Where does the Bible say?

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't so much "dealt with" as it was disregarded.

The linguistic gymnastics for that argument are still very improbable. Would such an argument be reasonable for any other woman and her husband in history?

If nothing else, Matthew 13:55 shows that Joseph was still living with Mary when Jesus was an adult. Are we to suppose that they only played Pinochle all of those years...?

It was "disregarded" because it is an airtight argument that cannot be argued against.

As I stated in that post - the "brethren" (Adelphoi) of Jesus which are never said to be the children of Jesus' mother Mary - are the children of the other Mary standing near the cross with her.
- I gave ALL THREE Scriptural accounts of the crucifixion to prove it.
- I showed that this woman was the wife of Clopas (also called Alphaeus) - NOT Joseph
- I gave linguistic and Scriptural evidence - not "linguistic gymnastics" to show the uses and meanings of the word "Adephos" and all of its variations.

Here is another interesting point for you to chew on - AND to try to refute:
There are 244 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.

Case in point - in Acts 1:15, it says that 120 "Adelphoi" were gathered together to choose a successor for Judas. This group included the 11 Apostles - and we know that most of them were NOT uterine siblings.

YOUR turn . . .

 

[Sabertooth]

YOUR turn . . .

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[bbyrd009]

virgin worship, a la Athena, predates Christianity even i guess
the virgin will be with child thus has a possible double-meaning
It's no great wonder that it was incorporated into Roman Mithraist "Christianity"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Maybe - but I wouldn't formulate a doctrine around that statement.

The weight of Scriptural and linguistic evidence is against the idea that Mary had other children.
That, coupled with the complete ABSENCE in Tradition or ANY extrabilical literature - which ALL proclaim her Perpetual Virginity.

 

[Sabertooth]

That, coupled with the complete ABSENCE in Tradition or ANY extrabilical literature...

I find no basis to elevate any tradition above what the Bible does or does not say (which, incidentally, is the topic of this thread).

 

[BreadOfLife]

virgin worship, a la Athena, predates Christianity even i guess
the virgin will be with child thus has a possible double-meaning
It's no great wonder that it was incorporated into Roman Mithraist "Christianity"

And it's no great wonder that YOU would chime in with yet another idiotic, and unsubstantiated claim . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I find no basis to elevate any tradition above what the Bible does or does not say.

Really?

Soooooo, do you feel that way about Sola Scriptura?
How about Sole Fide?

 

[Sabertooth]

Soooooo, do you feel that way about Sola Scriptura?

I believe that the Bible is correct in the framework it presents. We can speculate on the stuff it doesn't speak to, but such speculation cannot be considered canon, nor can we shoehorn in extra-Biblical concepts that aren't even hinted at in our Bibles. Perpetual Virginity and [her] Immaculate Conception are two such doctrines.

The Biblical model paints her as a Godly woman who was chosen in much the same way as Jesus' disciples and the prophets of old were, up to John the Baptist. She had grace because of her faith, just like Abraham did.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I believe that the Bible is correct in the framework it presents. We can speculate on the stuff it doesn't speak to, but such speculation cannot be considered canon, nor can we shoehorn in extra-Biblical concepts that aren't even hinted at in our Bibles. Perpetual Virginity and [her] Immaculate Conception are two such doctrines.

The Biblical model paints her as a Godly woman who was chosen in much the same way as Jesus' disciples and the prophets of old were, up to John the Baptist. She had grace because of her faith, just like Abraham did.

Well, that's great - but you didn't answer the question.

In post #45 - YOU told me me: "I find no basis to elevate any tradition above what the Bible does or does not say."

So, I asked you about Sola Scriptura.
WHY do you believe this man-made 16th century invention if it is NOT taught in Scripture?
While we're at it - WHY do you believe in the Catholic Tradition of the Canon of Scripture if you reject all of the other Catholic Traditions?

 

[Sabertooth]

So, I asked you about Sola Scriptura.

I am unsure where I stand on Sola Scriptura, because I do not have a precise definition for it.

1. Where Scripture is clear (like Original Sin), I reject all conflicting doctrines.
2. Where it is unclear (like Trinity & Free-will vs. Predestination), I hold that they are somehow true, but beyond my current comprehension.
3. Where Scripture is silent (like the mechanics of the universe), I rely strictly on science. Science isn't canon, but there is no other valid source offering a competing argument.

There are some proponents of Sola Scriptura who oppose #3 (but not me).
And, at worst, #3 does not constitute heresy, just error.

WHY do you believe in the Catholic Tradition of the Canon of Scripture if you reject all of the other Catholic Traditions?

I do not recognize the Apocrypha, so you cannot make that claim.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am unsure where I stand on Sola Scriptura, because I do not have a precise definition for it.

