Where in the scripture is anyone called to be a Christian?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saint of God

Active Member
Mar 31, 2022
433
62
28
62
Sangre Grande
Faith
Other Faith
Country
Trinidad And Tobago
All believers in Christ are called the body, his church
13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
We all have communion with same God and Holy Spirit.
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
We may have different ways of doing things but as long as we believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ we're good.
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Our goal to serve others and get the good news out.
That post is not serving anyone and it is certainly not the good news..
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are funny...The word is used for brother...Half-brother, Stepbrother, Since Jesus and his brothers did not have the same father it is the reason for the use
You are funny...The word is used for brother...Half-brother, Stepbrother, Since Jesus and his brothers did not have the same father it is the reason for the use of the word. You are not very bright are you?

Brother, Half-brother, Step brother,
Matt 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The Bible says Jesus had sisters...


You seem to be saying that Mary had children without having sex... The passage accounts for only one child without sex, not children. The question was about children, more than one.
Matt 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
First of all – Mary DID conceive and give birth as a virgin. The inerrant Word of Almighty GOD says so – whether YOU believe it or not.
However -
there’s bit s SINGLE verse in the Bible that says MARY had other children As educated you before – these peoples are called “ADELPHOS” and “ADELPHE” of Jesus – NOT children of Mary, His Mother.
Since you persist in your man-made legends and fairy tales about Mary – it’s time to pull out the BIG guns . . .

The mother of the “named siblings” in the Gospel are the children of ANOTHER Mary 0 NOT Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Now – pay attention . . .

The Greek "Clopas" is rendered in Aramaic as "Alphaeus" - the Father of James the Younger (Mark 2:18).
We read about this other Mary in Mark 16:1 . In fact there are THREE Marys standing near the Cross: Mary, Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Mary’s “adelphe”, who is ALSO called “Mary”.
Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.


It is YOUR position that Mary (Jesus' mother) is also the mother of James and Joses from the following verse:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

HOWEVER - in the following verses, we read that the mother of James and Joses is ANOTHER woman:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of/ that says MARY had “other” children James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".


Jesus' mother Mary would NOT have been called "Mary, mother of James and Joses" as she was standing at the foot of the cross of Jesus.
When we read John's account of the story - he differentiates the two:
John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

Ergo - the mother of James and Joses from Mark 6:3, Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 are the SAME Mary and their father is Clopas/Alpheus - and it is NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

Aren’t you angry about the gigantic Protestant LIE you’re been taught about Mary having “other children”??
 
Last edited:

Dropship

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2022
2,213
1,514
113
75
Plymouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
..Christianity is a community of divided groups fighting against each other. Is Christ divided? Why is every Christian denomination teaching a different doctrine?..

It's a vanity thing, Satan has convinced them that their group knows better than the rest.
I'm non-denominational because I don't need any church or minister to do my thinking for me..:)
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gospel Believer

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
First of all – Mary DID conceive and give birth as a virgin. The inerrant Word of Almighty GOD says so – whether YOU believe it or not.
However -
there’s bit s SINGLE verse in the Bible that says MARY had other children As educated you before – these peoples are called “ADELPHOS” and “ADELPHE” of Jesus – NOT children of Mary, His Mother.
Since you persist in your man-made legends and fairy tales about Mary – it’s time to pull out the BIG guns . . .

The mother of the “named siblings” in the Gospel are the children of ANOTHER Mary 0 NOT Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Now – pay attention . . .

The Greek "Clopas" is rendered in Aramaic as "Alphaeus" - the Father of James the Younger (Mark 2:18).
We read about this other Mary in Mark 16:1 . In fact there are THREE Marys standing near the Cross: Mary, Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Mary’s “adelphe”, who is ALSO called “Mary”.
Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.


It is YOUR position that Mary (Jesus' mother) is also the mother of James and Joses from the following verse:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

HOWEVER - in the following verses, we read that the mother of James and Joses is ANOTHER woman:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of/ that says MARY had “other” children James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".


Jesus' mother Mary would NOT have been called "Mary, mother of James and Joses" as she was standing at the foot of the cross of Jesus.
When we read John's account of the story - he differentiates the two:
John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

Ergo - the mother of James and Joses from Mark 6:3, Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 are the SAME Mary and their father is Clopas/Alpheus - and it is NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

Aren’t you angry about the gigantic Protestant LIE you’re been taught about Mary having “other children”??
What anti-Mary Christians don't realize is they are following manmade traditions of the 18th century that were invented by Modernist Protestant liberals. Before that time, no Protestant community of any flavor taught that Mary had other children or that Mary was a sinner. Even the reformers themselves didn't teach these diabolical lies. They are diabolical because they diminish the uniqueness of the Incarnation. That's what these manmade traditions are indirectly attacking.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY


When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.​

source: Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
ibid. Volume 4, 694.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine .

Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.


"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."

John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

Ulrich Zwingli: "It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"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 used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

Ulrich Zwingli : "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

Ulrich Zwingli "Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin." Ibid.

Ulrich Zwingli "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother." Ibid.

Ulrich Zwingli "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow." Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation.
 

Gospel Believer

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2019
593
267
63
71
Columbus Ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mary referred to Jesus as her Savior.....only Sinners need a Savior.... Mary was a great child of Faith and found Favor with God with that Faith and Obedience....yet she was a Sinner ......she knows better than anyone that is her Son that deserves all the misplaced worship that she receives by those that are mislead and deceived.....Satan will do whenever it takes and Use Anybody that he can , just as long as he can get your eyes off of Christ.....this is what Saran has accomplished with his Damnable “ Mary Worship”..... I am sure God let’s Mary know that she does not get the blame for all of this Adoration she gets that must make her cringe....
 
  • Love
Reactions: amigo de christo

Gospel Believer

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2019
593
267
63
71
Columbus Ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’ll answer this question when YOU show me where the Bible says that Mary ever HAD intercourse.


As if sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife were a sin....Sex between married people is not “ Dirty” ....in fact, it is a wonderful blessing from God .....shame on those that think otherwise...
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Why anyone would conclude that heroic virginity or celibacy according to the evangelical counsels and St. Paul’s advice is somehow anti-sex is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I prefer and ‘choose’ apples over oranges; therefore I am anti-oranges.” Huh? The reductio ad absurdum shows the fallacy in the original assertion.

It’s not normal for wives to be celibate.

Mary wasn’t a normal Jewish wife. She was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son, without having had sexual relations (most Protestants still accept the Virgin Birth, I think). Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events, which Protestants (excepting liberal ones who are scarcely historic Protestants at all) all agree with.

Randall Davis: Dave, the only problem is you made all of these excellent points, but it is still highly unlikely that you convinced the Protestant.

It’s always tough to convince anyone of anything, but I think that if a person doesn’t have a built-in bias against it and is willing to follow biblical data to wherever it leads, there is a fair chance of persuading a person like that.

The bias is the killer. When a person is convinced that we believe in the PVM because we hate sex (that this accounts for the very origin of it), and other nonsense notions like that, then forget it: the Bible is helpless to convince such a person, with their preconceived false ideas.

Reynaldo de Leon: Being married and remaining a virgin even after the birth of Christ contradicts the purpose of marriage in the first place.

Does the Virgin Birth contradict the purpose of sex too?

You’re missing the point Dave, I think almost every Protestant throughout history has pointed out that to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is virtually pointless, and furthermore to make the claim valid would mean that you would have find a legal loophole to say that remaining a virgin in marriage is healthy.

Why be a virgin during a birth then? That’s against the purpose of sex for procreation! Doesn’t God know that!? They were married then, too, from the time of the Annunciation till the birth of Jesus.

She had to be a virgin at the time of the birth, so there were several months of married virginity up till then, even in your belief. Why, if that goes against the nature of marriage, etc.?

Jesus even sanctioned leaving wives for the sake of the kingdom and discipleship (which is essentially mutual agreement to separate, as is believed to be the case with St. Peter):

Luke 18:29-30 (RSV) And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”


Again Dave, this is the issue: After the birth of Christ, why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin when (1) it goes against the nature of marriage and (2) it does not logically fit with the Scriptures? Even if we were to assume Mary did this for the sake of the kingdom, we have no proof that she chose to do this for that purpose or for that matter, enough evidence that Christ’s teaching applies to this particular instance.

Why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin after being married, till the day of Jesus’ birth if it goes against the nature of marriage?

We’re talking about after Dave, not before. Mary was engaged with Joseph, she was a virgin throughout because she was pregnant at the time.

