Mary and Joseph

[Alithis]

On the contrary, it does support what I say, which is the very reason why you cannot refute it. Upon closer examination, it is true that Mary does indeed know one man.....Joseph the person whom she was going to marry. Yet, she asked "HOW" can she conceived when she doesn't know any man. There is only one reason for that answer, and that reason supports what I wrote......unless of course, you have an answer as to why she gave such as odd response?

That is so rediculous.. She Was a virgin.
She was also.many months along after returning from visiting Elizabeth.. Enough for others to know she was with child ... After that joseph is told dont be afraid to take mary home as your wife...

Ya know what.. After the birth and usual recovary time.. Husbands and wives do stuff ... Grown up things..
..if they do not they are not called husband and wife ..

I mean its so obviously basic and i dont have to twist a single word of it to know that
......
..."But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your "WIFE" because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit....

 

[All4Christ]

Did anyone see the latest remark from the OP requesting that we return to the original topic?

 

[Justified112]

Mary didn't have any other children other than Jesus.

Yes, she did.
[/quote]James is not Jesus' brother nor his half-brother. In the original text of the gospel, the Greek word "adelphos" was used. However, "adelphos" does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. The word was also used to describe half-brothers, cousins, nephews, and uncles. The problem is the English translation. In the Hebrew and Aramaic language, there are no words for cousins, nephews, half-brothers; so the Greek word "adelphos" was used to capture all these meanings for male relatives. [/quote]
So EVERY English translation got it wrong? The truth is that the word adelphos, while it can mean cousins or nephews, it can only mean those things in certain contexts because that is how language works. It doesn't mean all of those things every time. And the burden on YOU is to demonstrate that the contexts where it is used of Jesus brothers and sisters, it can only mean anything OTHER THAN actual brothers and sisters. You are relying really poor exegesis where you are subjectively assigning a meaning that fits your agenda.

The Christians would often point to Mark 6:3, which stated that James was the brother of Jesus. However, upon closer examination of the Bible, we find that it also stated that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas.

Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.

But James the younger was one of Jesus' disciples and not a biological brother to Jesus, so that doesn't make your case. Mark is simply distinguishing between Mary's. Jesus did have a brother named James. James and John the sons of Zebedee were actually Jesus' cousins since Salome was Mary's sister.

 

[HTacianas]

Could you be any more ambiguous..
Sorry but "your making the assumption" that your church is over and above GODS word"
I dont adhere to your Church .

You ignore so much scripture.
. there no point discussing it with you.
Youve obviously decided Gods word is wrong and your church is right.

Praise God i dont follow your church .
But i Do follow JESUS..
Cant follow both when they so.obviously disagree

You're making assumptions. Apparently you have now condemned the Church founded by Jesus Christ and placed your own opinions over it. I suppose that means you are claiming that the Church has no authority, but you do.

 

[Alithis]

You're making assumptions. Apparently you have now condemned the Church founded by Jesus Christ and placed your own opinions over it. I suppose that means you are claiming that the Church has no authority, but you do.

Not The church..just the one you say is right over And above the word of God.
Nice try though

 

[Justified112]

Mary was and remained a virgin. Just look at how she answered the Angel Gabriel when he told her she would have a child. According to the Bible:

Luke 1:30-34 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

That does not prove she remained a virgin. That passage simply states she was a virgin at the time she was speaking to the angel. It doesn't mean that she didn't have marital relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

What is wrong with Mary's response (which I placed in bold)? Here was a young girl who was going to get married. An angel comes to her, telling her that she will have a Son who shall be called Jesus. And Mary asked "HOW?" That's a very odd response coming from a girl about to get married. Any woman in that position would conclude that she and her husband would have a son after the consummation of the marriage. But Mary's response was "HOW can this be since I do not know a man?" Actually, she does know one man.....Joseph. The reason she gave that kind of response is already evident. Mary had no plans of ever consummating her marriage. After that, the angel told her "HOW" she would conceive, and it had nothing to do with any man.

Mary was not married at that time. The Bible does not say she had no plans to consummate her marriage. You are adding to the Word of God, some that is not there. She had known a man sexually up to that point and the angel was telling her she was going to conceive as a virgin and bear a son.

So you have it all wrong.

Mary remained a perpetual virgin because she carried Christ in her womb, and Christ passed through her womb and out into the world. Because Christ was in her womb and passed through her womb as though it was a gateway into this world, no other person can be conceived in Mary's womb (Ezekiel 44:2).[/QUOTE]

 

[Alithis]

Did anyone see the latest remark from the OP requesting that we return to the original topic?

The topic of the infant gospel of james ?
I did return to it.. I stated what it claims and how it is in direct contradiction and opposition to all other svripture

 

[HTacianas]

Not The church..just the one you say is right over And above the word of God.
Nice try though

I did not place the Church "over and above the word of God", just over and above your opinions.

See Jerome's "Against Helvidius".

 

[Justified112]

On the contrary, it does support what I say, which is the very reason why you cannot refute it. Upon closer examination, it is true that Mary does indeed know one man.....Joseph the person whom she was going to marry. Yet, she asked "HOW" can she conceived when she doesn't know any man. There is only one reason for that answer, and that reason supports what I wrote......unless of course, you have an answer as to why she gave such as odd response?

She said she knew not a man. "Knew" in Bible-speak refers to sexual relations. She stated that she had not known a man sexually, and was thus a virgin and was asking how it could be. That does not mean she had no plans to have more children after Jesus was born.

 

[Alithis]

I did not place the Church "over and above the word of God", just over and above your opinions.

See Jerome's "Against Helvidius".

So now you want to validate your comment saying your church holds an opinion that you accept as truth over the plain written scripture by quoting some long dead faliable guy.

 

[Alithis]

She said she knew not a man. "Knew" in Bible-speak refers to sexual relations. She stated that she had not known a man sexually, and was thus a virgin and was asking how it could be. That does not mean she had no plans to have more children after Jesus was born.

Yes but that is so obvious and basic and easily undestood..
But it doesnt match with the preferred theory attempting to justify worshipping a created woman ... And the book of the infancy of james is just a fairytale attempting justify the same thing.
What i love about truth ..is it needs no justification . its already the truth .

 

[HTacianas]

So now you want to validate your comment saying your church holds an opinion that you accept as truth over the plain written scripture by quoting some long dead faliable guy.

Well, honestly, you're only some living fallible guy.

Now if you can show me in the bible where it says "Mary and Joseph then had other children" I will believe you.

As I posted above, John 19:26-27 is the greater weight of evidence. As Mary's only son, Jesus would have been required to care for her in her old age, see "honor thy father and thy mother". See also Mark 7:10-12.

As Jesus was dying, he passed that responsibility to John. If Mary had other children he would have had no need to do that.

 

[Selene03]

She said she knew not a man. "Knew" in Bible-speak refers to sexual relations. She stated that she had not known a man sexually, and was thus a virgin and was asking how it could be. That does not mean she had no plans to have more children after Jesus was born.

True, but she was also on the verge of getting married. If I was a Virgin going to get married and someone came to me, saying that I will conceive a son, my response would be.....”how do you know that I will have a son rather than a daughter?” Do you understand? I would not be asking “HOW” when I knew no man. Being betrothed, I would automatically assume that the conception of the child would be through the consummation between me and my betrothed after the wedding.

 

[Alithis]

Well, honestly, you're only some living fallible guy.

Now if you can show me in the bible where it says "Mary and Joseph then had other children" I will believe you.

As I posted above, John 19:26-27 is the greater weight of evidence. As Mary's only son, Jesus would have been required to care for her in her old age, see "honor thy father and thy mother". See also Mark 7:10-12.

As Jesus was dying, he passed that responsibility to John. If Mary had other children he would have had no need to do that.

Yup he did say that.

And it in no way says she had no others
It also in no way says she is a perpetusl virgin ..
Just doesnt .
We do know it says that heveas told earlier hey ypur mother and brothers ate outside wanting to talk with you...
We also know ypur going to get all ambiguious and wrangle word meaning to attempt to show a different meaning.

But i dont have to wrangle or manipulate anything to see what it plainly says.
Because as i said ..truth needs no justification . your defending a preferred doctrine from outside scriptire and ypur having to wrangle and twist scripture to do so.
I dont have to do anyof that
I.just see what it says and believe it .

Not a church
Not you
Not some dead scholar..
Just believe what is written as it is

 

[All4Christ]

The topic of the infant gospel of james ?
I did return to it.. I stated what it claims and how it is in direct contradiction and opposition to all other svripture

The topic is about the age of Mary and Joseph, not the perpetual virginity or the existence or non-existence of biological brothers and sisters of Christ.

 

[Selene03]

The topic is about the age of Mary and Joseph, not the perpetual virginity or the existence or non-existence of biological brothers and sisters of Christ.

Mary was about 14 or 15 years old when she was married. It was the Jewish custom at that time.

 

[HTacianas]

Yup he did say that.

And it in no way says she had no others
It also in no way says she is a perpetusl virgin ..
Just doesnt .
We do know it says that heveas told earlier hey ypur mother and brothers ate outside wanting to talk with you...
We also know ypur going to get all ambiguious and wrangle word meaning to attempt to show a different meaning.

But i dont have to wrangle or manipulate anything to see what it plainly says.
Because as i said ..truth needs no justification . your defending a preferred doctrine from outside scriptire and ypur having to wrangle and twist scripture to do so.
I dont have to do anyof that
I.just see what it says and believe it .

Not a church
Not you
Not some dead scholar..
Just believe what is written as it is

Or believe what you tell me to believe. That's more the case.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

On the contrary, it does support what I say, which is the very reason why you cannot refute it. Upon closer examination, it is true that Mary does indeed know one man.....Joseph the person whom she was going to marry. Yet, she asked "HOW" can she conceived when she doesn't know any man. There is only one reason for that answer, and that reason supports what I wrote......unless of course, you have an answer as to why she gave such as odd response?

Mary had not sexually known any man. Mary, at the time of Jesus' birth, was a virgin.

 

[All4Christ]

Mary was about 14 or 15 years old when she was married. It was the Jewish custom at that time.

Agreed. To add in that, since it was the custom at the time, I don’t believe it was creepy.

 

[All4Christ]

One reason I think Joseph was older is due to the fact that when Jesus was in his 30s, Joseph was already dead. In fact, you don’t hear anything about him for most of the writings about Jesus’ life and ministry. Considering that nothing is written in scripture about why or how he died, it makes sense that it wasn’t an extremely out of the ordinary occurrence. Scripture points out that Mary needed someone to take care of her when Jesus died, but doesn’t say much else about Joseph. In fact, for much of Jesus life, Joseph is not around. Of course, this is circumstantial, but relevant to the age of Joseph.

 

[☦Marius☦]

? No one disputing that mary was a virgin at the time The baby placed in her grew and was birthed.
She then was a wife to her husband joseph and they had Kids..
So.perpetual virginity.. Is a myth .
The Gospel of James is a fairy tale to say the least and stands in direct contradiction and opposition to all other scripture.

If it's such a rediculous fairy tale, then why was it so readily accepted into church tradition by both Jewish and Gentile Christians? Don't you think they were just as dedicated to the truth as you? Clearly it wasn't rediculous to them as it was a much written about document- it's almost like the they understood their own culture.

Name one time the protoevangelion contradicts scripture. Give a verse.