JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[MennoSota]

Deceiving deceivers is a good thing...

"Let them fall according to their own devices!"

Just as "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword..."

Rahab wasn't, but the spies were...

Agents of God...


Arsenios

There is no need to deceive those who are in rebellion against God. They do so naturally and will never turn to God unless God chooses to turn them by His grace.
You have created a fantasy that doesn't exist in scripture. Mere continuing to assert falsehood will never make your claims truth, Arsenios.

 

[Andrew]

What is so wrong about Mary having children anyway? She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus that's really all that matters, her God given duty was complete and there is no evidence that Joseph obtained children from a previous marriage.

 

[MennoSota]

You implied that Mary did not have other children..... MennoSota strongly rebuked that by declaring that the Bible never states that.

He then dogmatically stated that Mary had other children.... and notes that the Bible never states that.

All he is doing is rebuking his own self; he is showing he does EXACTLY what he accuses you of - just much worse.

He does this a lot.

IMO, he's only deceiving himself. I suspect everyone else sees it.


IMO, there is nothing in the Bible about Mary giving birth to others. It doesn't say She did, it doesn't say She did not. IF we accept MennoSota's DEMAND that we say NOTHING that is not stated in the Bible, then he'd insist we say NOTHING about this since Scripture says nothing about this.... but he does the exact opposite showing that his rule is actually "Scripture doesn't matter for zip, my imagination is all that matters." IMO, there is no basis for dogma here - one way or the other.

THAT SAID, IF one accepts early, clear Tradition (which MennoSota CLAIMS he does not, he only accepts the Calvinist Tradition that he personally agrees with), then it is undeniable that there is very strong, very early Tradition that Mary did not have other children. IMO, I'd hesitate to make dogma out of that but IMO that IS something to consider.... and some do.

Here is what the text says. Argue against it if you wish. Clearly you wish to deny what it says.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

 

[Josiah]

Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them.


.

Here is what the text says. Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

EXACTLY (I often wonder why you don't read the verses you submit; consistently proving yourself wrong, shooting yourself in the foot)


So, there is NOTHING.... NOTHING WHATSOEVER..... ZERO...... NADA.... that states the dogma you do: "Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them."

You just made it up. Scripture matters for zip.... Tradition matters for zip unless it's that of your denomination. You just speculate..... declare it dogmatically.... and rebuke anyone who disagrees with your made up speculation. You rebuke Arsenios because he shares an opinion (which he CAN support - albeit from ecumenical, ancient Tradition not just his own made-up pure speculation) because "Scripture doesn't say that" while PROVING that Scripture doesn't state your dogma at all. Here too, you DO exactly what you rebuke others for, just much worse. Many here have tried - over and over, month after month - the HELP you see this but you don't allow yourself to see it.

What is so wrong about Mary having children anyway?

I don't think anyone says it would be "wrong." Throughout over 1900 years of this being discussed among Christians. I don't think the issue has EVER been if it would be "right" or "wrong" for Mary to have more than one child born of Her. The issue is: Did she? The question is not answered in Scripture - as I think all honest Christians admit. SOME may FEEL there's some IMPLICATION but dogma is not made by implication. And certainly Protestants would quote the Protestant proverb: "Be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where it is silent." We all admit, it's silent on this point. Thus, to my knowledge, there is no Protestant denomination that has any dogma on this - one way or the other (but that doesn't keep some Protestants from declaring it, rejecting the wisdom of silence from their denomination)

But Tradition is not silent. Tradition, by definition, is how Christians (the whole corpus of such) have - historically, ecumenically - understood things since the Early Church. And that's clear and unnamious: That Mary had no other children. We have that view from the First Century, from the time of the Apostles and those who knew Jesus and Mary personally while they were on earth. Now... one individual may CHOOSE to not accept that (and that's fine; just be honest) but that does exist. AND we should be careful about rejecting such Tradition in a sweeping way. For example, some would insist "We can ONLY accept what the Bible says and must reject all Tradition" but..... the Bible doesn't say what the Bible is! How do we know what is and is not the Bible? TRADITION. We embraced these Books by historic consensus, NOT because of any words in the Bible.

Some choose to believe Mary had other children; okay. But they ARE rejecting universal, historic, ecumenical Tradition on THIS point.... AND they have NOTHING, not one word, in Scripture that supports their speculation. And NOTHING in history (no one even CLAIMED to be a child of Mary). Others may choose to accept Tradition on this point, too. And they admit: Scripture does not state this. Does it make any theological difference? No. I don't think anyone claims that it does. Does it make any difference if Third John is part of the Bible (as Tradition says it is - but the Bible does not)? Maybe not, but a lot would defend it as to be regarded as Scripture.

