JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Josiah]

[MENTION=509]RichWh1[/MENTION]

We can agree the word αδελφός does not always have the meaning of brother, as it can relate to any blood relative

No, we don't agree.

Prove that every use of the word here means "came from the identical womb" Matthew 5:47, Acts 3:22, Hebrews 2:12, Acts 9:30, Acts 11:29, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 1:1, Matthew 5:22-24, Matthew 7:5, Hebrews 2:17, Acts 6:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 The word does NOT mean what is claimed by some here, "Proceed from the same womb, has the same birth mother." Nor does it mean "a blood relative."

You have to admit that saying Mary was definitely not the mother of James and Jude is mere conjecture

You have to admit that insisting that the 6 (or more) persons indicated in the text are from the womb of Mary is "conjecture"



As you know, my position is that the Bible simply does not state if Mary had other childen, it does not state one way or the other.

We can note that NO ONE other than Jesus is stated to have Mary as their mother; the ONLY PERSON who is stated to have been born of Mary is Jesus.

Anyone can theorize.... engage in "mere conjecture".... but we cannot know. (And I can't image for the life of me why it matters).



Those here who dogmatically insist "The Bible says she had lotsa sex and kids" are wrong; the Bible does NOT state that; they are parroting a position first invented in the 18th Century by some liberal Protestants but the Bible does not say that. Those who dogmatically insist, "The Bible says that Mary had no other children" are wrong; the Bible does NOT state that; they are parroting a very, very ancient and until the 18th Century and those Protstants, a universal tradition, but the Bible does not say that. That's my position. Friend, you seem to be arguing against my position.



.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

Amen. Good post. You are absolutely correct!

John 6:42, Matt 12:46-47, Matt 13:55-56, John 2:12 and Acts 1:14 are crystal clear on this.

Yes, they prove that the Bible never indicates that Mary had other children. ONLY Jesus is stated as having Mary as a biological mother. The Bible ONLY states Jesus as a biological child of Mary.


Yes, we know that familial - relational terms such as "father" "mother" "brother" and "sister" were all used quite loosely (note how you showed Joseph being called FATHER even though Joseph had NOTHING to do with Jesus' birth and is ENTIRELY unrelated to Jesus). "Brother" can mean males sharing the same mother, but it was also used for half-brothers (perhaps only sharing the same father), for cousins (there was a koine Greek word for cousin but usually just "brother"or "sister" was used instead), even just for people who emotionally or spiritually connected and share neither parent and perhaps biologically are ENTIRELY unrelated.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, they prove that the Bible never indicates that Mary had other children. ONLY Jesus is stated as having Mary as a biological mother. The Bible ONLY states Jesus as a biological child of Mary.


Yes, we know that familial - relational terms such as "father" "mother" "brother" and "sister" were all used quite loosely (note how you showed Joseph being called FATHER even though Joseph had NOTHING to do with Jesus' birth and is ENTIRELY unrelated to Jesus). "Brother" can mean males sharing the same mother, but it was also used for half-brothers (perhaps only sharing the same father), for cousins (there was a koine Greek word for cousin but usually just "brother"or "sister" was used instead), even just for people who emotionally or spiritually connected and share neither parent and perhaps biologically are ENTIRELY unrelated.

Context, Josiah, context. The context makes your argument sound silly.

 

[Josiah]

Context, Josiah, context. The context makes your argument sound silly.

"Scripture" means "inscripturated words", WORDS written down. It's the WORDS on the page, not invisible things in your personal imagination.


Your entire ignoring of the WORDS makes your dogma unsupported, as you admit by insisting we not pay attention to the words. You CANNOT show ANY Scripture - not one - that says Mary had other children. Not one. You CANNOT find even one Scripture that notes that ANYONE other than Jesus came from her womb. NOTHING. And yet, you insist "The Bible clearly says she had other chil dren." No. You've PROVEN it. You're virtually admitting it. It does not.


