Questions for sola Scripturas

[Foreigner]

Mungo, you make my point for me.

Instead of looking at the facts and what they point to, you have chosen a position and are now working to try to find points to support it,.

Unfortunately - besides smacking of desperation - they do not support your claim.
In order to support the alternate usage of the word "until" you have to take it out of the obvious context.

In order for your point to carry any weight, Matthew would have to say, "Joseph didn't have sex with her until after she gave birth, then he didn't have sex with her until he died." And even then it could mean that they had one session of slap and tickle between Jesus's birth and Joseph's death.
See your dilemma?

As it has been pointed out, if what you claim is true, the scripture would have read "Joseph new her not until the day of his death."

When taken in context, your grammatical explantion simply fails.

And that doesn't even take into concideration Matt 13: 55-56 and the support provided for that scripture that you cannot refute.




.

 

[neophyte]

Mungo, you make my point for me.

Instead of looking at the facts and what they point to, you have chosen a position and now are scampering to find points to support it,.
Unfortunately - besides smacking of desperation - they do not support prove your claim.

In order for your point to carry any weight, Matthew would have to say, "Joseph didn't have sex with her until after she gave birth, then he didn't have sex with her until he died." And even then it could mean that they had one session of slap and tickle between Jesus's birth and Joseph's death.
See your dilemma?

As it has been pointed out, if what you claim is true, the scripture would have read "Joseph new her not until the day of his death."

When taken in context, you linguistic explantion simply fails.

And that doesn't even take into concideration Matt 13: 55-56 and the support provided for that scripture that you cannot refute.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Also in my last post I stated that I only try to reference past Protestants that have converted is because former Catholics left the Church because they really never knew their Catholic/Christian faith.If Ithey had understood their Christian faith they never would have left. Unfortunately many never were ready for Jesus at the time of leaving Catholicism, others left because ignorance of Scripture was their problem.Just as it is yours.As St. Jerome once wrote:" Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ".

 

[Foreigner]

Neophyte, please focus.
Neither of the scriptures you provided even begin to refute Matt 13: 55-56.

Unfortunately many never were ready for Jesus at the time of leaving Catholicism, others left because ignorance of Scripture was their problem.Just as it is yours.As St. Jerome once wrote:" Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ".
Also in my last post I stated that I only try to reference past Protestants that have converted is because former Catholics left the Church because they really never knew their Catholic/Christian faith.If Ithey had understood their Christian faith they never would have left.

-- LOL How could YOU possibly know the heart or the level of understanding or faith of ANY person who left ANY faith.
Your silliness is compounded by your belief that you can speak to the reason of ALL who have left the Catholic church.
Neophyte, how can you possibly feel qualified to make these claims? What arrogance.


As far as using a Catholic who was a former Protestant, this comes from a Protestant who left the Catholic church after several years due to his realization there was no THERE there as far as justification of many of their beliefs:


And as far as Jesus having earthly brothers and sisters...

Catholics say this:
What about the verses of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? For instance, Matt 13: 55-56: "Is this not the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his bretheren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Could Matthew be referring to Jesus' cousins? Although both Greek and English have a word for cousin, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, does not. Hence the words brothers and sisters are used.

Rebuttal that proves Catholics wrong:
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. In Greek there are words both for brother adelphos and for cousin anepsios (as in Colossians 4:10). The Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament could have employed anepsios if James, Joses and the others were merely Jesus' cousins. He could have used the word suggenes (as in Luke 1:36) if they were relatives. But of course He didn't. The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers!"

This is where those Catholics who like to say things like, "But the ancient Greek actually says...." to claim amnesia.




.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo, you make my point for me.

Instead of looking at the facts and what they point to, you have chosen a position and are now working to try to find points to support it,.

Unfortunately - besides smacking of desperation - they do not support your claim.
In order to support the alternate usage of the word "until" you have to take it out of the obvious context.

In order for your point to carry any weight, Matthew would have to say, "Joseph didn't have sex with her until after she gave birth, then he didn't have sex with her until he died." And even then it could mean that they had one session of slap and tickle between Jesus's birth and Joseph's death.
See your dilemma?

As it has been pointed out, if what you claim is true, the scripture would have read "Joseph new her not until the day of his death."

When taken in context, your grammatical explantion simply fails.

And that doesn't even take into concideration Matt 13: 55-56 and the support provided for that scripture that you cannot refute.




.

There is no dilemma. You just cannot understand English.

I will have to do this in an even simpler way for you.

Until is just a time point marker.

Something happens, or does not happen from time point "A" until time point "B".

until
preposition & conjunction up to (the point in time or the event mentioned). (Concise OXford English Dictionary)

Do you follow that. Something happens (or does not happen) from time point A" until [up to] time point "B".

"When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife [time point "A"] But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born [time point "B"]

Let me rephrase that for you.

Between the time Joseph toook Mary into his home and the time that Jesus was born Joseph had no sexual relations with her.

It's just about that period of time. Nothing more. It says nothing about what happened afterwards.

Anything that happens afterwords is conjecture

 

[Foreigner]

Thank you Mungo. You have proven my point for me.




.

 

[neophyte]

Foreigner, you wrote this; "Rebuttal that proves Catholics wrong:
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic'

.It's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)​

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).
Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

 

[Mungo]

Thank you Mungo. You have proven my point for me.

Translation:- You have me there Mungo. I cannot refute your argument but I just can't admit you are right.




.

 

[Rach1370]

Ok....at this point I really feel this conversation is not benefiting anyone or anything. Obviously Catholics disagree on some points with Protestants, and vice versa....or otherwise we wouldn't have both denominations, and be part of one or the other.
It is clear, and I doubt anyone would argue, that the Catholic Church has some issues, but just as clear that so too does Protestant ones. Which ones are worse? Probably only God knows...and while we could argue ad infinitum between ourselves with logic, opinions and even bible verses....it comes down to two things: this snarkiness is NOT beneficial for anyone, and if a brother or sister loves and follows Jesus, we should spend more time in fellowship on what we share and what brings us together, not focusing on points of conflict...how Satan must be laughing and enjoying this.
Would it really kill us to focus on the positives? I'm not Catholic...I'd never join the Catholic Church, but I do recognise the wonderful people and their work...Christians...that dwell within the RCC. Sure...not all of them are saved, but neither can we say that about Protestants.
Today I was at our local show day....and there was a stall there that was run by the local Christians...the local priest and a few Protestant pastors. The booth was brightly decorated with signs of Jesus...and side by side those men of God talked and laughed and encouraged people to come over and talk with them...about God...about Jesus. And honestly....isn't that what its all about?? God works through us....ALL of us, to bring people to Jesus...and it's just foolish to think that one denomination or the other has the only legitimate right to this calling...that one churches' flaws propel the other above it in the site of God and in his plan for us.
Gentlemen from both sides...clean it up, converse like Christians, or leave it alone.