Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[justasking4]

rinnie;4219584]
Justforasking, Again I am going to ask you this question, Do you believe in Cannon of Scripture. You either do or you dont, You cant pick and choose now what is true and what isnt. guanophore told you there are over 400 documents claiming to be inspired scripture.

I do believe the canon to encompass 66 books as being inspired-inerrant.

Now how can you possibly believe that the Church would turn around and let inspired words of Chirst be in the bible, and then turn around and teach us differently with the oral and written letters.

Easily. The Scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many.

Everything that the Catholic Church teaches has the same authority and is as Inspired as any word in the bible.

This is not true. The Catholic church teaches things not taught in the Scriptures. The Marian doctrines is one of many examples.

Just because it wasnt in the bible makes no difference. This teaching has been going on for hundreds of

years.

How long something has been taught is irrelevant to it being true or not.

Again how could you possibly believe that as you stated that they got the bible right, but thats it. If you really believe they could lie to us about the oral teachings, what makes you think they would not lie to you then? I can’t comprehend this way of thinking.

As I said above false teachers have come into the church. Scripture warned of this. We already see this in the NT. Just read Revelation 1-3 where Jesus Himself rebukes some churches for accepting false teachings.

 

[maryj]

I do believe the canon to encompass 66 books as being inspired-inerrant.

Easily. The Scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many.

This is not true. The Catholic church teaches things not taught in the Scriptures. The Marian doctrines is one of many examples.

years.

How long something has been taught is irrelevant to it being true or not.

As I said above false teachers have come into the church. Scripture warned of this. We already see this in the NT. Just read Revelation 1-3 where Jesus Himself rebukes some churches for accepting false teachings.

Could it be He is rebuking you, and your acceptance of false teachings. Marian beliefs are taught in the Bible, you just don’t believe it.

 

[justasking4]

Could it be He is rebuking you, and your acceptance of false teachings. Marian beliefs are taught in the Bible, you just don’t believe it.

It is one thing to claim they are based on the Scriptures. Many claim that. The issue is: what is the evidence and is it true to the context?

When you look at the passages used to support the belief Mary was a perpetual virgin and study these passages in context you don’t get a perpetual virgin.

 

[maryj]

It is one thing to claim they are based on the Scriptures. Many claim that. The issue is: what is the evidence and is it true to the context?

When you look at the passages used to support the belief Mary was a perpetual virgin and study these passages in context you don’t get a perpetual virgin.

Oh but yes I do.

 

[Good_Fella]

It is one thing to claim they are based on the Scriptures. Many claim that. The issue is: what is the evidence and is it true to the context?

When you look at the passages used to support the belief Mary was a perpetual virgin and study these passages in context you don’t get a perpetual virgin.

The word “context” is a catch word of yours, since you have no ground for an argument against this teaching. We have already shown that your assertions are feeble.

 

[onenow1]

The word “context” is a catch word of yours, since you have no ground for an argument against this teaching. We have already shown that your assertions are feeble.

Quote= OneNow1, At this point ja4 I have a Question,if indeed you follow only scripture, how many times have you called Mary blessed. ? Luke 1: 48 Yes from now on all generations shall call me blessed. The bible says this, what say you to this ?

Peace, OneNow1.

PS Jeus had no blood brothers.

 

[rbarcia]

These brothers are the relatives of Jesus who didn’t believe in him until after our Lord’s resurrection. They are mentioned again in Acts 1, 14 apart from the cousins (v.13) who did believe in him at the time the other relatives and townspeople took offense at our Lord (Mk 6:3-4; 3,21).

PAX

This explains why Jesus left His mother in charge of John at the cross given that His brothers did not believe in Him.

 

[guanophore]

This explains why Jesus left His mother in charge of John at the cross given that His brothers did not believe in Him.

I can understand why you might see it that way. But since Jesus was her only child, what Jesus was doing was giving His mother into the care of the Church, and the Church to her. All of us can be “the disciple that Jesus loved” standing at the foot of the cross,and can receive her as our mother, by virtue of our status as adopted sons of the Father.

