It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[Stranger]

Not only does Scripture disagree with you (Luke 1:34) - NOWHERE does it ever say that Mary had other kids.

You have YET to show me one, single verse . . .

How does (Luke 1:34) disagree with me.

I did show you. (Matt.12:46-50) If Mary and her other sons were not being spoken of then Christ's statement in (48-50) makes no sense.

And, the brethren is used by Christ for his other brothers, Mary's other sons, in (John 7:3-5) "...for neither did his brethren believe in him"

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

How does (Luke 1:34) disagree with me.

I did show you. (Matt.12:46-50) If Mary and her other sons were not being spoken of then Christ's statement in (48-50) makes no sense.

And, the brethren is used by Christ for his other brothers, Mary's other sons, in (John 7:3-5) "...for neither did his brethren believe in him"

Stranger

You've shown nothing but vague references to "Adelphoi", which, as I already showed you can be used for a MANY relations including uterine sibling, step-sibling, cousin, uncle, neighbor, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.
Jesus's statement in verses 48-50 make perfect senseif He was talking about step-siblings.

Finally - you have YET to show where Scripture talks about MARY having other chlldren.
The fact is that it's just not there . . .


PS - Luke 1:34 shows Mary's resolution to never have relations with a man.

 

[Stranger]

You've shown nothing but vague references to "Adelphoi", which, as I already showed you can be used for a MANY relations including uterine sibling, step-sibling, cousin, uncle, neighbor, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.
Jesus's statement in verses 48-50 make perfect senseif He was talking about step-siblings.

Finally - you have YET to show where Scripture talks about MARY having other chlldren.
The fact is that it's just not there . . .


PS - Luke 1:34 shows Mary's resolution to never have relations with a man.

There is nothing in (Matt.48-50) that indicate any so called 'step-siblings". What a reach.

Who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)?

The 'fact' is you don't want Jesus to have any brothers because you want Mary a perpetual virgin. Which she was not. Therefore, any verses that prove otherwise you deny.

(Luke 1:34) in no way says Mary doesn't want to ever have relations with a man. Another reach, greater than the first. Why would Mary consent to marriage if this was so? Why would Joseph consent to marriage if this was so?

Face it. Mary had sex with Joseph and produced other children by him.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is nothing in (Matt.48-50) that indicate any so called 'step-siblings". What a reach.

Who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)?

The 'fact' is you don't want Jesus to have any brothers because you want Mary a perpetual virgin. Which she was not. Therefore, any verses that prove otherwise you deny.

(Luke 1:34) in no way says Mary doesn't want to ever have relations with a man. Another reach, greater than the first. Why would Mary consent to marriage if this was so? Why would Joseph consent to marriage if this was so?

Face it. Mary had sex with Joseph and produced other children by him.

Stranger

And when YOU can show me ONE verse that says Mary had other children - I will agree with you.
Unfortunately, there aren't any verses that make this claim. You can't even name one.

Surely, if He had uterine siblings, they would be mentioned by name in Scripture.
They're not because He didn't have any..

 

[Stranger]

And when YOU can show me ONE verse that says Mary had other children - I will agree with you.
Unfortunately, there aren't any verses that make this claim. You can't even name one.

Surely, if He had uterine siblings, they would be mentioned by name in Scripture.
They're not because He didn't have any..

No, you won't agree with me. Because I have shown you verses and you refuse to believe them. And, who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)? Why would Jesus call those who were not believers, brethren?

Answer: Because they were His brethren in the flesh. His brothers. Mary's other sons. Because she had sex with Joseph. Meaning she was no longer a virgin.

(Gen.5:4-5) "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." So, tell me all the names of the sons and daughters of Adam. Can you? Can you tell me how many?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, you won't agree with me. Because I have shown you verses and you refuse to believe them. And, who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)? Why would Jesus call those who were not believers, brethren?

Answer: Because they were His brethren in the flesh. His brothers. Mary's other sons. Because she had sex with Joseph. Meaning she was no longer a virgin.

(Gen.5:4-5) "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." So, tell me all the names of the sons and daughters of Adam. Can you? Can you tell me how many?