I hope that helps.




- Josiah





.

.

 

[Arsenios]

What is so wrong about Mary having children anyway?

Look - When you are the Mother of the Creator of all Creation, then ALL children are YOUR children already...

And she was committed to virginity at her entry into her 'marriage'...

Scripture's account of the Annunciation affirms her commitment to virginity...

She was self-consecrated to prayer, and questioned the Angel without consequence...

Unlike all others who doubted angelic communications...

And what did Christ Himself call her?

GUNE - Woman...

She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus that's really all that matters...

Where does the Bible say THAT???

her God given duty was complete

Her God-given duty was not complete until she reposed...

Where on earth did you come up with that idea??

and there is no evidence that Joseph obtained
children from a previous marriage.

I have forgotten - Does the Bible tell us that Joseph was a widower?

The Holy Tradition of Christ's Church for 2000 years now has embraced Her lifelong commitment to a total relationship with God in virginity...

This is the Holy Tradition that gave you the Bible...

You will not fine even ONE Apostolic Church anywhere on earth that says otherwise...

And in the Bible, you will find that the Ekklesia is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth...

So the witness is unanimous historically...

So let me ask you the same question:

What is SO WRONG about the Blessed Virgin being a virgin her entire life?

Is it because Rome said She was???

And that we all love to hate Rome??


Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

This proves the deception worked, because Christ was most assuredly on a covert mission to save mankind from its enemies...

"Is not this the carpenter’s son?"

Because, you see, Jesus was most assuredly N-O-T the carpenter's son...

Neither was He related by blood to ANY of His brothers and sisters...

The deception was complete...

It was so good that He was unable to work many Signs in His Own town!

It was so good that Hades received Him when He died on the Cross...

And had no idea that He would bind and harrow it...

Not for nuttin' did He muzzle demons wanting to announce him...

And they DID want Him exposed...

And eventually He was...


Arsenios

Joseph was his legal father that's why they said that. Even Mary refers to Joseph as his father in Luke...

"When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.' 'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he was saying to them"

I wouldn't say his parents and especially his own mother Mary was "deceived" or were trying to discredit him as you imply of anyone who refered to Joseph as his legal father. This is precisely why they were confused over his statement "didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?", the Temple of worship was Gods house but they didn't put two and two together and wondered why he would say he was at home (Josephs house) when he was at the temple?

I'm listening Arsenios but that explanation you provided us is weak, also it is clear that Joseph died around the quiet years of Jesus life which suggest that all of their children were either in their late teens, 20s and possibly even in their early 30s when Jesus died on the cross, none of them were older than Jesus you see so even if he had children before Jesus (which is not mentioned) they would have traveled with them and would have been apart of his early life and older than Jesus, I only remember Mary and Joseph traveling while she was pregnant with Jesus.. no sign of family among them.
She had kids with Joseph 100% there is no way around it.

 

[Josiah]

She had kids with Joseph 100% there is no way around it.

100%. WOW! Dogma doesn't get more dogmatic than that!!!!


So, where does Scripture or Tradition or History state that Mary had other children. 100%.


I can see the references to SILENCE.... I can see you speculating at every venture..... but how does that prove your dogmatic statement.... 100%?


You seem to be rebuking Arsenios for referencing universal, ancient, historic Tradition - and that's fine (see post # 24). But it seems to ME, you aren't referencing ANYTHING. No Scripture says a THING about Mary having other children - one way or the other - and I think we all know that. Tradition says she did not. History shows NO ONE else claimed to be a child of Mary and NO ONE else was thought to be a child of Mary. You may speculate all you like but that's what it is. Speculation that counters Tradition.


BTW, the earliest we have on this indicates that the stated siblings are children of JOSEPH, and there is NOTHING in the Bible that remotely states otherwise (although nothing specifically states that either, as all admit). These were already adults when Jesus came along (past 13 anyway). You SPECULATE that they were not with Mary and Joseph on their trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, but the Bible nowhere so states (they may simply have had no role in the situation the Bible relates). You SPECULATE that these children did not travel to Bethlehem with Mary and Joseph because the Bible does SPECIFICALLY say they did but does that prove they did not? And they could have registered separately. Friend: is it SOUND to rebuke Arsenios for upholding ancient, ecumenical Tradition because it's "speculating" by rejecting Tradition and then speculating? Is it SOUND to say "It doesn't matter" but "it's 100% CERTAIN - a matter of highest importance and certainty - that Mary had other kids? If it doesn't matter, why insist it's 100 certain (dogma)? If speculation is to be rejected.... if Tradition is to be rejected.... if what matters is what the Bible says and does not say... then where is the confirmation that it is 100% certain Mary had other kids?

