Is this blasphemous enough for you?

[Alcott]

No, they were cousins, nephews of Mary (unless they were stepchildren). Children have rights and responsibilities toward their parents. Nieces and nephews have no such rights and responsibilities toward their aunts and uncles.

They were already with her when they came looking for Jesus that time.

 

[Grace&Truth]

(G&T) If these were cousins why did the Holy Spirit not use the Greek word for cousin as He did in Col. 4:10?

I don’t know what word is used in Colossians 4:10 but since the KJV does not say “cousin” but rather says “and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas”, I expect the word “cousin” was inserted in the later translations to provide equivalent meaning. And, they may not have been cousins, they might have been children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him


(Strongs) G431 ἀνέψιος anepsios an-eps'-ee-os
From G1 (as a particle of union) and an obsolete form νέπος nepos (a brood); properly akin, that is, (specifically) a cousin: - sister’s son.

(G&T) A better explaination would be that Mary understood that this event would happen immediately....Don't you think that the angel would have given her full details?

(Zenas) This is speculation and arguing from silence, and no that is not the better explanation.

Speculation? It seems far more accurate then your or the ECFs view. I have to ask myself..."If Mary had already decided (or made a vow) to remain a virgin, why would she get married? The answer would be that she had not.

(G&T) Do you interpret the Scriptures by the CFs or do you interpret the CFs by the Scriptures?

(Zenas) I need all the help I can get and will take it where I find it. The idea that scripture interprets scripture will only go so far. (Really I havenever found this to be a problem) Can you honestly say you have never consulted a commentary to help you understand scripture? So yes, I give great weight to the writings of the ECF’s because of their relative closeness to the events they are interpreting. I do however, reject them if what they say is manifestly in opposition to scripture. Concerning Mary they are not in opposition to scripture.

Yes I have looked things up in a commentary, they help with cross referencing, with word studies etc. I would utilize helps when needed, but I never look to their explanations as being absolute truth or inspired. I believe that it can be argued from Scripture that there were already many false teachers at this time, so therefore, I would personally not use any of these writings to interpret Scripture. I would use Scripture to see if any of these writers teachings were (are) True or False. As concerning Mary they are contrary to Scriptures....Where in the Scripture do we find that Mary is Ever-Virgin? We don't, but we have many verses that say that Jesus had Brothers and Sisters. "Mary knew him not til" means just that "til she gave birth to Jesus." Prophecy fulfilled. Search the Scriptures, this is where Prophecy ends. Anything after this is taught by silence and speculation by the ECFs the RCC, as well as anyone else through history who has taught it.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Wasn't Mary the mother of Jesus?

Isn't Jesus God?

Don't you all "believe in" deductive logic"

Thus Mary must be the mother of God.

Wasn't God the Father of Jesus?

Isn't Jesus HUMAN?

Thus God must be HUMAN?

 

[Zenas]

Yes I have looked things up in a commentary, they help with cross referencing, with word studies etc. I would utilize helps when needed, but I never look to their explanations as being absolute truth or inspired. I believe that it can be argued from Scripture that there were already many false teachers at this time, so therefore, I would personally not use any of these writings to interpret Scripture. I would use Scripture to see if any of these writers teachings were (are) True or False. As concerning Mary they are contrary to Scriptures....Where in the Scripture do we find that Mary is Ever-Virgin? We don't, but we have many verses that say that Jesus had Brothers and Sisters. "Mary knew him not til" means just that "til she gave birth to Jesus." Prophecy fulfilled. Search the Scriptures, this is where Prophecy ends. Anything after this is taught by silence and speculation by the ECFs the RCC, as well as anyone else through history who has taught it.

Only a fool would regard commentary as absolute truth or inspired. You say you would not use the ECF's to interpret scripture because they might be false teachers. Let me suggest that the real reason you don't use the ECF's is that they present you with concepts that are not consistent with your long held beliefs, and you reject them rather than to risk discovering that some of these long held beliefs may be wrong. How do you know modern writers are not false teachers? In anything you have to weigh what they are saying against scripture and scripture does not say Mary had children.

So you and I see exactly alike on these matters, except that I don't need to see positive scriptural support for a principle. I am content if there is no scriptural opposition to said principle. At least I am willing to admit it. You also accept theological principles that are not expressly found in scripture, although you are reluctant to admit it. For example, you probably believe in the Holy Trinity (no positive scriptural support, only inferences); you probably celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 (completely outside of scripture); you probably believe a worship service should have an invitation (again no positive scriptural support).

 

[Zenas]

Wasn't God the Father of Jesus?

Isn't Jesus HUMAN?

Thus God must be HUMAN?

Incorrect line of deductive reasoning. Here is how it must be to be correct:

God is the father of Jesus.
Jesus is human.
Therefore, God is the father of a human.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Incorrect line of deductive reasoning. Here is how it must be to be correct:

God is the father of Jesus.
Jesus is human.
Therefore, God is the father of a human.

No...I have it right...actually the other one is wrong...It should be:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is God.

But in Truth it is: Jesus is 100% God
God is the Father of Jesus
God is God
Therefore, Jesus is God

As well as: Jesus is 100% Human
Mary is Jesus Mother
Mary is Human
Therefore, Jesus is Human

Now this is what the Scriptures actually teach: Jesus is God incarnate. He is the God/Man.

 

[Zenas]

If she was unmarried. But if she is married she has obligations to her husband....lest Satan tempt.

Not unless her husband has rejected her vow. See Numbers 30:3-7.

3"Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father's house in her youth,

4and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand.

5"But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.

6"However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself,

7and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand.

 

[Zenas]

No...I have it right...actually the other one is wrong...It should be:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is God.

But in Truth it is: Jesus is 100% God
God is the Father of Jesus
God is God
Therefore, Jesus is God

As well as: Jesus is 100% Human
Mary is Jesus Mother
Mary is Human
Therefore, Jesus is Human

Now this is what the Scriptures actually teach: Jesus is God incarnate. He is the God/Man.

You need to take a course in logic 101.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not unless her husband has rejected her vow. See Numbers 30:3-7.

You have to stretch this heresy.

 

[Zenas]

You have to stretch this heresy.

Please explain. I don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Only a fool would regard commentary as absolute truth or inspired. You say you would not use the ECF's to interpret scripture because they might be false teachers. Let me suggest that the real reason you don't use the ECF's is that they present you with concepts that are not consistent with your long held beliefs, and you reject them rather than to risk discovering that some of these long held beliefs may be wrong. How do you know modern writers are not false teachers? In anything you have to weigh what they are saying against scripture and scripture does not say Mary had children.

Well you may suggest or risk what you like, but you would be wrong. You cannot even interpret what I have said correctly, so I guess you would need someone else to interpret what God says in His Word. The scriptures do not say that Mary did not have other children, But it does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters and they were with His (Jesus) mother, so I would say the burden proof would be on those who would claim otherwise, would it not? I see clearly in Scripture that Jesus had a virgin conception as well as birth. Prophecy was fulfilled. There is no evidence or need according to Scripture for Mary to continue to be a virgin after this. So why would I believe otherwise.

The only need (as I see it) for what the ECFs and RCC teach is so they can add to the Scriptures all other manner of False Teachings about Mary. So therefore, I will have to reject this teaching.

So you and I see exactly alike on these matters, except that I don't need to see positive scriptural support for a principle. I am content if there is no scriptural opposition to said principle.

Well this is a shame. So you reason backwards. I say to believe something there has to be Scriptural support. You say as long as there is no Scriptural opposition well then it must be true. Again I think your problem seems to be in the way you reason or interpert. This makes no logical sense to me. So, no I would say we totally disagree and I don't think we see exactly alike on these matters.

At least I am willing to admit it. You also accept theological principles that are not expressly found in scripture, although you are reluctant to admit it. For example, you probably believe in the Holy Trinity (no positive scriptural support, only inferences); you probably celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 (completely outside of scripture); you probably believe a worship service should have an invitation (again no positive scriptural support).

Holy Trinity: Yes it is found in Scripture
Dec. 25: Not found in Scripture, but Jesus birth is, but is never said to be a holiday or a theological must (other then that Jesus was born of a virgin) so I may or may not observe it but it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, doctrine or my salvation.
Invitations: Yes, God gives the invitation for all to Believe, why should we not do this after preaching the gospel to someone? But this still has nothing to do with this discussion other than to distract.

And at this point I believe we have gotten way off the intent of the OP.

 

[Grace&Truth]

No...I have it right...actually the other one is wrong...It should be:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is God.

(G&T)
But in Truth it is: Jesus is 100% God
God is the Father of Jesus
God is God
Therefore, Jesus is God

As well as: Jesus is 100% Human
Mary is Jesus Mother
Mary is Human
Therefore, Jesus is Human

Now this is what the Scriptures actually teach: Jesus is God incarnate. He is the God/Man.

You need to take a course in logic 101.

No, I think my logic is just fine. I came out with the correct theological Truth. Did you not notice?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Please explain. I don't understand what you're talking about.

It is heresy to say Mary stayed a virgin and people should pray to her as if she was divine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it ever attribute the title "Mother of God" to Mary. Neither is the logic sound that arrives at such a conclusion. Mary is not the Mother of God as God preexisted Mary.

Neither can God be procreated through child birth. God tabernacled in the flesh but was not the flesh. God prepared a human body in the womb of Mary that God tabernacled within just as Moses built the first tabernacle of earthly materials and God tabernacled within.

Just like the title "Queen of heaven" so also the title "Mother of God' is Babylonian in origin and both originate with the cultic Semeramis as the mother of Nimrod who was worshiped as God, thus Semermais was the "Mother of God" and "Queen of heaven."

Roman Catholicism is nothing but Babylonian religion that has been Christianized in part and paganized in part.

 

[Alcott]

I would say that the contents of the ark all represent different aspects of Jesus. Jesus was carried in the womb of Mary, so why wouldn't Mary be compared to the ark?

I suppose it would explain the "perpetual virginity" of Mary if anyone who touches her is immediately killed.

 

[Zenas]

Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it ever attribute the title "Mother of God" to Mary. Neither is the logic sound that arrives at such a conclusion. Mary is not the Mother of God as God preexisted Mary.

Neither can God be procreated through child birth. God tabernacled in the flesh but was not the flesh. God prepared a human body in the womb of Mary that God tabernacled within just as Moses built the first tabernacle of earthly materials and God tabernacled within.

So you reject the idea of the Theotokos. Are you Nestorian in your beliefs? How do you reconcile this with John 1:14 which says, "And the Word became flesh"? It doesn't say the Word entered flesh, or the Word tabernacled in flesh.

Roman Catholicism is nothing but Babylonian religion that has been Christianized in part and paganized in part.

Just curious here, how do you paganize the Babylonian religion? I thought it was already pagan.

 

[Zenas]

I suppose it would explain the "perpetual virginity" of Mary if anyone who touches her is immediately killed.

Yeah, I've thought of that too. :laugh:

 

[Dr. Walter]

So you reject the idea of the Theotokos. Are you Nestorian in your beliefs? How do you reconcile this with John 1:14 which says, "And the Word became flesh"? It doesn't say the Word entered flesh, or the Word tabernacled in flesh.

John 1:14 must be interpreted in the broader context of John 1:1-18. John has already established the pre-existence of The Word (Jn. 1:1-3). In addition John 1:14 says that the Word "tabernacled" among us which further emphasizes that John does not want to the reader to confuse the preexistent eternal divine nature of the Word with the human nature furnished by a human mother. Hence, the context makes it clear that the preexistent divine nature is distinct from the human nature as the human nature is described as a tent or tabernacle. The Jews would readily perceive this descriptive term with the Tabernacle built by Moses where God came and dwelt within it. The tabernacle was no more the divine nature than the human nature Christ took "upon himself" (Philip. 2:6) was the divine nature.

Your problem is the immutability of the divine nature (Mal. 3:6) if you interpret "became" to dissolve any distinction between the preexistent Word (Jn. 1:1-3) and the human nature of Jesus (Jn. 1:14,18). Mary had NO PART in the origin or reproduction of the preexistent Word but only in furnishing the tabernacle in which the Preexistent Word dwelt and took "upon himself":

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Philip. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The scripture NEVER confuses the preexistent divine Logos with the human nature provided through Mary. However, the designation "Mother of God" not only confuses the two natures but attributes to Mary the role of originating God by procreation. It is pure blasphemy!

Just curious here, how do you paganize the Babylonian religion? I thought it was already pagan.

You misunderstood what I said. It is the Roman Catholic church that is the catalyst to confuse both Christianity with paganism and paganism with Christianity.

 

[Zenas]

John 1:14 must be interpreted in the broader context of John 1:1-18. John has already established the pre-existence of The Word (Jn. 1:1-3). In addition John 1:14 says that the Word "tabernacled" among us which further emphasizes that John does not want to the reader to confuse the preexistent eternal divine nature of the Word with the human nature furnished by a human mother. Hence, the context makes it clear that the preexistent divine nature is distinct from the human nature as the human nature is described as a tent or tabernacle. The Jews would readily perceive this descriptive term with the Tabernacle built by Moses where God came and dwelt within it. The tabernacle was no more the divine nature than the human nature Christ took "upon himself" (Philip. 2:6) was the divine nature.

Your problem is the immutability of the divine nature (Mal. 3:6) if you interpret "became" to dissolve any distinction between the preexistent Word (Jn. 1:1-3) and the human nature of Jesus (Jn. 1:14,18). Mary had NO PART in the origin or reproduction of the preexistent Word but only in furnishing the tabernacle in which the Preexistent Word dwelt and took "upon himself":

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Philip. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The scripture NEVER confuses the preexistent divine Logos with the human nature provided through Mary. However, the designation "Mother of God" not only confuses the two natures but attributes to Mary the role of originating God by procreation. It is pure blasphemy!

Looks like Nestorianism to me but a lot of Baptists and other evangelicals embrace Nestorianism. Do you believe the body of Jesus contained Mary's DNA?

You misunderstood what I said. It is the Roman Catholic church that is the catalyst to confuse both Christianity with paganism and paganism with Christianity.

I was pretty sure that's what you meant but it is not what you said.

 

[webdog]

Wasn't Mary the mother of Jesus?

Isn't Jesus God?

Don't you all "believe in" deductive logic"

Thus Mary must be the mother of God.

Sure, let's play out such logic.

Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind.
God is love.
Stevie Wonder must be God.