1
1234
Guest
you feel the love?
No, Elvisman, I can’t feel the love.
Your attempt to tack on a little ‘charity’ at the end of your vicious posts is very unconvincing.
- Status
No, Elvisman, I can’t feel the love.
Your attempt to tack on a little ‘charity’ at the end of your vicious posts is very unconvincing.
1
1234
Guest
H
heisenburg
Guest
Since it seems I must agree with your interpretation to qualify as someone that reads scripture, I can only say that may your own pride not lead you to ruin…
May you be blessed in your journey…
In Christ
G
guanophore
Guest
It is because they have separated themselves (intentionally or in ignorance) from the Sacred Traditions that produced the Scripture. Once you separate a book from the author, it becomes more and more difficult to understand what the author intended to say.
D
Deacon110
Guest
Ok and where is this pillar and bullwark you speak of??
G
guanophore
Guest
We can see that those children belonged to another mother, that is why. Specifically James and Joses are sons of Mary and Alphaeus/Clopas (unless you think that the mother of Jesus is sleeping around).
Surely you are being facetious?
You didn’t really fall for that buriel box, did you?
L
Lampo
Guest
1 Tim. 3:15 - “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the **church **of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”
E
elvisman
Guest
It’s a shame that you can’t see the uncharitable, assaultive and antagonistic attitude of some of your fellow Protestants on this board - namely, Old “Scholar”.
This is a classic case of trying to pick the splinter out of somebody’s eye before noticing the log in your own (collectively, that is).
Pay attention, read the posts, and you’ll see what I mean.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Ummm, Old “Scholar” - **
Can you show me where in Scripture it mentions that Joseph was the father of these “brothers of the Lord”?
I mean, since you claim that the Bible is “so explicit” about this, I’d like to see where it says this.
PLEASE respond. Don’t run again.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Thats a good request elvisman, Its like chasing a hound dog that is all shook up, chasing after the wrong hunt.
C
Cathlacostal
Guest
Perhaps you’ve read the New testament? Did the Rabbis of Christ’s day know the Law? It sure apprears they didn’t as the Law had been added to to the extent that Christ said they closed the doors of heaven to men.
I agree that a rabbi can believe in the New Testament and remain a rabbi. Just not a rabbi of judaism. I know quite a few messianic rabbi.
D
Deacon110
Guest
How about the others?? Not all brothers are accounted for. Neither are the sisters? And we still can’t get around the word desposyni which appears in Mark 3:21.We can see that those children belonged to another mother, that is why. Specifically James and Joses are sons of Mary and Alphaeus/Clopas (unless you think that the mother of Jesus is sleeping around).
Surely you are being facetious?
You didn’t really fall for that buriel box, did you?
If we roll back to Matthew 1 in the famous verse knew her not until the greek word used for know in that verse is:
ginwvskw transliterated to ginosko which is Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. If Mary were a perpetual virgin and took her vow as stated in Numbers 30 then why would Matthew even bothering clarifying this for us?
D
Deacon110
Guest
So you’re trying to make the point that a Rabbi, whether he believes or doesn’t believe, could not possibly know what the laws were during that time for a betrothed couple?? If a Rabbi starts to believe in Jesus then his complete knowledge of Mosaic law ceases to exist? Or that once he believes in Jesus the Mosaic law somehow changes?
With regard to did the Rabbi’s of Christ’s day know the law? Of course they did. They were experts on the law. Jesus called them out because they did not see that the law pointed to HIM. And remember Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law.
Have you read the new testament???
R
Rocky
Guest
I don’t see where Joseph and Mary refraining from marital relations while being married is against any law—Jewish or Christian. They were legally married. Under Catholic Canon law, their marriage would not be a Sacrament as they did not consummate the marriage. But then they had the greatest Sacrament living with them, so I don’t think that was a problem to their remaining chaste. In fact, what better help to chastity than to have the Incarnated Son living in your home?
D
Deacon110
Guest
And I wouldn’t disagree with you. As a matter of fact a woman can take her vow of virginity when she becomes married as outlined in Numbers 30. But then the husband can override that vow if he wishes and GOD will not acknowledge the vow. The same applies to the her father. Also there is no stipulation in the Torah to consummate a marriage.
But then again what’s the big deal if they did consumate the marriage and tried to have more children? Somehow we tend to view this as disgraceful when actually GOD intends for this to be a natural part of being married. The prophecy never mentions anything about Mary remaining a perpetual virgin. Just that a virgin gave birth. And this still does not solve the dilemma of Matthew’s reference in verse 25.