If Jesus did have blood brothers, they would have been faithful Jews just like the rest of the family. Their lack of acceptance of Jesus as messiah would have no bearing on their familial duty to care for their mother.

 

[justasking4]

onenow1;4223653]Quote= OneNow1, At this point ja4 I have a Question,if indeed you follow only scripture, how many times have you called Mary blessed. ? Luke 1: 48 Yes from now on all generations shall call me blessed. The bible says this, what say you to this ?

Peace, OneNow1.

Mary was blessed in that she was chosen to bear Christ.

PS Jeus had no blood brothers.

This assertion is not borne out by Scripture. View attachment 4184

 

[guanophore]

I do believe the canon to encompass 66 books as being inspired-inerrant.

This is a beginning, certainly. However, it is also evidence that you are rejecting part of the Apostolic Teaching that was faithfully handed down from the Apostles.

Easily. The Scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many.

Deception of individual persons does not equal the deception of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It seems that you are confusing the fallible members of the Chuch with the Holy Bride of Christ, who cannot err, because her head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS.

But, fear not, ja4. We know you are here, and we are on guard against the false teachings you bring! :knight2:

This is not true. The Catholic church teaches things not taught in the Scriptures. The Marian doctrines is one of many examples.

It seems this way because we read the scriptures in the light of the Apostolic teachings, instead of separeted from them, as you do. It also seems this way because you erroneously believe that all of what God has revealed about Himself is found in your bible, which it is not.

How long something has been taught is irrelevant to it being true or not.

Not entirely irrelevant. The fact that it was handed down to us as part of the Divine Deposit of Faith is what is relevant. The fact that this is 2000 years old is not an artifact.

As I said above false teachers have come into the church. Scripture warned of this. We already see this in the NT. Just read Revelation 1-3 where Jesus Himself rebukes some churches for accepting false teachings.

Yes, he rejects persons, but not His Bride, who he has sanctified, and kept pure. I think as long as you fail to make this distinction, doctrines such as the Marian will be lost upon you. This is why I tell you that it would be more effective for you to focus on the basics.

It is one thing to claim they are based on the Scriptures. Many claim that. The issue is: what is the evidence and is it true to the context?

The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. Everything in there was produced by, for, and about Catholics. You are right, when the NT is removed from this context, it is difficult to see and understand things written there.

When you look at the passages used to support the belief Mary was a perpetual virgin and study these passages in context you don’t get a perpetual virgin.

Please take responsibility for yourself, ja4. It is ja4 that does not “see” what is in the passages. At least take ownership of your own blindness, and dont’ try to palm it off on yourself.

We “see” the passages showing the perpetual virginity because we are reading them in a context that you have rejected as invalid. At some point, you were taught that error had infiltrated the Catholic Church, and false doctrines resulted. As a result of this tradition of men to which you cling so closely, you are not able to “see” the NT in the light of those who wrote it.

 

[Good_Fella]

So it’s dishonoring to think that Mary loved Joseph and that they were one in marriage and had other children. I don’t see that as dishonoring. Unless you are saying the act of making love to your spouse and having children is dishonoring in some way.

I don’t think Mary takes offense at that at all. If she did she would be sinning because you can only be offended by someone if you have pride. Pride is a sin.

I have never met a protestant who hated Mary or thought ill of her.

There is no true Proof that Mary had Children, there is also no real proof that she did not. I am saying physical evidence, not tradition.

It does not matter whether Protestants believe she was in a loving marriage. What matters is that Protestants presume Mary had no higher and more sublime intentions, as if they would know. God has revealed through his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Mary chose to be a virgin on account of her closeness to God. One offends Mary by questioning her decision to pursue a vocation better than a normal and sanctified consummated marriage.

Like the sister of Martha, Mary, the mother of our Lord “chose the better part” without denigrating marriage in the least. She dedicated her life for the kingdom of heaven, having sacrificed a normal marriage for a more sublime and important vocation in life. Mary did not frown upon marriage as something base but looked toward a higher calling. Likewise Catholics have elevated marriage to the level of a sacrament. Divorce and remarriage is prohibited in the Catholic Church in accordance with the teachings of Christ. This is not so in the Protestant tradition. So it’s ironic and pathetic that these same nominal Christians appeal to the sanctity of marriage as the reason why Mary could not possibly have been ever-virgin.

In any event, it is Satan who is behind these attacks on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by militant Protestants and modern theologians who belittle Mary’s engagement with the Holy Spirit. The Virgin’s total cooperation with the graces she had received is something the serpent finds revolting. What is at issue is Mary’s entire and unique acknowledgement of the abundance of the graces she had received. We must not presume to question whether she lacked the moral courage to collaborate with the Holy Spirit in her appointed vocation: her Divine Maternity. Mary was no ordinary mother who could simply lead an ordinary family life. She was destined to be the mother of God’s Only-begotten Son, to whom she had to give her undivided attention. One does not honour Mary by presuming she took her divine vocation lightly for the sake of religious and cultural convention - or for the pleasure of having her own biological children.

The ineffable mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary rests on the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. The Incarnation is just one of the many great things God has done for Mary. We should not expect her to underestimate this tremendous blessing she had received. This overshadowing effected a perfect and most sublime union between Mary and the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth hailed Mary as most blessed among women. And it was the Holy Spirit who propitiated her unqualified correspondence. Are we to question what God regards as most favourable in Mary? To deny Mary’s willing participation to be the mother of only Jesus is to repudiate the Holy Spirit as the guarantor of her perfect and unblemished cooperation with his grace. Such a denial also impugns her perfect love of God.

Mary had every intention to perfectly cooperate with God’s grace. Her intentions were in full accord with the wishes of the Holy Spirit with respect to the efficaciousness of this grace: the redemption of mankind. Her understanding and will were unimpaired by the effects of original sin, since she was immaculately conceived for the purpose of being the Mother of God. This was Mary’s greater vocation in life, which she was happy to accept and acknowledged to be the fruit of her virginity.

It is not a matter of sinful pride to be offended by someone’s transgression against us. God is offended by our sins against him, but that doesn’t make him proud and sinful. I wouldn’t consider you sinful for being proud of your children’s accomplishments in life, though you might be vain. We are concerned with the dignity of Mary and her love of God. There is no vanity on her part in view of those Christians who dare to publicly question and refute her spiritual integrity in the grace of God.

Obviously you have never met the Protestants whom I quoted from other threads on this forum or others where I have debated. And you fail to recognize that all you’ve received from those Protestants you have met may be nothing more than cheap lip service. Cold indifference is worse than genuine hatred and ill feeling, George Bernard Shaw wisely affirms. I own there are Protestants who believe Mary was chaste and sinless. The early reformers thought so. But I’m referring to the militant reformed Fundamentalists who will tell us that Mary was blessed for being God’s incubator and bondslave. Apart from that role she was cast from God’s grace and favour. I don’t mention those who are blind, but only those who are blind but publicly claim to see.

I agree that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence that Mary had other children besides Jesus, for Scripture cannot contravene Tradition from whence it comes. Scripture and Tradtion comprise the deposit of faith.

Nor is there any historical and empirical evidence that Christ rose from the dead.

PAX :harp:

 

[Matariel]

Good post, Good Fella.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;4224530]It does not matter whether Protestants believe she was in a loving marriage. What matters is that Protestants presume Mary had no higher and more sublime intentions, as if they would know. God has revealed through his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Mary chose to be a virgin on account of her closeness to God. One offends Mary by questioning her decision to pursue a vocation better than a normal and sanctified consummated marriage.
How did God reveal this to the church if the Scriptures never come even close to her being a perpetual virgin?

Like the sister of Martha, Mary, the mother of our Lord “chose the better part” without denigrating marriage in the least. She dedicated her life for the kingdom of heaven, having sacrificed a normal marriage for a more sublime and important vocation in life.

How can anything be more important to having a family?

