Does the Ever-virginity of Mary Contradict Scripture?

[SantoSubito]

Ok. I'm talking about just the NT. Written in Greek.

I gave examples from the NT and I could provide plenty more from Acts and the Pauline Epistles, but the LXX is also useful because it was also written in the same Greek that the NT was written in.

Is there anywhere in the NT where Adelphos does not specify brother? Either a brother in the Lord Jesus, or a brother from the womb?

Well that would depend on how you interpret the "brothers of Jesus" passages. Apart from those there aren't really any histories of families or genealogies like there are in the OT.

And back to my questions about Matthew 13:55 which you did not answer...

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The Jews say they know his father and mother and "brethren" which when all the names on the list are identified with Mary's sister (also called Mary) then "brethren" is taken to mean kinsmen (one of it's many definitions).

 

[jimmydiggs]

Contrary opinions on "de Fide" doctrines are not allowed and are considered heretical, yes. But thats not a problem for me and really shouldn't be for any Catholic considering we view Sacred Tradition as Divine Revelation just like Scripture.

The biggest problem I have with tradition, is that when it contradicts scripture I'm going to drop it like it's hot. That's part of why I have ended up largely in the Reformed category of Protestantism.

I don't have an issue with tradtion neccesarily, rather, some of the claims that are made.

 

[SantoSubito]

The biggest problem I have with tradition, is that when it contradicts scripture I'm going to drop it like it's hot. That's part of why I have ended up largely in the Reformed category of Protestantism.

I don't have an issue with tradtion neccesarily, rather, some of the claims that are made.

Scripture when it's interpreted in the Catholic context never contradicts Tradition, so for Catholics it should be a moot point. For others I can't say the same thing.

 

[Grandpa]

Here's two Luke 22:32 and Acts 1:12-15.

Matthew 12:46-50
46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

It looks like there are only 2 ways in which Adelphos is used in the NT. One - A brother in Christ. And two - a brother from the womb. It looks like Jesus is clarifying which ones are which in these verses.

 

[Grandpa]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The Jews say they know his father and mother and "brethren" which when all the names on the list are identified with Mary's sister (also called Mary) then "brethren" is taken to mean kinsmen (one of it's many definitions).

So your position is that 2/3 of the passage is literal but if the word brother is used then it cannot be considered in its literal sense? I wonder how a person could interpret that way...

I wonder why Suggenes is never used in conjunction with Jesus brothers or sisters. Seems a little odd with all those Greek descriptives that no one ever thinks to call Jesus' non-brothers, cousins or near kinsmen or Josephs other kids. But every time they are called Jesus' brothers. Well at least they were all consistent even if they did have such a small vocabulary. When we get to heaven we can tease them for not being more clear... lol

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, Christ was never in human flesh at those times, I exagerated when I said that. I was thinking of the verse: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

Then you understand mary provided Christ with the flesh from which he entered and became man correct? That this flesh only survived 33 years. And when Christ arose, he arose with the new flesh which we all look forward to. And not the one bore by mary correct? Soo I don't get your belief why Mary had to be Holy. Mary did not birth God, she birthed the flesh God entered.

Do not denigrate Men. The Bible was written by Men as well. Moses and all of the Prophets were men. Jesus was a man.

Scripture only states that it was inspired by men. It does not state anywhere that men outside of scripture will be infallible interpreters or writers of anything now does it. History shows that men outside of scripture have always written words and books which they claimed supported and were an addition, yet equal to the scripture God was giving us. And history shows those writtings were in major error. Why? Because they were not inspired by God.

We must say to this that the Holy Spirit had had to have been the bearer of the Essence of the LOGOS (Jesus) and that when it was conceived in Mary's womb, it instantly fused the 2 Natures of Christ into one Essence, Human and Divine. But the flesh of Christ could not have "entered the flesh born of mary after the flesh was created", this is not possible because Jesus Divinity as well as Humanity must have come into one being in Mary at one time, or else we have no union of Humanity and Divinity, it would not be possible, it could not happen.

