Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[wmscott]

UGH! You’re not understanding what I’m saying! Pay attention, please! What has been ADDED to Scripture is the Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. That “tradition” is found NOWHERE in Scripture. I DIDN’T say that SCRIPTURE said that “the Catholic church added to Scripture.” You really have to learn to pay attention to people write, rather than thinking about your next reply.

UGH! You’re not understanding what I’m saying! Pay attention, please! I use your “sola scriptura” point of view so address what you put forth something as a truth so that I won’t be accused of Adding to Scripture and even that is not good enough.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the “book” was the Bible, then the Bible, because my mom is capable of being wrong while the Bible can’t, & she may not get every detail right due to jogged memory over time.

But what I’m asking is whether a single book could contain EVERYTHING about your Grandmother or whether there may be things that she knows that you do not record for one reason or another.

However, if she was the author of one of the books of the Bible that talked about my grandmother, I’d still trust the Bible - not because of “who” wrote it - because the Holy Spirit guided her to inerrancy.

Were the Apostles able to teach error in the name of Jesus during their lifetimes?

However, that doesn’t mean my mom is “inerrant” or “infallible” in EVERYTHING she says just because she wrote Scripture, anymore than Peter was when Paul “condemned him to his face” despite Peter writing Scripture. And Scripture doesn’t support what these LATER extra-biblical writers “believed” about Jesus’ family - writers who didn’t even pen a single of Scripture either!

Peter was not condemned for teaching error by Paul.

 

[pablope]

No.
Understand you do the same.
Ridiculous to say that we do not share same sources for evidences.

Yes, your tradition “won” and grew quantitatively,

Reminds me of how “VHS” video format won out over “Beta” format. Beta was better but VHS had better “marketing” and eventually won, though an inferior product. Just my pure opinion.

Yes…you certainly do…but you look at them differently than we do…and pick and choose those that agree with what you have previously been told…correct?

Do you agree with the quotation below:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No it doesn’t, because “if” these brothers were Jesus’ older step-brothers then why didn’t one of them take in Mary instead of John. Through marriage to Mary, they would have - legally - been Mary’s children as well. So, where were “they”? And where were “they” during all these voyages when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, & at the Temple when Jesus was 12? Why aren’t “they” mentioned “if” these older step-brothers actually existed? Your “Catholic belief” doesn’t address any of this.

I thought we were arguing that they were cousins.

But the other theory is that they were Joseph’s children from another marriage, so let’s address your questions.

This is where things get surreal because just a few days ago, a non-Catholic was arguing with us that Jesus did not commend his mother to one of these older step-brothers because they were not believers, and John was.

I think it is entirely possible that Jesus’ step-brothers resented the fact that Joseph had married this “crazy” girl and then ran off to Egypt leaving them behind. Why didn’t they go? Because they were OLDER and already had their own families to care for. They simply didn’t see the need to pull their kids out of a good school district in the middle of the semester to move to Egypt. Additionally, Joseph and Mary were fleeing for their lives and the life of the child. A large caravan might have drawn too much attention.

At any rate, the idea that Jesus’ OLDER step-brothers may have resented him explains several other passages in scripture…not to mention that this is possibly foreshadowed by the treatment Joseph received from his brothers who sold him into slavery in the OT.

My $.02.

 

[pablope]

Because it’s not “MY” understanding. In order for it to be “MY” understanding, I’d have to “ADD” something to Scripture of “MINE” that’s not there. “ADDING” that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus isn’t IN Scripture. That would be “YOUR” understanding, as well as “OTHER” people’s understanding who share “YOUR” understanding. Going strictly by what Scripture supports & not “ADDING” to it doesn’t allow me to add “MY” understanding to it. It’s no different than the concept of the Trinity the way we both “understand” it. We aren’t “ADDING” “OUR” understanding to Scripture. We are strictly going by what Scripture supports (sola scriptura). So, even Catholics are sola scriptura when it comes to the Trinity. They don’t have to “ADD” anything TO Scripture to understand that the Trinity is Scripturally supported. Likewise, not “ADDING” anything to Scripture leads to the Scriptural understanding that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, & also had other children, because Scripture supports it without having to “ADD” anything to Scripture.

Sorry…you did nothing to answer my question…I am no asking for an extended explanation of adding or not adding…you are already adding with your extensive explanation, even though you may not admit it or refuse to realize it.

So again, the unanswered question:

Why do you believe your understanding it correct? Why should your understanding be believed over others who disagree with your reading and understanding?

What makes what you have been posting more believable than St. Jerome, here refuting Helvidius who believes the same as you (newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)??)

Why should I believe you over St. Jerome?

In other words…Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

And echoing V15: Who sent you and your understanding? Where is the basis of your authority to say what you are saying?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me in Scripture the WORD “Trinity” - not just the verses that support the “concept” of the Trinity. You’re using the same argument. These “brothers” of Jesus being Mary’s other sons are just as Scripturally explicit as the “concept” of Trinity is, without Scripture having to use the WORDS “son of Mary” or “daughter” of Mary. But this only occurs if you understand - exegetically - the various families based on the women at the cross. Plus, as I’ve mentioned - NUMEROUS times - the NT isn’t about MARY, but about JESUS. And this is why Jesus’ relationships are in relation to JESUS, not Mary. And remember, it was an UNBELIEVER who referred to Jesus as “the son of Mary.”

IOW, you have no proof that Mary had other children.

Thank you.

 

[pablope]

I und

False again! I “ignore” anything outside of the Bible that conflicts with it. Anything that has been “added” to the Bible that conflicts with it is wrong, such as Mary “remaining” a virgin, since Scripture supports the opposite.

Okay…can you then explain how you would determine what is in contradiction with the Bible?

And who does the determination of what is conflict and what is not? Is it you?

 

[pablope]

I get that. I’m not saying otherwise.

I’m saying that a fallible man CAN ALSO

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then Thomas is NOT part of the Church? Because Jesus didn’t “breathe” on Thomas!

Whether or not Jesus breathed on Thomas is not recorded. However, we do know that Thomas got special attention from Jesus who allowed Thomas to put his hand into Jesus’ side. I think Jesus was careful to make sure that Thomas was included in the group, don’t you?

Plus if Peter is God-breathed, then are you saying that Scripture can utter falsehoods? Because Jesus “breathed” on Peter, yet he later uttered a falsehood when Paul “condemned him to his face.”

Show me.

You’re still not getting that that passage you quoted has NOTHING to do with Jesus “breathing” the Holy Spirit on them - which didn’t occur until Pentecost - in the same way Scripture is “God-breathed.”

Now, your exegesis (or is it eisegesis?) is going from bad to worse.

How many times were the Apostles filled with the Holy Spirit? Once? Twice?

John 20
22 When he had said this, **he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Acts 2
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

Acts 4
31 When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

The outpouring of the spirit upon the Aposltes was not a one-time thing.

Otherwise, you have Thomas NOT being part of the Church since Jesus did NOT breathe on Him, & Scripture uttering falsehoods since Peter was breathed on by Jesus, yet uttered falsehoods.

1. Jesus dealt with Thomas individually as scripture records.
2. Peter never formally taught error, and scripture does not record otherwise.

 

[thetazlord]

Your proof of this?

Examples in EVERY Gospel where “in-law” is used:

Matthew 8:15; 10:35; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 12:53; John 18:13. Notice, they simply say “mother” or “daughter” or “father,” but they ADD “in-law” to the phrase.

Evidence, please.

“May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” (Ruth 4:14). Notice the Hebrew just doesn’t say “daughter,” but more specifically “daughter-in-law.” Therefore, if the NT writers, like John, meant “sister-in-law,” they would have USED “in-law” rather than just “sister” (adelphe).

I think I dealt with EVERY case in post #519. If not, please let me know which verses I overlooked.

Are you down to adelphe only? Is that because you cannot make the same case for adelphos?

I never said that “adelphos” ONLY means uterine brother. I said Scripture eliminates all the other alternative definitions of adelphos, except for uterine brother. I brought up adelphe to point out that it’s used almost exclusively to refer to uterine sisters in the Gospels, with one exception when Jesus is contrasting His biological family (which includes His half-brothers) to His spiritual “brothers & sisters & mother.” EVERY OTHER TIME, adelphe means uterine sister. So, I think you missed my point.

Examples, please.