 

[Andrew]

100%. WOW! Dogma doesn't get more dogmatic than that!!!!


So, where does Scripture or Tradition or History state that Mary had other children. 100%.


I can see the references to SILENCE.... I can see you speculating at every venture..... but how does that prove your dogmatic statement.... 100%?


You seem to be rebuking Arsenios for referencing universal, ancient, historic Tradition - and that's fine (see post # 24). But it seems to ME, you aren't referencing ANYTHING. No Scripture says a THING about Mary having other children - one way or the other - and I think we all know that. Tradition says she did not. History shows NO ONE else claimed to be a child of Mary and NO ONE else was thought to be a child of Mary. You may speculate all you like but that's what it is. Speculation that counters Tradition.


BTW, the earliest we have on this indicates that the stated siblings are children of JOSEPH, and there is NOTHING in the Bible that remotely states otherwise (although nothing specifically states that either, as all admit). These were already adults when Jesus came along (past 13 anyway). You SPECULATE that they were not with Mary and Joseph on their trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, but the Bible nowhere so states (they may simply have had no role in the situation the Bible relates). You SPECULATE that these children did not travel to Bethlehem with Mary and Joseph because the Bible does SPECIFICALLY say they did but does that prove they did not? And they could have registered separately. Friend: is it SOUND to rebuke Arsenios for upholding ancient, ecumenical Tradition because it's "speculating" by rejecting Tradition and then speculating? Is it SOUND to say "It doesn't matter" but "it's 100% CERTAIN - a matter of highest importance and certainty - that Mary had other kids? If it doesn't matter, why insist it's 100 certain (dogma)? If speculation is to be rejected.... if Tradition is to be rejected.... if what matters is what the Bible says and does not say... then where is the confirmation that it is 100% certain Mary had other kids?

Dogma is as dogma does I guess
Okay I say 100% she did and you say 100% she didn't.
I never said that Jesus was without siblings at the temple btw, why would they be there talking among the elders with Jesus anyway? his parents weren't.
It all dwindles down to the dogma that Mary was a sinless as Jesus was, that is incorrect.
The church fathers had many contradictions as well as to where these kids came from, was Joseph a widower? Were they cousins on Marys side?

It's biblically inconclusive and should have never become a dogma. On that note I do take back my 100% but I do lean more towards Mary and Joseph being married and having children in their state of wedlock as all Christians are allowed to do.

On the subject of church fathers you know many of them also held true to the books later coined the Apocrypha but we like to forsake them as well.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]

100%. WOW! Dogma doesn't get more dogmatic than that!!!!


So, where does Scripture or Tradition or History state that Mary had other children. 100%.


I can see the references to SILENCE.... I can see you speculating at every venture..... but how does that prove your dogmatic statement.... 100%?


You seem to be rebuking Arsenios for referencing universal, ancient, historic Tradition - and that's fine (see post # 24). But it seems to ME, you aren't referencing ANYTHING. No Scripture says a THING about Mary having other children - one way or the other - and I think we all know that. Tradition says she did not. History shows NO ONE else claimed to be a child of Mary and NO ONE else was thought to be a child of Mary. You may speculate all you like but that's what it is. Speculation that counters Tradition.


BTW, the earliest we have on this indicates that the stated siblings are children of JOSEPH, and there is NOTHING in the Bible that remotely states otherwise (although nothing specifically states that either, as all admit). These were already adults when Jesus came along (past 13 anyway). You SPECULATE that they were not with Mary and Joseph on their trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, but the Bible nowhere so states (they may simply have had no role in the situation the Bible relates). You SPECULATE that these children did not travel to Bethlehem with Mary and Joseph because the Bible does SPECIFICALLY say they did but does that prove they did not? And they could have registered separately. Friend: is it SOUND to rebuke Arsenios for upholding ancient, ecumenical Tradition because it's "speculating" by rejecting Tradition and then speculating? Is it SOUND to say "It doesn't matter" but "it's 100% CERTAIN - a matter of highest importance and certainty - that Mary had other kids? If it doesn't matter, why insist it's 100 certain (dogma)? If speculation is to be rejected.... if Tradition is to be rejected.... if what matters is what the Bible says and does not say... then where is the confirmation that it is 100% certain Mary had other kids?


