Jesus Christ was Born of Woman . . . fact or fiction?

That is not a refutation. That is a church dogma twist to deny the clear truth.
I know you need crutches to prop up your church dogma. I don't expect you to stop leaning on your crutch.

 

The ark of the covenant has nothing to do with this. Plus, the ark was just a wooden box with gold overlay and the relics inside were symbols of God's work.
Your attempted correlation is silly non-sence. Enough with the foolish typology of your dogmas.

 

Shooting a child in the head is apparently not a sin in your mind since the physical act of murder is not sin.
Your claim is horrific.

 

you are also spiritual being and physical body, He was like us. He is God incarnate

Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

 

sin is not the physical but the spiritual, Wanting to shoot a child is a sin,, Shooting a child by accident is not a sin

Jesus said of adultery

Mat 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The body does nothing, yet it is sin

 

she did not say so. She only glorified God

Luk 1:46¶
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
Luk 1:50
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Luk 1:51
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
Luk 1:52
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
Luk 1:53
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Luk 1:54
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
Luk 1:55
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

 

Scripture doesn't tell us, mentioning only James. Jesus had His reasons, whatever they were, to commend her care to John. Maybe He wanted John to replace Him as her son? We don't know.

 

COMMON SENSE says Jesus' bros.& srs. all came from the same mother.

 

How silly! "James, Joseph (or Joses), etc." were very common Jewish names. The other James is even called "James the younger, or less" in Mk. 15:40.

 

Try mark 6:3...always good to look in the bible for answers

 

Try --> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-5#post-2546488

and

---> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-9#post-2546685


Scripture (Mt. 27:56) names a different Mary (Mary of Cleophas) as their mother.

 

How silly! If you believe there are two identical pairs of "James and Joses" in the Gospels, perhaps you can show me us the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere. For example, two different "Mary and Marthas" or two different "James and Johns".

You are grasping at straws here!

 

COMMON SENSE says that if Scripture lists them as the sons of a different mother, then they cannot be uterine siblings of Jesus.

 

I find it ironic that you dogmatically proclaim Mary's multiple subsequent maternities without offering one single verse of Scripture to support it.

 

Just a wooden box? I dare say that it is the only wooden box in biblical history that brought instant death if not authorized to touch it! The reality of the scriptures is that not all that happened was written down, so our attempt to bring things that are hidden to the fore for a fuller biblical experience is as valid as anyone else's attempt to likewise figure them completely out.

 

So thinking about it is a sin, but actually doing it is not. Got it.
That's twisted.

 

LOL. You are arguing an interpreation which is not agreed upon. The texts you cited teach no such thing. Do you know why Baptists typically would disagree with that type of interpreation you are contending? .Baptists agree with the texts, not your interpretation of them. The Church of Christ sect typically would agree with that type of interpreation of them, alone with some other Protestants. FYI, the Appstle Paul taught that baptism and the gospel were two things (1 Corinthians 1:17). Paul was not denying baptism or that Jesus commanded baptism. Understand? (Romans 1:16.)

 

Absolutely.

Common sense states that they are the children of the other woman called “Mary” at the foot of the cross who was the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus. It says that she was Mary’s (Jesus’ Mother) “Adelphe” (sister). However – we know that they weren’t sisters because they have the SAME name. They are some other relation.

So, you see – common sense tells me that MOST people in the NT who are called “Adelphos” are NOT uterine siblings because – of the 344 uses of this word in the NT
41 (12%) occurrences of "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 (14%) occurrences of "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
A whopping 256 (74%) occurrences of "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

Another anti-Catholic whopper that is SQUASHED by the Bible . . .

 

That's NOT what @loDebar said.
Sin is all about INTENT.

NOT that difficult to understand . . .