YOU have appointed one (yourself) to determine how you FEEL a Scripture IMPLIES but does not state; you feel today that a verse IMPLIES something that no Christian for nearly 1800 years ever shared. But rather than being honest and admitted you are speculating, you are engaging in personal conjecture, something that is at most personal opinion based ENTIRELY on what the Bible does NOT say.... you invent dogma, insisting "The Bible says" and then prove it does not. Read the Book of Jeremiah.... the prophet repeatedly condemns those who insist "God says" when He did not. There's one of the Ten Commandments that speaks of bearing false witness.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children. Anyone can appoint self to speculate, to conjecture, to determine what the Holy Spirit MEANT to inspired but didn't. But that doesn't mean God states it or "the Bible clearly says." YOU speculate, based entirely on what is NOT stated. Scripture does not state if Mary had other children. YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS. Yet you deny it. And create a dogma.

We have two TRADITIONS: One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition. And another invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition. But the Bible never says. And neither Tradition says why it matters.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

"Scripture" means "inscripturated words", WORDS written down. It's the WORDS on the page, not invisible things in your personal imagination.


Your entire ignoring of the WORDS makes your dogma unsupported, as you admit by insisting we not pay attention to the words. You CANNOT show ANY Scripture - not one - that says Mary had other children. Not one. You CANNOT find even one Scripture that notes that ANYONE other than Jesus came from her womb. NOTHING. And yet, you insist "The Bible clearly says she had other chil dren." No. You've PROVEN it. You're virtually admitting it. It does not.


YOU have appointed one (yourself) to determine how you FEEL a Scripture IMPLIES but does not state; you feel today that a verse IMPLIES something that no Christian for nearly 1800 years ever shared. But rather than being honest and admitted you are speculating, you are engaging in personal conjecture, something that is at most personal opinion based ENTIRELY on what the Bible does NOT say.... you invent dogma, insisting "The Bible says" and then prove it does not. Read the Book of Jeremiah.... the prophet repeatedly condemns those who insist "God says" when He did not. There's one of the Ten Commandments that speaks of bearing false witness.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children. Anyone can appoint self to speculate, to conjecture, to determine what the Holy Spirit MEANT to inspired but didn't. But that doesn't mean God states it or "the Bible clearly says." YOU speculate, based entirely on what is NOT stated. Scripture does not state if Mary had other children. YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS. Yet you deny it. And create a dogma.

We have two TRADITIONS: One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition. And another invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition. But the Bible never says. And neither Tradition says why it matters.



- Josiah




.

Context, context, context.
There is no word about infant baptism, yet you hold to it.
Here, in scripture we see actual brothers and sisters, yet you won't believe it.
Your interpretive methods are very odd, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

"Scripture" means "inscripturated words", WORDS written down. It's the WORDS on the page, not invisible things in your personal imagination. "Scripture" = words, those black on white letters that form words on the page.


Your entire ignoring of the WORDS makes your dogma unsupported, as you admit by insisting we not pay attention to the words. You CANNOT show ANY Scripture - not one - that says Mary had other children. Not one. You CANNOT find even one Scripture that notes that ANYONE other than Jesus came from her womb. NOTHING. And yet, you insist "The Bible clearly says she had other chil dren." No. You've PROVEN it. You're virtually admitting it. It does not.


YOU have appointed one (yourself) to determine how you FEEL a Scripture IMPLIES but does not state; you feel today that a verse IMPLIES something that no Christian for nearly 1800 years ever shared. But rather than being honest and admitted you are speculating, you are engaging in personal conjecture, something that is at most personal opinion based ENTIRELY on what the Bible does NOT say.... you invent dogma, insisting "The Bible says" and then prove it does not. Read the Book of Jeremiah.... the prophet repeatedly condemns those who insist "God says" when He did not. There's one of the Ten Commandments that speaks of bearing false witness.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children. Anyone can appoint self to speculate, to conjecture, to determine what the Holy Spirit MEANT to inspired but didn't. But that doesn't mean God states it or "the Bible clearly says." YOU speculate, based entirely on what is NOT stated. Scripture does not state if Mary had other children. YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS. Yet you deny it. And create a dogma.