.

Okay I say 100% she did and you say 100% she didn't.


.

Where did I state She had no other children, 100% certain or even as pure personal speculation? Brother, where did I say what you claim I said?


Does truth matter? Especially dividing DOGMA where something is stated as 100% factual, certain? When thus others are condemned 100%?


IF Arsenios must substantiate his view (especially to the level claimed) does that rubric also apply to those who disagree with him?
IF speculation is wrong for those who hold She had no other children, is it equally wrong for those who hold She did (especially as "100% certain", as Dogma)?
IF Arsenios is wrong because (it is opinoned) he is stating something the Bible doesn't actually say, is it also wrong for others to say (as "100% certain) what the Bible doesn't actually say?

Get my point? Do you get my point?

It's biblically inconclusive and should have never become a dogma

Which REALLY leaves me scratching my head, lol.

Because you made it dogma - to the very highest level POSSIBLE - "100% certain." You stated a position - the very strongest way possible, to the highest level possible, repudiating Arsenios in the strongest way possible, dividing things to the maximum degree possible.

BTW, there is no dogma in ANY denomination of "Mary Had No Other Children" OR "Mary Had Other Children." NO denomination has a dogmatic stance on this issue. You declared such a dogma but no denomination has. It is a ramification of the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" but the point of that dogma is not that Mary had no other children but that She remained "pure" in this sense.

On that note I do take back my 100% but I do lean more towards Mary and Joseph being married and having children in their state of wedlock as all Christians are allowed to do.

AHHHHH.....

What we state matters. And OFTEN, a lot of division, a lot of misunderstanding, a lot offensive, a lot of debate, pages of wasted posts is eliminated when we say what we mean and mean what we say. Would you agree?

Very often, I'm ONLY calling for a "level playing field"..... honesty..... keeping the discussion CLEAN. I appreciate your repentance and honesty; many of us having been TRYING (oh, soooo hard!) for years to move MennoSota in that direction. Which is what some AGAIN were trying to do here.

It is my observation that SO often, discussions of this nature are not productive (often COUNTER-productive) in part because people don't state what they mean or mean what they state... and hold to "double standards," "uneven playing fields" and frankly, employ a lot of hypocrisy (whether intentionally or not), at times even repudiating the very rubric they employ. As brothers in Christ.... as those who CARE about truth and unity.... who think our witness matters..... we can HELP each other better discuss what divides us? Not because anyone is perfect but because we are called to help EACH OTHER? Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Maybe it is of all productive discussion, too? Well, important anyway? Do you think there's any validity in that?




Thank you.


Blessings


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

EXACTLY (I often wonder why you don't read the verses you submit; consistently proving yourself wrong, shooting yourself in the foot)


So, there is NOTHING.... NOTHING WHATSOEVER..... ZERO...... NADA.... that states the dogma you do: "Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them."

You just made it up. Scripture matters for zip.... Tradition matters for zip unless it's that of your denomination. You just speculate..... declare it dogmatically.... and rebuke anyone who disagrees with your made up speculation. You rebuke Arsenios because he shares an opinion (which he CAN support - albeit from ecumenical, ancient Tradition not just his own made-up pure speculation) because "Scripture doesn't say that" while PROVING that Scripture doesn't state your dogma at all. Here too, you DO exactly what you rebuke others for, just much worse. Many here have tried - over and over, month after month - the HELP you see this but you don't allow yourself to see it.








I don't think anyone says it would be "wrong." Throughout over 1900 years of this being discussed among Christians. I don't think the issue has EVER been if it would be "right" or "wrong" for Mary to have more than one child born of Her. The issue is: Did she? The question is not answered in Scripture - as I think all honest Christians admit. SOME may FEEL there's some IMPLICATION but dogma is not made by implication. And certainly Protestants would quote the Protestant proverb: "Be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where it is silent." We all admit, it's silent on this point. Thus, to my knowledge, there is no Protestant denomination that has any dogma on this - one way or the other (but that doesn't keep some Protestants from declaring it, rejecting the wisdom of silence from their denomination)

But Tradition is not silent. Tradition, by definition, is how Christians (the whole corpus of such) have - historically, ecumenically - understood things since the Early Church. And that's clear and unnamious: That Mary had no other children. We have that view from the First Century, from the time of the Apostles and those who knew Jesus and Mary personally while they were on earth. Now... one individual may CHOOSE to not accept that (and that's fine; just be honest) but that does exist. AND we should be careful about rejecting such Tradition in a sweeping way. For example, some would insist "We can ONLY accept what the Bible says and must reject all Tradition" but..... the Bible doesn't say what the Bible is! How do we know what is and is not the Bible? TRADITION. We embraced these Books by historic consensus, NOT because of any words in the Bible.

