that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate ...

So "What" was this "supernatural substance" that supposedly fertilized Mary's Seed?

And what is your "source" for your information?

 

[Wrangler]

Based on the words "brother(s)" and "sisters" themselves? No, because they have a range of meanings, and thus it is not reasonable to assume any of them apply.

A range of meanings? You are confusing abuse with the proper use of words.

Instead of being a vehicle for communication, you are treating words as barriers making communication impossible.

 

[Wrangler]

The word "brother" has a range of meanings, and thus P² can be true depending on how it is used. The conclusion is false because P¹ (your logic) is false

The flaw is not in logic. The flaw is in your word play.

 

[Wrangler]

The flaw is not in logic. The flaw is in your word play.

Do you agree the following is true?

P¹ "Brother" means "biological sibling" by default

The ONLY way a logical conclusion can be true is if it's premises are true. You want to make a false premise, then blame logic. A is A. Brother literally means biological. If you want to use a word figuratively, that is on you.

Just last night I talked with an old friend. He told me about his brother and his cousin, who he said was a brother. This is another example of figurative use of language. The Bible is filled with it but also contains literal truths. Get on board language comprehension.

 

[Wrangler]

Laps upon laps. Brother means biological. James is Jesus' brother.

 

[Marymog]

Laps upon laps. Brother means biological. James is Jesus' brother.

Hey Wrangler,

This has been debated for many years but it wasn't debated in the early church. The earliest explanation (teaching) of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity.

The latest explanation (teaching) that James was the biological son of Mary started around 1600 A.D.

Would you believe the people who lived closest to the time of Christ or the ones who lived 1,450 years later?

Also, the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then you reference a totally unrelated verse. As I said, only those with theological ambitions would read ‘James, the brother of our Lord Jesus’ and conclude it refers to anyone other than who it refers to, Jesus’ brother.
What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

It's funny how YOU speak pof the wilignes to "abandon logic" when it comes to Mary's Perpetual virginity - yet YOU are the one who is arguing that the Greek word for "Brother" (Adelphos) can ONLY mean "uterine brother" - then you give the following ridiculous example from post #15:
"If have a sister Jennifer and you find out she has a sister Helen, logic can be relied on to connect the dots. If word games are used, then logic is out the window and anything goes. By ‘brother’ I certainly don’t mean biological brother?! Such supposition is absurd."

Time for another Bible and linguistics lesson . . .

Now, @soul already did a good job in post #9 showing you that the other Mary (Mary's "adelphe") standing near the cross ewas the mother of James and Joses, et al and NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

In the Koine Greek which the NT was written, "Adelphos" is used for brother, step-brother, hallf-brother, coucin, uncle, nephew, neighbor, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc. Here are the NT statistics for the USE of the term "Adelphos" and all of its variations:
There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

Can you understand that? A whopping SEVENTY FOUR PERCENT (74%) of the uses of this words in the NT do NOT refer to unterine siblings.
Here are some examples:
- Matt. 28:10 - Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to "go tell my "brethren" (adelphoi) that they go into Galilee". He was referring to the Apostles.
- Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter that he must strengthen his "brethren" (adelphoi). He was referring to the Apostles.
- Acts 1:15 says that Peter stood up among 120 "brothers" (adelphoi) - even though NOT all of them were siblings.
- Acts 16:2 speaks of the "brethren" (adelphoi) that were at Lystra and Iconium.

From the Greek Septuagint:
- In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (adelphos), even though he was Abraham's NEPHEW (Gen. 11:26–28).
- In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" (adelphos) of his UNCLE Laban.
- Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren" (adelphoi), the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

These are only a FEW of the 256+ Biblical examples where "Adelphos" certainly does NOT refer to "uterine sibling".
So much for YOUR weak argument . . .