It’s not required to abstain from sex during pregnancy (thank heavens). So that “argument” falls flat. It remains true that if marital chastity is some terrible, unnatural thing in all cases at all times, then it is from the time of the Annunciation till Jesus’ birth as well. I never thought of that before. Thanks for helping me develop a good new argument, by being so obstinate, Rey! Praise be to God!


further reading: Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)
 

Saint of God

Active Member
Mar 31, 2022
433
62
28
62
Sangre Grande
Faith
Other Faith
Country
Trinidad And Tobago
First of all – Mary DID conceive and give birth as a virgin.
Which i never denied
The inerrant Word of Almighty GOD says so – whether YOU believe it or not.
God did not write the bible
However - there’s bit s SINGLE verse in the Bible that says MARY had other children As educated you before – these peoples are called “ADELPHOS” and “ADELPHE” of Jesus – NOT children of Mary, His Mother.
You are not very bright. Joseph is not Jesus' father therefore anyone that is called his brother or sister must be Mary's child, his half-brother, or half-sister. Even if Joseph had children with another woman they are not related to Jesus in any way shape or form.
Since you persist in your man-made legends and fairy tales about Mary – it’s time to pull out the BIG guns . . .
Try your best.
The mother of the “named siblings” in the Gospel are the children of ANOTHER Mary 0 NOT Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Now – pay attention . . .

The Greek "Clopas" is rendered in Aramaic as "Alphaeus" - the Father of James the Younger (Mark 2:18).
We read about this other Mary in Mark 16:1 . In fact there are THREE Marys standing near the Cross: Mary, Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Mary’s “adelphe”, who is ALSO called “Mary”.
Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
That does not help your argument.
It is YOUR position that Mary (Jesus' mother) is also the mother of James and Joses from the following verse:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
This verse is foolproof. Even you cannot be that silly.
(1)Jesus is the carpenter.
(2)Jesus is the son of Mary
(3) Jesus is the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon.
(4) Jesus had sisters.
(5) Jesus has kin in his own house.
HOWEVER - in the following verses, we read that the mother of James and Joses is ANOTHER woman:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of/ that says MARY had “other” children James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".
Matt 27
55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
(1) Mary Magdalene
(2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, ( James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3)
(3) and the mother of Zebedees children ( another woman )

That is three women
Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".
James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus.
Jesus' mother Mary would NOT have been called "Mary, mother of James and Joses" as she was standing at the foot of the cross of Jesus.
When we read John's account of the story - he differentiates the two:
John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".
Why not? James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus...Therefore Mary is their mother.
Ergo - the mother of James and Joses from Mark 6:3, Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 are the SAME Mary and their father is Clopas/Alpheus - and it is NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.
No the Mary of Mark 6:3 is the Mother of Jesus. Therefore the wife of Joseph.
Aren’t you angry about the gigantic Protestant LIE you’re been taught about Mary having “other children”??
It is no lie.. You are in denial...Mary in Mk 6:3 is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Juda, and Simon.
Apart from that When jesus came throught the birth canal the hymen would have been ruptured therefore Mary can no longer be a virgin.
 
Last edited:

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
22,806
39,098
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’ll answer this question when YOU show me where the Bible says that Mary ever HAD intercourse.


As if sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife were a sin....Sex between married people is not “ Dirty” ....in fact, it is a wonderful blessing from God .....shame on those that think otherwise...
Illuminator has spun your words my friend .
Trying to make it seem as though you are against that single life and etc .
But lambs know better . We are not fooled by the means of men who try and spin things .
I myself have been single now for well over eighteen years . AND YET i KNOW what the bible says about Mary .
She and joseph later did have children together . MARRIED FOLKS dont forbid one another . EVEN PAUL SAID
defraud ye not one another , cept of course for times of fasting , BUT THEN COME together again
LEST SATAN TEMPT YOU . The CC has decieved them big time .
AND YOUR RIGHT about MARY . SHE wants nothing to do with the worship they give her .
SHE would tell them the same thing she told others , HEED MY SON .
Exactly . These people worship what they know NOT , but lambs KNOW WHOM WE WORSHIP .
Never enter the broad road of ROME and many other places . JESUS ALONE IS THE MEDIATOR between GOD and men .
JESUS ALONE IS THE MEDIATOR and we pray ONLY TO GOD IN HIS NAME .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God did not write the bible
WRONG.
The ENTIRE Bible is “Theopneustos”, which means GOD-BREATHED (2 Tim. 3:16).

You are not very bright. Joseph is not Jesus' father therefore anyone that is called his brother or sister must be Mary's child, his half-brother, or half-sister. Even if Joseph had children with another woman they are not related to Jesus in any way shape or form.
Wrong as usual.

As I schooled uyou ini a previous post – in the Bible, the Greek word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used to describe brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, nephew, ANY elative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. .

Here are a few more Biblical examples of the use of “Adelphos” for ya –

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was, Abraham’s NEPHEW (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" 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”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).


YOUR refusal to accept this BIBLICAL and LINGUISTIC fact doesn’t make it “untrue”.
It simply likens YOU to the proverbial ostrich with his head in the ground . . .

Try your best.
Already DID – and proved you WRONG . . .