Stranger

As I educated you earlier - the broad meaning of "Adelphos" encompassed MANY uses. Among them are uterine sibling, step sibling, friend, cousin, uncle, neighbor, father in law, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

This is glaringly clear in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Here are THREE perfect examples of this:

1. In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "Adelphos", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

2. In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "Adelphos" of his uncle Laban.

3. Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "Adelphoi”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The original Hebrew word used on ALL three cases was "ach", which ALSO had a broad use (brother, cousin, uncle, friend, step-sibling, etc).

Sorry - but you're not linguistically equipped to debate this issue because your argument is based solely on YOUR opinions and denials and nothing else.

Finally - in 2000 years of Christendom with its many traditions - WHY isn't there ONE single tradition or document that makes the claim YOU are making about Mary??
Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree on her perpetual virginity??
Why aren't these "siblings" named??

 

[Stranger]

As I educated you earlier - the broad meaning of "Adelphos" encompassed MANY uses. Among them are uterine sibling, step sibling, friend, cousin, uncle, neighbor, father in law, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

This is glaringly clear in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Here are THREE perfect examples of this:

1. In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "Adelphos", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

2. In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "Adelphos" of his uncle Laban.

3. Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "Adelphoi”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The original Hebrew word used on ALL three cases was "ach", which ALSO had a broad use (brother, cousin, uncle, friend, step-sibling, etc).

Sorry - but you're not linguistically equipped to debate this issue because your argument is based solely on YOUR opinions and denials and nothing else.

So, because you are so educated means you can't answer my question, or questions.

Who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)? I gave you the answer, but at least acknowledge.

And, concerning (Gen.5:4-5), what are all the names of Adams sons and daughters?

Should be easy for one so linguistically equipped.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, because you are so educated means you can't answer my question, or questions.

Who is brethren in (John 7:3-5)? I gave you the answer, but at least acknowledge.

And, concerning (Gen.5:4-5), what are all the names of Adams sons and daughters?

Should be easy for one so linguistically equipped.

Stranger

I already told you. the "Adelphoi" spoken of in John 7:3-5 are adelphoi of Jesus.
And as I also told you - the text is unclear as to the relationship of these adelphoi because of the broadness of the term.

 

[Stranger]

I already told you. the "Adelphoi" spoken of in John 7:3-5 are adelphoi of Jesus.
And as I also told you - the text is unclear as to the relationship of these adelphoi because of the broadness of the term.

Ah yes, everything you present is unclear. So why not the words used.

What is clear is that these brethren were unbelievers. Thus why would Christ call them brethren if they were unbelievers? Because they were his brothers. Marys sons. Cause she had sex with Joseph. She no longer was a virgin. Oh, the pain.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

Ah yes, everything you present is unclear. So why not the words used.

What is clear is that these brethren were unbelievers. Thus why would Christ call them brethren if they were unbelievers? Because they were his brothers. Marys sons. Cause she had sex with Joseph. She no longer was a virgin. Oh, the pain.

Stranger

In Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin." "Christ call them brethren" does not prove they they were siblings, it proves your stubborn refusal to accept the fact the "bretheren" has more than one meaning. Such as:
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers. According to your logic, all the apostles are Jesus' siblings.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." According to your logic, Mary would have to be continuously pregnant for 90 years!!! You are being ridiculous.
Acts 7:26; Acts11:1; Acts13:15,38; Acts15:3,23, Acts 32; 28:17,21 -and you think they all mean siblings???
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 1 Kings 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend. deny, deny, deny, right stranger?
It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women.
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity < a good scripture based refutation of the modernist myth.

Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.

Principal Errors:
(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason;
(2)external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not
prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited
to the intellect of modern man;
(3) Christ did not found a Church;
(4) and the essential structure of the Church can change;
(5) the Church's dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can change
from meaning one thing to meaning another;
(6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the subconscious under the
impulse of a heart and a will trained to morality, not a real assent
of the intellect to divine truth learned by hearing it from an external source.

Background.
The heresy of Modernism was inspired by tendencies prevalent in
liberal Protestantism and secular philosophy. It was influenced by
nineteenth-century studies by Kant and Hegel, by liberal Protestant
theologians and biblical critics (such as Schleiermacher and von
Harnack), by the evolutionary theories of Darwin, and by certain
liberal political movements in Europe...(atheists and heretics)
Modernism

NONE of the early reformers believed this "Mary had other children" lie. This break from the reformers teachings (which has not infected all of Protestantism) most likely occurred under the influence of Darwin, Kant. Hegel, Schleiermacher, von Harnack and European politics. You read the Bible through the lens of modernism.
Oh, the pain.

