The Funeral Of Joseph

Well I looked back on the thread and see no biblical support for Mary rising bodily into the air.

You didn't answer, Ron.

 

To my knowledge there is no verse that says that Mary was assumed into Heaven.

But I do not hold to the man made tradition of sola scriptura.

Is that more to your satisfaction, Curtis?

Now will you be kind enough to answer some of my questions?

[ January 13, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Thank you, Ron.

Now give me a few minuites, and I'll post up some verses that do support trusting God's word.

 

May I suggest that rather than simply make a defense of scripture's trustworthiness, Curtis, you make a fuller explanation of the role of tradition within evangelical theology.

Tradition, after all, need not be defined solely as extra- or unbiblical traditions. Indeed, tradition could even be said to include Scripture if one defined it broadly enough, though I think it most helpful to not include Scripture in that definition.

Also it might be helpful to note that historically, the earliest view of the relationship between scripture and tradition is called the "coincidence" view. Used by Tertullian and Irenaeus, it is a view which sees scripture, tradition, and the church all teach the same messsge. There is noting in one that is not in the other. The whole Christian message is found in each of the church, traition, and scripture and if someone tries to teach something that is not in one fo these, it isn't true.

Later came the supplememtary view. This is cloaser to the modern RC view (well in some quarters anyway, RCs are not themselves agreed on this point), which states that tradition supplements scripture. Basil of Cesarea was a proponent of this. It came to dominate in the Middle Ages. Not that the coincidence view was abadoned; its just that using allegory as freely as it was in those days, everything could be shoehorned into scripture and so there was never a need to admit that a doctrine was not found in scripture (sound familiar?).

The above is adapted from the article "Scripture and Tradition" by A.N.S. Lane in the New Dictionary of Theology, IVP, Ferguson, Wright, Packer eds., 1988.

 

Thanx, Latreia.

Also, I never heard of "Sola Scriptura" before coming here, so I really don't feel it's appropriate to defend those words.

But I did promise Ron something...

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

No need, Curtis. I don't want to take this thread so far off topic.

What I would really like is for you to answer my questions on the other thread.

 

Are you saying that you consider them coming with their mother to see their older brother (Mark 3:31) as taunting or meddling with Him? Likewise, in John 7:3-4 His brothers verbally express their doubt in Him. You did not quote the remaining verses (John 7:3-9) in context which explain why His brothers behaved in such a manner. They did not believe in Him. They were not Christians they were of the world and the world hates the things of God. How can you expect them to act with some dreamt up respectful “Oriental ethic” toward Jesus?

Who says that Jesus left His family in financial distress? You must remember that after a Jewish boy turns 12 years old he is a man and is expected to act as such. Let’s say that the other brothers were not born until after Jesus was 12 at the temple. Now Jesus is 30 years of age, which means that at least one of the brothers could possibly be as old as 18 years of age and fully capable of taking over the family carpentry shop and having three younger apprentices (younger brothers) working under him.

I already addressed this concern in a reply to one of your earlier posts. Again, Mary had come to believe in and follow Jesus as her Lord and Savior. His brothers did not become Christians until after His resurrection. John was one of Jesus’ three closest friends. Peter had denied Him and the other disciples had run away in fear. Only John and Mary and a handful of other women had come to the cross to watch Him suffer and die. Jesus seeing John there and knowing that John remained faithful commended His mother into His most loyal friend’s care. It is a very biblical concept that a Christian should care for another Christian widow. Besides, His brothers were most likely back home running the family business so they were not there for Him to speak to about the issue. Now can we move on?

I agree with you that view number three, which you expressed above is groundless and based solely on conjecture. However, I must also say the same thing about view number two as well. Nowhere in the text of the Bible are we told that Joseph was a previously married/widower who later married Mary. To make such a claim is to add to the text of the Bible. Likewise, the stuff about sibling relationships and oriental family ethics is simply window dressing in a vain attempt to support a specific presupposition. Therefore, I must disagree with your statement that “from the Bible there are three options.” There are not three options from the Bible. You have noted one option that is derived from the biblical text and two others that are derived from the minds of men who were/are seeking to support a specific presupposition regarding the “eternal virginity” of Mary.

I cannot push the argument further than to say that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to Jesus as having brothers and sisters within a context addressing His mother Mary and family relationships. Plus, the Apostle Paul calls James “The Lord’s Brother.” The New Testament Greek is very specific and clear regarding the meaning of the words brothers/sisters as used in the texts that I referenced in the posts above.

To answer your question… No, this is not “proof that Greek Bible writers were not clear on the Hebrew meanings.” Besides that they did not speak Hebrew in Palistine duing Jesus' time. They spoke Aramaic and/or Greek. The New Testament authors (and the O.T. authors) wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is no mistaken identity contained within the pages of the Bible. I find it hard to believe that you would rather call the text of the Bible into question and embrace extra-biblical dogma as opposed to accepting the Bible for what it plainly says.

As I mentioned before, the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatian Church refers to James, a leader in the Jerusalem Church, as “the Lord’s brother.” Paul “Hebrew among Hebrews” said that. Paul, a well educated Jew and Roman citizen, who knew how to read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek called James “the Lord’s Brother” in a letter address to the Galatians. A letter, by the way, that was intended to instruct the Galatians in sound Christian doctrine. Are you willing to say that Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made a mistake and wrote a falsehood regarding the identity of James?

Abraham and Lot were not “cousins” either. The Bible says that Lot was Abraham’s brother’s son (Gen. 12:5; 14:12). Therefore, Abraham was Lot’s uncle thus making Lot Abraham’s nephew. Likewise, in Genesis 13:8 Abraham and Lot are referred to as “brethren” meaning kinsmen or male relatives; however, this cannot be taken to mean that the Bible says the two were “physical/biological brothers.” Finally, in Genesis 14:14; and again in 14:16 the Bible refers to Lot as Abraham’s “brother.” However, the context of the passage makes it clear that the idea being expressed here means “kinsman.” You see the term “brethren” could not be used in Genesis 14:14 or 14:16 because it is referring to Abraham learning that Lot, his kinsman, had been abducted (v. 14), and that Abraham rescued all that had been taken including his kinsman named Lot. If the term “brethren” were inserted into the text in these verses it would be misunderstood as being used as a plural pronoun and Lot is a single individual. Clearly, kinsman is the idea and relationship that is being portrayed. We speak in the same kind of general terms today. For instance, a group of soldiers who experience combat together are often referred to as a “Band of Brothers” (hence the title of the HBO production movie). However, we all know and understand that these soldiers are not really physical/biological brothers. The term simply expresses a close personal relationship between the men.

 

But to read the Bible and come up with Jesus having siblings makes more sense than her remaining a virgin. Nowhere in the Bile does it factually say perpetual virgin, mother of God, odily rising into heaven, or anything else like that.

Many, many Christians believe Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life, and bore children. It's not that far-fetched.

 

very little reaches the leel of what we call certainty.

However there are reasonable possibilities and there are unreasonable ones.

That Mary and joseph had sexual relations and had children together is entirely reasonable and likely. So likely in fact as to approach that certainty.

The alternative, perpetual virgnity, requires one to accpt a series of unlikely propositions. It is unlikely to the point of unreasonable as a possibility.

 

"Well lets face it, if the disciples of the apostles believed it then I think that says a lot more then whatever we think 2000 years later."

Not necessarily. It has been said rightly that antiquity can as easily be nothing more than anitiquity of error.

But did the ECFs believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin? No. They certainly belived she was a virgin when Jesus was born. But the idea that she was perpetually virgin cam later.

And if its important to look at what the disciples of the apostles had to say, is it not more important yet to look at what the apostles said?

And they don't hold that Mary was perpetually a virgin either.

You are welcome to your belief Net. But please do not bother trying to convince me that it is even a reasonable belief.

 

Seems to me that would be an average size family for that culture.

 

Hello Net,

No, that is not what I have done at all. I have systematically addressed every question that you have asked using a literal historical/grammatical interpretation of the Bible to demonstrate the "facts" that you seem unable or unwilling to discern. I have given an answer to each concern that you have thrown up in your attempt to hold on to the RC unbiblical dogma. Where you have attempted to use Scripture to support your views I have shown from the full context of the Bible that your arguments do not line up with other sound and clear biblical teachings, and/or are based on faulty interpretation or faulty logic. Likewise, when you have made erroneous statements regarding the proper use of certain N.T. Greek words (e.g. "brother" could just as easily be translated as "cousin") or O.T. Hebrew words (e.g. the Abraham and Lot "brethren" issue) I have demonstrated using the grammar of biblical languages to point out why your claims are invalid and; therefore, untrue. However, in many of my responses I have asked you certain pertinent questions that you have either disregarded or overlooked.

I take offense here to your suggestion that I am like some "cult preacher" that would lead children astray. If you have been gullible it appears that it is demonstrated by your blind acceptance of Roman Catholic dogma and its 1,500 (or so) years of mishandling God's Word.

The context of the entire passage dictates the timing of the events and provides the answer to the your question. Likewise, Mary did not simply say, "How can this be?" She said, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man" (Luke 1:34, KJV). That means that Mary asked how it would be possible for her to conceive a child when she was yet a virgin. Clearly she fully understood how babies were made. Also, she knew full well that according to the Law of Moses if an engaged but yet unwed young lady were found to be with child she would be stoned to death. Her question to the angel expressed her concern for her personal honor, reputation, and safety. It in no way implies that she never intended to have marital intercourse. You can not say that she simply meant that she was not acquainted with ( did not know) a man because we are told in Luke 1:27 that she was already engaged (espoused) to a man named Joseph of the house of David. If anything her question expresses that she fully understood that to be married meant that she would one day engage in marital intercourse and that at the time of her conversation with the angel she was a virgin.

Likewise, the angel then explained to her how the Holy Spirit would come upon her and that she would conceive this child. Then in order to assure her that what he said was true the angel told her about Elisabeth's pregnancy in her old age (Luke 1:36-37). Thus, Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38, KJV). Now, look at Luke 1:39-45. Mary immediately went to visit Elisabeth and when they greeted one another Elisabeth acknowledges that Mary was already carrying the Messiah. Hence, your assertions above are biblically groundless and make no logical sense.

Again, you act as if what I am saying would somehow harm “an innocent child” and damn them to hell for following some kind of anti-Christian cult. Furthermore, this conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s salvation or how one comes to know Christ as Savior. It is a theological debate that I would never even attempt to address with a young “innocent child.” Finally, all I have done is to quote from the Bible to refute the nonsense that you are espousing, which cannot be demonstrated from the Bible.

I have already shown you that the N.T. Greek uses very specific words that carry very direct meanings and that the word “adelphos” translated as “brother” means brother not cousin, not friend, not neighbor etc. Therefore, James was Christ’s physical half-brother and Mary is the only possible one that can provide that physical link. Unless of course you are willing to say that God is the father of James and that some other miraculous birth took place and that James is divine and could just as easily have died on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. However, if you go that route you will have a whole lot more Scripture that you will have to deny. Take off your blinder and let the light of the Scripture shine truth on you.

Do you really need for me to spell out the simple biological reason why it is impossible for a woman to remain a virgin after having given birth? I’ll try to be as gentle and generic as possible here. When a woman is a virgin a certain part of her anatomy is intact. Once it is not longer intact her virginity is lost. This part of a woman’s anatomy generally remains intact until she engages in sexual intercourse and as a result of the breaking of this membrane there is a specific type of issue of blood (not resulting from her normal cycle) from her genitalia (the sign of lost virginity). However, in Mary’s case this membrane was not broken by sexual intercourse it was broken when the Christ child passed from her womb through the birth canal and exited her body in the normal birth process. Hence, biologically she was no longer a virgin.

Now, let’s look at the Bible and see what it has to say about all this. Please read Luke 2:21-24. Why did Mary have to make a sin offering following the birth of Jesus as according to Leviticus 12:1-8? Don’t just give me a knee-jerk response. Turn to Leviticus 12:1-8 and see what it has to say about the reason for such a sin offering.

I don’t know what Masons believe because they are a secret fraternal order and I have not attempted to study them in detail. Which “cults” hold to such beliefs and do their beliefs go further than what I have stated so as to detract from the person and deity of Christ? My statements do not detract from the person and deity of Christ and do not effect the biblical message of salvation through Christ alone. Mary has never atoned for a single person’s sins nor will she ever. Christ is the one and only perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. Likewise, you are wrong about Gnostic beliefs. They taught that there was a special knowledge that only they could impart and that in order to be saved one must believe in Christ as Savior and have this “special knowledge.” Their heresy was to add something to the Gospel as you are attempting to do by making Mary out to be more important. What in the world does “magic” have to do with this conversation? You are making blanket statements with no evidence to support your claims and grasping at straws here.

[ January 17, 2003, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hello Net,

How so? If you are referring to my use of the words "brother" and "half-brother" both being derived from the Greek word "adelphos," you only have a point if you do two things as you apparently have done. You only have a point if:

1) You take what I said out of context, as you have done in the quote above (and as you have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to do to the Biblical text as well) and;
.
2) You simultaneously refuse to use the common sense that God gave you to understand that Jesus had no earthly physical father; however, Mary was Jesus’ earthly physical mother. Therefore, Jesus’ brothers and sisters who accompanied Mary to see Jesus, who are identified as such by the Galilean people, who are referenced in all four Gospel accounts, and one of whom (James) is specifically referenced by the Apostle Paul can only possibly be Jesus’ siblings through their common earthly physical mother Mary, thereby logically making them Jesus’ half-brothers and half-sisters.

You do not have to check your brain at the door of the church to be a Christian.

I never made the statement that you have written above with quotation marks. Again you demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to follow the context of a written discussion and/or to accurately and fully quote written material. What I said was that it is/was biologically impossible for Mary to have remained a virgin following the normal the birth process that she went through when Christ was born.

No… I am sorry that you are saying that the topic that we are discussing is an illusion (illusion means that something is not real?). Perhaps you meant that you are under the impression….

The problem is that you are confusing the virgin conception of Christ in the womb of Mary, which is a miracle, with the normal delivery process that Mary underwent in order to bring forth the Christ child. Again, let’s look and see what the Bible has to say about this subject. The Bible says, “So it was that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:6-7, NKJV). According to this passage Mary underwent the normal nine months of pregnancy and then delivered her first born Son by means of the normal birthing process. The biblical text in no way implies a miraculous birth event. Notice that the Bible says, “…she brought forth her first born Son….” She gave birth just as every other woman has done since the beginning of time (with exception of modern C-section births of course).

Likewise, you have not addressed my question regarding why Mary had to make a sin offering following the birth of Christ as required by Leviticus 12:1-8.

You are talking post-modern relativism nonsense. What you are saying violates the law of non-contradiction. Two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true when referring to the exact same event, in the exact same place, time etc. One of us is correct and the other is incorrect. Please go back and read your own Bible an pray and ask God the Father to enlighten you by the power of the Holy Spirit so that you can fully and accurately understand the truth of His word. I’ll be praying for you.

[ January 18, 2003, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]