We have two TRADITIONS: One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition. And another invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition. But the Bible never says. And neither Tradition says why it matters.



.

Here, in scripture we see actual brothers and sisters, yet you won't believe it.

I believe Scripture but not your imagination and you parroting a new tradition.


Scripture states that Mary is the mother of Jesus AND STATES NO OTHER. You yourself have proved this (many times)


Your whole apologetic is factually wrong. You're whole apologetic depends on the word "brother" in koine Greek meaning "from the same womb, having the same mother" and yet it has been proven to you that is NOT its meaning and indeed usually is not meant that way. SCRIPTURES have been given to prove this (all of which you've ignored). The word can mean that but it also can mean half-sibling, cousin, any relative (by blood or marriage), even one with whom we are ENTIRELY unrelated.


COULD the word have that meaning in this verse, IS IT POSSIBLE the meaning COULD be "and having the same mother are...." YES! But that would be YOUR speculation, YOUR conjecture, YOUR opinion.... because the word could EQUALLY mean "... having the same father...." "being cousins with" and a host of other possibilities! You are wrong... you are dishonest..... when you insist the verse SAYS Mary bore these 6 or more other children, it does not state that, YOU do.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children, and NEVER states that ANY other than Jesus came from her womb. You've gone to some lengths to prove this. Your dogma is NOT what Scripture says, as you constantly claim. You say it. The Bible does not.




We have two TRADITIONS about this:


1. One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition.

2. A new one invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition.

The Bible never says either of these.

Neither Tradition says why it matters.

You simply choose to parrot Tradition #2. And you may. But you are simply parroting that Tradition.... it's not what the Bible states, as you yourself have gone to such lengths to prove. YOU say it (echoing Tradition #2 above) you yourself PROVE the Bible does not.





.

 

[MennoSota]

I believe Scripture but not your imagination and you parroting a new tradition.


Scripture states that Mary is the mother of Jesus AND STATES NO OTHER. You yourself have proved this (many times)


Your whole apologetic is factually wrong. You're whole apologetic depends on the word "brother" in koine Greek meaning "from the same womb, having the same mother" and yet it has been proven to you that is NOT its meaning and indeed usually is not meant that way. SCRIPTURES have been given to prove this (all of which you've ignored). The word can mean that but it also can mean half-sibling, cousin, any relative (by blood or marriage), even one with whom we are ENTIRELY unrelated.


COULD the word have that meaning in this verse, IS IT POSSIBLE the meaning COULD be "and having the same mother are...." YES! But that would be YOUR speculation, YOUR conjecture, YOUR opinion.... because the word could EQUALLY mean "... having the same father...." "being cousins with" and a host of other possibilities! You are wrong... you are dishonest..... when you insist the verse SAYS Mary bore these 6 or more other children, it does not state that, YOU do.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children, and NEVER states that ANY other than Jesus came from her womb. You've gone to some lengths to prove this. Your dogma is NOT what Scripture says, as you constantly claim. You say it. The Bible does not.




We have two TRADITIONS about this:


1. One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition.

2. A new one invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition.

The Bible never says either of these.

Neither Tradition says why it matters.

You simply choose to parrot Tradition #2. And you may. But you are simply parroting that Tradition.... it's not what the Bible states, as you yourself have gone to such lengths to prove. YOU say it (echoing Tradition #2 above) you yourself PROVE the Bible does not.





.

If you believe scripture, and accept the context in scripture, you will acknowledge that Mary had more children besides Jesus.
If you place church tradition over the context of scripture, you will claim Joseph was a polygamist and Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Josiah]

I believe every word of Scripture but not your imagination and you parroting of a new tradition.