 

[Born_Again]

opcorn:

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah yes, everything you present is unclear. So why not the words used.

What is clear is that these brethren were unbelievers. Thus why would Christ call them brethren if they were unbelievers? Because they were his brothers. Marys sons. Cause she had sex with Joseph. She no longer was a virgin. Oh, the pain.

Stranger

You don't read very well, do you??

I already educated you on this point. The very broad usage of "Adelphos" in Scripture encompasses MANY uses including:
- Uterine brother
- Step sibling
- Cousin
- Uncle
- Brother in law
- Nephew
- Friend
- Neighbor
- Fellow Countryman
- Fellow Believer

ANY one of these other than uterine sibling or fellow believer could be the case with the "Brethren of the Lord".
You're simply throwing up useless road blocks because you've LOST this argument . . .

Answer this:
Are the 120 "Adelphoi" spoken of in Acts 1:15 all from the SAME mother??

 

[bbyrd009]

then i'm curious how you might address that Joseph lay with Mary after Jesus was born?

 

[Stranger]

You don't read very well, do you??

I already educated you on this point. The very broad usage of "Adelphos" in Scripture encompasses MANY uses including:
- Uterine brother
- Step sibling
- Cousin
- Uncle
- Brother in law
- Nephew
- Friend
- Neighbor
- Fellow Countryman
- Fellow Believer

ANY one of these other than uterine sibling or fellow believer could be the case with the "Brethren of the Lord".
You're simply throwing up useless road blocks because you've LOST this argument . . .

Answer this:
Are the 120 "Adelphoi" spoken of in Acts 1:15 all from the SAME mother??

Pay attention. (John 7:5) "For neither did his brethren believe in him" These were 'His' brethren, but not believers. That can only be brothers in the flesh. Sons of Mary and Joseph.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pay attention. (John 7:5) "For neither did his brethren believe in him" These were 'His' brethren, but not believers. That can only be brothers in the flesh. Sons of Mary and Joseph.

Stranger

And that is a ridiculous assumption.
They could be ANY relation , as I have repeatedly educated you.

You keep dodging the questions I have asked:

In 2000 years of Christendom with its many traditions - WHY isn't there ONE single tradition or document that makes the claim YOU are making about Mary??
Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree on her perpetual virginity??
Why aren't these "siblings" named??

 

[BreadOfLife]

then i'm curious how you might address that Joseph lay with Mary after Jesus was born?

I would like for you to substantiate this preposterous claim.
CAN you do that??

 

[Stranger]

And that is a ridiculous assumption.
They could be ANY relation , as I have repeatedly educated you.

You keep dodging the questions I have asked:

In 2000 years of Christendom with its many traditions - WHY isn't there ONE single tradition or document that makes the claim YOU are making about Mary??
Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree on her perpetual virginity??
Why aren't these "siblings" named??

It's not an assumption. The only people who could be 'His brethren who didn't believe' are His brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph. They are with Mary, they are unbelievers. What unbelievers are going to be with Mary and seek to speak to Jesus.

You're the one making the assumption. You assume Mary was a perpetual virgin. Scripture never says that. You're tradition wants to believe it.

You're constant use of the word "Adelphoi" to prove your point is also an assumption. You're the one saying it could mean many different peoples. So, you assume it is not other sons of Mary. You assume because your tradition wants to believe otherwise. Since it could be anybody then it could other sons of Mary from another father. Since it could be anybody, it could be Mary married again and had other sons by another man. Since it could be anybody. Since we are going to assume.

I don't believe all of the early church believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

I don't base my beliefs on tradition. Tradition can be fine if it is correct with Scripture. But if it is not, then it is wrong.

As I asked before concerning (Gen. 5:4) What are all the names of Adams sons and daughters? You don't know because God doesn't say.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's not an assumption. The only people who could be 'His brethren who didn't believe' are His brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph. They are with Mary, they are unbelievers. What unbelievers are going to be with Mary and seek to speak to Jesus.

You're the one making the assumption. You assume Mary was a perpetual virgin. Scripture never says that. You're tradition wants to believe it.

