Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

Newer translations are not a word for word rendering, but rather a more modern rendition.

If you’ll search this board, you’ll see a topic concerning the KJV and why it’s not consistent on many places. I think it was, ironically enough, a Jew who pointed out where the KJV is just flat out in error in certain verses.

The vers I showed you in Isaiah speaks of the earth as a circle. Man thought the earth was flat at that time, so it’s significant in proving that man didn’t write this on his own - but by the inspiration of God. How else would he be writing of thing so far ahead of his time?

Again, forcing an interpretation that’s simply not there. The verse, even if rendered on the KJV, speaks of God in the heavenly firmament, not on the earth. No interpretation of that verse would mean the earth to be round; aren’t you curious that this view was only populrized now, and not before? Aren’t you wondering why this idea was not pushed further into the New Testament? Do you mean to say that this was only known in Isaiah, and then subsequently lost in the centuries that followed? If we take your view to its conclusion, even Jesus did not know about this, when it was clearly stated in Isaiah and He did not teach this, or at the very least mentioned it in passing to His Disciples. That this matter took many more centuries to be “rediscovered” is simply incredible, and simply the product of the modern mind trying to force interpretations that are not there.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

There’s nothing forced about it. Does ‘circle of the earth’ pretty much debunk the flat earth theory?

Take Leviticus 17:11. Doctors of that time used to bleed people to rid them of illness. Read what this verse says about blood.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

If you’ll search this board, you’ll see a topic concerning the KJV and why it’s not consistent on many places. I think it was, ironically enough, a Jew who pointed out where the KJV is just flat out in error in certain verses.

Again, forcing an interpretation that’s simply not there. The verse, even if rendered on the KJV, speaks of God in the heavenly firmament, not on the earth. No interpretation of that verse would mean the earth to be round; aren’t you curious that this view was only populrized now, and not before? Aren’t you wondering why this idea was not pushed further into the New Testament? Do you mean to say that this was only known in Isaiah, and then subsequently lost in the centuries that followed? If we take your view to its conclusion, even Jesus did not know about this, when it was clearly stated in Isaiah and He did not teach this, or at the very least mentioned it in passing to His Disciples. That this matter took many more centuries to be “rediscovered” is simply incredible, and simply the product of the modern mind trying to force interpretations that are not there.

ABOVE the circle of the earth. The circle being the earth itself.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

It wasn’t the Ark itself that made the stone tablets holy.

No, but the Ark by itself is holy, correct? Or we must be reading different Bibles. And the point is still simple: the Ark contained the Tablets, thus both are holy. Taking the Tablets out did nto make the Ark any less holy.

It wasn’t the womb of Mary that made Jesus holy.

No, but then the vessel should still be pure. Remember agan the Old Testament–God’s purity would kill any person instantly. As well, the analogy of the cup and water must come into mind here–a cup dirty, no matter how clean the water is, would make the water dirty as well.

All the emphasis on sacred vessels sounds slightly superstitious to me

You mean the Old Testament is superstition? The Old Testament is full of descriptions and usage of sacred objects and vessels.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

ABOVE the circle of the earth. The circle being the earth itself.

No go, sorry. Old Testament understanding of the earth simply doesn’t fit into that view. Like I explained, you’re forcing an interpretation that’s not there. Reread my point why it’s so.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

These things would be holy even without vessels. The vessels themselves are not holy.

Again, getting back to the original topic, Mary’s virginity was not needed after Christ was born, since the vessel had done it’s job. Unlike the tablets being put back into the ark, Jesus was never put back into the womb - so it wouldn’t be needed for her to remain a virgin for life.

Just imagine poor Joseph never getting to concimate his marriage. That’s just awful.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

The bible is the inspired word of God. It’s obvious I can’t make you see that. No ammount of proof will convince you. Just read Leviticus. How about the Old Testament messianic prophecies about the coming of Christ, his death, and resurrection. There’s enough proof to show the bible is the word of God for those willing to study it for themselves.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

These things would be holy even without vessels. The vessels themselves are not holy.

And yet God Himself made the Ark of the Covenant holy. If He can do this for the Ark, then why not a person?

Mary’s virginity was not needed after Christ was born, since the vessel had done it’s job.

You’re missing the point: is it necessary to have relations after Jesus’ birth? Again, you’re trying to push a modern view on something that’s not easy to grasp, since you cannot fathom married life wholly dedicated to God without any physical contact.

Just imagine poor Joseph never getting to concimate his marriage. That’s just awful.

If one is in God’s glory, would that even matter really? I am sure Joseph would not have minded it, as he prefectly knows he is givng his all in all to God.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

The bible is the inspired word of God. It’s obvious I can’t make you see that.