That does not help your argument.
WOW!!
That’s ALL you can respond with? Not even a SINGLE intelligent refutation??

This verse is foolproof. Even you cannot be that silly.
(1)Jesus is the carpenter.
(2)Jesus is the son of Mary
(3) Jesus is the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon.
(4) Jesus had sisters.
(5) Jesus has kin in his own house.
Ummmm, talk about silly – and woefully ignorant.

I explained to you TWICE already, that the Greek word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used to describe brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, nephew, ANY elative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. .

Now it’s time for another Bible Lesson –
There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations (Adelphe, Adelphoi) 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.


Game. Set.
MATCH.
Matt 27
55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
(1) Mary Magdalene
(2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, ( James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3)
(3) and the mother of Zebedees children ( another woman )

That is three women
James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus.
Why not? James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus...Therefore Mary is their mother.
No the Mary of Mark 6:3 is the Mother of Jesus. Therefore the wife of Joseph.
WRONG.
The OTHER Mary, the wife of Clopas and the “Sister” (Adelphe) of Jesus’s Mother Mary

You are playing an asinine game of denial because this Scriptural evidence DESTROYS you entire case.
It is no lie.. You are in denial...Mary in Mk 6:3 is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Juda, and Simon.
Apart from that When jesus came throught the birth canal the hymen would have been ruptured therefore Mary can no longer be a virgin.
You’re pathetic - and have invented an equally-pathetic and weal little god for yourself.

The Almighty God Scripture merely SPOKE and the entire UNIVESE leapt into existence.
YOUR weak little god can’t even cause a VIRGIN to give birth – he can’t even keep her a virgin.:cool:
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Illuminator has spun your words my friend .
Trying to make it seem as though you are against that single life and etc .
But lambs know better . We are not fooled by the means of men who try and spin things .
I myself have been single now for well over eighteen years . AND YET i KNOW what the bible says about Mary .
She and joseph later did have children together . MARRIED FOLKS dont forbid one another . EVEN PAUL SAID
defraud ye not one another , cept of course for times of fasting , BUT THEN COME together again
LEST SATAN TEMPT YOU . The CC has decieved them big time .
AND YOUR RIGHT about MARY . SHE wants nothing to do with the worship they give her .
SHE would tell them the same thing she told others , HEED MY SON .
Exactly . These people worship what they know NOT , but lambs KNOW WHOM WE WORSHIP .
Never enter the broad road of ROME and many other places . JESUS ALONE IS THE MEDIATOR between GOD and men .
JESUS ALONE IS THE MEDIATOR and we pray ONLY TO GOD IN HIS NAME .
So much ignorance in EVERY ONE of your posts.
But, being a Lone Ranger “Believer” - I’m NOT surprised . . .

FIRST of all – NOBODY is saying that sex between a husband and wife was “dirty”.

Do YOU think that a faithful servant of God should be struck down DEAD for trying to SAVE the Ark of the Covenant? The Ark of the Covenant was not to be TOUCHED by man. The same is true for the Ark of the NEW. Covenant

As for your ridiculous comment that Jesus is out “ONLY” Mediator because of what Paul wrote in 1 Tim. 2:5 – your usual ignorance blinds you from God’s Truth.

Over and over and over again in Scripture, we are called to pray for one another (James 5:16, 2 Cor. 1:11, Phili. 1:19, Eph. 6:18, 1 Tim. 2:1, Rom. 10:1, James 5:14, Matt. 5:44, Luke 22:32, Luke 23:34, Philem. 1:22, Matt. 18:19-20, James 5:14-16, Rom. 10:1-4).
Prayerful intercession is precisely what mediation is.

The difference between OUR mediation and that of Jesus – ios that only HIS intercession can bring peace between us and the Father. HIS intercession/mediation SAVES us.
I can intercede/mediate for you – but I cannot SAVE you.

Finally – your moronic repetition that Mary had children other than Jesus has YET to be proven by you. You have failed – just like the rest of the Mary-haters . . .
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Illuminator has spun your words my friend .
I haven't spun anything. BofL and myself argue from scripture, you argue with manmade traditions invented in the 18th century. Before that time, not a single Protestant denomination taught that Mary was a sinner, or had other children, not even your own reformers. Post #405 has your fad theology stumped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's a vanity thing, Satan has convinced them that their group knows better than the rest.
I'm non-denominational because I don't need any church or minister to do my thinking for me..:)
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)
Leave it to YOU to pervert and wrongly interpret the Word of God. These verses do NOT imply that the Church is unnecessary”.
They are stating that God can communicate with anybody.