 

[Illuminator]

1) Martin Luther
Martin Luther is usually considered to be the person who sparked the Protestant Reformation. He rejected core Catholic dogmas like the papacy, transubstantiation, and even parts of the traditional Bible. But he kept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Here’s what he said about it in a sermon:

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John)

What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

​

2) John Calvin
John Calvin started what is now known as the Reformed theological tradition, which reject many key Catholic dogmas. Though he warned that those who take time to argue about it simply have an “extreme fondness of disputation,” he also argued that those who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity based on Scriptural passages that mention Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” show “excessive ignorance.”

What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

3) Huldrych Zwingli
Huldrych Zwingli was a Swiss Reformer during the lifetime of Martin Luther. He not only rejected the authority of the Church, but, unlike Luther, actually went so far as to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist altogether.

But on the topic of Mary’s perpetual virgin, he wrote:

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”​

(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)

What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

4) Thomas Cranmer
Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury during Henry VIII’s schism from Rome and thereafter and was a major figure in building Anglicanism. Yet he and other major Anglican leaders maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary “on the basis of ancient Christian authority.”

What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

5) John Wesley
John Wesley’s teachings and ministry led to the worldwide Methodist movement. He strongly rejected Catholicism – but the perpetual virginity of Mary wasn’t one of the things he saw as problematic.

In his Letter to a Roman Catholic, he wrote:

“I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”​

5 Protestants Who Surprisingly Defended Mary's Perpetual Virginity

What matters to me now is the willingness to abandon logic to support theological conclusions.

Jesus having siblings didn't appear until the mid 18th century from Protestant modernist liberals and atheists. Before that, not a single Protestant church on the planet taught that Jesus had siblings. It is a 200 year old man made malignancy.

 

[Wrangler]

It's funny how YOU speak pof the wilignes to "abandon logic" when it comes to Mary's Perpetual virginity - yet YOU are the one who is arguing that the Greek word for "Brother" (Adelphos) can ONLY mean "uterine brother"

Nothing funny about pretending my argument is weaker than it is. Nothing in the Bible says Mary is a perpetual virgin.

Words have meaning. Brother means biological. Other meanings are figurative. When employing figurative use of language, words can mean whatever you want, like Solomon's temple being a code word for a carpenter's son's body.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nothing funny about pretending my argument is weaker than it is. Nothing in the Bible says Mary is a perpetual virgin.
Words have meaning. Brother means biological. Other meanings are figurative. When employing figurative use of language, words can mean whatever you want, like Solomon's temple being a code word for a carpenter's son's body.

"Brother" automatically means biological??
Ummmmm, can you explain to me then WHY out of the 344 times "Adelphos" is used in the NT - only 41 (12%) are referring to "biological" siblings? I'll wait here for an educated response . . .

As for your nonsense about the Bible NOT mentioning Mary's perpetual virginity - this is implied SEVERAL times in Scripture.
Onle clear example is her response to the Angel's greeting
Luke 1:34
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations.
She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?”
She said, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by the Angel's announcement that she was to have a child.

Another perfect example for the fact that she didn't have any other children is found in John 19:26-27, where Jesus entrusts the care of His mother to John. Not ONLY would this have been slap in the face to His mother AND his sibblings - it would have been a direct violation of the Law to "give" His mother to another's care while His siblings were still alve.

Finally - the Ark of the Covenant was NOT to be touched by man, lest he should die. The Ark of the NEW Covenant (Mary) was the fulfillment of the Ark. Now, I want you to study the following comparisons between Mary and the Ark and refute them - if you can . . .

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

 

[Wrangler]

"Brother" automatically means biological??
Ummmmm, can you explain to me then WHY out of the 344 times "Adelphos" is used in the NT - only 41 (12%) are referring to "biological" siblings? I'll wait here for an educated response . . .

See my last post. I’ve already answered this question many times. If you cannot discern figurative from literal language, bless your heart.

 

[BreadOfLife]

See my last post. I’ve already answered this question many times. If you cannot discern figurative from literal language, bless your heart.

Uhhhh, no - you responded but you DIDN'T answer ANY of the Scriptural OR linguistic evidence I presented.

Please DO so . . .