You should take a science class my friend. A female egg can not procreate anything, it must be inseminated with the male part for it to form a completed cell with all the dna required to form a human fetus. Since Mary's cell could not be touched by a human male part required. The HS did what Only God can do, and made the cell one. in doing so the human body was formed which later was taken by the spirit of Christ, as a soul. When Chrisr died, the body that mary created died with him. But his spirit. which was God before mary, was with the body while he was on earth. Left the body ands the body returned to the ground. He returned with a new body. not bore by mary, minus all the contamination of sin, and the body we look forward to. My body which was bore by my mother will die. My spirit will live on. And I will be given a new body.

Christ was spirit before he became man. Christ spirit entered his body bore by mary, and when the week body bore by mary died, Christ spirit continued on.

Why you can't understand this is beyond my comprehension

Mary's pure blood had to be mixed with the Essence of the Logos (Jesus) in order for this fusion to take place. For her purity is the only reason why it happened.

This sounds just like an old pegan excuse of how things happened. Christ did not have to fuse with the blood. The blood gives life to the body not the spirit. when the blood stops the body dies, just like Christ's did on the cross. If th flesh bore by Christ had divine characteristics. The body could not be killed.

Again, the extent you people will go, and the things you will believe to make your belief stand is just amazing.

What Scripture? You have no New Testament without the Church. You would have the Gospel of Thomas or Peter, or some kind of Gnostic writing if the Church had not given us the proper books in the New Testament.

1. God wrote the NT. Not the church.
2. The church did not give me the bible. GOD did.
3. Yet another feeble attempt to give man credit for what belongs to God. Scripture tells us, And thus God, that scripture was inspired BY GOD, not the church.

Get over yourselves. and stop taking credit for the work of God. and giving it to men!

You have the Scriptures which testify of themselves,but without the Church, you have no sure foundation on which to base the authenticity of them. That is why the Apostle Paul said that we NEED the Church because it is the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)

The true church will stand on biblical principles which can be proven. Not which is based on truths which can not stand to scriptural scrutiny. Like everything we are talking about here does not. Paul did not tell timothy that the church trumped the word of God. He told timothy to hold firm the word of God when he comes in the church. you have it backwards. Paul told every member of the corinthian church they should ALL be teachers of others. But instead they were still babes in Christ and still needed to be fed (taught) themselves. Why do you wish to be taught by men, and not learn so you can in turn teach others? You are holding yourself back, And not doing what Paul commanded you to do!

The Real Word of God is Jesus Christ, it is not the Text of the Bible. The Bible is very very helpful for a person to live a Godly life, but if it does not have the proper interpretation, it will not be able to be fully explained.

I agree. But God never intended for man to interpret the word for us. He gave us the HS so we can interpret the word ourself. so we in turn do not remain babies. but can eat meat, and can in turn teach others. How could the corinthian church teach others if they were not given the ability to interpret the word properly?

God will not give you a get out of jail card because you listened to someone that said he was the church blindly. He will hold you accountable because you did not study for yourself And use the word HE GAVE YOU. to know the things of God.

Without the "Pillar of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) you are being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Ephesians 4)
For there is not the "Unity of the Faith" spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4, there is only division, because of people's refusal of humility. Protestantism is not "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph 4:3) And thus, there is no "Unity of the Faith" (Ephesians 4:13)

lol. Keep thinking that. Tell God that when you stand in front of him, and he asks you why you refused to study his word. and placed the words of men above his HOLY word. I don't think he will be very happy with you!

There was division in the NT church from start of acts until the end of revelation. even revelation spoke of 7 different churches, non of which were in unity. If you think after John completed his book, and God closed the book he called his word. the church all of a sudden got unified under one man, when it could not be unified with the 12 men God started his church with, and Paul while they were walking the earth. Well my friend. You have faith in things which make no sense.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Never tried to. The whole point was to show that you can't use Luke 2:11 as definitive proof that Mary didn't remain a virgin.[/quote

Not but when we take this verse. with other verses which show Jesus has brothers. and put the two together. there is more proof that She did bare other children than she did not. Your only argiment against it is that UNTIL does not mean anything. While you might be correct. When scripture is taken as a whole. The evidence supports that Mary did have children, more than it supports she did not.

The English word "until" always implies a change of state after an event, while the Greek word does not. That was the point of the OT examples. In a non-literal translation the OT examples would be translated along the lines of "To the day of her death she had no children". Word for word translation use "until" because thats the closest English equivalent to the Greek word, even though it makes the passage nonsensical in English.

