Well I looked back on the thread and see no biblical support for Mary rising bodily into the air.
You didn't answer, Ron.
You didn't answer, Ron.
-
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!
trying2understand
New Member
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.
Now give me a few minuites, and I'll post up some verses that do support trusting God's word.
Bible-belted
New Member
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:
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:
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi Bibleboy 2,
I think you misunderstand me. I don't object to you saying you BELIEVE Mary had other children apart from Yeshua, I object to you saying that she had other children as FACT. From the bible there are THREE different OPTIONS:
(Four men--James, Joses, Simon, and Judas--are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. (See Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.) There has been much discussion through the centuries as to the exact relationship of these men to Jesus. Three principal views have been advanced):
(1) that they were Jesus' actual brothers, that is, half brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary (and therefore younger than Jesus);
(2) that they were His stepbrothers, that is, children of Joseph by a previous marriage (and thus all older than He and not His blood relatives at all);
(3) that they were the cousins of Jesus on the mother's side, according to some, or on Joseph's side, according to others.
Those who hold the second view argue that Oriental family ethics would not permit younger brothers to taunt or otherwise meddle with an older brother as Jesus' brothers taunted Him (see Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4). It might also be unethical for an older brother (the head of the family) to leave the others in financial distress. They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children.
The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18).
Then if you look at the old testament in more then one place LOT and ABRAHAM are called BROTHERS (not COUSINS) and thus is this actual PROOF that Greek bible writers were not clear on the Hebrew meanings.
....So my objection with you Bibleboy is you saying as FACT that Mary had other children.
You say about Luke. The angel said "you WILL be with child and he will be great...".
Most women would say "great news" but Mary said "how can this be as ...."
The angel does not say this will be NOW, he says "WILL BE" - but Mary says "but how..."
Anyroad - I think one think is clear - IT IS NOT CLEAR - and thus for you to say FACT FACT is incorrect - its not even SOLA SCRIPTURE to say Mary had other kids as no where in the bible from BEGINNING TO END does it say MARY HAD ANOTHER CHILD - its all implication. Thus you are deceiving people by saying its a FACT Mary had other children - it is not a fact.
Net
[ January 13, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
I think you misunderstand me. I don't object to you saying you BELIEVE Mary had other children apart from Yeshua, I object to you saying that she had other children as FACT. From the bible there are THREE different OPTIONS:
(Four men--James, Joses, Simon, and Judas--are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. (See Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.) There has been much discussion through the centuries as to the exact relationship of these men to Jesus. Three principal views have been advanced):
(1) that they were Jesus' actual brothers, that is, half brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary (and therefore younger than Jesus);
(2) that they were His stepbrothers, that is, children of Joseph by a previous marriage (and thus all older than He and not His blood relatives at all);
(3) that they were the cousins of Jesus on the mother's side, according to some, or on Joseph's side, according to others.
Those who hold the second view argue that Oriental family ethics would not permit younger brothers to taunt or otherwise meddle with an older brother as Jesus' brothers taunted Him (see Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4). It might also be unethical for an older brother (the head of the family) to leave the others in financial distress. They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children.
The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18).
Then if you look at the old testament in more then one place LOT and ABRAHAM are called BROTHERS (not COUSINS) and thus is this actual PROOF that Greek bible writers were not clear on the Hebrew meanings.
....So my objection with you Bibleboy is you saying as FACT that Mary had other children.
You say about Luke. The angel said "you WILL be with child and he will be great...".
Most women would say "great news" but Mary said "how can this be as ...."
The angel does not say this will be NOW, he says "WILL BE" - but Mary says "but how..."
Anyroad - I think one think is clear - IT IS NOT CLEAR - and thus for you to say FACT FACT is incorrect - its not even SOLA SCRIPTURE to say Mary had other kids as no where in the bible from BEGINNING TO END does it say MARY HAD ANOTHER CHILD - its all implication. Thus you are deceiving people by saying its a FACT Mary had other children - it is not a fact.
Net
[ January 13, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
trying2understand
New Member
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.
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.
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow what you are attempting to demonstrate with these partial quotes. Can to clarify and say exactly what you are getting at. I don’t understand what issue the “NOW” you are speaking about has to do with our discussion.