If Mary had taken her vow under her father’s roof without objection, or upon marrying Joseph without objection, then Matthew has no reason to tell us that they didn’t have marital relations up until Jesus was born. This simply makes no sense. If she’s a perpetual virgin by vow then no clarity is needed regarding sexual activity. As a matter of fact when a couple became betrothed they entered a contract which did not allow them to have sex before the betrothed period was up. So Matthew again has no reason to clarify this for us here especially since his Gospel was primarily directed to the Jews. Jews who would know about a betrothed contract. So then Matthew would be telling them something they already knew. This begs the question then as to why Matthew would bother to mention this detail when everyone already knows this is a stipulation of the betrothed contract. The more logical conclusion was he was saying hey these guys didn’t have sex at the one year point as permitted by the contract because Mary was still pregnant. Hence waiting until Jesus was born.
PEACE
L
Lampo
Guest
I have and I’m waiting for you response from post #147.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
It shouldn’t really matter whether Jesus had brothers and sisters and it didn’t matter until someone in the 3rd or 4th century decided that Mary remained a virgin and then it was necessary to try and prove it. Actually since it is so clear in Scripture, it is a little comical to read the great length those of the RCC go to in order to try and disprove it.
Matthew 13:55 states clearly that Jesus had brothers and sisters and the word used was the Greek word for brother. Not the Greek word for cousin. Why do you suppose that was? Jesus could not have been half-brother and sister to these children because there was no blood relationship with Joseph. You can try and say these were other relatives but the Scripture is plain. They recognized Jesus as the brothers and sisters of those mentioned. There was no mistake and no reason for the writer to make it difficult to understand. Jesus and his siblings had grown up there and the people knew them well.
Why should it be necessary to try to divert the meaning of that verse by saying it doesn’t really say they were Mary’s children? If they were Christ’s brothers and sisters, whose mother do you think they were? There is nothing in Scripture at all to even insinuate that Joseph already had children, in fact the Scriptures never mention anything about Joseph being old or having been married. He was probably Mary’s age. Why would anyone not believe these people were not speaking of Christ’s brothers and sisters?
We are told explicitly that Mary, the mother of Christ was at the cross. John tells us in no uncertain terms.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
In addition, Christ had spoken to Mary when He asked John to take care of her.
John also tells us again that Jesus had brothers.
John 7:2
*Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. 3) **His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that *thy disciples ****also may see the works that thou doest. 4) For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. 5) For neither did his brethren believe in him.
This tells us again that Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him but after the resurrection, James believed so much that he became the leader of the first church, the church at Jerusalem.
In addition, these verses show that when brethren is used here, it is used for Jesus’ brothers and not His “spiritual” brothers because it also mentions His disciples.
In Luke 2:41-52 where Joseph and Mary take a trip to Jerusalem, Jesus was twelve years old and no mention of other children is made. There were no other children of Joseph at that time and James wasn’t born until after this time. That shows that the brothers and sisters were younger than Jesus because they didn’t even start showing up until much later and are often mentioned together (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:1-3 and John 2:12). We have to believe from this that James was Jesus’ younger brother and grew up with Jesus. We don’t pick up anything again until 28 years later and it had to be during this time that the other children were born. The Scriptures do not contradict that at all.
In Mark 6:3, it also states clearly that Mary is the mother of Christ and Joseph and that there are brothers and sisters.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
It was Jerome in the 4th century that sealed the Roman Catholic view that these were “cousins” of Jesus. He did so in his dispute with Helvidius who had it right. Jerome eventually had Helvidius declared a heretic. Tertullian supported Helvidius’ case and opposed Jerome’s thinking. Jerome was later proven wrong in many things he taught and some declared him a heretic. In fact Jerome, later in life, changed his mind about Mary, the mother of James the Little and that destroyed his theory of Jesus having cousins.
It is notable that the belief that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were only cousins and not really mothers and Mary remained a virgin only came into being in the 4th century. The early church knew better and few believed it at all then.
The discovery and authentication of James’ ossuary has led to another discussion of these “cousins” and “brothers” and it provides a “nail in the coffin” approach to the view that Mary remained a virgin.
James, the brother of Jesus, played a crucial role in the origination of the church as well as other members of Jesus’ family, notably Mary,(she had an important and honorable role after the crucifixion in the church) and probably his aunt as well as brothers and sisters. James was the first head of the first church and should have recognition of his role in the early church. It was not Peter who started it all. It was James.
Matthew 13:55 states clearly that Jesus had brothers and sisters and the word used was the Greek word for brother. Not the Greek word for cousin. Why do you suppose that was? Jesus could not have been half-brother and sister to these children because there was no blood relationship with Joseph. You can try and say these were other relatives but the Scripture is plain. They recognized Jesus as the brothers and sisters of those mentioned. There was no mistake and no reason for the writer to make it difficult to understand. Jesus and his siblings had grown up there and the people knew them well.