1. Where Scripture is clear (like Original Sin), I reject all conflicting doctrines.
2. Where it is unclear (like Trinity & Free-will vs. Predestination), I hold that they are somehow true, but beyond my current comprehension.
3. Where Scripture is silent (like the mechanics of the universe), I rely strictly on science. Science isn't canon, but there is no other valid source offering a competing argument.

There are some proponents of Sola Scriptura who oppose #3 (but not me).
And, at worst, #3 does not constitute heresy, just error.

I do not recognize the Apocrypha, so you cannot make that claim.

Just because Protestant ejected 7 Books from the OT - DOESN'T mean that the REST of the Canon you follow wasn't declared by the Catholic Church.
WHY do you believe in this Tradition?

 

[Sabertooth]

Just because Protestant ejected 7 Books from the OT - DOESN'T mean that the REST of the Canon you follow wasn't declared by the Catholic Church.

Rejecting those books absolutely meant that the Catholic traditions were re-evaluated. The RCC did not author the books that remain.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Rejecting those books absolutely meant that the Catholic traditions were re-evaluated. The RCC did not author the books that remain.

Apparently - you don't know anything about HOW the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.

Not only were those 7 Books a part of the OPEN Jewish Canon until the 2nd century - AFTER Jesus ascended to Heaven and AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem - they are quoted and referenced some 200 times in the NT.
Did you know that?

Did you ALSO know that there were MANY other Books that were considered to be "inspired Scripture" and were read aloud from pulpits for 300 years until the Catholic Church declared the Canon? Books like The Epistles of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Clement and so on.

Do you know WHEN and WHY those 7 Books were ejected from the Jewish Canon?

 

[Sabertooth]

Do you know WHEN and WHY those 7 Books were ejected from the Jewish Canon?

Do you realize that this line of Socratic reasoning/argument is departing from the OP (which I already answered)?

Do any of the seven books in question speak to Mary's alleged Perpetual Virginity or Immaculate Conception?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you realize that this line of Socratic reasoning/argument is departing from the OP (which I already answered)?

Hey - YOU are the one who brought up the Deuterocanonical Books - although you referred to them as "Apocrypha".
Don't blame ME for going off on a tangent.

I merely questioned WHY you adhere to ONE Catholic Tradition - while rejecting the rest.
That has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.

 

[Sabertooth]

I merely questioned WHY you adhere to ONE Catholic Tradition - while rejecting the rest.
That has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.

The RCC doesn't have a copyright on the 66 books that we agree on. That is a non-starter.
And that agreement doesn't obligate me to further recognize even more doctrines that are outside of their scope.

 

[farouk]

The RCC doesn't have a copyright on the 66 books that we agree on. That is a non-starter.
And that agreement doesn't obligate me to further recognize even more doctrines that are outside of their scope.

@Sabertooth Protestants have tended to say that Scripture is self-authenticating, not requiring a hierarchy to impose its supposed approval on the Word of God.

 

[Sabertooth]

Maybe I should be more specific in my answer.

Where does the Bible say anyone is a child of Mary accept Jesus Christ?

Here is my answer based on the sixty-six books of the Bible that I recognize,...
It has only an improbable window for objection. (And the burden of proof would be on the improbable.)

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows:
After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:18 NKJV

The highlighted phrase mean before they came together conjugally. "Before" means that they eventually did "come together," as expected.

"When [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said,

'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Is not His mother called Mary?
And His brothers

• James,
• Joses,
• Simon, and
• Judas?

And His sisters, are they not all with us?​

Where then did this Man get all these things?' ” Matthew 13:54-56 NKJV​

Given the previous verse, the burden of proof would lie on those who would object that these were anyone less than conventional [half-]siblings from Joseph & Mary's conventional sex lives.

IIUC, the seven books that I disregard do not speak to the OP, anyway.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The RCC doesn't have a copyright on the 66 books that we agree on. That is a non-starter.
And that agreement doesn't obligate me to further recognize even more doctrines that are outside of their scope.

Okay - but WHY do you accept the Catholic Tradition of the Canon of the NT?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Maybe I should be more specific in my answer.

Here is my answer based on the sixty-six books of the Bible that I recognize,...
It has only an improbable window for objection. (And the burden of proof would be on the improbable.)

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows:
After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:18 NKJV

The highlighted phrase mean before they came together conjugally. "Before" means that they eventually did "come together," as expected.

"When [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said,

'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Is not His mother called Mary?
And His brothers

• James,
• Joses,
• Simon, and
• Judas?

And His sisters, are they not all with us?​

Where then did this Man get all these things?' ” Matthew 13:54-56 NKJV​

Given the previous verse, the burden of proof would lie on those who would object that these were anyone less than conventional [half-]siblings from Joseph & Mary's conventional sex lives.

IIUC, the seven books that I disregard do not speak to the OP, anyway.

I already gave a Scriptural and linguistic refutation of all of this - which you were NEVER able to refute.
So, why go on pretending??