Thats interesting. So I can use the English word until, Like the interpretors of the OT did, and say so and so did not have any children until she died, and it would fit the English definition perfectly. It does not imply that a change happened whatsoever.

I can say yu will not get a degree until you graduate. does that gaurantee that a degree will be given, and there is a change of state from student to graduate? No. it dies not guarantee anything.

now, would you like to try again?

 

[PopClick]

You really think that God just magically was able to make Mary the bearer of God's only Son? No. That's not how God works and that is impossible.

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Luke 2:49 should not be interpreted so loosely, or you're getting tangled in non-truths.

Oh, God, save me... I'm the one tangled in a non-truth!

You just said that Christ was separately Man and God in this sentence,This is heresy. The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus are never separated but are wholly united in one.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."
Can God increase in wisdom? If the human and Deity form of Christ are inseparable, how do you explain this verse?

Mary's pure blood had to be mixed with the Essence of the Logos (Jesus) in order for this fusion to take place. For her purity is the only reason why it happened.

Wow, Mary's purity is the ONLY reason why it happened... so are you saying that Mary's purity has caused us to be saved?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oooh, this is turning out to be a great day... I found out I'm a 15-year-old heretic!

And they wonder why their church gets so much grief and anguish. And why topics like this. which did not have any bearing on the NT church, is so hotly debated like it is.

Unfortunatley for them. they no longer have the power of the state to enforce their doctrinesd on people. so they are mad that people stopped listening to men. and studied for themselves. and found most of their doctrines do not hold any support from scripture. which THEY claim to have given us. Ironic is it not?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So your position is that 2/3 of the passage is literal but if the word brother is used then it cannot be considered in its literal sense? I wonder how a person could interpret that way...

I wonder why Suggenes is never used in conjunction with Jesus brothers or sisters. Seems a little odd with all those Greek descriptives that no one ever thinks to call Jesus' non-brothers, cousins or near kinsmen or Josephs other kids. But every time they are called Jesus' brothers. Well at least they were all consistent even if they did have such a small vocabulary. When we get to heaven we can tease them for not being more clear... lol

When your desperate, you make illogical choices and decisions. Just like the pharisees did when they saw Jesus do everything the OT said he would do. Yet they held tradition over scripture. and made every illogical excuse in the book, (like saying Christ God his power from satan himself) to make their beliefs true. The sad part is. they were only fooling themselves.

It is also why in the 3rd century. Most biblical colleges went from a literal form of interpretation to a symbolic form. Because they could not add all the pagan ritual and belief when taking scripture literally.

The reformation happened because people started taking scripture literally. Like the Samaritan woman who said she would know the messiah because he would literally do the things the scripture said he would do.

Like paul did when he used scripture to prove he was teaching truth. because Christ literally did what the OT said he would do. Like Jesus when he literally interpreted scripture. saying when you see the literal abomination of desolation etc etc.

They need symbology and tradition of men, . Because without it. Their doctrines fall flat on their faces when compaired with scripture. and they have nothing to stand on.

 

[SantoSubito]

So your position is that 2/3 of the passage is literal but if the word brother is used then it cannot be considered in its literal sense? I wonder how a person could interpret that way...

I wonder why Suggenes is never used in conjunction with Jesus brothers or sisters. Seems a little odd with all those Greek descriptives that no one ever thinks to call Jesus' non-brothers, cousins or near kinsmen or Josephs other kids. But every time they are called Jesus' brothers. Well at least they were all consistent even if they did have such a small vocabulary. When we get to heaven we can tease them for not being more clear... lol

The Gospel writers imported Hebrew/Aramaic idiom into Greek which for them was a second language, just like the Jewish LXX translators did with the passages I mentioned above. But even the Greeks used Adelphos in this way in literature from the period, so it seemed that the Greeks preferred the idiom as well.

 

[SantoSubito]

Not but when we take this verse. with other verses which show Jesus has brothers. and put the two together. there is more proof that She did bare other children than she did not. Your only argiment against it is that UNTIL does not mean anything. While you might be correct. When scripture is taken as a whole. The evidence supports that Mary did have children, more than it supports she did not.

Nope, I've yet to see any good proof that Mary had other children.

Thats interesting. So I can use the English word until, Like the interpretors of the OT did, and say so and so did not have any children until she died, and it would fit the English definition perfectly. It does not imply that a change happened whatsoever.

Except it does you can see this by simply changing a few words in the sentence "She did not have children until her birthday", means in English that she didn't have children until "her birthday" and then she had children. The same sentence structure can be used again for the sentence "She did not have children until her death", Literally until in this sentence means the same thing in English, but as we know you have to be alive to have children we interpret it as "She died childless".

I can say yu will not get a degree until you graduate. does that gaurantee that a degree will be given, and there is a change of state from student to graduate? No. it dies not guarantee anything.

now, would you like to try again?

It speaks of the future and implies a condition (graduating) to receive something (a degree) with until saying when the condition is accomplished you'll get something, therefore changing your state. No it doesn't guarantee you'll graduate but it's still consistent with how "until" is used in English. By the way I never said the word "until" implied a continuation of the same state in the Matthew passage; I said it does not tell us if the state changed or not because it only addresses what happened up to this point and not what came after.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The Gospel writers imported Hebrew/Aramaic idiom into Greek which for them was a second language, just like the Jewish LXX translators did with the passages I mentioned above. But even the Greeks used Adelphos in this way in literature from the period, so it seemed that the Greeks preferred the idiom as well.

then why does greek have a word for cousin?

ἀνεψιός, -οῦ, ὁ, [for ἁ-νεπτ-ιός con-nepot-ius, cf. Lat. nepos, Germ. nichte, Eng. nephew, niece; Curtius § 342], a cousin: Col. 4:10. (Num. 36:11; Tob. 7:2.) [Cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 306; but esp. Bp. Lghtft. on Col. l. c.; also B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Sister’s Son.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (45). New York: Harper & Brothers.

ἀνεψιός, ὁ, a first-cousin, cousin, Il., Hdt., Att.
2. a nephew, Hdt. [When the ult. is long, Hom. lengthens also the penult., ἀνεψῑοῦ κταμένοιο.] (From α euphon. or copul., and ΝΕΠ, whence also Lat. nepos, neptis.)


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (69). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



ἀνεψιός 431
This word, which in Greek writers is regularly applied to cousins german whether on the father’s or on the mother’s side


Moulton, J. H., & Milligan, G. (1930). The vocabulary of the Greek Testament (42). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Seems like the word cousin was well known to greek writters of the time!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Nope, I've yet to see any good proof that Mary had other children.

Thats fine, I am not trying to convince you, you are free to believe what you want. Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there. I have seen no verifyable or reliable proof she did not have kids.

Except it does you can see this by simply changing a few words in the sentence "She did not have children until her birthday", means in English that she didn't have children until "her birthday" and then she had children.

You mean like Until the birth of her firstborn? Unlike the OT example., where a woman could not have kids because she was dead. Mary could have had other children?

The same sentence structure can be used again for the sentence "She did not have children until her death", Literally until in this sentence means the same thing in English, but as we know you have to be alive to have children we interpret it as "She died childless".

Exactly. She died childless. This was not said of mary, no place can youi infer that it would be true.

All you did was further prove my point, thanks

It speaks of the future and implies a condition (graduating) to receive something (a degree) with until saying when the condition is accomplished you'll get something, therefore changing your state. No it doesn't guarantee you'll graduate but it's still consistent with how "until" is used in English. By the way I never said the word "until" implied a continuation of the same state in the Matthew passage; I said it does not tell us if the state changed or not because it only addresses what happened up to this point and not what came after.

Exactly which is what I said. It does not prove one way or the other. so we must go to other passages to see what it says.

You assume Joseph, even though he was only commanded to "keep hands off" until Christ was born continued this "hands off" command, yet you have no proof.

You assume "brother" means cousin, or half brothers, but you have no proof this is what it means.

You assume the three disciples who have the same names are the same three people, yet you have no proof this is true.

your whole supposed "scriptural" support is null and void. because it is not proof but mere speculation.

Yet you claim, those of us who do not base a doctrine on biblical speculation are heretics. This is quite a pridefull and arrogant statement by any means!

 

[Katy-follower]

I also ask for the intercession of the Blessed Mother and my patron Saint George

1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus"

Hebrews 7:25: "Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them"

Matthew 28:18: "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth"

By believing in the intercession of Mary you are telling Christ that he died in vain, since he was to be our mediator and noone else! In doing this, you are telling Christ that you don't believe in what He did for us.

I'm sorry, but anyone that believes Mary is the mediator is following a wrong doctrine, since it's in opposition to God's word. You can't believe both. It's one of the other.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Then you understand mary provided Christ with the flesh from which he entered and became man correct? That this flesh only survived 33 years. And when Christ arose, he arose with the new flesh which we all look forward to. And not the one bore by mary correct? Soo I don't get your belief why Mary had to be Holy. Mary did not birth God, she birthed the flesh God entered.

Understand that the Ancient Church decided to call Mary the Theotokos (Gr. Mother of God) in order to refute heretical doctrines which were WIDELY circulating during those times. I am talking about Arianism and Gnosticism, and a number of others. These heresies were and are, some of the most diabolical and insidious heresies of all time. Arianism believed just how you do: That Jesus only assumed a Divine Nature before he was born or after it. But the Sound Teaching (1 Timothy 6) which has been shown to be Truth is that Mary assumed the Full Divinity and Humanity at the decent of the All Holy Spirit.

Scripture only states that it was inspired by men. It does not state anywhere that men outside of scripture will be infallible interpreters or writers of anything now does it. History shows that men outside of scripture have always written words and books which they claimed supported and were an addition, yet equal to the scripture God was giving us. And history shows those writtings were in major error. Why? Because they were not inspired by God.

The Bible itself does not say, "You must take all 66 books of the Bible to be the only source of Christian doctrine". It says nothing of the kind. It says that the Church is the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth " (1 Tim 3:15), not Scripture. Its not 66 books anyways, its 72, the Protestants don't even use the right canon.

That's very narrow-minded to say that only the Bible the book of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There are other writings which should be read. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, or the writings of Barnabas and the other Successors of the Apostles.

You should take a science class my friend. A female egg can not procreate anything, it must be inseminated with the male part for it to form a completed cell with all the dna required to form a human fetus. Since Mary's cell could not be touched by a human male part required. The HS did what Only God can do, and made the cell one. in doing so the human body was formed which later was taken by the spirit of Christ, as a soul. When Chrisr died, the body that mary created died with him. But his spirit. which was God before mary, was with the body while he was on earth. Left the body ands the body returned to the ground. He returned with a new body. not bore by mary, minus all the contamination of sin, and the body we look forward to. My body which was bore by my mother will die. My spirit will live on. And I will be given a new body.

Christ was spirit before he became man. Christ spirit entered his body bore by mary, and when the week body bore by mary died, Christ spirit continued on.

Why you can't understand this is beyond my comprehension

There you go with Arius again. So Jesus was not born as God but only later assumed divinity? If this happened then Christ is not fully God and fully man and cannot save us. That's just the way it is: If Mary is not called the Mother of God (Bearer of God), then Jesus is not God and Man and we are dead in our sins. We still have the primordial curse of Adam and Eve on us. Understand?

This sounds just like an old pegan excuse of how things happened. Christ did not have to fuse with the blood. The blood gives life to the body not the spirit. when the blood stops the body dies, just like Christ's did on the cross. If th flesh bore by Christ had divine characteristics. The body could not be killed.

Again, the extent you people will go, and the things you will believe to make your belief stand is just amazing.

"If th flesh bore by Christ had divine characteristics. The body could not be killed." This is true and is why Jesus was allowed to die by the Father, but He would not have died if God did not allow it.

What's so difficult about that? Are you a Gnostic Christian which believes that the body is evil but the soul is bad? Why is it so difficult to accept that Jesus' body is divine? This means that you actually believeJesus was not fully God in body and fully God in soul united in two natures. If you do not believe that Jesus' Body and Soul were not fully God and fully man, then you are teaching that Jesus only died for our Soul and not our bodies also. This is the teaching of the Gnostics. Do you see your error?

1. God wrote the NT. Not the church.
2. The church did not give me the bible. GOD did.
3. Yet another feeble attempt to give man credit for what belongs to God. Scripture tells us, And thus God, that scripture was inspired BY GOD, not the church.

Get over yourselves. and stop taking credit for the work of God. and giving it to men!