Mary did not frown upon marriage as something base but looked toward a higher calling. Likewise Catholics have elevated marriage to the level of a sacrament. Divorce and remarriage is prohibited in the Catholic Church in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

Christ did allow for divorce under certain conditions. See Matthew 19:9.

This is not so in the Protestant tradition. So it’s ironic and pathetic that these same nominal Christians appeal to the sanctity of marriage as the reason why Mary could not possibly have been ever-virgin.

In any event, it is Satan who is behind these attacks on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by militant Protestants and modern theologians who belittle Mary’s engagement with the Holy Spirit.

This is absurd. Scripture is quite clear that Mary did indeed have other children of her own. In fact Matthew 1:24-25 certainly implies a limited duration of her viginity—
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The Virgin’s total cooperation with the graces she had received is something the serpent finds revolting. What is at issue is Mary’s entire and unique acknowledgement of the abundance of the graces she had received. We must not presume to question whether she lacked the moral courage to collaborate with the Holy Spirit in her appointed vocation: her Divine Maternity.

Mary was no ordinary mother who could simply lead an ordinary family life.

Why not? This certaily would have given the Lord Jesus the expierence the full human expierence of being involoved in a family with brothers and sisters. This certainly was the norm for Jewish family life and the command of Scripture to be be fruitful and multiply.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

Good Fella;4224530

She was destined to be the mother of God’s Only-begotten Son, to whom she had to give her undivided attention

.
Actually you could make the case that children grow up best in families where there is more than one child. Many lessons can be learned in such an enviorment.

One does not honour Mary by presuming she took her divine vocation lightly for the sake of religious and cultural convention - or for the pleasure of having her own biological children.

First we must study the Scriptures in light of this question. If we have good reasons to believe she had other children of her own then we should accept that and not try to make the Scriptures say things that it does not even though it may have been taught by the church for centuries. Remember the church can be mistaken the Scriptures can’t.

The ineffable mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary rests on the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. The Incarnation is just one of the many great things God has done for Mary. We should not expect her to underestimate this tremendous blessing she had received. This overshadowing effected a perfect and most sublime union between Mary and the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth hailed Mary as most blessed among women. And it was the Holy Spirit who propitiated her unqualified correspondence. Are we to question what God regards as most favourable in Mary? To deny Mary’s willing participation to be the mother of only Jesus is to repudiate the Holy Spirit as the guarantor of her perfect and unblemished cooperation with his grace. Such a denial also impugns her perfect love of God.

You go far beyond what the Scriptures tell us about Mary here.

Mary had every intention to perfectly cooperate with God’s grace. Her intentions were in full accord with the wishes of the Holy Spirit with respect to the efficaciousness of this grace: the redemption of mankind. Her understanding and will were unimpaired by the effects of original sin, since she was immaculately conceived for the purpose of being the Mother of God. This was Mary’s greater vocation in life, which she was happy to accept and acknowledged to be the fruit of her virginity.

Again you go beyond what is written into speculations.

It is not a matter of sinful pride to be offended by someone’s transgression against us. God is offended by our sins against him, but that doesn’t make him proud and sinful. I wouldn’t consider you sinful for being proud of your children’s accomplishments in life, though you might be vain. We are concerned with the dignity of Mary and her love of God. There is no vanity on her part in view of those Christians who dare to publicly question and refute her spiritual integrity in the grace of God.

Obviously you have never met the Protestants whom I quoted from other threads on this forum or others where I have debated. And you fail to recognize that all you’ve received from those Protestants you have met may be nothing more than cheap lip service. Cold indifference is worse than genuine hatred and ill feeling, George Bernard Shaw wisely affirms. I own there are Protestants who believe Mary was chaste and sinless. The early reformers thought so. But I’m referring to the militant reformed Fundamentalists who will tell us that Mary was blessed for being God’s incubator and bondslave. Apart from that role she was cast from God’s grace and favour. I don’t mention those who are blind, but only those who are blind but publicly claim to see.