Seriously? You can’t look up them up in a lexicon??? I’m purposely leaving the passages about Jesus’ adelphe out since they are in dispute, so please don’t use them as “evidence” for non-uterine “sisters,” since they are in dispute:

[Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 10:39,40; 14:26; John 11:1,3,5,28,39]

So, eliminating the disputed passages about Jesus’ adelphe & the “adelphe” of Jesus’ mother, 100% of the Gospel writers use adelphe to refer to uterine sisters - NEVER as sister-in-law., including John. Yet, you argue from silence that John is using adelphe in John 19:25 to refer to Mary’s sister-in-law, even though the term “in-law” is available & used in both the OT, as well as the NT?

theta, you need to know that I RARELY use that smiley, but I couldn’t help it when I read what you just wrote.

First, John goes out of his way to avoid drawing attention to himself in his Gospel.

WE know that John was the beloved disciple, but JOHN never says that he is that disciple.

John also avoids naming himself here:

Now, if John is so careful about tooting his own horn in these passages, do you honestly think he is going to say, “My mom was there, too…”?

The fact that John doesn’t mention himself in his own Gospel only proves my point. If you notice, he doesn’t mention Jesus’ mother’s name either. That’s because John, Mary, & Salome are all part of the same family. Yet, John mentioned Mary of Clopas & Mary Magdelene BY NAME. So, why Mary of Clopas & Magdelene, but not Mary the mother of Jesus - by name? Why does Matthew & Mark mention Salome, but not John? Again, because just as John doesn’t mention HIMSELF - BY NAME - likewise, John also doesn’t mention his family - again, BY NAME - which includes Mary the mother of Jesus (John’s aunt), her sister (Salome), & later himself (the disciple who Jesus loved). He doesn’t do this with Mary of Clopas & Magdelene, because they aren’t John’s family. Again, otherwise, it’s extremely unlikely that John would omit his mother, yet mention the other women - again, BY NAME - even though Matthew & Mark mention her. FOUR women at the cross, not THREE.

I have. Repeatedly.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (married to Joseph)
Mary of Clopas (married to Clopas)
Salome (married to Zebedee)
Mary Magdalene (married to no one)

Second, how much do you know about Anne and Joachim, Mary’s parents? Mary was an only child, and Salome was NOT Mary’s sister.

You make a big fuss about Catholics adding to scripture to support our beliefs, etc., but you are actually doing the exact same thing.

If you disagree with what I have written concerning the four women and their husbands, please tell me who you believe each of them was married to and why.

Although you state that you “believe” that there were four women at the cross, instead of three, yet you espouse to Proto-James for the identity of these “brothers” of Jesus, you fail to realize how Proto-James conflicts with there being FOUR women at the cross & their relationships.

According to Proto-James, the James, Joses, Simon, & Judas mentioned in Scripture are Jesus’ older half-siblings. However, if there are FOUR women at the cross, then James the Less and Joses mentioned in Scripture are the sons of Alphaeus/Clopas. Therefore, “this” James & Joseph would not be sons of Joseph (Jesus’ step-father). These are two DIFFERENT “James’ & Joses.’” Also, Proto-James makes no mention of Joseph having daughters, nor does Scripture state that Alphaeus & the “other” Mary had other sons named Simon & Judas, nor does it record them having daughters. This is a LATER “tradition” that is largely based on Proto-James, not Scripture. So, I’m afraid - Scripturally - that James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, & their sisters can neither be the children of Alphaeus & Mary, nor the older children of Joseph from an “alleged” previous marriage. There is simply no Scriptural support for either, & rather conflicts and/or ADDS to Scripture. Sorry, but the “belief” that they are Joseph’s children from an “alleged” previous marriage is the based on Proto-James, not Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

UGH! You’re not understanding what I’m saying! Pay attention, please! What has been ADDED to Scripture is the Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

We have not added that to Scripture.

That is part of Sacred Tradition.

What we are saying is that you cannot prove from scripture that Mary had other children. Any assertion to that effect is what YOU are adding to scripture, because scripture is silent on the subject.

That “tradition” is found NOWHERE in Scripture.

Nor is the gold-standard proof you need to convince anyone that Mary had other children.

Look, theta, this is really simple, okay?

If the Bible taught that Mary had other children, the Church would have been teaching that truth from the first century on.

Why would the Catholic Church simply make up something like this? What was to be gained from this fabrication? If Jesus had brothers and sisters, so what? Why would the Church try to hide that fact?

Instead, the Church has taught what has been handed down from the Apostles - that Mary did not have other children - and we try to help those who misunderstand the scriptures to see why there is nothing in the text that can prove otherwise.