Nope, I perfectly see that, and in fact believe in it. What I don’t agree in is forcing an interpretation where clearly there is none. That’s where we differ.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

This is what I’m saying;

The ark was used and re-used to hold the tablets. I concede that it had to be holy to serve this purpose over and over as the tablets were taken out and put back in. Christ was born, and never placed back into the womb - so it wasn’t needed for her to keep her virginity after the birth of Christ, since it wouldn’t have affected anything. Nowhere in the bible does it say she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. This is purely man made tradition.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

Nope, I perfectly see that, and in fact believe in it. What I don’t agree in is forcing an interpretation where clearly there is none. That’s where we differ.

The bible is self proving. I am trying to show you that the knowledge within it is to far advanced for a man to have written it without God inspiring him. The examples I used prove this point.

What do you consider to be proof of the bible’s divine origine, out of curiosity?

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

Nowhere in the bible does it say she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. This is purely man made tradition.

Nowhere is it in the Bible either that it is necessary to consumate marriage, but certainly the Bible is clear that a life dedicated to God, reamining chaste and holy, is a much more preferrred life. Paul made that plain, affirming Jesus.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I didn’t say it was. Only that nothing suggests that Mary and Joseph never did.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

The bible is self proving.

Already invalid. If it is self-proving or self-interpreting, then we wouldn’t even be having this debate in the first place, would we now? Even by what we have now, this statement is already invalidated.

I am trying to show you that the knowledge within it is to far advanced for a man to have read it without God inspiring him. The examples I used prove this point.

Again, to repeat, if your assertion is valid, then why were these so-called “scientific” proofs not seen? Why were they not mentioned by Jesus? Why did early Christianity not find it? Simple answer: it’s not there. You’re forcing a modern interpretation on it. It’s not there, and never will be there. You’re merely interpreting it based on your preconceived notions.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

I didn’t say it was. Only that nothing suggests that Mary and Joseph never did.

And nothing as well suggest they did.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

Already invalid. If it is self-proving or self-interpreting, then we wouldn’t even be having this debate in the first place, would we now? Even by what we have now, this statement is already invalidated.

-----The reason man didn’t see these scientific facts was because human science ias so far behind God’s inspired word. We are just now, within the last few centuries, beginning to understan alot of these profound truths. How do you explain the regulations about food and sanitation layed out in the Old Testament?------

Again, to repeat, if your assertion is valid, then why were these so-called “scientific” proofs not seen? Why were they not mentioned by Jesus? Why did early Christianity not find it? Simple answer: it’s not there. You’re forcing a modern interpretation on it. It’s not there, and never will be there. You’re merely interpreting it based on your preconceived notions.

Check out the book ‘scientific facts in the bible’ by ray comfort. It will explain this more accurately than I can.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

And nothing as well suggest they did.

“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…” Matthew 1:25

Joseph didn’t know his wife, till she gave birth. Why would this carry over after the birth of Christ, when scripture only says he knew her not till Jesus was born. This implies that he didn’t keep her a virgin afterwards.

Are you seeing what I’m saying?

 

[Milliardo]

The reason man didn’t see these scientific facts was because human science is so far behind God’s inspired word.

That is probably the most absurd statement I’ve seen regarding the issue on science and the Bible. Again, taking this to its conclusion, you mean to say that even Jesus Himself was so far behind His own words? Incredible,. to say the least.

How do you explain the regulations about food and sanitation layed out in the Old Testament?

It was done in the context of relgious worship and understanding, not scientific ones. Some of them were out of practical consideration, but certainly they were not done because of some scientific discovery.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

Joseph didn’t know his wife, till she gave birth. Why would this carry over after the birth of Christ, when scripture only says he knew her not till Jesus was born. This implies that he didn’t keep her a virgin afterwards.

Already discussed; reread above. The implication of “until” in the Biblical perspective would not carry over on this one. Again, your modern views shouldn’t be imposed upon a culture so far removed from you that you cannot comprehend a life dedicated wholly to God, body and soul, that it is easy for such people to live married life in a chaste way.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

That is probably the most absurd statement I’ve seen regarding the issue on science and the Bible. Again, taking this to its conclusion, you mean to say that even Jesus Himself was so far behind His own words? Incredible,. to say the least.

—Why do you keep mentioning Jesus? The fact that he didn’t mention science in the scriptures doesn’t prove there is none. There are plenty of topics Jesus didn’t mention in the Gospels.—

It was done in the context of relgious worship and understanding, not scientific ones. Some of them were out of practical consideration, but certainly they were not done because of some scientific discovery.

I didn’t say anything about scientific discovery. God, knowing how diseases are spread by germs, instructed his people of how to practice good sanitation. Not just for the sake of rituals.