I agree that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence that Mary had other children besides Jesus, for Scripture cannot contravene Tradition from whence it comes. Scripture and Tradtion comprise the deposit of faith.
If there is a Tradition that says Mary had other children then you have a contradiction. Scripture and Tradition cannot both be right. One is in error.

Nor is there any historical and empirical evidence that Christ rose from the dead.

Not so. Read I Corinthians 15:1-8 for the evidence of the resurrection.

PAX :harp:

 

[fbl9]

Ja4 i don’t know what you beleive about original sin…in any case why would one want to place original sin in the place where the One without sin was formed…St. Joseph was a holy and upright man,do you think he would have marital relations in the temple?for that matter you seem to imply that yes i (you) would have marital relations with Mary,you would put what where the Son of God passed through?? …would you have marital relations in your church.the place where Jesus becomes present to you??

 

[justasking4]

Ja4 i don’t know what you beleive about original sin…in any case why would one want to place original sin in the place where the One without sin was formed…St. Joseph was a holy and upright man,do you think he would have marital relations in the temple?for that matter you seem to imply that yes i (you) would have marital relations with Mary,you would put what where the Son of God passed through?? …would you have marital relations in your church.the place where Jesus becomes present to you??

Is there anything unholy and unclean about a husband and wife engaging in sexual relations?

Do the Scriptures forbid Mary and Joseph from engaging in normal sexual practices for married couples?

 

[maryj]

Actually what makes the best sense is that His brothers were either unaware of what was going or they were not in the city at the time. Remember His trial and crucifixion happened quite quickly.

Not under these kinds of circumstances especially if His brothers were not even in the city.

Perhaps His brothers were incapable at this time to care for her or Jesus decided that John was the best choice for this since he was a member of His new spiritual family.

.
I agree.

Part 2

Good Fella;4224530

.
Actually you could make the case that children grow up best in families where there is more than one child. Many lessons can be learned in such an enviorment.

First we must study the Scriptures in light of this question. If we have good reasons to believe she had other children of her own then we should accept that and not try to make the Scriptures say things that it does not even though it may have been taught by the church for centuries. Remember the church can be mistaken the Scriptures can’t.

You go far beyond what the Scriptures tell us about Mary here.

Again you go beyond what is written into speculations.

.

Seriously??

 

[fbl9]

Is there anything unholy and unclean about a husband and wife engaging in sexual relations?

Do the Scriptures forbid Mary and Joseph from engaging in normal sexual practices for married couples?

Ja4 just what kind of person are you?the type that would put what is unholy in the place of that which contained what is holy i am talking about putting original sin where no sin existed before…if martial relations are so good i guess you would have no qualms about having them in your church then?put yourself in St. Joseph’s shoes…your wife just gave birth to GOD and you are going to do what??do you have no value for what is made sacred by God Himself???

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 1

How did God reveal this to the church if the Scriptures never come even close to her being a perpetual virgin?

How can anything be more important to having a family?

Christ did allow for divorce under certain conditions. See Matthew 19:9.
:

This is absurd. Scripture is quite clear that Mary did indeed have other children of her own. In fact Matthew 1:24-25 certainly implies a limited duration of her viginity—
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Why not? This certaily would have given the Lord Jesus the expierence the full human expierence of being involoved in a family with brothers and sisters. This certainly was the norm for Jewish family life and the command of Scripture to be be fruitful and multiply.

Part 1

As long as you focus strictly on the letter of the word and ignore the Spirit of the Word, you will never come close to understanding the scriptures. The Spirit of the Word reveals the divine truth in the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is infallible because Tradition is infallible. Scripture comes from Tradition, and so it must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition. The Old and New Testament must be taken as a whole to fully understand the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Isolating single passages and analyzing the linguistics involved will not help you see the truth, especially if you approach the written word with your preconceived notions. It is primarily the Holy Spirit who gradually reveals the divine truth until the end of time through the Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles.

The kingdom of heaven is more important than having a family. Both Paul and Jesus tell us that. It’s time you examine the scriptures more carefully.

It was Moses who allowed the Jews to divorce under certain conditions: for example, incestuous marriages. Jesus adds that it is not God’s intention that his people do divorce and anyone who does and remarries commits adultery if the marriage is fully consummated by conjugal relations. Moreover, the one who initiates the divorce causes his ex-spouse to commit adultery. Protestants like yourself who are blind to this truth and thereby inculpable will go to Purgatory to be cleansed of the sin of adultery before entering heaven.

In all other instances where Matthew uses the conjunction “until” (eos) with regard to prophecy, the exponent refers to the period of time before the expected event. It’s the same in chapter 1. I have already refuted the Protestant appeal to Matthew 1:25 above in this thread. Why do you keep exhuming a rotted corpse?

Paul chose to remain celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Are you suggesting that the great apostle disobeyed God by abstaining from procreation?

Maybe you’ll go to Purgatory for not having supplied enough offspring. :grouphug:

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 2

.Actually you could make the case that children grow up best in families where there is more than one child. Many lessons can be learned in such an enviorment.

First we must study the Scriptures in light of this question. If we have good reasons to believe she had other children of her own then we should accept that and not try to make the Scriptures say things that it does not even though it may have been taught by the church for centuries. Remember the church can be mistaken the Scriptures can’t.

You go far beyond what the Scriptures tell us about Mary here.

Again you go beyond what is written into speculations.

If there is a Tradition that says Mary had other children then you have a contradiction. Scripture and Tradition cannot both be right. One is in error.

Not so. Read I Corinthians 15:1-8 for the evidence of the resurrection.

Part ll

Yes, many lessons can be learned. One lesson the alleged younger brothers of Jesus could learn is telling the harassing school yard bully that “I’ll get my older brother, the God-Man, after you.” I suppose you’ll contend that there were no school yards in ancient Palestine.

That’s just it. There is no good reason to believe Mary and Joseph had children of their own if we listen to the Spirit of the Word. Since you confine the Word of God to what has been written and reject the authoritative teachings of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, you persist in reading into the scriptures what you wish to personally believe to “your own destruction,” Peter says in his epistle. The Church cannot be mistaken about anything revealed in the scriptures, for the scriptures come from the Church in the first place, and she is “guided in all truth” until the end of time, says Jesus to his apostles. :yup:

You go far beyond what the scriptures don’t tell us about Mary, that she had her own children. :grouphug:

*“A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.”

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”*

Do you get the message? I doubt it, since I expect you to read what isn’t there on the surface. A literal interpretation of the texts in contravention of the infallible teachings of the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, not a book originating from the same Church, is a faulty approach to comprehending what is truly written by the Spirit of the Word and not based on human speculations. Church doctrines originate from the Holy Spirit, not the written Bible. But the scriptures do confirm what has been spoken to the Church by the Holy Spirit. The Paraclete brings to light what is implicitly contained in the written word. The difference between the Catholic and the Protestant is that only the latter is in a postion to speculate in the formulation of his private doctrines. Public revalation comes to us only through the teachings of the apostles and unfolds by the teaching authority of their valid successors: the Episcopacy of the Church. It is you, not me, who is merely speculating.
:newidea:

You don’t understand the nature of the Bible to begin with, so it’s understandable you are so distant from the divine truth.

The fact is there is no Tradition of Mary having other children. There never has been such a tradition; nor will there ever be, since Tradition is constant and consistent, and the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is an irrevocable Church dogma.


Corinthians 15, 1-8 is not a source of historical and empirical evidence. The teachings of Paul are strictly a matter of faith for the Church. Jesus tells us: “Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.” But I’m sure Paul was aware that Mary had no other children, though he had no reason to teach this fact as a doctrine in any of his occasional pastoral letters which were concerned strictly with other fundamental issues of faith. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (A.D. 155), reveals that he was aware of Mary’s perpetual virginity. He addresses her as “The Virgin”, not “a virgin,” staying true to the prophecy of Isaiah 7, 14 in the Septuagint. :clapping:

PAX :dancing: