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

[Iconoclast]

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.

Mk6 is speaking of Jesus, and his half brothers...the carpenter,the son of Mary.

 

[Particular]

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 . . .

You sound like Ambassador Sorland..."I presumed it..."
The context of both passages makes it clear that these are Mary and Joseph's biological children. You are just so desperate to keep Mary a perpetual virgin that you will look for anything, no matter how improbable, to ensure Mary and Joseph don't glorify God in sexual relationship as husband and wife.
Now run along and bow to your matriarch, the object of your worship.

 

[Particular]

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

NOT that difficult to understand . . .

...but it's not about physically disobeying in action...

When Adam and Eve were in the garden you would argue that the sin was not eating of the fruit. The sin was in considering the possibility of the action.

By that concept, Jesus sinned during Satan's temptations because he thought about the possibility of the actions Satan suggested.

Do you see how silly that proposal is?
Sin is both spiritual and physical. It is precisely why our physical bodies die.

 

[MarysSon]

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.

Here’s where you have a problem though . . .

James the Less (the Younger) is said to be the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18).
He is ALSO called the son of the “other” Mary at the foot of the cross, Mary, wife of Clopas. “Clopas” is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew “Alphaeus”.

James and Joses (Joseph) are mentioned as the “Adelphoi” of Jesus in Matt. 13:35.
They are again mentioned as His Adelphoi (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25) because their mother Mary is the Adelphe of Mary, Mother of Jesus (John 19:25).

Therefore, the SAME James and Joses are being spoken of in ALL of these verses.
They are NOT uterine siblings but clearly some other relation.

Once again - the Bible SQUASHES the anti-Catholic position . . .

 

[MarysSon]

You sound like Ambassador Sorland..."I presumed it..."
The context of both passages makes it clear that these are Mary and Joseph's biological children. You are just so desperate to keep Mary a perpetual virgin that you will look for anything, no matter how improbable, to ensure Mary and Joseph don't glorify God in sexual relationship as husband and wife.
Now run along and bow to your matriarch, the object of your worship.

Soooooooo, instead of actually addressing the Bibical evidence I presented, all you can respond with are impotent, snarky comments?

Pretty much what I expected from you . . .

 

[MarysSon]

...but it's not about physically disobeying in action...

When Adam and Eve were in the garden you would argue that the sin was not eating of the fruit. The sin was in considering the possibility of the action.

By that concept, Jesus sinned during Satan's temptations because he thought about the possibility of the actions Satan suggested.

Do you see how silly that proposal is?
Sin is both spiritual and physical. It is precisely why our physical bodies die.

NONSENSE.
their sin was disobedience.

INTENT, son. It's all about intent . . .

 

[Particular]

Soooooooo, instead of actually addressing the Bibical evidence I presented, all you can respond with are impotent, snarky comments?

Pretty much what I expected from you . . .

The Bible evidence is clear. These are Mary and Joseph's biological children. You are just looking for an "out" so you can worship Mary.

 

[Particular]

NONSENSE.
their sin was disobedience.

INTENT, son. It's all about intent . . .

LOL
Many have intent, but never act. Sin is also action. Quit being silly.

 

[MarysSon]

The Bible evidence is clear. These are Mary and Joseph's biological children. You are just looking for an "out" so you can worship Mary.

Then show me where it says they are Mary's children.
Chapter and Verse, please.

And just to make it easier on you, just show me ANY Early Curch evidence . . .

 

[Particular]

Then show me where it says they are Mary's children.
Chapter and Verse, please.

And just to make it easier on you, just show me ANY Early Curch evidence . . .

I have. You reject it and attempt to claim that the Greek word for brother cannot mean biological brother. Your claim is foolish. You make it in an attempt to justify your worship of Mary.

 

[Walpole]

Mk6 is speaking of Jesus, and his half brothers...the carpenter,the son of Mary.
Your attempted falsehood cannot escape the scriptures.

First, Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary. Secondly, the "brothers" Mk 6 mentions are stated by St. Matthew to be the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth. Thirdly, as has been pointed out numerous times in these threads, the term "brother" in ancient Semitic culture had a much different use and meaning that we use in the modern Western world. You see the word "brother" and immediately impose a modern, Western notion of a nuclear family onto text and thereby incorrectly interpret those passages.

 

[MarysSon]

I have. You reject it and attempt to claim that the Greek word for brother cannot mean biological brother. Your claim is foolish. You make it in an attempt to justify your worship of Mary.

That’s absolutely false.

I never stated that Adelphs “cannot” mean uterine sibling. I said that the overwhelming number of cases where Adelphos is used in the NT – it doesn’t mean uterine sibling. This is just a fact that you can’t handle. I also showed these “named” Adephoi to ve the children of another woman. That’s another Biblical fact that you can’t handle.

A Little advice: If you can’t be honest – then you shouldn’t post . . .

 

[Walpole]

LOL. You are arguing an interpreation which is not agreed upon. The texts you cited teach no such thing.

The words of St. Peter are clear ---> "...saved THROUGH water..."

As for the other verses which you are claiming do state that baptism cleanses our sins, let's look at them and see:

Acts 2:38 ---> "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

The Apostle is explicit: Be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.


Acts 22:16 ---> "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Ananias' words to St. Paul are too explicit: Be baptized and wash away your sins


Titus 3:5 ---> "...he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"

The Apostle is explicit: We are saved by the washing of regeneration

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.

Yes, because Baptists are anti-Sacramentalists.

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.)

1 Cor 1:17 ---> "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

This does not say that baptism and the gospel are two different things, for baptism is very much part of the Gospel! For our Blessed Lord says one must be baptized and Paul himself teaches the necessity of baptism throughout his epistles, e.g. Gal 3:27, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Cor 12:13 just to cite a few.

What the Apostle is simply stating he is called to preach, not baptize. Here is a better explanation than I could ever offer of the Apostle's words:

RE: 1 Cor 1:17

But this seems to be in opposition to the Lord’s command: “Teach all nations; baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). The answer is that Christ sent the apostles to do both, but in such a way that they preached in person, as they said in Ac (6:2): “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” But they baptized through their ministers, and they did this because the diligence or virtue of the baptizer contributes nothing in baptism, for it is indifferent whether baptism be given by a greater or lesser personage. But in the preaching of the gospel the wisdom and virtue of the preacher contributes a great deal; consequently, the apostles, being better qualified, exercised the office of preaching in person. In the same way it is said of Christ (Jn. 4:2) that He Himself did not baptize but His disciples did; of Him it says in Lk (4:43): “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for the purpose,” and in Is (61:1): “The Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura

 

[MarysSon]

LOL
Many have intent, but never act. Sin is also action. Quit being silly.

Of course sin involves action.
Is just doesn’t ALWAYS involve action
This was exactly what Christ was trying to teach the crowds when He said:
Matt. 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Sin is ALL about intent.
You really should pray for understanding . . .

 

[Particular]

That’s absolutely false.

I never stated that Adelphs “cannot” mean uterine sibling. I said that the overwhelming number of cases where Adelphos is used in the NT – it doesn’t mean uterine sibling. This is just a fact that you can’t handle. I also showed these “named” Adephoi to ve the children of another woman. That’s another Biblical fact that you can’t handle.

A Little advice: If you can’t be honest – then you shouldn’t post . . .

So, you admit they are likely Mary and Joseph's biological children because the Greek word can mean that and the context suggests this as fact.
It seems, then, that your rejection of the truth is entirely based on church dogma that you hold more precious than the Bible itself.
Be honest. Admit that your church drives your beliefs, even when your church beliefs contradict scripture.

 

[Particular]

Of course sin involves action.
Is just doesn’t ALWAYS involve action
This was exactly what Christ was trying to teach the crowds when He said:
Matt. 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Sin is ALL about intent.
You really should pray for understanding . . .

So the OP on this subject is wrong. We physically sin as well as spiritually sin. Correct?
That's my point.

 

[MarysSon]

So, you admit they are likely Mary and Joseph's biological children because the Greek word can mean that and the context suggests this as fact.
It seems, then, that your rejection of the truth is entirely based on church dogma that you hold more precious than the Bible itself.
Be honest. Admit that your church drives your beliefs, even when your church beliefs contradict scripture.

Like I said before – if you can’t be honest, then you shouldn’t post. It simply compounds your sin.

I never “admitted” to any such nonsense. I stated Biblical fact:
That the overwhelming number of cases where “Adelphos(oi)” is used in the NT does NOT mean uterine siblings.

You can try to spin that any way you want – but it will never say what you want it to say.
Not only is there ZERO evidence for Mary having children other than Jesus – the Biblical evidence of her NOT having other children is overwhelming.

 

[MarysSon]

So the OP on this subject is wrong. We physically sin as well as spiritually sin. Correct?
That's my point.

No - only YOUR perversion of the point is wrong.

Nowhere has anybody claimed that we don't sin physically.
We don't sin accidentally.

 

[37818]

Yes, because Baptists are anti-Sacramentalists.

Yes. Baptism, water immersion and remembrence are seen as works of faith. And salvation is understood as a totally free gift.

 

[Particular]

Like I said before – if you can’t be honest, then you shouldn’t post. It simply compounds your sin.

I never “admitted” to any such nonsense. I stated Biblical fact:
That the overwhelming number of cases where “Adelphos(oi)” is used in the NT does NOT mean uterine siblings.

You can try to spin that any way you want – but it will never say what you want it to say.
Not only is there ZERO evidence for Mary having children other than Jesus – the Biblical evidence of her NOT having other children is overwhelming.

I'm being honest. You simply reject what the verses say and claim those folks aren't biological children of Mary and Joseph, even though the text says they are and you even admit that the Greek word allows for them to be biological brothers and sisters.
Now, enough with the foolish and non-biblical teaching that Mary was a sinless perpetual virgin. It's complete nonsense and it results in Mary worship. Mary must weep over that false teaching by your church.