A final word: you have been at this for days, but you have not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary had other children with Joseph. You have your opinions, ideas and interpretations, but each of these have been met with explanations that create sufficient doubt about your argument.

With the evidence and arguments you have presented, you could not get a conviction BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a courtroom, and you certainly will not get agreement in a Catholic forum.

You have failed to make your case.

 

[thetazlord]

Whether or not Jesus breathed on Thomas is not recorded. However, we do know that Thomas got special attention from Jesus who allowed Thomas to put his hand into Jesus’ side. I think Jesus was careful to make sure that Thomas was included in the group, don’t you?

Actually it DOES “record” that Thomas was not there. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus “might” have “breathed” on Thomas later. The fact that John went out of his way to state that Thomas wasn’t there, is evident that Jesus didn’t breathe a SECOND time with Thomas present - otherwise, John would have recorded this second “breathing” too.

Show me.

Galatians 2:11. How many times do I have to “show you???”

How many times were the Apostles filled with the Holy Spirit? Once? Twice?

John 20
22 When he had said this, **he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Acts 2
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

Acts 4
31 When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

“Filled”? At Pentecost & in Acts 4. John 20:22-23 only states that Jesus BREATHED on His disciples (minus Thomas), not they were “filled” with the Holy Spirit. In fact, it doesn’t actually STATE that Jesus “GAVE” Holy Spirit to them AT THAT TIME. Jesus merely said that they WOULD receive the Holy Spirit. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus gave it to them AT THAT TIME & that they were “FILLED.” So, I’m afraid YOU are the one exercising eisgesis rather than exegesis.

The outpouring of the spirit upon the Aposltes was not a one-time thing.

The “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit comes at the moment of salvation (John 3:5-7, cf. Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7; etc). The Holy Spirit didn’t “descend” on the the Church until it was established at Pentecost.

1. Jesus dealt with Thomas individually as scripture records.
2. Peter never formally taught error, and scripture does not record otherwise.

When Jesus “dealt” with Thomas individually, Scripture doesn’t “record” that Jesus “breathed” on Thomas, which is what we’re talking about. Stay on topic.

Peter DID indeed teach error, otherwise Paul would not need to “condemn him to his face” (Galatians 2:11-12). It would help if you actually READ the verses I provide so I don’t have to repeat myself. So, how many more Red Herrings are you planning on asking me, to avoid STRICTLY dealing with the OP?

 

[thetazlord]

We have not added that to Scripture.

That is part of Sacred Tradition.

Which is NOT part of Scripture, but ADDED TO it! What part of this don’t you understand??? :banghead:

What we are saying is that you cannot prove from scripture that Mary had other children. Any assertion to that effect is what YOU are adding to scripture, because scripture is silent on the subject.

No, it’s based on the Scripture verses I provided that you then ADD your extra-biblical “traditions” that aren’t FOUND in Scripture. I’m not doing that. Going strictly by what Scripture supports leads to the conclusion that Mary had other children. ADDING to Scripture conflicts with it.

Nor is the gold-standard proof you need to convince anyone that Mary had other children.

If I provide Scripture & you don’t accept it, I can’t “convince” you of something you refuse to acknowledge.

Look, theta, this is really simple, okay?

If the Bible taught that Mary had other children, the Church would have been teaching that truth from the first century on.

Actually, a lot of Christians DID teach it. The problem is that as time advanced “tradition” based on extra-biblical sources (like Proto-James) crept in which later ECF’s based THEIR “traditions” on. Today, you call that “sacred tradition” but don’t realize “where” that tradition of the ECF’s actually came from, which is NOT from Scripture, but Proto-James & other non-biblical sources.

Instead, the Church has taught what has been handed down from the Apostles - that Mary did not have other children - and we try to help those who misunderstand the scriptures to see why there is nothing in the text that can prove otherwise.

If it was “handed down from the apostles” they QUOTE the apostle it was “handed down” FROM. If you can’t, then it’s man-made “tradition.”

A final word: you have been at this for days, but you have not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary had other children with Joseph. You have your opinions, ideas and interpretations, but each of these have been met with explanations that create sufficient doubt about your argument.

No, you just haven’t accepted what Scripture states, only what your “tradition” does that conflicts with what Scripture supports, which does NOT support Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

With the evidence and arguments you have presented, you could not get a conviction BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a courtroom, and you certainly will not get agreement in a Catholic forum.