On the contrary, God gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority - that WHATEVER that Church bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

And the only “vanity thing” I see on this forum are scores of spiritually-prideful and otherwise lost individuals thinking they know better that Christ and His Church.

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of that Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

-
Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).


Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) which ca,e to be known as the Catholic Church in the FIRST century (see Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius of Antioch, AD 107).

He NEVER gave ANYONE permission to deviate from or leave that ONE Church.
 

Saint of God

Active Member
Mar 31, 2022
433
62
28
62
Sangre Grande
Faith
Other Faith
Country
Trinidad And Tobago
WRONG.
The ENTIRE Bible is “Theopneustos”, which means GOD-BREATHED (2 Tim. 3:16).
2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not mean god wrote the bible...
Wrong as usual.

As I schooled uyou ini a previous post – in the Bible, the Greek word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used to describe brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, nephew, ANY elative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. .

Here are a few more Biblical examples of the use of “Adelphos” for ya –

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was, Abraham’s NEPHEW (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" 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”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
This does not help your argument... In the case of Jesus, he is only related to Mary, not to Joseph. Therefore Joseph's children If he has any apart from Mary cannot be his brothers, sisters, or any relation.
Lets deal with the passage in question...
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

As I said Jesus cannot have full brothers and sisters since Joseph is not his father. So that covers the “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” argument.

YOUR refusal to accept this BIBLICAL and LINGUISTIC fact doesn’t make it “untrue”.
It simply likens YOU to the proverbial ostrich with his head in the ground . . .
this BIBLICAL and LINGUISTIC fact refutes your own argument...Because Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage since Joseph is not his father...

Already DID – and proved you WRONG . . .
You proved yourself wrong...Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage. That is why the word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used.

WOW!!
That’s ALL you can respond with? Not even a SINGLE intelligent refutation??
because you don't have an argument...

Ummmm, talk about silly – and woefully ignorant.

I explained to you TWICE already, that the Greek word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used to describe brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, nephew, ANY elative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. .

Now it’s time for another Bible Lesson –

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations (Adelphe, Adelphoi) 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.


Game. Set.
MATCH.
And I explained to you that Jesus cannot have full siblings since Joseph is not his father. Therefore they must use those words.

WRONG.
The OTHER Mary, the “wife of Clopas” and the “Sister” (Adelphe) of Jesus’s Mother Mary
Lets stick with the passage...
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
(1) Mary Magdalene
(2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, ( James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3)
(3) and the mother of Zebedees children ( another woman )


You are playing an asinine game of denial because this Scriptural evidence DESTROYS you entire case.
Your evidence shows that Jesus does not have full siblings...because joseph is not his father. You seem not to be aware of this fact. But you proved it yourself.
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
You’re pathetic - and have invented an equally-pathetic and weal little god for yourself.
Now you will start the Adhom

The Almighty God Scripture merely SPOKE and the entire UNIVESE leapt into existence.
That has nothing to do with the discussion...Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters.
YOUR weak little god can’t even cause a VIRGIN to give birth
I made no argument against a virgin birth
– he can’t even keep her a virgin.:cool:
There is no passage in the scriptures that says God kept Mary a virgin. It appears that you don't know what a virgin is. You should look up "hymen" Then ask yourself where Jesus passed to come out from Mary's womb
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not mean god wrote the bible...

This does not help your argument... In the case of Jesus, he is only related to Mary, not to Joseph. Therefore Joseph's children If he has any apart from Mary cannot be his brothers, sisters, or any relation.
Lets deal with the passage in question...
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

As I said Jesus cannot have full brothers and sisters since Joseph is not his father. So that covers the “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” argument.


this BIBLICAL and LINGUISTIC fact refutes your own argument...Because Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage since Joseph is not his father...

You proved yourself wrong...Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage. That is why the word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used.

because you don't have an argument...

And I explained to you that Jesus cannot have full siblings since Joseph is not his father. Therefore they must use those words.

Lets stick with the passage...
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
(1) Mary Magdalene
(2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, ( James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3)
(3) and the mother of Zebedees children ( another woman )



Your evidence shows that Jesus does not have full siblings...because joseph is not his father. You seem not to be aware of this fact. But you proved it yourself.
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Now you will start the Adhom

That has nothing to do with the discussion...Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters.

I made no argument against a virgin birth

There is no passage in the scriptures that says God kept Mary a virgin. It appears that you don't know what a virgin is. You should look up "hymen" Then ask yourself where Jesus passed to come out from Mary's womb
The first reason that Mary’s perpetual virginity matters is that it is a question of truth, not opinion, and the fact is that the Church has unerringly defended the doctrine since its earliest days. Certainly, the Church Fathers, for example, would not defend an untruth; veritas vos liberabit, after all. Mary’s perpetual virginity was rarely challenged in Christian history. Even the leading Protestant reformers acknowledged that Mary’s perpetual virginity is taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers all held the teaching as true.