1. God uses ink pens? Ooo, I wonder what kind of papyrus he would have used?
2. God can just magically rain down bibles on us? What about the money it would cost God to rain down a complete papyrus Bible in the 2nd Century? It would be millions by our currency.
3. The Church is Christ. It is the Body of Christ. The Church believes that the Christ gave the Church, it has nothing to do with giving credit to men over God.



You want to denigrate the status of men when our Lord Jesus Christ said,

Joh_14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


You want to say that men are useless? You also are a man, so why do you think you know anything about God if us "Men" are so useless?

The true church will stand on biblical principles which can be proven. Not which is based on truths which can not stand to scriptural scrutiny. Like everything we are talking about here does not. Paul did not tell timothy that the church trumped the word of God. He told timothy to hold firm the word of God when he comes in the church. you have it backwards. Paul told every member of the corinthian church they should ALL be teachers of others. But instead they were still babes in Christ and still needed to be fed (taught) themselves. Why do you wish to be taught by men, and not learn so you can in turn teach others? You are holding yourself back, And not doing what Paul commanded you to do!

The Apostle Paul does not say that the Scriptures are the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" (1 Timothy3:15) but that the Church is.

I agree. But God never intended for man to interpret the word for us. He gave us the HS so we can interpret the word ourself. so we in turn do not remain babies. but can eat meat, and can in turn teach others. How could the corinthian church teach others if they were not given the ability to interpret the word properly?

God will not give you a get out of jail card because you listened to someone that said he was the church blindly. He will hold you accountable because you did not study for yourself And use the word HE GAVE YOU. to know the things of God.

Its not about study, study is only knowledge, bible knowledge cannot save. Only a complete regeneration by the Holy Spirit can save. It is by the 7 Sacraments of the Church. A person is saved when they are sanctified and become God-bearers themselves like the Virgin Mary. But this is not done by bible knowledge.

 

[SantoSubito]

You mean like Until the birth of her firstborn? Unlike the OT example., where a woman could not have kids because she was dead. Mary could have had other children?

I was pointing out that the English "until" still means the same thing in both examples even though the second example is nonsensical. Thus demonstrating that the Greek "until" and the English "until" have two different meanings.

Exactly. She died childless. This was not said of mary, no place can youi infer that it would be true.

All you did was further prove my point, thanks

I've never said that you could infer that from the passage. I've always maintained you can't infer what happened after from the passage because it only speaks of what happened up to a certain point.




Exactly which is what I said. It does not prove one way or the other. so we must go to other passages to see what it says.

You assume Joseph, even though he was only commanded to "keep hands off" until Christ was born continued this "hands off" command, yet you have no proof.

You assume "brother" means cousin, or half brothers, but you have no proof this is what it mean

You also assume it means "brother" even though it's used just as often to refer to a vast array of relations.

You assume the three disciples who have the same names are the same three people, yet you have no proof this is true.

It's pretty simple. Those three are called brothers of Jesus, and Mary's sister just so happens to have children with those names, therefore it stands to reason that they are his cousins. No one but you has disputed the identifications because everyone else sees, like me, that it is just too close to be coincidence. Is there the remote possibility it's a coincidence? Yes. But it is just that, remote.
your whole supposed "scriptural" support is null and void. because it is not proof but mere speculation.

Yet you claim, those of us who do not base a doctrine on biblical speculation are heretics. This is quite a pridefull and arrogant statement by any means!

Strictly speaking yes you are, because you are denying an established orthodox belief. But you don't recognise "orthodox" so that shouldn't be a problem for you considering you have already adopted Nestorianism.

 

[Katy-follower]

Its not about study, study is only knowledge, bible knowledge cannot save. Only a complete regeneration by the Holy Spirit can save. It is by the 7 Sacraments of the Church. A person is saved when they are sanctified and become God-bearers themselves like the Virgin Mary. But this is not done by bible knowledge.

Did you not know that there is only one way to be saved? You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:1-7).

God's Gospel is by grace through faith in one person (Eph. 2:8-9). The gift of eternal life is given freely to those who trust the eternal God incarnate - Jesus Christ - His virgin birth, His perfect life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The Lord Jesus is sufficient to save sinners completely and forever. He send the Holy Spirit to dwell in us believers.

The bible is a love letter given to us that we may learn and grow as his disciples. 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"

If you choose to disregard the bible completely and go with what a man says then you're following a different 'God', because the bible is God's word and the enemy attacks all that is of God. The enemy wants to be worshiped as a God by the people - but he is the author of evil, the great deceiver.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Did you not know that there is only one way to be saved? You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:1-7).

Being born of what? The water and the Spirit. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:5-6).

God's Gospel is by grace through faith in one person (Eph. 2:8-9). The gift of eternal life is given freely to those who trust the eternal God incarnate - Jesus Christ - His virgin birth, His perfect life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The Lord Jesus is sufficient to save sinners completely and forever. He send the Holy Spirit to dwell in us believers.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized (John 3:5) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

It takes baptism (immersion) by the "water and the spirit". This is baptism, it is done with water, and it is needed in order to be saved.

The bible is a love letter given to us that we may learn and grow as his disciples. 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"

The Bible is deep and non can understand it nowadays because it is too deep. Also the fact that everyone thinks they understand it makes everything worse. People are so wise in their own eyes that they cannot even see that they are blind to its deep meaning.

If you choose to disregard the bible completely and go with what a man says then you're following a different 'God', because the bible is God's word and the enemy attacks all that is of God. The enemy wants to be worshiped as a God by the people - but he is the author of evil, the great deceiver.

We don't disregard the Bible, we are more Scriptural that you think. We obey the Scriptures when they say that the Church of the Living God is the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" - 1 Timothy 3:15. You, from what I see, do not obey this basic Scriptural Teaching but instead teach that the Scriptures are the "Pillar of the Truth". Notice how St Paul does not say "A PILLAR", but "THE PILLAR", indicating that there is only ONE PILLAR... THE CHURCH.

Why does it say that the Church is the Pillar of the Truth and not the Holy Bible? Because the Church is what preserves and keeps the entire Truth of Christianity. That is just what it has done for almost 2000 years now. The Orthodox Church of Christ has been the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" for about that time. Its doctrine is pure and immaculate, its services are divine, its sacraments are sacred. It is the full Divine Body of Christ which allows a person to come truly unite themselves to Christ and attain the Holy Spirit. That is why relics of Saints will become incorrupt, because of the fullness of the Holy Spirit they had in their bodies when they died.

 

[SantoSubito]

then why does greek have a word for cousin?

ἀνεψιός, -οῦ, ὁ, [for ἁ-νεπτ-ιός con-nepot-ius, cf. Lat. nepos, Germ. nichte, Eng. nephew, niece; Curtius § 342], a cousin: Col. 4:10. (Num. 36:11; Tob. 7:2.) [Cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 306; but esp. Bp. Lghtft. on Col. l. c.; also B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Sister’s Son.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (45). New York: Harper & Brothers.

ἀνεψιός, ὁ, a first-cousin, cousin, Il., Hdt., Att.
2. a nephew, Hdt. [When the ult. is long, Hom. lengthens also the penult., ἀνεψῑοῦ κταμένοιο.] (From α euphon. or copul., and ΝΕΠ, whence also Lat. nepos, neptis.)


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (69). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



ἀνεψιός 431
This word, which in Greek writers is regularly applied to cousins german whether on the father’s or on the mother’s side


Moulton, J. H., & Milligan, G. (1930). The vocabulary of the Greek Testament (42). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Seems like the word cousin was well known to greek writters of the time!

Never said they didn't have a word for cousin. The Gospel writers and the translators of the LXX both imported the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom into their Greek writing as can be seen by Peter's addresses to the crowd, the Greeks even used the same idiom. Peter for example could have said to the crowd "Friends, I feel confident.." Or "Men, I feel confident...", but he didn't he used the idiom "Brothers" and the Greeks understood him because they knew the idiom. The term ἀνεψιός is only used once in the entire Greek OT and NT in Colossians 4:10 by Paul, and thats significant because there are many times where it would be applicable in the OT but they used Adelphos in those instances instead. Not to mention that Paul was the most highly educated NT writer and writes with the highest register Greek, the Gospels are "street" Greek while the Pauline Epistles are "Dickens" Greek.

Idiom is important to understand, because a person 3000 years from now could look back on some writing I left that said "I went out with my bros" and if they didn't know the idiom of the day literally think that "I went out with my blood brothers".