Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

Chrétien de Troyes · Aug 25, 2018

Docetism is one of the first heresies with simonianism.
Even the passage you quote speaks about it.

Tutorman · Aug 25, 2018

redleghunter said:
The church is just that a pillar and foundation. Foundations and pillars uphold the structure. Meaning the church is to uphold the Truth...not make it up.

And where do we find the infallible words of God? In His revelation to mankind, His Holy Scriptures.

Sorry your wrong, Bible only is an doctrine of men so men can make God in his own image. Christ left a Church not a book

redleghunter · Aug 25, 2018

Chrétien de Troyes said:
Did you ever noticed that none of the four Gospels has the same christology ?

John does.

Chrétien de Troyes · Aug 25, 2018

redleghunter said:
John does.

What?

redleghunter · Aug 25, 2018

Tutorman said:
Sorry your wrong, Bible only is an doctrine of men so men can make God in his own image. Christ left a Church not a book

Did I say the Bible alone?

What I stated is the only infallible Holy Spirit revealed Truth we have are the Holy Scriptures. We test all things against what we know is of God. Even church traditions.

Pillars and foundations uphold things. In the case of the church as being such they uphold the Truth as received by the Apostles. The Truth they received they at first preached in public and later wrote down which are the Holy Scriptures.

St Irenaeus believed this.

redleghunter · Aug 25, 2018

Chrétien de Troyes said:
What?

If you were to choose a Gospel and Apostle who could be used against Docetism it would be John.

Chrétien de Troyes · Aug 25, 2018

redleghunter said:
If you were to choose a Gospel and Apostle who could be used against Docetism it would be John.

Why would we have to make a choice? I do not understand.

prodromos · Aug 25, 2018

redleghunter said:
Of course but not at the moment His mother Blessed Mary needed the most support. John was there.

This is silly. Jesus' brothers were hardly far off. If they really were Mary's sons then the fact that they were not believers at that moment doesn't suggest for a moment that they would not have cared for her as she needed.

Athanasius377 · Aug 25, 2018

Chrétien de Troyes said:
No, it's not a 19th century notion. This is the general opinion in the universities of the Western world. It is not with me that you will have to argue, but with academics.

Most of whom start with the presumption that the Gospels are written in somecase 200 years after the time of Christ. Based on nothing more that said presupposition because the assumption is Christ could not have predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. There was a fragment of Mark (yq?) that has been dated to 55 AD. If it is Mark, we cannot determine conclusively yet but if it is then there's a lot of academics who are going to be looking for work.

Barney2.0 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Isn't that just saying doctrines can be more important than what the bible actually says? None of this is found in scripture. It comes solely from traditions, not from scripture and that should bother those that promote these things.

So by this logic we shouldn’t believe in the trinity because the Gospel writers did not explicitly describe it?

Barney2.0 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Yes it does. You are altering the definition to suit your own beliefs.

From that same link:

Strong's Concordance
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from alpha (as a cop. prefix) and delphus (womb)
Definition
a brother
NASB Translation
believing husband (1), brethren (170), brethren* (13), brother (111), brother's (8), brothers (40).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)

Your the one trying to alter it to make it seem that it can only mean blood brother, keep scrolling down:

4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matthew 23:8; John 21:23; Acts 6:3 (Lachmann omits); ; Galatians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Philippians 1:14, etc.; in courteous address, Romans 1:13; Romans 7:1; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 John 2:7 Rec., and often elsewhere; yet in the phraseology of John it has reference to the new life unto which men are begotten again by the efficiency of a common father, even God: 1 John 2:9ff; ; etc., cf. 1 John 5:1.

5. an associate in employment or office: 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 2:13(12); Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 1:1.

6. brethren of Christ is used of,

a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above.

b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.)

c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17.

d. Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly δόξα (which see, III. 4 b.) which he enjoys: Romans 8:29.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

Al Masihi said:
So by this logic we shouldn’t believe in the trinity because the Gospel writers did not explicitly describe it?

Another error...The Trinity is explicitly described in the Gospels. How do you think we know of it? Three are the one God. The Gospels are clear on this.

But this other stuff you preach, does not come from the bible nor the Gospels.

Barney2.0 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Another error...The Trinity is explicitly described in the Gospels. How do you think we know of it? Three are the one God. The Gospels are clear on this.

But this other stuff you preach, does not come from the bible nor the Gospels.

There is no passage stating God is three persons in one God.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Your the one trying to alter it to make it seem that it can only mean blood brother, keep scrolling down:

False. I know it has many meanings. It is you that denies it can mean blood brother despite it clearly does.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

Al Masihi said:
There is no passage stating God is three persons in one God.

Good because that is a false concept. You edited the post, it originally said, "three persons in one person" which I why I opposed it.

Barney2.0 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
False. I know it has many meanings. It is you that denies it can mean blood brother despite it clearly does.

It can mean blood brother, it doesn’t mean that passage should mean blood brother.

Barney2.0 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Good because that is a false concept. You edited the post, it originally said, "three persons in one person" which I why I opposed it.

Nope, that’s the concept of the trinity, one God composed of three seperate persons each wholly God.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Good because that is a false concept. You edited the post, it originally said, "three persons in one person" which I why I opposed it.

But scripture are clear that the Father, Son and HS are the one God.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

Al Masihi said:
It can mean blood brother, it doesn’t mean that passage should mean blood brother.

Well, it does. I posted evidence that supports it cannot mean anything else in that particular passage.

ewq1938 · Aug 26, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Nope, that’s the concept of the trinity, one God composed of three seperate persons each wholly God.

Please read what is posted. I said "three persons in one person" was a false doctrine.

Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

Well-Known Member

Charismatic Episcopalian

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

I love you three.

I love you three.

Similar threads