Yes, I could, because “beyond a reasonable doubt” is based on evidence. And there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin her whole life. Therefore, I would win the court case & you would lose.

You have failed to make your case.

I have failed to open your eyes to what Scripture actually supports. But then again, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit, not me. I can only show you.

 

[sallybutler]

In Acts 1:12-15, there is a gathering of about 120 “brothers” of Jesus. That’s not “Mary Ever Virgin” that’s “Mary Ever Pregnant”

Shouldn’t you subtract the 12 listed. That would leave about 108. Maybe all of the other pregancies were multiple births.

12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)

 

[wmscott]

Which is NOT part of Scripture, but ADDED TO it! What part of this don’t you understand??? :banghead:

No, it’s based on the Scripture verses I provided that you then ADD your extra-biblical “traditions” that aren’t FOUND in Scripture. I’m not doing that. Going strictly by what Scripture supports leads to the conclusion that Mary had other children. ADDING to Scripture conflicts with it.

If I provide Scripture & you don’t accept it, I can’t “convince” you of something you refuse to acknowledge.

Actually, a lot of Christians DID teach it. The problem is that as time advanced “tradition” based on extra-biblical sources (like Proto-James) crept in which later ECF’s based THEIR “traditions” on. Today, you call that “sacred tradition” but don’t realize “where” that tradition of the ECF’s actually came from, which is NOT from Scripture, but Proto-James & other non-biblical sources.

If it was “handed down from the apostles” they QUOTE the apostle it was “handed down” FROM. If you can’t, then it’s man-made “tradition.”

No, you just haven’t accepted what Scripture states, only what your “tradition” does that conflicts with what Scripture supports, which does NOT support Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

Yes, I could, because “beyond a reasonable doubt” is based on evidence. And there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin her whole life. Therefore, I would win the court case & you would lose.

I have failed to open your eyes to what Scripture actually supports. But then again, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit, not me. I can only show you.

Did you miss post 853 or just ignor it?

 

[onenow1]

Sorry I am not on line enough; just trying to keep with reading and an occasional comment.

“And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.”
Mark 6:6

Jesus did use OT scriptures occasionally. I also marvel at thetazlord

God Bless

In order to insure you are on the right path you have to work at it. You are obliged to look at all the options, examine them with the intellect, and seek an agreement with the conscience. Satan is very clever at disguising himself and at deceiving us into believing what appears as truth, is in fact error. See Isa 5:20, “Woe to you that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness.” He is the one who is responsible for so many who are traveling down the broad way. He is constantly telling you that you are on the narrow way, when in fact, to some he really has situated them on the wide way, the super highway to his domain.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually it DOES “record” that Thomas was not there. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus “might” have “breathed” on Thomas later.

You have a weird way of thinking. I have not added this idea to scripture. I’m saying that scripture doesn’t say what happened later one way or the other.

He might have breathed on Thomas; he might not. But it is possible, and you cannot say with certainty that it didn’t happen.

The fact that John went out of his way to state that Thomas wasn’t there, is evident that Jesus didn’t breathe a SECOND time with Thomas present - otherwise, John would have recorded this second “breathing” too.

Why? John was not writing a transcript of everything that Jesus said and did.

What I said is that Jesus specifically addressed Thomas later by having him put his hand in his side. Further, we know that Thomas was present on the day of Pentecost, so he was filled with the Spirit then even if it did not happen earlier.

Galatians 2:11. How many times do I have to “show you???”

Could you show me in the following passage where Paul says anything about what Peter was teaching? 'Cause all I see is that Peter was acting in a hypocritical manner:

Galatians 2
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Again, Peter was saying one thing (the truth) but doing something different (hypocrisy). But Peter was not teaching falsehood.

This is a common Protestant error, so I’m not surprised you have bought into it.

“Filled”? At Pentecost & in Acts 4. John 20:22-23 only states that Jesus BREATHED on His disciples (minus Thomas), not they were “filled” with the Holy Spirit. In fact, it doesn’t actually STATE that Jesus “GAVE” Holy Spirit to them AT THAT TIME. Jesus merely said that they WOULD receive the Holy Spirit. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus gave it to them AT THAT TIME & that they were “FILLED.” So, I’m afraid YOU are the one exercising eisgesis rather than exegesis.

When Jesus says, “receive” the verb tense means that he is giving them the Spirit. What is the purpose of His breathing on them, theta? Why did he do that? Is this common? Do people breathe on you regularly like that?

