Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Angelo_Michael]

Angelo I was sent to this site, yep your right in the middle of it aren’t you? can’t leave these poor people alone, are you a lawyer??? you think like them. Let’s take a word and claim we know what Christ is refering to. The bible was translated. get it nothing was perfect in the translation, maybe he was refering to the comparson to him and his father, maybe he was refering to his light to his fathers light, what is good??? mean, I can’t believe you would chose this scripture to attack when their are so many good ones out there conterdiction, all over the place. But be gentle will our faith, it might waver. Oh by the way there are many worlds out there. Gods work continues to roll on without us, I don’t know how God can get along without us, we are so much smarter, aren’t we angelo, I mean we have been to college, trained by men, to serve others. to be slaves and not to think. Angelo want to be a GOD???

Your dialogue seems to be of a personal nature and drifting too far from the subject of the thread. If you would like to post a thread where it would be [more] appropriate to address your questions, I might do so there.

 

[avflf]

Deuteronomy 18:18-19,
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

Wonder to which prophet this passage refers to. It cannot be to Jesus because (a) he is not considered to be “a prophet”, except by the Muslims and (b) while Moses had two human parents Jesus only had one - which brings to mind the error in the saying that he was100% human.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Wonder to which prophet this passage refers to. It cannot be to Jesus because (a) he is not considered to be “a prophet”, except by the Muslims and (b) while Moses had two human parents Jesus only had one - which brings to mind the error in the saying that he was100% human.

Consider John chapter 5:

"After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

I have generally concluded that Christ is referring to Deuteronomy 18:18-19,

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

**and perhaps other scripture verses as well. **

Moreover, in those other scriptures Christ is referred to as Immanuel or the heir of David’s throne, and misconceptions were said to have arose and He clarified them also. Many were trying to disprove that Christ is the Messiah on an apparent technicality and perhaps these ‘loopholes’ have allowed for the emergence of conflicting doctrines, (such as the “Prophet” of Mormonism and Islam.) Yet, one must remember that Christ’s work testifies of Him, even as mentioned above,

“But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.”
(John 5:36)

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: While I don’t completely agree with everything you said, it is obvious that you did a lot of research into your postAnd, I am well aware that all of Jesus’s deeds, and sayings, were not recorded. And to accept that, by what would you call it,“apostolic succession,” we are asked by faith, to believe that these sayings, have been dutifully, and infallibly preserved down through the years(1Thess 5:21). I mean I could say, that Jesus said,“Baptize infants as well as adults,” and convince someone He really said it. And Jesus’s enemies find out the hard way, that they cannot defeat Him. Are there double agents in “our” camp(Body of Christ)? Of course there are Sometimes, the flock has more to be afraid of from the other sheep than from the wolfAnd I find it quite a stretch, to say that Mary having other children, would render Christ a mere mortal. Mary, herself, was of course, a mere mortal, chosen by, and used by God, to deliver the Holy, unblemished Saviour.To deny that she and Joseph, did not EVER enjoy the benefits of marital physical relations, is an insult to Joseph, and God It is saying that(regardless if she had other children or not) God cannot restore the womb to it’s pre-Jesus state. And to answer your question, no, I am not a Christian who is helping to defeat Christ, it will never happen:thumbsup:

Look at the prior verse, to 1 Thess 5:20, “do not despise the prophets’ warnings.” There is an Apostolic Succession in place today as 2000 years ago. Why believe? Saint Augustine (354-430) said it best in “Against the Letter of Mani” (5,6, 397 A.D.): “I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

The Father of the Church had no hidden agenda, did not change what they received from the Apostles nor did they misinterpreted it. They received the Gospel orally in most cases because there was no Bible around. They in turn passed what they received to the next generation and so on for 2000 years. All the procedures and rites of the Church to elect the Bishops, Deacons, etc., with detailed special ceremonies, were in practice since the times of the Apostles. Are they in the Bible in detail? Of course not.

I have an Evangelical friend who calls the Bible the “Manual”, and he compares it to a car’s manual. I have asked him if in his car manual he expects to read how the car was manufactured, the order in which the parts were assembled, or how the tires were manufactured; or what’s the procedure to apply the paint to the car… I even asked him if in his car manual is in detail how to repair his car. The same thing happens with the Bible. You don’t expect to find it all in it. It never occurred to the writers of the Gospels to go to those extremes. There was no need because they were explaining all that orally! And when they were gone, there was the Church to continue doing it. Too bad many Christians through the ages, specially many who rely solely on the written Word of God, have found it better not to believe in 1 Tim 3:15, “If I delay, you will know how you ought to conduct yourself in the household of God, that is, the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

And Mary’s perpetual virginity is a matter that has been with the Church forever. Look at what The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had to say about Mary:

“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…”

And Luther, the great reformer, unlike his successors, was a devotee to the Mary of Roman Catholicism. In his own words:

“… she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. … God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. … God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her” (Luther’s Works, American edition, Vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968).

“… 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” (“Sermon on John 14:16”: Luther’s Works [St. Louis], ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia. Vol. 24. p. 107).

“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. … This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that” (“On the Gospel of St. John”: Luther’s Works, Vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957).

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat).

Why did the “Reformer” had to be “reformed” by his own followers?

God bless you

 

[avflf]

I have generally concluded that Christ is referring to Deuteronomy 18:18-19,

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

If you read the verse you quoted in context with the relevant scriptural passage you’ll see that this “prophet” would be raised after the conquest of Palestine under Joshua basically to ensure Israel would not do as the heathen nations. Moses knew he wouldn’t be alive to lead them as God had said he would not enter the promised land as punishment for disobeying God at Horeb

*Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
Deu 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
Deu 18:14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; *

 

[avflf]

Did you notice something wrong with this verse “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”? I will require it of him - what is this “it”? Do you know?

 

[Fisher]

Jesus’ unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family–His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus’ brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with…

“Is not this [referring to Jesus] 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.” -Mark 6:3

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” -John 2:17

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalms 69:8-9

Why was He an alien to His mother’s children? Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.

“For neither did his brethren believe in him.” -John 7:5

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus’ half-brother James.

“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” -Galatians 1:19

you say the word translated “brother” should be “cousin”. The word “cousin” is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you’ve got it–cousin!

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” -Luke 1:36

“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” -Luke 1:58

 

[Janet1983]

Jesus’ unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family–His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus’ brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with…

“Is not this [referring to Jesus] 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.” -Mark 6:3

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” -John 2:17

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalms 69:8-9

Why was He an alien to His mother’s children? Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.

“For neither did his brethren believe in him.” -John 7:5

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus’ half-brother James.

“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” -Galatians 1:19

you say the word translated “brother” should be “cousin”. The word “cousin” is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you’ve got it–cousin!

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” -Luke 1:36

“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” -Luke 1:58

You are absolutely right.

I’ve been saying that over and over again and it seems that this kind of reasoning is not being received…

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Did you notice something wrong with this verse “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”? I will require it of him - what is this “it”? Do you know?

To me, the “it”, are the words and commandments Christ related and gave to us thru His apostles and the Sermon on the Mount. And Christ Himself has reinforced this notion when He states, in an afterword to His Sermon on the Mount,

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7:24-27)

Christ is the Prophet like unto Moses, and His Sermon on the Mount is similar to when Moses declares the commandments received on Mount Sinai. Also, consider another similarity between Christ and Moses — each of them spent forty days and nights fasting, (though Moses had to repeat this ritual after he broke the first tablets.)

Remember that there are many things that might be able to trip up a believer or that might be able to be used to justify doubt. For example, if Christ is the Son of God then how is he then the Prophet, “from among Moses’ brethren?” Well, from what I understand, Mary is a Levite and so is Moses. It seems fair enough considering all scriptural evidence is also reinforced with Christ’s own works, testimony from humans and angels, and any faith one might otherwise have in Him.

P.S.: I have written more about the similarities between Moses and Christ on another thread named, “The Eucharist; superstition?” Visit replies: 372, 378, & 435.

 

[YADA]

prieldedi: While I don’t completely agree with everything you said, it is obvious that you did a lot of research into your postAnd, I am well aware that all of Jesus’s deeds, and sayings, were not recorded. And to accept that, by what would you call it,“apostolic succession,” we are asked by faith, to believe that these sayings, have been dutifully, and infallibly preserved down through the years(1Thess 5:21). I mean I could say, that Jesus said,“Baptize infants as well as adults,” and convince someone He really said it. And Jesus’s enemies find out the hard way, that they cannot defeat Him. Are there double agents in “our” camp(Body of Christ)? Of course there are Sometimes, the flock has more to be afraid of from the other sheep than from the wolfAnd I find it quite a stretch, to say that Mary having other children, would render Christ a mere mortal. Mary, herself, was of course, a mere mortal, chosen by, and used by God, to deliver the Holy, unblemished Saviour.To deny that she and Joseph, did not EVER enjoy the benefits of marital physical relations, is an insult to Joseph, and God It is saying that(regardless if she had other children or not) God cannot restore the womb to it’s pre-Jesus state. And to answer your question, no, I am not a Christian who is helping to defeat Christ, it will never happen:thumbsup:

Then you have never read the Book of Numbers and understood oaths to made unto the Lord, the permanence of same and how they are not an insult to the Lord [nor to Father or Husband]

 

[YADA]

Jesus’ unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family–His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus’ brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with…

“Is not this [referring to Jesus] 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.” -Mark 6:3

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” -John 2:17

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalms 69:8-9

Why was He an alien to His mother’s children? Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.

“For neither did his brethren believe in him.” -John 7:5

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus’ half-brother James.

“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” -Galatians 1:19

you say the word translated “brother” should be “cousin”. The word “cousin” is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you’ve got it–cousin!

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” -Luke 1:36

“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” -Luke 1:58

Well except by your literal rendition Jesus is the son of the carpenter that would be Joseph - a man - meaning Jesus was ‘carnally’ concepted] …

And brothers could mean full blooded [carnally concepted by Joseph & Mary],

But also half brothers/sisters via Joseph and a prior wife - not Mary [or not - as they could have been the result of a union with a concubine like Abraham and Hagar]

or Mary with a husband after the death of Joseph [no where soes the scripture say she never re-married when Joseph is not dipicted…

they could be adopted siblings, step siblings, foster siblings, cousins, etc …

You have never addressed those posts that illustrate other “parents” for those also named as the brothers & sisters of the Lord … are these not the same people and how can you know this? If they are one and hte same - did their parents ‘change’ somehow - if so - why?

And while you bemon why there is such absence of mention of Mary’s supposedly mythical perpetual virginity … You have not anserwed adequately why the presence of ‘other children’ is not more boldly proclaimed and how their presence could have influenced the early church …

Think about it … actual blood relatives of Jesus … would not some cult [as we see today witht he DaVinci Code] have arisen, claiming some “Supreme Head of the Church” position by virtue of their blood ties? And even if they did not claim to head the Church - what about the claim to ‘fame’ aspect - a very human trait to trade on the celebrity of those with whom you are connected?

What about all of the “Reformers” … how about their testimony - you negate it - out of hand - without consideration or reflection. Why?

What makes you so certain that Mary was not chaste her whole life?

Is it because you cannot see yourself dedicating your life in service to the Lord? What about the millions of people through the years who have lived lives within the chaste - virginal state?

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…]Too bad many Christians through the ages, specially many who rely solely on the written Word of God, have found it better not to believe in 1 Tim 3:15, “If I delay, you will know how you ought to conduct yourself in the household of God, that is, the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” …for rest of qoute visit reply #303, or follow link in quote…]

Consider 1 Corinthians 14:34-38:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”

Do you notice how Paul demands that women are silenced in Church and that he bases the authenticity of a[ny] prophet upon their concession to his demand? Surely, Paul may have been intimidating with his history as a murderer and his rapport with the the apostles, but does what he is arguing have any merit?

Consider Matthew 28,

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

and Mark 16:

“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”

Perhaps Paul’s theology and doctrinology should be viewed and considered in relation to his ideology — sexism.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…for reference follow link or visit reply #294…]

Consider also 1 Peter 3:1-7,

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

in relation to Psalm 50 [and my previous reply]:

“The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah. Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother’s son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.”

It appears that the early Church was not always altruistic in its motivation any more than it is today. If people are making arguments about the validity of a doctrine due to it’s observance in the early Church then one must consider what other things — both good and bad — have been observed since then as well.

And consider Acts 4:32-5:11,

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.”

The Church has not — even it’s earliest days — been an institution that upholds the integrity of Christ’s doctrines as delivered to the apostles, but has quite contrasted them (Christ’s teachings) and manifested it’s own will thru such vices as sexism, extortion, hypocrisy, conspiracy, lying, pride, and rebellion; much as it does even so down to today.

 

[Prieldedi]

Jesus’ unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family–His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus’ brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with…

“Is not this [referring to Jesus] 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.” -Mark 6:3

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” -John 2:17

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalms 69:8-9

Why was He an alien to His mother’s children? Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.

“For neither did his brethren believe in him.” -John 7:5

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus’ half-brother James.

“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” -Galatians 1:19

you say the word translated “brother” should be “cousin”. The word “cousin” is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you’ve got it–cousin!

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” -Luke 1:36

“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” -Luke 1:58

Very logic, but unfortunately not “very true.”
There are two family events in Jesus life in which His “siblings” had to be present, but they fail to appear for the only reason of their nonexistence.

First, Luke 2:43-44, “After the festival was over, they returned, but the boy Jesus remained in Jerusalem and his parents did not know it. They thought he was in the company and after walking the whole day they looked for him among their relatives and friends.”

Jesus parents looked for Him among their “relatives” and friends. Wouldn’t the siblings had been the ones alerting their parents that Jesus was left behind? Children stay together, they would’ve noticed his absence first. And if it was Mary who noticed that Jesus was missing, wouldn’t she have asked the “siblings” first if they knew where their brother was?

This passage establishes that Jesus family was around “relatives” since His early years, that is cousins (first, second cousins), uncles, aunts, words that Aramaic and Hebrew did not have. So the family members that “knew and grew up with” Jesus are not siblings, but “relatives.”

The other event we find in John 2:1-2, “Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus was also invited to the wedding with his disciples.”

“Jesus was also invited”, but not His brothers and sisters, nor His relatives, just His disciples? This is a family event! His siblings had to be there! His mother was, His disciples were also there, but not the siblings? NO James, NO Joses, NO Juda, NO Simon?

Knowing that the Bible is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, did you noticed that the Holy Spirit inspired John to mention Mary first in this passage, ahead of Jesus? The maid mentioned ahead of the Master! Today it would be of no consequences, but in Jesus times first mention was heavily important. Yet the Master “told” John to mention Him after His Mother. This is another reason to confirm the importance of Mary in the Church. Little things that apparently say nothing but speak volumes.

John 2:17 doesn’t refer to His physical house, but His spiritual house, the chosen people of God, the Jews. If you want to believe that the prophesy meant His physical house, you must apply the same logic to what Jesus said two verses later: John 2:19, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Was Jesus referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem? You know the answer very well.

You mentioned Psalms 69:8-9. I give you Ezekiel 44:2-3, “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut and it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord the GOD of Israel has entered in by it, and it shall be shut, for the Prince Himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord…” and Songs 4:12 “You are a garden enclosed, my sister, my bride; a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.”

You say “The word ‘cousin’ is clearly found in the scripture and it means–you’ve got it–cousin!” It’s found among your present language protestant Bibles.

From my Bible, Luke 1:36, “Even your relative Elizabeth is expecting a son in her old age, although she was unable to have a child, and she is now in her sixth month.”

From my Bible Luke 1:58, “Her neighbors and relatives heard that the merciful Lord had done a wonderful thing for her and they rejoiced with her.”

I said it in a previous post: why didn’t Abraham say to Lot “since we are uncle and nephew” in Genesis 13:8, which in fact they were, instead of “since we are brothers”?

God bless you

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…visit reply #313 or follow link in quote…]

Perhaps one reason that Abraham referred to Lot as ‘brother’ was because he was recognizing him as his father’s heir. The son is the heir of the father, and since the father is absent, the son inherits the title of his father — “brother.”

Something I had speculated — when I was unaware of the lack of agreement on the existence, or non-existence, of Christ’s siblings — was whether Christ had felt unwanted, or thought that He would easily go un-missed, if He stayed behind at Jerusalem that time He was found teaching in the Temple. Perhaps, I was associating Christ with a Christmas gift that, upon arrival is welcomed and celebrated, but of which the splendor thereof is overshadowed — in at least one observer’s estimate — by other gifts that follow.

At the wedding at Cana, following the conversation between Christ and Mary, it appeared to me that Christ may have been offended at being compared to, or having His abilities compared to or viewed as a tool or toy; and desired for Himself and His work to be taken more seriously. To me — at least at one time or another — it was sort of like Christ was asserting that He wasn’t Mary’s “special” (in reference or comparison to His pre-supposed brothers or siblings) son but God’s only Son.

Also, the views that I have previously promoted here via illustrating the failures of the apostles to follow Christ’s commandments and their tendency toward corrupting or rebelling against them — for whatever reasons they might have had — have proved to manifest an, “all too human,” view of Mary’s and Joseph’s marriage, in at least one estimate of mine. (Visit replies: 294, 311 & 312 for clarification.)

 

[Prieldedi]

From your post # 311:

Do you notice how Paul demands that women are silenced in Church and that he bases the authenticity of a[ny] prophet upon their concession to his demand? Surely, Paul may have been intimidating with his history as a murderer and his rapport with the the apostles, but does what he is arguing have any merit?

Perhaps Paul’s theology and doctrinology should be viewed and considered in relation to his ideology — sexism.

And from your post #312:

The Church has not — even it’s earliest days — been an institution that upholds the integrity of Christ’s doctrines as delivered to the apostles, but has quite contrasted them (Christ’s teachings) and manifested it’s own will thru such vices as sexism, extortion, hypocrisy, conspiracy, lying, pride, and rebellion; much as it does even so down to today.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is the same God today as the One when Paul wrote his letters. But I rather let Saint Augustine reply to you:

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, who came to liberate mankind, in which both males and females are destined to salvation, was not averse to males, for He took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female He was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both.”
Saint Augustine, Christian Combat (22,24) 396 A.D. (Jurgens-1578)

Mary, a woman, is the most perfect creature that has ever existed. She, a creature of God, became the “Mother of God”. What an honor given to women. There is no equivalent creature known as the “Father of God”.

I’m sure you know how other religions treat women as opposed to how women are treated in our Church. Yet we are the “bad guys.” This sound like what is said about some Americans who say “blame America first”, which in in our case is “blame Catholics first.”

God bless you

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Perhaps the thing that concerns me most about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary — whether among the other corruptions of the apostles (Peter’s denial/ rebellion, sexism, being addressed as “Lord,” etc.) or not — is that it (the adoration of Mary) could be intended to serve in lieu of repentance or as an act of appeasement and would therefor be insincere in its origin and, not only ineffective toward those ends, but also possibly disrespectful (toward Mary, Christ, God, and/or others) and indicative of insubordination toward Christ. For, as it were, Mary did indeed carry and deliver Christ in fulfillment of prophecy, and Christ’s manifestation is [perhaps] initially intended to deliver the New Covenant with an inherent obligation to follow the mandates thereof. Moreover, we have evidence of a potential trespassing of that covenant but not necessarily evidence of any repentance for said trespass(es), but rather the justification of the trespass(es) coupled with a collective assertion that Mary is “ever-virgin”, so it would appear that allegiance to the doctrine is, in essence, the justification for the trespass(es). In other words, it appears that Mary is being used to justify sin.

 

[Zundrah]

The scripture says that Joseph did not have sex with her while she was pregnant, but that doesn’t mean that they never had sex after. Where is the scripture that says that Mary did not have children after Christ? Show me that scripture and then I will believe you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The scripture says that Joseph did not have sex with her while she was pregnant, but that doesn’t mean that they never had sex after. Where is the scripture that says that Mary did not have children after Christ? Show me that scripture and then I will believe you.

From an article from Catholic Answers: The question that was asked.

QUESTION: A speaker on the “Bible Answer Man” radio program denied Mary’s perpetual virginity. He claimed that James, called one of the brothers of the Lord in Matthew 13:55, was one of Mary’s “other” sons. He insisted that it was a different James who was the son of Mary the wife of Cleophas–this Mary stood at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:25).

The New Testament speaks of two men called James who were close followers of the Lord. One is James the Greater, the son of Zebedee (see Mt 4:21, 10:2, 26:37; Mk 1:19-20, 3:17, 10:35; Lk 5:10; Jn 21:2). This James and his brother, John, were nicknamed Boanerges by Jesus; the nickname means “sons of thunder.”

The second James, known as the Less because of his short stature, was the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas (a man whose name is also rendered as Clopas and Alphaeus). He is the one mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (see also Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:5, Acts 1:13). The problem for those who insist that James the Less was Jesus’ literal brother is that both of these Jameses are identified as sons of other men and women, not sons of Mary and Joseph. Some biblical concordances give the impression that there were three different men named James in the New Testament: James, son of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas; and James, the “brother of the Lord.” This distinction is not accurate because the James who is called the “brother of the Lord” in Matthew 13:55 is identified in Matthew 27:56 as the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas.

In addition to this. I suggest you read this article. catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

You might use the word “until” from Matthew 1:25.

Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.