You're constant use of the word "Adelphoi" to prove your point is also an assumption. You're the one saying it could mean many different peoples. So, you assume it is not other sons of Mary. You assume because your tradition wants to believe otherwise. Since it could be anybody then it could other sons of Mary from another father. Since it could be anybody, it could be Mary married again and had other sons by another man. Since it could be anybody. Since we are going to assume.

I don't believe all of the early church believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

I don't base my beliefs on tradition. Tradition can be fine if it is correct with Scripture. But if it is not, then it is wrong.

As I asked before concerning (Gen. 5:4) What are all the names of Adams sons and daughters? You don't know because God doesn't say.

Stranger

And you'd be wrong.

The Early Church fathers UNANIMOUSLY agree on Mary's perpetual virginity. The so-called "Reformers" also UNANIMOUSLY agreed on her perpetual virginity.
The idea that Mary had "other" children is a relatively NEW invention.

As for your ridiculous assertion that ONLY His uterine siblings would be hanging out with Mary is like the proverbial ostrich hiding his head in the ground.
I have repeatedly given you many of the Biblical uses of the word "Adelphos" and you act as if it ONLY means uterine siblings. This is nothing but denial.

If these adelphoi were children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, as the 2nd century historian Hegesippus asserts, then there would be every reason in the world for them to be with Mary, their step-mother.

PS - You STILL haven't answered my questions:
Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree on her perpetual virginity??
Why aren't these "siblings" named??

 

[Stranger]

And you'd be wrong.

The Early Church fathers UNANIMOUSLY agree on Mary's perpetual virginity. The so-called "Reformers" also UNANIMOUSLY agreed on her perpetual virginity.
The idea that Mary had "other" children is a relatively NEW invention.

As for your ridiculous assertion that ONLY His uterine siblings would be hanging out with Mary is like the proverbial ostrich hiding his head in the ground.
I have repeatedly given you many of the Biblical uses of the word "Adelphos" and you act as if it ONLY means uterine siblings. This is nothing but denial.

If these adelphoi were children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, as the 2nd century historian Hegesippus asserts, then there would be every reason in the world for them to be with Mary, their step-mother.

PS - You STILL haven't answered my questions:
Why do the Early Church Fathers unanimously agree on her perpetual virginity??
Why aren't these "siblings" named??

It wasn't just that it is Christ's brethren who were with Mary, it is unbelieving brethren. There would be no reason for unbelievers to be with Mary, unless they were her sons, and His brothers.

Yes, you use the word 'Adelphos' so that you can assume. That is all you can do with that word. Like I said, one could say these brethren are from another marriage of Mary. Doesn't have to be Joseph. Which means proof comes from somewhere else. With you it is tradition of man. With me it is the Scripture. And, Hegassippus wasn't inspired by God.

I did answer your questions. I said I don't believe all of the early Church held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I will look into it, but just who are you calling the church fathers? The Romanists? One can only believe this based on tradition. Not Scripture.

And, all you have to do for you last question is read my last line of the previous post. Arn't you paying attention.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't just that it is Christ's brethren who were with Mary, it is unbelieving brethren. There would be no reason for unbelievers to be with Mary, unless they were her sons, and His brothers.

Yes, you use the word 'Adelphos' so that you can assume. That is all you can do with that word. Like I said, one could say these brethren are from another marriage of Mary. Doesn't have to be Joseph. Which means proof comes from somewhere else. With you it is tradition of man. With me it is the Scripture. And, Hegassippus wasn't inspired by God.

I did answer your questions. I said I don't believe all of the early Church held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I will look into it, but just who are you calling the church fathers? The Romanists? One can only believe this based on tradition. Not Scripture.

And, all you have to do for you last question is read my last line of the previous post. Arn't you paying attention.

Stranger

Why do you keep making the moronic assertion that Mary wouldn't be around unbelievers. This is a really WEAK claim.
There are members of my extended family who are unbelievers yet we hang out together at family reunions. These "adelphoi" were Mary's step-children??

Is she supposed to abandon them because they're not her biological children??
Your position is pointless.

As to the Early Church Fathers - who do YOU think they were. There was only ONE Church - and these are the men who carried the Gospel message from the Apostles down through the centuries.
Not ONE of them ever wrote about Mary having "other" children. You can look into it until the cows come home and you won't find one. Gee - I WONDER why that is??

Finally - no, you haven't answered my questions.
Why can't you find the names of the "siblings" of Jesus in Scripture OR tradition?? Why aren't they named ANYWHERE??