Scripture states that Mary is the mother of Jesus AND STATES NO OTHER. You yourself have proved this (many times)


Your whole apologetic is factually wrong. You're whole apologetic depends on the word "brother" in koine Greek meaning "from the same womb, having the same mother" and yet it has been proven to you that is NOT its meaning and indeed usually is not meant that way. SCRIPTURES have been given to prove this (all of which you've ignored). The word can mean that but it also can mean half-sibling, cousin, any relative (by blood or marriage), even one with whom we are ENTIRELY unrelated.


COULD the word have that meaning in this verse, IS IT POSSIBLE the meaning COULD be "and having the same mother are...." YES! But that would be YOUR speculation, YOUR conjecture, YOUR opinion.... because the word could EQUALLY mean "... having the same father...." "being cousins with" and a host of other possibilities! You are wrong... you are dishonest..... when you insist the verse SAYS Mary bore these 6 or more other children, it does not state that, YOU do.


The reality YOU YOURSELF PROVE is that the Bible never says if Mary had other children, and NEVER states that ANY other than Jesus came from her womb. You've gone to some lengths to prove this. Your new dogma is NOT what Scripture says, as you constantly claim. You say it. The Bible does not.




We have two TRADITIONS about this:


1. One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition.

2. A new one invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition.

The Bible never says either of these.

Neither Tradition says why it matters.

You simply choose to parrot Tradition #2. And you may. But you are simply parroting that Tradition.... it's not what the Bible states, as you yourself have gone to such lengths to prove. YOU say it (echoing Tradition #2 above) you yourself PROVE the Bible does not.


.

If you believe scripture....

I do. And since you so often have PROVEN that Scripture never - not once - states that Mary had other children.... since you have so often PROVEN that NO OTHER PERSON other than Jesus is stated to have Mary as their birth mother.... then my believe and acceptance of Scripture forces me to disagree with your new tradition.

you will claim Joseph was a polygamist and Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Quote me. You will not because you KNOW I never remotely said either thing. Very disturbing, this attribute of yours.....


What I said (try reading WORDS!) is that A TRADITION says Joseph was married before, had children and was widowed. IF he married Mary (and IF you actually read WORDS you'd know I hold that we don't know if he did), he would not be a polygamist since a polygamist is one married to two or more AT THE SAME TIME, and no one claims he was. One tradition says he was married before AND WIDOWED but that's as close as you get. Try reading words.... you know, those things formed by letters?

And I NEVER said I support the PVM. I said I do NOT accept it. Try reading words.... Actually noting what is there and what is not there. Words - those things formed by letters. Scripture, by definition, IS words.... Not your personal speculations of what words you'd LIKE to be there but prove (so well, so often) are not.



.
.

 

[RichWh1]

Scripture never says that Joseph was divorced or widowed or had other children! So where did these children come from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

I do. And since you so often have PROVEN that Scripture never - not once - states that Mary had other children.... since you have so often PROVEN that NO OTHER PERSON other than Jesus is stated to have Mary as their birth mother.... then my believe and acceptance of Scripture forces me to disagree with your new tradition.






Quote me. You will not because you KNOW I never remotely said either thing. Very disturbing, this attribute of yours.....


What I said (try reading WORDS!) is that A TRADITION says Joseph was married before, had children and was widowed. IF he married Mary (and IF you actually read WORDS you'd know I hold that we don't know if he did), he would not be a polygamist since a polygamist is one married to two or more AT THE SAME TIME, and no one claims he was. One tradition says he was married before AND WIDOWED but that's as close as you get. Try reading words.... you know, those things formed by letters?

And I NEVER said I support the PVM. I said I do NOT accept it. Try reading words.... Actually noting what is there and what is not there. Words - those things formed by letters. Scripture, by definition, IS words.... Not your personal speculations of what words you'd LIKE to be there but prove (so well, so often) are not.



.
.

I'm pretty sure you just quoted yourself and asked yourself to quote you. I can't find a word that I actually posted within your quotes.
LOL, that's pretty funny to see you argue against yourself.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=509]RichWh1[/MENTION]

We have two TRADITIONS about this:


1. One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years - that she did not have other children - and some today parrot that Tradition.

