GraceSaves
New Member
I EDITED THIS AS I MISATTRIBUTED THIS TO DHK WHEN IT WAS NOT HIM!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?
- Thread starter tamborine lady
- Start date
GraceSaves
New Member
Eve is the mother of all living. That doesn't mean she didn't have other children besides Cain and Abel.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Eve is the mother of all the living in that from her womb (and continued offspring from them), all new human life came into the world.
Mary is the mother of all the living in that from her womb came NEW HUMAN LIFE that is redeemed. There is not the physical necessity of more children because Mary's motherhood is spiritual and not physical.
~Grace~ is the two issues the Marys children and virginity? What about His sisters in Matt.13:56?
Matthew 13:55-56 {{*note verse 56*}} Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those with knowledge of the text in this scripture.... how do we exsplain the word sisters, in the Greek it says "sisters"..... does it mean His real half blood sisters? or not?
Music4Him
Herein lies the greatest problem. Your authority is the church (the RCC). In other words you have a fallible source. You also must take the doctrines of that source, (as wrong and fallible as they may be) and force them into the Scriptures, when the Scriptures don't teach as such. This takes much spiritualization (as you can see Kathryn doing at the present), allegorization (examples given recently from Ezekiel 44), and reading into a void of Scripture things that are not there (infants being baptized among the 3000 of Acts 2). These methods of hermeneutics are wrong, and by using them you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say: black becomes white, and white becomes black. The real meaning is totally obscured. The reason again: The Catholic Church's teaching has been given more authority than the Bible, and consequently must then be attempted to be supported by the Bible by the Catholic apologist any way he can.
On the contrary our authority is the Bible, not our protestant forefathers. I do not call myself a protestant. I am a Baptist, not a protestant. I am first a Bible-believing Christian that takes my doctrine and beliefs straight from the Bible. If I am shown to be wrong in anything I believe I change. But I must be convinced from the Word of God. It alone is my authority.
From the Scripture alone it is clear that Mary had other children. From Matthew 13:55 alone it is clear that Mary had other children, in spite of what Carson says about the verse. I am reminded what a Lutheran said about baptism. The word baptism means immersion. We had a debate on it. The actual word means baptism. The mode is baptism represented in Rom.6:3,4. This fellow went to the lexicon listed all the definitions of baptism, and showed the #9 could mean pouring, and therefore baptism could be by pouring. That is what Carson is doing. Well the 10th meaning of "adlephos" could mean cousin, so it has to mean cousin in Mat.13:55. Hogwash! The primary meaning of the word is "brother" and there is no reason not to go with the primary meaning of the word in this passage, particularly given the context, which in no way would lead one to believe any differently.
That is not the only reference as we have seen. There are many references. Mary had many children. She did not remain a virgin. You have completely ignored culture, the role of a woman in Jewish society, the purpose that Mary was betrothed to Joseph in the first place, the fact that she was looking forward to being a mother, the fact that it was as a curse not to have children, etc. None of these issues have you touched on.
As you just read, I have given you much to think about. I posted that before. Haven't you read it? What is the role of a mother in the Jewish economy? Why did Rebekkah cry out to Isaac: "Give children or I die!"
If I haven't addressed your points to your satisfaction, you will have to point out where I haven't. I have tried, but I don't know where I have failed (if I have).
DHK
GraceSaves
New Member
DHK,
Unless the verses you site state that the males listed are children of Mary, you only assume they are. The text never states it. Thus, you read into Scripture. Why is it impossible, as has been mentioned, that they are only Joseph's children? You reject it because you believe beforehand that Mary MUST have had other children.
Oh, and you ARE a Protestant.
Unless the verses you site state that the males listed are children of Mary, you only assume they are. The text never states it. Thus, you read into Scripture. Why is it impossible, as has been mentioned, that they are only Joseph's children? You reject it because you believe beforehand that Mary MUST have had other children.
Oh, and you ARE a Protestant.
Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,
Unless the verses you site state that the males listed are children of Mary, you only assume they are. The text never states it. Thus, you read into Scripture. Why is it impossible, as has been mentioned, that they are only Joseph's children? You reject it because you believe beforehand that Mary MUST have had other children.
Oh, and you ARE a Protestant.
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Concerning Jesus--He is the carpenter's son (or was assumed to be, for he lived with Joseph and Mary)
And these are his brothers, that is the children of Mary and Joseph, just as the carpenter (Jesus's intended father and Mary) were previously mentioned--James, Joses, Simon, Judas.
And his sisters, are they not ALL with us. Obviously referring to his actual sisters, for it could not refer to an extended family, as the probablity for ALL the female relatives in a large extended family could hardly have said to be present there. But his actual half-sisters could have easily been identified.
The passage is clear. The family spoken of is Christ's immediate family. His mother is mentioned. His father is mentioned (the carpenter). His sisters are mentioned. His brothers are mentioned. How could it be any more clear.
DHK
If this question has already been asked, then please forgive me. I don't have the patience to read through 12 pages of posts. This question is for the my Catholic brothers and sisters on BB. Does the doctrine of perpetual virginity imply that Joseph and Mary never had intimate relations throughout their marriage? Do you believe that Joseph and Mary never consumated their marriage?
I had not planned on posting again, but I finally saw that GraceSaves stated the pivotal point of this discussion: Baptists claim the Scriptures as their authority, while Catholics must claim as their authority the RCC. That is exactly the point I tried to make with Carson some 6 pages ago. Just think about all the issues in which RC's must claim the authority of the church for lack of biblical evidence:
1. The Immaculate Conception
2. The Bodily Assumption of Mary
3. Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix
4. Purgatory
5. Infallability of the Pope & the entire Papal system
6. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
7. An Infusion of Grace rather than Imputed Righteousness
8. Human-Prescribed Penance
9. Venial vs. Mortal Sins
10. Countless Others
I would submit to you that as RC's deal with these issues, the "authority" of the RCC always trumps the clear teaching of Scripture. RC's are always quick to argue though that some of the early church fathers espoused some of these doctrines, but is it any real surprise that some of the early church fathers were led into error - didn't the Apostles say time and again to be on guard for false doctrines that would soon seek to creep into the church. These doctrines and countless other errors led the RCC church down a road of corruption (eg - The Crusades, nepotism, simony) that finally led to good ol' Johann Tetzel pedaling his indulgences at the turn of the 16th centuries. To this day, some of the most active spots in the RCC are the areas in which their trinkets are sold - my personal favorite is the "gift shop" just as you enter the doors of the huge Catholic church in downtown New Orleans - I couldn't believe my eyes!
I don't care what the issue is (perpetual virginity, macroevolution, pro-homosexuality agendas, etc.) - when you try and cram an a priori doctrine into the Bible, it will never work. Such a method is not inductive (as all true hermeneutics are), but deductive. My prayer is that everyone who reads the words of all the posts within this string will become thoroughly convinced that reducing the authority of God's Word or attempting to re-shape its meaning is nothing but a dead end. Anti-biblical RC dogmas have become increasingly more adamant in their veneration of Mary (first it was perpetual virginity, then it was immaculate conception, then it was co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix) - what could they possibly want to say about Mary next? I think I'll choose to believe what the Bible says about the blessed virgin girl of Nazareth and leave all the anti-biblical dogmas to those who enjoy defending dead end doctrines. Thanks DHK for your work throughout this string.
1. The Immaculate Conception
2. The Bodily Assumption of Mary
3. Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix
4. Purgatory
5. Infallability of the Pope & the entire Papal system
6. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
7. An Infusion of Grace rather than Imputed Righteousness
8. Human-Prescribed Penance
9. Venial vs. Mortal Sins
10. Countless Others
I would submit to you that as RC's deal with these issues, the "authority" of the RCC always trumps the clear teaching of Scripture. RC's are always quick to argue though that some of the early church fathers espoused some of these doctrines, but is it any real surprise that some of the early church fathers were led into error - didn't the Apostles say time and again to be on guard for false doctrines that would soon seek to creep into the church. These doctrines and countless other errors led the RCC church down a road of corruption (eg - The Crusades, nepotism, simony) that finally led to good ol' Johann Tetzel pedaling his indulgences at the turn of the 16th centuries. To this day, some of the most active spots in the RCC are the areas in which their trinkets are sold - my personal favorite is the "gift shop" just as you enter the doors of the huge Catholic church in downtown New Orleans - I couldn't believe my eyes!
I don't care what the issue is (perpetual virginity, macroevolution, pro-homosexuality agendas, etc.) - when you try and cram an a priori doctrine into the Bible, it will never work. Such a method is not inductive (as all true hermeneutics are), but deductive. My prayer is that everyone who reads the words of all the posts within this string will become thoroughly convinced that reducing the authority of God's Word or attempting to re-shape its meaning is nothing but a dead end. Anti-biblical RC dogmas have become increasingly more adamant in their veneration of Mary (first it was perpetual virginity, then it was immaculate conception, then it was co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix) - what could they possibly want to say about Mary next? I think I'll choose to believe what the Bible says about the blessed virgin girl of Nazareth and leave all the anti-biblical dogmas to those who enjoy defending dead end doctrines. Thanks DHK for your work throughout this string.
thessalonian
New Member
They were important in fullfillment of prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin in Is 7. If Joseph had had relations before this time the prophecy would have been a lie. Now what purpose would the verse have in calling out Mary and Josephs sex life thereafter. I would contend that there are implications in the OT with regard to Mary's perpetual virginity which are forshadowed in the Ark of the Covenant.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Todd,
Carson, first of all you won nothing
I was wondering why my win seemed so easy. You just gave up without putting up a fight. I'm glad to see you bounce back.. or are you going to fail to rise to the occasion in this post as well?
The only thing you won was the blue ribbon for sloppy exegesis and dogma-centered hermeneutics.
That's a nice opinion. However, you need to substantiate it by responding.
the reason I didn't respond is because it is of no use.
That's a poor excuse. Of course it's of use. There are many who are reading this thread who are not "staunch Catholics" such as Brother Adam, and they can see your weak argumentation. They can see that you cannot demonstrate - from Scripture alone - that Mary did not remain a Virgin.
Staunch Catholics will not listen to sound exegesis - never have, never will. You have proved yourself to be no different.
In other words, my response is in disagreement to what you have written as a rebuttal, and you equate a rebuttal with "will not listen to sound exegesis". Brother, I responded to your supposed sound exegesis. Now, it is your reponsibility to demonstrate that my exegesis is unsound. You have failed to do so. In fact, you have failed to respond at all. Your case is altogether a failure.
This is what we call losing the debate.
We also call it blind triumphalism.
For instance, I keep hearing Catholics in this string cast in doubt the meaning of adelphos as "brother"
Yes, and the doubt is fully substantiated. Because this is so, you are unable (or at least unwilling) to refute the substantiation. If you are able to do so, then by all means Todd, do so! Otherwise, it has been demonstrated conclusively that an adelphos of Jesus does not necessitate a full brother. If this is so, then you have no substantial argument against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Then, all you have is probability based upon the assumption that adelphos means what you claim it means.
I have simply refuted one of her godless dogmas.
No, you stopped responding as you have clearly indicated. That isn't a refutation; that's called backing down.
To be fair, I can't blame staunch Catholics for not being very evangelistic.
What are you talking about brother? I'm a staunch Catholic and I'm evangelistic! In fact, to be fully Catholic, you need to be fully evangelical! That's the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is a teaching that I live out as a disciple of Jesus.
This is what John Paul II told half a million worshippers gathered at Cherry Creek State Park in Denver for the closing Mass of World Youth Day in 1993:
"Do not be afraid to go out on the streets and into public places, like the first apostles who preached Christ and the good news of salvation in the squares of cities, towns and villages. It is time to preach it from the rooftops."
If nominal (that is, in name) Catholics choose not to inform themselves of the Catholic faith and not to live out that faith as their baptism demands, that is their own sin and failing.
As the Australian convert Frank Sheed wrote in Theology For Beginners:
"It is by the saints and not by the mediocre, still less by the great sinners, that the Church is to be judged. It may seem a loading of the dice to demand that any institution be judged solely by its best members, but in this instance it is not. A medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it. A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult ... Every man must make his own response. The saints have responded totally; the rest of us respond partially, timorously ... The saints in their thousands upon thousands stand as proof that, in the Church, holiness is to be had if we will. Every saint is certain evidence that, if you and I are not saints, the choice is wholly our own."
purgatory has been relegated to nothing more than a "heavenly holding tank" within Catholic theology
This statement of yours demonstrates your severe misunderstanding and ignorance with regard to Catholic doctrine. The Purgatory you are describing here is a concoction of your own imagination. It is wholly a straw man.
But.. why are you digressing from the main subject: the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
You're great at playing dodge. Let's stay in the ring.
As I said, I could continue to pick apart your faulty theology and exegesis
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.. get on with it! Enough with the "Oh, I could do this and this and this.." Walk your talk, else your talk is nothing but cheap imaginatory dillusion.
Every second that you waste on this board digressing into tangents apart from the topic at hand proves the fact that you cannot demonstrate from the Bible alone that Mary did not remain a virgin throughout the course of her life.
I have even exposed the falsehood of those within Catholic circles on several occasions (including this one).
Well then let's see it. You claim, yet you don't deliver.
I can't expect you to accept the plain exegesis of Scripture if you aren't even a child of God.
Now your tangents turn to handing out damnation placards..
Anyone who believes that we must work in conjuction with some "infusion of grace" in order to earn our salvation
... would be a Pelagian and considered a heretic by the Catholic Church.
"For it is by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, AND THIS NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT BY WORKS , LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Eph. 2:8-9).
Todd, who wrote the following?
"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
your works (and even your keen intellect) can't save you.
And I can only say "Amen".
To that end, I will be concluding my posting on this string with you
That would be the logical thing to do considering the fact that you cannot demonstrate from the Bible alone that Mary did not remain a virgin her entire life. You cannot disprove this Catholic dogma from Scripture, and so this inability drives you to stop engaging in the debate. With loss imminent, it is only logical to quit while you have any chance of being ahead and if & only then, that would count solely in the use of empty rhetoric.
Carson, first of all you won nothing
I was wondering why my win seemed so easy. You just gave up without putting up a fight. I'm glad to see you bounce back.. or are you going to fail to rise to the occasion in this post as well?
The only thing you won was the blue ribbon for sloppy exegesis and dogma-centered hermeneutics.
That's a nice opinion. However, you need to substantiate it by responding.
the reason I didn't respond is because it is of no use.
That's a poor excuse. Of course it's of use. There are many who are reading this thread who are not "staunch Catholics" such as Brother Adam, and they can see your weak argumentation. They can see that you cannot demonstrate - from Scripture alone - that Mary did not remain a Virgin.
Staunch Catholics will not listen to sound exegesis - never have, never will. You have proved yourself to be no different.
In other words, my response is in disagreement to what you have written as a rebuttal, and you equate a rebuttal with "will not listen to sound exegesis". Brother, I responded to your supposed sound exegesis. Now, it is your reponsibility to demonstrate that my exegesis is unsound. You have failed to do so. In fact, you have failed to respond at all. Your case is altogether a failure.
This is what we call losing the debate.
We also call it blind triumphalism.
For instance, I keep hearing Catholics in this string cast in doubt the meaning of adelphos as "brother"
Yes, and the doubt is fully substantiated. Because this is so, you are unable (or at least unwilling) to refute the substantiation. If you are able to do so, then by all means Todd, do so! Otherwise, it has been demonstrated conclusively that an adelphos of Jesus does not necessitate a full brother. If this is so, then you have no substantial argument against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Then, all you have is probability based upon the assumption that adelphos means what you claim it means.
I have simply refuted one of her godless dogmas.
No, you stopped responding as you have clearly indicated. That isn't a refutation; that's called backing down.
To be fair, I can't blame staunch Catholics for not being very evangelistic.
What are you talking about brother? I'm a staunch Catholic and I'm evangelistic! In fact, to be fully Catholic, you need to be fully evangelical! That's the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is a teaching that I live out as a disciple of Jesus.
This is what John Paul II told half a million worshippers gathered at Cherry Creek State Park in Denver for the closing Mass of World Youth Day in 1993:
"Do not be afraid to go out on the streets and into public places, like the first apostles who preached Christ and the good news of salvation in the squares of cities, towns and villages. It is time to preach it from the rooftops."
If nominal (that is, in name) Catholics choose not to inform themselves of the Catholic faith and not to live out that faith as their baptism demands, that is their own sin and failing.
As the Australian convert Frank Sheed wrote in Theology For Beginners:
"It is by the saints and not by the mediocre, still less by the great sinners, that the Church is to be judged. It may seem a loading of the dice to demand that any institution be judged solely by its best members, but in this instance it is not. A medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it. A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult ... Every man must make his own response. The saints have responded totally; the rest of us respond partially, timorously ... The saints in their thousands upon thousands stand as proof that, in the Church, holiness is to be had if we will. Every saint is certain evidence that, if you and I are not saints, the choice is wholly our own."
purgatory has been relegated to nothing more than a "heavenly holding tank" within Catholic theology
This statement of yours demonstrates your severe misunderstanding and ignorance with regard to Catholic doctrine. The Purgatory you are describing here is a concoction of your own imagination. It is wholly a straw man.
But.. why are you digressing from the main subject: the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
You're great at playing dodge. Let's stay in the ring.
As I said, I could continue to pick apart your faulty theology and exegesis
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.. get on with it! Enough with the "Oh, I could do this and this and this.." Walk your talk, else your talk is nothing but cheap imaginatory dillusion.
Every second that you waste on this board digressing into tangents apart from the topic at hand proves the fact that you cannot demonstrate from the Bible alone that Mary did not remain a virgin throughout the course of her life.
I have even exposed the falsehood of those within Catholic circles on several occasions (including this one).
Well then let's see it. You claim, yet you don't deliver.
I can't expect you to accept the plain exegesis of Scripture if you aren't even a child of God.
Now your tangents turn to handing out damnation placards..
Anyone who believes that we must work in conjuction with some "infusion of grace" in order to earn our salvation
... would be a Pelagian and considered a heretic by the Catholic Church.
"For it is by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, AND THIS NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT BY WORKS , LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Eph. 2:8-9).
Todd, who wrote the following?
"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
your works (and even your keen intellect) can't save you.
And I can only say "Amen".
To that end, I will be concluding my posting on this string with you
That would be the logical thing to do considering the fact that you cannot demonstrate from the Bible alone that Mary did not remain a virgin her entire life. You cannot disprove this Catholic dogma from Scripture, and so this inability drives you to stop engaging in the debate. With loss imminent, it is only logical to quit while you have any chance of being ahead and if & only then, that would count solely in the use of empty rhetoric.
Justified Saint
New Member
THANK YOU for posting the link JFS, I had tried to get people to go to it but it must be your charm.
Larry, if you read at length the rest of the article and other contributions(found at http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html ) you will see that Mr. Svendsen was trying to invent a new rule of Greek, that is that when the word "heos" is coupled with the word "hou" it ALWAYS implies a cessation of the action, this only occurs in the Greek language though around the time the gospel of Matthew was written and then it mysteriously reappares to its normal usage. The debate is not one of context since as Mr. Svendsen has pretty much admitted by his theses, whether or not Mary had sexual relations afterwards is not evident in Matthew 1:25 but only evident by virtue of the fact that the Greek construction "heos hou" has to mean a cessation. If you want to attack the Catholic apologists for deconstructing Mr. Svendsen's theses then at least take the trouble to understand what he theses actually says. Mr. Svendsen says Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin because the word "until" has to imply a cessation because he thinks it is a rule of Greek, not because the context demands it.
Larry, if you read at length the rest of the article and other contributions(found at http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html ) you will see that Mr. Svendsen was trying to invent a new rule of Greek, that is that when the word "heos" is coupled with the word "hou" it ALWAYS implies a cessation of the action, this only occurs in the Greek language though around the time the gospel of Matthew was written and then it mysteriously reappares to its normal usage. The debate is not one of context since as Mr. Svendsen has pretty much admitted by his theses, whether or not Mary had sexual relations afterwards is not evident in Matthew 1:25 but only evident by virtue of the fact that the Greek construction "heos hou" has to mean a cessation. If you want to attack the Catholic apologists for deconstructing Mr. Svendsen's theses then at least take the trouble to understand what he theses actually says. Mr. Svendsen says Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin because the word "until" has to imply a cessation because he thinks it is a rule of Greek, not because the context demands it.
Justified Saint
New Member
Carson, who ever heard of such a ridiculous idea as being "staunch" about one's faith? Completely a heretical thought.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Yeah, doesn't Jesus command us to be lukewarm?
Thank you ~Thess~ for pointing something out to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I now need to make a correction in my post.
Originally posted by music4Him:
What I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those two things if its not of importance?
Thanks
Music4Him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of the fact that this scripture also points out that Mary was a virgin during her pregnancy and I would even go as far to say after she was healed up.........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So now what I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those "three" things if its not of importance?
Of course I have no problem with saying Mary was a virgin "until" she had Jesus. But how can you refute Jesus' sisters in Matthew 13:56? Huh????
BTW, The word in Matt. 1:25 is "til" not "until".
Also a FYI if a scripture of few words (18 words)that gives so much information how come you find 1 three letter word a problem. Read it how ever you would like it still means that after she (Mary) was better after giving birth that the marriage bed was not defiled. Exsplain the sisters in Matt.13:56
Thanks
Music4Him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I now need to make a correction in my post.
Originally posted by music4Him:
What I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those two things if its not of importance?
Thanks
Music4Him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of the fact that this scripture also points out that Mary was a virgin during her pregnancy and I would even go as far to say after she was healed up.........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So now what I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those "three" things if its not of importance?
Of course I have no problem with saying Mary was a virgin "until" she had Jesus. But how can you refute Jesus' sisters in Matthew 13:56? Huh????
BTW, The word in Matt. 1:25 is "til" not "until".
Also a FYI if a scripture of few words (18 words)that gives so much information how come you find 1 three letter word a problem. Read it how ever you would like it still means that after she (Mary) was better after giving birth that the marriage bed was not defiled. Exsplain the sisters in Matt.13:56
Thanks
Music4Him
GraceSaves
New Member
Yes, I see. The brothers and sisters of Jesus. It doesn't say the sons and daughters of Mary.
thessalonian
New Member
Originally posted by music4Him:
What I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those two things if its not of importance?
Thanks
Music4Him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of the fact that this scripture also points out that Mary was a virgin during her pregnancy and I would even go as far to say after she was healed up.........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So now what I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those "three" things if its not of importance?
Of course I have no problem with saying Mary was a virgin "until" she had Jesus. But how can you refute Jesus' sisters in Matthew 13:56? Huh????
BTW, The word in Matt. 1:25 is "til" not "until".
Also a FYI if a scripture of few words (18 words)that gives so much information how come you find 1 three letter word a problem. Read it how ever you would like it still means that after she (Mary) was better after giving birth that the marriage bed was not defiled. Exsplain the sisters in Matt.13:56
Thanks
Music4Him </font>[/QUOTE]Early tradition, especially in the Eastern Church has it that Joseph was considerably older than Mary had children from another marriage (wife died) who would be called sisters and would rule out Mr. DHK's objectsoins. That Joseh was older seems likely since there is no mention of him after Jesus was 12. Seems very likely that he died long before Jesus ministery began. DHK's post does not deal with the brothers being the same ones who's mother is identified at the foot of the cross. Of course you could say it was a differnt James and Joseph. Possible but not very likely.
Mark 6:3
Is not this the woodworker, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were bitter against him.
Mark 15:40
And there were women watching from a distance: among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome,
The truth of the matter is that you have no other children who are said to be born of Mary.
Blessings
Repeating yourself is only good if what you said the first time was correct. It was not.
And Col 1 gives an entirely different meaning to firstborn, and Rev 1:5 gives an even different one. The point is that words have meaning in context. There is not point for Matthew to say "firstborn" if he was the "only born." It has no meaning.
Secondly, Matt 1:25 specifically says "her firstborn," meaning that it is narrowed down to a specific woman.
I repeat a third proof showing the contradiction of RCC dogma. If Mary was a perpetual virgin, then she was a sinner in violation of 1 Cor 7. You can't have it both ways.
This is never said in Scripture. It is a figment of the RCC's imagination.
This is a point, we repeat, where doctrine needs to be conformed to the text of Scripture. God revealed it. Beleive it.