Such heavyweights as Tertullian, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine made arguments based in Scripture that she remained a virgin her entire life. This was true of Christians throughout the known world, Latin and Greek, east and west. Origen of Alexandria, for example, wrote that “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her” (Commentary on John, 1.4). St. Jerome, the magnificent Biblical translator and scholar, stated clearly that we believe Mary remained a virgin her whole life because we read it in Scripture (see Against Helvidius 21).

The Protoevangelium of James, while not canonical Scripture, is an important historical document that tells us a lot about what the early Church believed. Written in the second century A.D., not long after the end of Mary’s earthly life, this document goes to great lengths to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, some scholars—including Johannes Quasten, the great patristics scholar of the twentieth century—thought that this was its primary purpose for being written. Among other things, the Protoevangelium is where we get the tradition that Mary was consecrated for service in the temple as a young girl, which would mean a life of perpetual virginity. Indeed, the classic text indicates that Mary’s being entrusted to Joseph was for the purpose of protecting her virginity.

At the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., Mary was officially given the title “Ever-virgin.” A century later, Pope Martin I clarified that by this the Church’s means to say that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth (ante partum, in partu, et post partum). This is a crucial point—the virgin birth is essentially unchallenged among Christians. The question of whether Mary remained a virgin is where many Protestants disagree with the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin (at least early in his career), and other early Protestant figures all recognized that the perpetual virginity of Mary is taught in the Bible. Unfortunately, over the centuries since the Reformation, their theological descendants have lost their way in this regard. Today, few Protestants recognize the truth, let alone the Biblical basis, of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Again, I’m not trying to prove the case here with an appeal to a wide variety of authorities. I offer this very brief survey of the Church’s history on the question to show the Church often and unequivocally defended the doctrine as true because its truth matters, and that its denial is a relatively recent development in Church history.

Second, Mary’s perpetual virginity matters because its truth has implications that matter to all of us; namely, points beyond her life to the world that is to come, a world in which there will be no more marriage and we will all be as Mary was. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” Jesus told the Sadducees (Matt. 22:30). Mary’s virginity is a prefigurement of heaven, the reward for those who say to God, with Mary, “Thy will be done.”

Third, Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of many of her attributes that make her a beautiful symbol of the Church, as the virgin bride of Christ and the fruitful mother of Christians. St. Ambrose wrote, “Fittingly is [Mary] espoused, but Virgin because she prefigures the Church which is undefiled yet wed. A Virgin conceived of the Spirit, a Virgin brings us forth without travail” (On Luke 2.6-7).

Fourth is the related point that Mary’s perpetual virginity says a great deal about her relationship with all of us. When Christ was dying on the cross, he said to John “behold your mother” and to Mary “behold your son” (John 19:26-27). The Church has always recognized in this not simply a son providing for his mother’s care after his death, but Christ’s giving of his mother to each and every one of us—she is our mother, too. This would have made no sense if Mary had other children, since they would have been tasked with her care after Jesus’ death. And that should matter to all Christians.

Quoting Lumen Gentium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (CCC 499) And this point deserves special notice: the virgin birth was not simply a neat trick, a miracle used to “wow” people, something to indicate that something special occurred. It was a clear indicator that Mary was set aside (and set herself aside, by her fiat) for service to God, conforming her will with the will of God. She was set apart by her virginity, and her virginity was sanctified by Our Lord in his birth.

The virgin birth—and Mary’s perpetual virginity—are signs of Mary’s total consecration to God, single-minded service to him, and utter abandonment to his will. Through the centuries, Christians of all stripes have defended this teaching, sometimes vehemently in the face of opposition. And the fact of her perpetual virginity matters because she was given to all of us as our spiritual mother, symbol of the Church. All Christians would do well to turn to Our Lady, and see in her perpetual virginity a sign of God’s providence.

 

Dropship

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2022
2,213
1,514
113
75
Plymouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Leave it to YOU to pervert and wrongly interpret the Word of God. These verses do NOT imply that the Church is unnecessary”.

Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)

So you'd better argue it out with him when you meet him..:)
We all know many churches and ministers are a useless disgrace; i've been trying to find a good sensible church for years and in the meantime am happy to heed this warning-
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
 

Saint of God

Active Member
Mar 31, 2022
433
62
28
62
Sangre Grande
Faith
Other Faith
Country
Trinidad And Tobago
The first reason that Mary’s perpetual virginity matters is that it is a question of truth, not opinion, and the fact is that the Church has unerringly defended the doctrine since its earliest days.
So since you mentioned truth where does the scripture say that Mary is a perpetual virgin...?

Certainly, the Church Fathers, for example, would not defend an untruth; veritas vos liberabit, after all. Mary’s perpetual virginity was rarely challenged in Christian history.
which church fathers are you referring to? Mary the mother of God was not challenged either.
Even the leading Protestant reformers acknowledged that Mary’s perpetual virginity is taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers all held the teaching as true.
Protestants are the children of the RCC.
Such heavyweights as Tertullian, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine made arguments based in Scripture that she remained a virgin her entire life.
There is no scripture saying that Mary was a virgin all her life.
This was true of Christians throughout the known world, Latin and Greek, east and west. Origen of Alexandria, for example, wrote that “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her” (Commentary on John, 1.4). St. Jerome, the magnificent Biblical translator and scholar, stated clearly that we believe Mary remained a virgin her whole life because we read it in Scripture (see Against Helvidius 21).
So who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the scriptures? Are you trying to make the scriptures into a lie in order to support a lie?
The Protoevangelium of James, while not canonical Scripture, is an important historical document that tells us a lot about what the early Church believed. Written in the second century A.D., not long after the end of Mary’s earthly life, this document goes to great lengths to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, some scholars—including Johannes Quasten, the great patristics scholar of the twentieth century—thought that this was its primary purpose for being written. Among other things, the Protoevangelium is where we get the tradition that Mary was consecrated for service in the temple as a young girl, which would mean a life of perpetual virginity. Indeed, the classic text indicates that Mary’s being entrusted to Joseph was for the purpose of protecting her virginity.
You are a bright person please explain where Jesus passed when he was born. Then go look up the word hymen.
At the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., Mary was officially given the title “Ever-virgin.” A century later, Pope Martin I clarified that by this the Church’s means to say that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth (ante partum, in partu, et post partum). This is a crucial point—the virgin birth is essentially unchallenged among Christians. The question of whether Mary remained a virgin is where many Protestants disagree with the Catholic Church.
You are pushing manmade doctrine at me...It is clear that the men in Constantinople made Mary a perpetual virgin, it is not of God.
Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin (at least early in his career), and other early Protestant figures all recognized that the perpetual virginity of Mary is taught in the Bible. Unfortunately, over the centuries since the Reformation, their theological descendants have lost their way in this regard. Today, few Protestants recognize the truth, let alone the Biblical basis, of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
You are yet to post one passage that says Mary was a perpetual virgin. You started your post with the question of truth...I am questioning your truth. Please provide scripture to support your nonsense.
Again, I’m not trying to prove the case here with an appeal to a wide variety of authorities. I offer this very brief survey of the Church’s history on the question to show the Church often and unequivocally defended the doctrine as true because its truth matters, and that its denial is a relatively recent development in Church history.
Just because people defend a doctrine does not make it true...if that is the case then you believe Hinduism is also true.
Second, Mary’s perpetual virginity matters because its truth has implications that matter to all of us; namely, points beyond her life to the world that is to come, a world in which there will be no more marriage and we will all be as Mary was. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” Jesus told the Sadducees (Matt. 22:30). Mary’s virginity is a prefigurement of heaven, the reward for those who say to God, with Mary, “Thy will be done.”
That is foolishness. Mary was married. Where does the scripture say Mary’s virginity is a prefigurement of heaven?
Third, Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of many of her attributes that make her a beautiful symbol of the Church, as the virgin bride of Christ and the fruitful mother of Christians. St. Ambrose wrote, “Fittingly is [Mary] espoused, but Virgin because she prefigures the Church which is undefiled yet wed. A Virgin conceived of the Spirit, a Virgin brings us forth without travail” (On Luke 2.6-7).
Mary is not a symbol in the Church of God...
Fourth is the related point that Mary’s perpetual virginity says a great deal about her relationship with all of us. When Christ was dying on the cross, he said to John “behold your mother” and to Mary “behold your son” (John 19:26-27). The Church has always recognized in this not simply a son providing for his mother’s care after his death, but Christ’s giving of his mother to each and every one of us—she is our mother, too. This would have made no sense if Mary had other children, since they would have been tasked with her care after Jesus’ death. And that should matter to all Christians.
More foolishness...You are speculating and making up doctrines. Why wasn't Mary made an apostle?
Quoting Lumen Gentium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (CCC 499) And this point deserves special notice: the virgin birth was not simply a neat trick, a miracle used to “wow” people, something to indicate that something special occurred. It was a clear indicator that Mary was set aside (and set herself aside, by her fiat) for service to God, conforming her will with the will of God. She was set apart by her virginity, and her virginity was sanctified by Our Lord in his birth.
Why are you playing smart with foolishness...? A hymen is what is checked to ensure a woman's virginity. Please explain how Jesus came out without detaching the hymen?
The virgin birth—and Mary’s perpetual virginity—are signs of Mary’s total consecration to God, single-minded service to him, and utter abandonment to his will. Through the centuries, Christians of all stripes have defended this teaching, sometimes vehemently in the face of opposition. And the fact of her perpetual virginity matters because she was given to all of us as our spiritual mother, symbol of the Church. All Christians would do well to turn to Our Lady, and see in her perpetual virginity a sign of God’s providence.