Some choose to believe Mary had other children; okay. But they ARE rejecting universal, historic, ecumenical Tradition on THIS point.... AND they have NOTHING, not one word, in Scripture that supports their speculation. And NOTHING in history (no one even CLAIMED to be a child of Mary). Others may choose to accept Tradition on this point, too. And they admit: Scripture does not state this. Does it make any theological difference? No. I don't think anyone claims that it does. Does it make any difference if Third John is part of the Bible (as Tradition says it is - but the Bible does not)? Maybe not, but a lot would defend it as to be regarded as Scripture.

I hope that helps.




- Josiah





.

.

Blah, blah, blah... tradition. Your post is valueless, Josiah.
The Bible says what it says. I don't attempt to talk around it like you are doing.
Here is the text.
Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?
The people call them Jesus brothers and Jesus sisters. They identify Mary as the mother. It's that simple.
Keep trying to run around the facts all you want. Until you admit what the text actually says, you have no legitimate case.

 

[MennoSota]

Look - When you are the Mother of the Creator of all Creation, then ALL children are YOUR children already...

And she was committed to virginity at her entry into her 'marriage'...

Scripture's account of the Annunciation affirms her commitment to virginity...

She was self-consecrated to prayer, and questioned the Angel without consequence...

Unlike all others who doubted angelic communications...

And what did Christ Himself call her?

GUNE - Woman...



Where does the Bible say THAT???



Her God-given duty was not complete until she reposed...

Where on earth did you come up with that idea??



I have forgotten - Does the Bible tell us that Joseph was a widower?

The Holy Tradition of Christ's Church for 2000 years now has embraced Her lifelong commitment to a total relationship with God in virginity...

This is the Holy Tradition that gave you the Bible...

You will not fine even ONE Apostolic Church anywhere on earth that says otherwise...

And in the Bible, you will find that the Ekklesia is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth...

So the witness is unanimous historically...

So let me ask you the same question:

What is SO WRONG about the Blessed Virgin being a virgin her entire life?

Is it because Rome said She was???

And that we all love to hate Rome??


Arsenios

Wow. So much misinformation in your post. It's not worth anymore response. Any sane human will see how far off you are. Those bent on wives tales will follow you.

 

[Josiah]

The Bible says what it says.

Exactly. And you PROVED it doesn't say what you do. Funny how you are often determined to shoot yourself in the foot.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

Underline the words, "Mary had other children."

As you know, the words for "brother" and "sister" do NOT mean, "have the same biological mother." Not in English, not the Greek. It says JESUS is the son of JOSEPH. It says Mary is JESUS' mother. Your view is entirely, completely, absolutely ABSENT from this verse. And everyone knows it. Why do you insist - so often - in proving yourself wrong, in "shooting yourself in the foot?" Friend, why shout that it's what Scripture says that matters and then PROVE it doesn't say what you do? As we all know, "brother" and "sister" can mean a step sibling, half sibling, a cousin, actually even someone with whom we are close; YOU are my brother. It is NOT true that the word "brother" in koine Greek means "Shares the same biological mother; came from the same womb." YOU are imposing a mandating meaning that's not there. You are speculating the Holy Spirit meant to say, "these four persons are the offspring of MARY" but that's NOT what the text says, is it? You are just speculating - while condemning speculating. Condemning what you yourself do MOST OF ALL, more than anyone at CH.

You are SPECULATING..... you are IMPOSING things that obviously aren't there. You are ASSUMING the Holy Spirit meant something but didn't actually stated it so you'll correct it for the Holy Spirit. You condemn Arsenios for saying something the Bible doesn't actually state by DOING THE VERY THING YOU REPUDIATE. It's something you do constantly.

They identify Mary as the mother. It's that simple.

You PROVE that NO ONE called Mary the mother of these 4 named persons. You shot down your whole argument, shooting yourself in the foot. Again. You are SPECULATING..... while you are condemning speculating. It's called hypocrisy, it's called holding to a double standard. And you do it at a very extreme level.




.

 

[Arsenios]

Joseph was his legal father that's why they said that. Even Mary refers to Joseph as his father in Luke...

"When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.' 'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he was saying to them"

Therefore Jesus had, in your view, a worldly father?? A LEGAL father??

Better to say He was concealed in a family in His covert mission to save mankind...

Herod and the world wanted Him dead dead dead...

And His Mother's virginity kept hidden...

And He succeeded!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Wow... Those bent on wives tales will follow you.

I sure hope not!

Following me plus $5 will get you no change back at Starbucks!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

You PROVE that NO ONE called Mary the mother of these 4 named persons. You shot down your whole argument, shooting yourself in the foot. Again. You are SPECULATING..... while you are condemning speculating. It's called hypocrisy, it's called holding to a double standard. And you do it at a very extreme level.
.

Judgmental hypocrisy is a terrible thing...

'Tis the leaven of the Pharisee...

Pointing fingers of condemnation...

Never willing to look at the 3 pointing back into your own soul...

It is Satan's favorite tool in the churches...

Generating the need for "Remnant Theology"...

Oh well... We do the best we can...

Pathetically little though it be...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It's biblically inconclusive and should have never become a dogma.

No and yes...

She lived long after Jesus died and needed concealment - Hence the silence of Her life in Scripture...

Her ever-virginity was never formally dogmatized until the Latins did it many hundreds of years after they departed from our Communion...

Her answer to Gabriel is perhaps the best Biblical clue that we have...

A young woman betrothed to be married, being told by a Messenger of God that she will conceive a Child, does not ask: "How can this be, because I am not knowing a man?" A strong clue that...
Eve means Gune - Woman...
THAT is WHO She IS...
The New Eve, taking up where the fallen Eve left off...
As Christ is the New Adam, taking up where fallen Adam left off...

You are a brother of the Lord Who is your Father in the Holy Spirit...
She is therein your Mother as well...

I understand that you cannot receive these things...
For many years neither could I...
Can you receive that John IS Elijah?


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Exactly. And you PROVED it doesn't say what you do. Funny how you are often determined to shoot yourself in the foot.






Underline the words, "Mary had other children."

As you know, the words for "brother" and "sister" do NOT mean, "have the same biological mother." Not in English, not the Greek. It says JESUS is the son of JOSEPH. It says Mary is JESUS' mother. Your view is entirely, completely, absolutely ABSENT from this verse. And everyone knows it. Why do you insist - so often - in proving yourself wrong, in "shooting yourself in the foot?" Friend, why shout that it's what Scripture says that matters and then PROVE it doesn't say what you do? As we all know, "brother" and "sister" can mean a step sibling, half sibling, a cousin, actually even someone with whom we are close; YOU are my brother. It is NOT true that the word "brother" in koine Greek means "Shares the same biological mother; came from the same womb." YOU are imposing a mandating meaning that's not there. You are speculating the Holy Spirit meant to say, "these four persons are the offspring of MARY" but that's NOT what the text says, is it? You are just speculating - while condemning speculating. Condemning what you yourself do MOST OF ALL, more than anyone at CH.

You are SPECULATING..... you are IMPOSING things that obviously aren't there. You are ASSUMING the Holy Spirit meant something but didn't actually stated it so you'll correct it for the Holy Spirit. You condemn Arsenios for saying something the Bible doesn't actually state by DOING THE VERY THING YOU REPUDIATE. It's something you do constantly.






You PROVE that NO ONE called Mary the mother of these 4 named persons. You shot down your whole argument, shooting yourself in the foot. Again. You are SPECULATING..... while you are condemning speculating. It's called hypocrisy, it's called holding to a double standard. And you do it at a very extreme level.




.

I quoted what is says.
It says that the people in Nazareth knew Jesus had brothers and sisters. Nowhere in the text do they say "from another mother." If you can't accept what the text actually says, then you are free to dispute every line in scripture and make up any crap you want from the text...which is exactly what you are doing with this text in Matthew 13.
It seems you are so connected by the umbilical cord to your tradition that you will reject the Bible to hold onto your church's imaginary dogma.

 

[MennoSota]

I sure hope not!

Following me plus $5 will get you no change back at Starbucks!


Arsenios

Your hopes are dashed. Only people, bent on wives tales, will follow your teaching.

 

[JRT]

I have no problem with the fact that Jesus was the first born of a family of at least seven siblings. The Bible names them as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas with sisters in the plural. Extra-biblical sources name his sisters as Miriam and Salome. It puzzles me that people have trouble with a normal Galilean first century Galilean family.

 

[Josiah]

I quoted what is says

... to prove Scripture does NOT say what you do.

Odd how you keep doing that.