He breathed his divine breath on the Apostles and says receive the Spirit. Please describe the connection between that action and those words.

The “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit comes at the moment of salvation (John 3:5-7, cf. Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7; etc). The Holy Spirit didn’t “descend” on the the Church until it was established at Pentecost.

Which is not the same as saying that the Apostles didn’t receive the Spirit earlier when Jesus breathed on them.

But remember, you asked for the verse that says that the Church is God-breathed. This you have been shown.

When Jesus “dealt” with Thomas individually, Scripture doesn’t “record” that Jesus “breathed” on Thomas, which is what we’re talking about.

You’re right. It doesn’t. It also doesn’t say that he didn’t. However, until you have given some explanation for Jesus breathing on the apostles, we can’t go much further.

Peter DID indeed teach error, otherwise Paul would not need to “condemn him to his face” (Galatians 2:11-12). It would help if you actually READ the verses I provide so I don’t have to repeat myself. So, how many more Red Herrings are you planning on asking me, to avoid STRICTLY dealing with the OP?

I didn’t bring up Paul, Peter and Galatians 2. I’m just responding to things I see in YOUR posts.

But just so we’re clear, Paul condemned Peter for ACTING hypocritically, not for teaching error.

 

[wmscott]

Sorry I am not on line enough; just trying to keep with reading and an occasional comment.

“And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.”
Mark 6:6

Jesus did use OT scriptures occasionally. I also marvel at thetazlord

God Bless

In order to insure you are on the right path you have to work at it. You are obliged to look at all the options, examine them with the intellect, and seek an agreement with the conscience. Satan is very clever at disguising himself and at deceiving us into believing what appears as truth, is in fact error. See Isa 5:20, “Woe to you that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness.” He is the one who is responsible for so many who are traveling down the broad way. He is constantly telling you that you are on the narrow way, when in fact, to some he really has situated them on the wide way, the super highway to his domain.

You might find this interesting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I provide Scripture & you don’t accept it, I can’t “convince” you of something you refuse to acknowledge.

I have failed to open your eyes to what Scripture actually supports. But then again, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit, not me. I can only show you.

I feel the same way.

And after 2,000 years, 1.2 billion Catholics, 300 million Orthodox and countless Protestants agree that Mary remained ever-virgin.

However, you and a relatively small number of Protestants believe that you and you alone have seen something in scripture that everyone else in the course of human history has missed.

How likely is that?

 

[wmscott]

You have a weird way of thinking. I have not added this idea to scripture. I’m saying that scripture doesn’t say what happened later one way or the other.

He might have breathed on Thomas; he might not. But it is possible, and you cannot say with certainty that it didn’t happen.

But Christ did remain with them for 40 days after the resurection, could have happened then.

Why? John was not writing a transcript of everything that Jesus said and did.

**I thought Christ said to go out and Preach the Gospels, this could account for John not writing everything down. **

What I said is that Jesus specifically addressed Thomas later by having him put his hand in his side. Further, we know that Thomas was present on the day of Pentecost, so he was filled with the Spirit then even if it did not happen earlier.

And he was able to go on and establish the Catholic Church in India


Could you show me in the following passage where Paul says anything about what Peter was teaching? 'Cause all I see is that Peter was acting in a hypocritical manner:

Galatians 2
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Again, Peter was saying one thing (the truth) but doing something different (hypocrisy). But Peter was not teaching falsehood.

This is a common Protestant error, so I’m not surprised you have bought into it.

When Jesus says, “receive” the verb tense means that he is giving them the Spirit. What is the purpose of His breathing on them, theta? Why did he do that? Is this common? Do people breathe on you regularly like that?

He breathed his divine breath on the Apostles and says receive the Spirit. Please describe the connection between that action and those words.

Which is not the same as saying that the Apostles didn’t receive the Spirit earlier when Jesus breathed on them.

But remember, you asked for the verse that says that the Church is God-breathed. This you have been shown.

You’re right. It doesn’t. It also doesn’t say that he didn’t. However, until you have given some explanation for Jesus breathing on the apostles, we can’t go much further.

I didn’t bring up Paul, Peter and Galatians 2. I’m just responding to things I see in YOUR posts.

But just so we’re clear, Paul condemned Peter for ACTING hypocritically, not for teaching error.

Hi Randy, hope you done mind me adding my thoughts to your post.