There is no truth in your post with regard to perpetual virginity. You have no scriptural evidence. You turn the truth of God into a lie to promote your lie.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It does not mean god wrote the bible...
WRONG.
He didn’t transcribe the words He BREATH OUT – but HE is the Author. The transcribers – secretaries, if you will were the men who wrote down what the AUTHOR dictated.
this BIBLICAL and LINGUISTIC fact refutes your own argument...Because Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage since Joseph is not his father...
You proved yourself wrong...Jesus cannot have siblings of the same parentage. That is why the word “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” are used.
because you don't have an argument...
HUH???
I’ve repeatedly proven you WRONG on post after post with BIBLICAL evidence.

YOUR only argument so far has been simple denial . . .
This does not help your argument... In the case of Jesus, he is only related to Mary, not to Joseph. Therefore Joseph's children If he has any apart from Mary cannot be his brothers, sisters, or any relation.
Lets deal with the passage in question...
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
As I said Jesus cannot have full brothers and sisters since Joseph is not his father. So that covers the “Adelphos(oi) and its Aramaic cousin “Ach” argument. [
And I explained to you that Jesus cannot have full siblings since Joseph is not his father. Therefore they must use those words.

Lets stick with the passage...
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
(1) Mary Magdalene
(2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, ( James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3)
(3) and the mother of Zebedees children ( another woman )
Your evidence shows that Jesus does not have full siblings...because joseph is not his father. You seem not to be aware of this fact. But you proved it yourself.
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Now you will start the Adhom
That has nothing to do with the discussion...Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters.

I made no argument against a virgin birth

There is no passage in the scriptures that says God kept Mary a virgin. It appears that you don't know what a virgin is. You should look up "hymen" Then ask yourself where Jesus passed to come out from Mary's womb
Even IF some of the “brethren” were Joseph’s children – they would STILL be called “Adelphos”

I already PROVED this to you by showing you examples from the Septuagint (Greek OT) where “Adelphos” is used for MANY relations. I ALSO proved it by showing you the statistics of the use of “Adelphos” in the NT.
YOU’RE still foolishly clinging to the falsehood that “Adelpos” can ONLY refer to uterine siglin.

The Bible states explicitly:
Acts 1:15-16

In those days Peter stood up among the BELIEVERS (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “BROTHERS and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus.

In the Greek text – “Adelphos” is used for “Believers“ and “Adelpoi” is used for “Brothers”.
Unless Peter’s mother actually gave BIRTH to 120 children and ALL of the Apostles had the SAME mother - you LOSE this argument . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)

So you'd better argue it out with him when you meet him..:)
We all know many churches and ministers are a useless disgrace; i've been trying to find a good sensible church for years and in the meantime am happy to heed this warning-
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
Jesus said:-"You have one teacher, me" (Matthew 23:10)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)

So you'd better argue it out with him when you meet him..:)
We all know many churches and ministers are a useless disgrace; i've been trying to find a good sensible church for years and in the meantime am happy to heed this warning-
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
Uhhhhh – that’s why you reject His Church’s teachings – then you reject HIM and the INE who sent HIM (Luke 10:16).

- Jesus EQUATES Himself with His CHURCH (Acts 9:4-5).
- His CHURCH is the fullness of Him (Eph. 1:22-23).
- His CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH (1 Tim. 3:16) – and NOT each individual.

Jesus guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide His CHURCH to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15).
He did NOT guarantee this to each individual – but to His CHURCH as a whole.

If YOU were correct – that each individual simply ran reject His Church and figure things out for themselves – to the tune of tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering factions that ALL teach different doctrines ALL believe THEY are correct

So, either Jesus is full of it – or YOU are.
I’ll go put my money on Jesus . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.