2. A new one invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition.

The Bible never says either of these.

Neither Tradition says why it matters.

Soeme simply choose to parrot Tradition #2. Some choose to parrot Tradition #2. But they are simply parroting a radition.... it's not what the Bible states, as MennoSota and others have gone to suchgreat lengths to prove. THEY are echoing one of the two Traditions about that - one very, very ancient and ecumenical, the other very new and invented by radically liberal Protestants in the 18th Century. NEITHER is stated in the Bible. Some are honest to admit this. Some are not.

Scripture never says that Joseph was divorced or widowed or had other children!

EXACTLY!


Good that you notice what the Bible does NOT say. Ahha! Eureka! NOW perhaps you will see my point.....
NOW perhaps you'll see the error, the falsehood, in those here who insist, "The Bible SAYS Mary had lots sex and kids." "The Bible clearly states these are children specifically of MARY."


Now notice, it NEVER says Mary had ANY other children. Nope. Not once.
Now notice, NO ONE except Jesus is EVER said to be a child of Mary. Nope. No other.


Does this prove she had no other children? Absolutely not. But it does prove the Bible never says that she did.




Side but critical point, my friend...


Since you bring up that the Bible never states Joseph had been married before (that's TRADITION) you may also notice it never says that Mary EVER married anyone (it's TRADITION, and only since the Middle Ages and only in the West that they did). Actually, the Bible ONLY says an angel gave Joseph PERMISSION to marry her; no Scripture states that he ever did. And for nearly 1000 years, half of the history of Christianity, no one believed that he ever did. You are embracing a western TRADITION (um, that's okay with me - just realize what you are doing) and imposing it here, EXACTLY the VERY SAME THING some do when the embrace a Tradition (1000 years older than yours) that Joseph was married before and widowed. Stop. Stand back for a moment. Can you see that? Will you consider that?

IF one insists, "NO TRADITION!" okay, but than that applies to them, too. IF one insists, "ONLY Scripture" then that applies to them, too and they thus need to quote the Scripture that STATES what they claim it does (and of course, TRADITION tells us that book is Scripture). Also consider: the Bible never says Mary and Joseph married.... and for 1000 years, NO ONE believed that they did. Now, we find some Protestants insisting they had lotsa sex but can't show they were married. Hum. Think about that one. But AH, they are imposing a Western Tradition formed about 1000 years ago (they just aren't admitting it).

If we are going to get anywhere in these discussions, we need to be honest.... and use a level playing field. IMO. Friend, too often, people SHOUT "NO TRADITION!" but prove what they mean is "ONLY MY TRADITION, NOT YOURS!" Too often people shout, "The Bible STATES!" when they PROVE what they mean is "The Bible does NOT state but MY SPIN on it is....." It's dishonest. It's hypocritical. Sometimes it's deliberate lying. It ONLY serves to negate any useful conversation. It's insisting on two different playing fields, two different set of rules. IMO. Perhaps we fundamentally disagree, my friend. I'm certainly NOT against using Tradition, I'm just against dishonesty about that and insisting others cannot do EXACTLY what they are doing. Follow?

Would you consider that?




Blessings on your day



- Josiah



.

 

[RichWh1]

Answer my question! If Joseph was not divorced or widowed, where did the children come from??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Answer my question! If Joseph was not divorced or widowed, where did the children come from?

Read post 152.


I AGREE with you - completely, entirely!!! The BIble does not say that; a very ancient TRADITION says that. I never remotely said I agree with it, I just noted it's a TRADITION. Read post 152 (all of it; including the quoting part of it)

Nope, the Bible does not say Joseph was married before. In fact, it never says he was EVER married to anyone or ever had any kids. There's TRADITION about this but no Scripture.
Nope, the Bible does not say that Mary was ever married to anyone or EVER had ANY children other than Jesus. There's TRADITION (much newer and much less affirmed) but no Scripture.

Read post 152.