I am sorry that you feel that my quoting the Word of God is deceiving people. I have made my best argument regarding Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and the brothers and sisters listed in the Bible relying solely on the Biblical text. I have not used commentaries, or other extra-biblical works to support what I have said. I am simply stating to you what I have read and understood the Bible to say, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Anyroad - I think one think is clear - IT IS NOT CLEAR - and thus for you to say FACT FACT is incorrect - its not even SOLA SCRIPTURE to say Mary had other kids as no where in the bible from BEGINNING TO END does it say MARY HAD ANOTHER CHILD - its all implication. Thus you are deceiving people by saying its a FACT Mary had other children - it is not a fact Net
Again, the Bible refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and His brothers coming to see him. The Bible refers to the people of Jesus’ home town supplying the names of His brothers (one named James) and indicating that He had at least two sisters as well. The Bible records Paul as addressing this James as “the Lord’s brother.” No, the Bible does not specifically say that Mary had “four other sons and two daughters following the birth of Jesus.” However, it does indicate that Joseph took Mary as his wife and did not know her sexually until after Jesus was born. The clear indications that they had children after Jesus was born are recorded in Scripture for everyone to read for all eternity.
What the Bible does not support in any form or fashion is the idea that Mary remains an “eternal virgin” (which is physically impossible after her having given birth to Jesus in the normal birthing process). You can’t build sound doctrine without a single shred of biblical support.
[ January 14, 2003, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Bible2,
You're just written a huge long tract as to why you BELIEVE Mary had more children but you have not shown any facts. I have children who are quite young I would be horrified if they met up with some cult like preacher who said FACT FACT FACT - my kids are, like me, gullible-ish, and can fall for deceptions.
You ask me about the conversation between Mary and the Angel. The Angel just said to Mary that at some time in the FUTURE she will have this wonderful child. Mary was engaged to be married.
Most women would say "oh how wonderful - I'm to have this wonderful baby at some FUTURE point in my life".... But Mary said "But how can this be..." - Does that sound like the sort of thing someone who was about to get married would say? Seems well weird to me. To be really honest with you, it doesn't sound like Mary is planning to have sex any time soon - if ever.
I'm not dressing you down for saying you BELEIVE Mary had children, I am dressing you down for saying its FACTUAL. You could one day speak to a young innocent child - and they will be deluded into thinking its a FACT - when it is not. You say Paul said James was a brother of Yeshua - so what? You are saying Mary cannot be ever Virgin because she has had a baby - To my mind the virgin (its my belief) means no sex not no babies - but I admit its a belief, not a fact.
Just to close - believing in blood relatives of Yeshua is closely related to Masons, Cults, Gnostic beliefs, Magic and other wacky stuff. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe (in different ways) and even many protestant groups that Mary had no other children. - I'm not sure what the early Church commentators wrote - I'll look it up.
[ January 14, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
You're just written a huge long tract as to why you BELIEVE Mary had more children but you have not shown any facts. I have children who are quite young I would be horrified if they met up with some cult like preacher who said FACT FACT FACT - my kids are, like me, gullible-ish, and can fall for deceptions.
You ask me about the conversation between Mary and the Angel. The Angel just said to Mary that at some time in the FUTURE she will have this wonderful child. Mary was engaged to be married.
Most women would say "oh how wonderful - I'm to have this wonderful baby at some FUTURE point in my life".... But Mary said "But how can this be..." - Does that sound like the sort of thing someone who was about to get married would say? Seems well weird to me. To be really honest with you, it doesn't sound like Mary is planning to have sex any time soon - if ever.
I'm not dressing you down for saying you BELEIVE Mary had children, I am dressing you down for saying its FACTUAL. You could one day speak to a young innocent child - and they will be deluded into thinking its a FACT - when it is not. You say Paul said James was a brother of Yeshua - so what? You are saying Mary cannot be ever Virgin because she has had a baby - To my mind the virgin (its my belief) means no sex not no babies - but I admit its a belief, not a fact.
Just to close - believing in blood relatives of Yeshua is closely related to Masons, Cults, Gnostic beliefs, Magic and other wacky stuff. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe (in different ways) and even many protestant groups that Mary had no other children. - I'm not sure what the early Church commentators wrote - I'll look it up.
[ January 14, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
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.
Many, many Christians believe Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life, and bore children. It's not that far-fetched.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi,
Of course not, I have no objection to people believing it. I object to people saying it as a certainty.
Of course not, I have no objection to people believing it. I object to people saying it as a certainty.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
...and Brother Curtis,
What say you of these early Church commentators:
"
For instance, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, who was converted to Christ by St. Paul himself,[1] visited the Mother of God in Jerusalem and afterward wrote about it to St. Paul:
"It is impossible for the human mind to grasp what I have seen not only with the eyes Of my soul, but with my bodily eyes, too. I have seen with my own eyes the most beautiful and holy Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ .... That time was for me a time of supreme happiness, r thank the most high and most g r a e i o u s God, and the Divine Virgin, the great Apostle John, and thee (St. Paul), for having mercifully granted me such a great blessing,"
Another Church Father that wrote about the Holy Virgin was St. Ignatius the God bearer, a disciple of the Apostle John, to whom he wrote these words:
"If it is made possible, I intend to come to you in order to see the faithful gathered in Jerusalem, and especially the Mother of Jesus: they say of her that she is honorable, affable, and arouses wonder in all, and all wish to see her. But who would not wish to see the Virgin and to converse with her who bore the true God? ·..With us she is glorified as the Mother of God and the Virgin full of grace and virtue. They say of her that she is joyful in troubles and persecutions, does not grieve in poverty and want, and not only does not get angry with those who offend her but does good to them still more..,.All who see her are delighted."
What say you of these early Church commentators:
"
For instance, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, who was converted to Christ by St. Paul himself,[1] visited the Mother of God in Jerusalem and afterward wrote about it to St. Paul:
"It is impossible for the human mind to grasp what I have seen not only with the eyes Of my soul, but with my bodily eyes, too. I have seen with my own eyes the most beautiful and holy Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ .... That time was for me a time of supreme happiness, r thank the most high and most g r a e i o u s God, and the Divine Virgin, the great Apostle John, and thee (St. Paul), for having mercifully granted me such a great blessing,"
Another Church Father that wrote about the Holy Virgin was St. Ignatius the God bearer, a disciple of the Apostle John, to whom he wrote these words:
"If it is made possible, I intend to come to you in order to see the faithful gathered in Jerusalem, and especially the Mother of Jesus: they say of her that she is honorable, affable, and arouses wonder in all, and all wish to see her. But who would not wish to see the Virgin and to converse with her who bore the true God? ·..With us she is glorified as the Mother of God and the Virgin full of grace and virtue. They say of her that she is joyful in troubles and persecutions, does not grieve in poverty and want, and not only does not get angry with those who offend her but does good to them still more..,.All who see her are delighted."
Bible-belted
New Member
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.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi Lat,
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.
It is is natural to assume Christianity is a fake because the majority of the Jews did not believe it and they were there.
Anyway - I don't want to knock your beliefs - you just go ahead.
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.
It is is natural to assume Christianity is a fake because the majority of the Jews did not believe it and they were there.
Anyway - I don't want to knock your beliefs - you just go ahead.
Bible-belted
New Member
"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.
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.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi,
I am happy that it is a unreasonable belief.
If the brothers and sisters are actually Mary's children then she would have had at least 6 children (Yeshua, three boys and at least two girls) probably more. Its too masonic and knights Templerish - I don't buy it.
Orthodox Christianity is correct - or Christianity is wrong - I don't see a middle ground.
I am happy that it is a unreasonable belief.
If the brothers and sisters are actually Mary's children then she would have had at least 6 children (Yeshua, three boys and at least two girls) probably more. Its too masonic and knights Templerish - I don't buy it.
Orthodox Christianity is correct - or Christianity is wrong - I don't see a middle ground.
Bible-belted
New Member
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 ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
"...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.and THEREFORE he can only be a half-brother via Mary"
Your own words mock you.
"Virgin after birth not biologically possible"
Sorry I was under the illusion that the virgin birth was a miracle.
I do not object to you holding your beliefs, I object to you as saying they are fact.
This is how I believe you should speak to a non-Christian on this matter if they ask you:
'I personally believe Mary had other children but many other christians and theologians, right from early days, held different views. You have to make your own mind up on this'.
Net.
Your own words mock you.
"Virgin after birth not biologically possible"
Sorry I was under the illusion that the virgin birth was a miracle.
I do not object to you holding your beliefs, I object to you as saying they are fact.
This is how I believe you should speak to a non-Christian on this matter if they ask you:
'I personally believe Mary had other children but many other christians and theologians, right from early days, held different views. You have to make your own mind up on this'.
Net.
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 ]