Why should it be necessary to try to divert the meaning of that verse by saying it doesn’t really say they were Mary’s children? If they were Christ’s brothers and sisters, whose mother do you think they were? There is nothing in Scripture at all to even insinuate that Joseph already had children, in fact the Scriptures never mention anything about Joseph being old or having been married. He was probably Mary’s age. Why would anyone not believe these people were not speaking of Christ’s brothers and sisters?
We are told explicitly that Mary, the mother of Christ was at the cross. John tells us in no uncertain terms.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
In addition, Christ had spoken to Mary when He asked John to take care of her.
John also tells us again that Jesus had brothers.
John 7:2
*Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. 3) **His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that *thy disciples ****also may see the works that thou doest. 4) For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. 5) For neither did his brethren believe in him.
This tells us again that Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him but after the resurrection, James believed so much that he became the leader of the first church, the church at Jerusalem.
In addition, these verses show that when brethren is used here, it is used for Jesus’ brothers and not His “spiritual” brothers because it also mentions His disciples.
In Luke 2:41-52 where Joseph and Mary take a trip to Jerusalem, Jesus was twelve years old and no mention of other children is made. There were no other children of Joseph at that time and James wasn’t born until after this time. That shows that the brothers and sisters were younger than Jesus because they didn’t even start showing up until much later and are often mentioned together (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:1-3 and John 2:12). We have to believe from this that James was Jesus’ younger brother and grew up with Jesus. We don’t pick up anything again until 28 years later and it had to be during this time that the other children were born. The Scriptures do not contradict that at all.
In Mark 6:3, it also states clearly that Mary is the mother of Christ and Joseph and that there are brothers and sisters.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
It was Jerome in the 4th century that sealed the Roman Catholic view that these were “cousins” of Jesus. He did so in his dispute with Helvidius who had it right. Jerome eventually had Helvidius declared a heretic. Tertullian supported Helvidius’ case and opposed Jerome’s thinking. Jerome was later proven wrong in many things he taught and some declared him a heretic. In fact Jerome, later in life, changed his mind about Mary, the mother of James the Little and that destroyed his theory of Jesus having cousins.
It is notable that the belief that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were only cousins and not really mothers and Mary remained a virgin only came into being in the 4th century. The early church knew better and few believed it at all then.
The discovery and authentication of James’ ossuary has led to another discussion of these “cousins” and “brothers” and it provides a “nail in the coffin” approach to the view that Mary remained a virgin.
James, the brother of Jesus, played a crucial role in the origination of the church as well as other members of Jesus’ family, notably Mary,(she had an important and honorable role after the crucifixion in the church) and probably his aunt as well as brothers and sisters. James was the first head of the first church and should have recognition of his role in the early church. It was not Peter who started it all. It was James.
M
mlchance
Guest
I’m confused. There’s a lot of hoopla about how the Virgin Mary had children other than Jesus, but Scripture doesn’t specifically name a single person as a child of the Virgin Mary other than Jesus. The few who are mentioned by name as being brothers of the Lord, such as James, are shown to have parents other than Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary.
So, in essence, the argument that the Virgin Mary had other children is entirely an argument from silence, which is fallacious.
The real bottom line here is this: the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and since at least the second-century commentators have said the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were not the Virgin Mary’s children. The tradition that Jesus was the only child of the Virgin Mary is ancient, dating back to at least the lives of the second generation Christians who received teaching directly from the Apostles.
Fast forward 1500 or so years, and we still have the Catholic Church, the various Orthodox churches, as well as luminaries such as Martin Luther and John Calvin all maintaining that the Virgin Mary had no children other than Jesus.
So, who seems more authoritative: the Church, the Orthodox, Luther, and Calvin (among others), or some self-proclaimed “Old Scholar”?
For me (as well as the overwhelming majority of Christians for the past nineteen or so centuries), the answer is self-evidently not in favor of some pseudonym.
– Mark L. Chance.
So, in essence, the argument that the Virgin Mary had other children is entirely an argument from silence, which is fallacious.
The real bottom line here is this: the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and since at least the second-century commentators have said the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were not the Virgin Mary’s children. The tradition that Jesus was the only child of the Virgin Mary is ancient, dating back to at least the lives of the second generation Christians who received teaching directly from the Apostles.
Fast forward 1500 or so years, and we still have the Catholic Church, the various Orthodox churches, as well as luminaries such as Martin Luther and John Calvin all maintaining that the Virgin Mary had no children other than Jesus.
So, who seems more authoritative: the Church, the Orthodox, Luther, and Calvin (among others), or some self-proclaimed “Old Scholar”?
For me (as well as the overwhelming majority of Christians for the past nineteen or so centuries), the answer is self-evidently not in favor of some pseudonym.
– Mark L. Chance.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
I will as soon as you show me in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome…
L
Lampo
Guest
Old Scholar…Did Jesus have cousins? Can you show me the word cousin in the the Bible? What word would have been used for one of Jesus’ cousins?
- Status