As noted before:

We have two TRADITIONS about this:


1. One very, very ancient (from the First Century when Mary perhaps was still alive) that 100% of all Christians embraced for over 1700 years . This Tradition is that Mary had no children other than Jesus. Also that Joseph was married before, had children and was widowed. Some parrot this Tradition.

2. A new one invented in the 18th Century by some very liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) - that Mary had lotsa sex and kids - and some parrot that Tradition.

The Bible never says either of these.

Neither Tradition says why it matters.

Some simply choose to parrot one of the above Traditions. And they may. But they are simply parroting a Tradition.... not what the Bible states, as they tend to go to such lengths to prove. It's okay to parrot a Tradition.... but be honest about it. AND if one is going to insist that SELF can use their chosen tradition, then it's hypocritical to insist others are wrong to do exactly the same thing. But how ironic to shout "THE BIBLE STATES" and then prove (over and over again) it does not (it's their chosen Tradition saying it).

Please, friend, read post 152, including the quotations. Thank you!



Blessings!



- Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

John Calvin's commentary seems to agree as well that it is inconclusive for the most part although he reiterates that the word "brothers" is an agreed upon Hebrew idiom meaning "relatives".
I'm not calling anyone out or anything I just found it interesting. Calvin's commentaries are imo more accurate than modern day commentaries, I highly recommend them.

"55.*Is not this the carpenter’s son?*It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word*brothers,*we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly,*Helvidius*displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s*brothers*are sometimes mentioned.*347"

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.xxxix.html

 

[RichWh1]

Thank you Andrew. Very interesting and informative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichWh1]

Tradition is manmade not the final authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Note: Calvin didn't say that he disagrees or agrees with Helvidius but was just stating that he missed the idiom, Calvin seemed to have found it possible for Mary to remain a virgin but that the scripture is inconclusive on the matter.

Helvidius*(sometimes*Helvetius) was the author of a work written prior to 383 against the belief in the*perpetual virginity of Mary. Helvidius maintained that the biblical mention of "sisters" and "brothers" of the Lord constitutes solid evidence that*Mary*had normal marital relations with Joseph and additional children after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. He supported his opinion by the writings of*Tertullian*and*Victorinus.[1]

 

[Josiah]

Tradition is manmade not the final authority.

EXACTLY!!!!! Did you read posts 152 and 154?


EXACTLY!!! So the Tradition that Mary had lots kids is not authoritative in your view.


Now, I give more "room" for Tradition than you obviously do, but either way, you are right: Tradiition (including the one that Mary had other kids) is manmade and not the final authority. You may echo it if you so choose - just as others may echo the other Tradition, but that's what you are doing, echoing a manmade Tradition that YOU insist is not ultimately authoritative.


People echo the two traditions.... people disagree with the two traditions..... But they are TRADITIONS and the Bible never states either.


I do NOT repudiate people sharing their chosen TRADITION. I only reject when:
1) They don't admit it is TRADITION.
2) When they parrot their chosen Tradition while disallowing others to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
3) When they falsely claim they are not parroting a Tradition but rather simply stating what the Bible states (then proving the Bible does not say it).

There are people who INSIST on two very different (often opposite) "play books" - one for the them, another for everyone else. Two very different "playing fields." Sometimes Christians shout "The BIBLE says....." then themselves PROVE it does not (it's actually their chosen TRADITION that says it), while loudly rebuking everyone else for sharing a Tradition.


I agree with you: The Bible is the Authority. And as several here have PROVEN, the Bible never says Mary had sex... never says she had other children.... it never even says she ever married (anyone). IF you agree with yourself that the Bible is the Authority, then perhaps your position would be: We don't know if Mary ever had sex.... we don't know if she ever had any other children. NOW, if you chose to agree with either of the two main Traditions on this, that's fine.... just be honest about it, don't claim "The BIble states" (then prove you're wrong about that), and don't demand that others cannot do what you are doing. Make sense?




.

 

[RichWh1]

Scripture says Mary had kids!

What does ‘mother and brothers ‘ indicate to you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk