The Bible also refers to Joseph as the father of Jesus.The Bible does say Jesus had siblings.
Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
John 2:12
John 7:3
If it contradicts The Bible, it's wrong and means precisely squat.
and it was translated in our Bibles as such.
Perhaps you could then review the use of adelphos throughout the LXX OT, the NT, and in the Hellenistic vernacular as opposed to 21st century popular culture.Which means what, exactly? George Forman has several sons, all named George.
Holy Spirit led them to use that word or they would have chosen whichever of the 9 other meanings Holy Spirit led them to choose. As He did with Abraham.
Heiferdust.Your dogmas have little place in a Christian life. You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous. Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies.
Heiferdust.Your dogmas have little place in a Christian life. You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous. Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies.
You'd make a fine speech-writer for a politician.
The Bible does say Jesus had siblings.
Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
John 2:12
John 7:3
If it contradicts The Bible, it's wrong and means precisely squat.
This is not the case. Older sons of Joseph, by another marriage, would also be called siblings to the Lord.The Bible says the Lord had such siblings, but this does not mean they were born of Mary, and tradition tells us very clearly and without equivocation that they were not.
The Scripture says that Mary was overshadowed by Holy Spirit and became pregnant by that means. It says, Joseph had not had sex with her before she became pregnant. Therefore, we ALL understand that Joseph was Jesus' father emotionally, not physically.The Bible also refers to Joseph as the father of Jesus.
This identifies the issue with taking an individual scriptures and professing that anything that contradicts their stated meaning is 'wrong'. A concept also known as 'proof-texting'.
None of us reads that Joseph is the father of Jesus and come to the conclusion that Joseph actually fathered Jesus in the biological sense. Why not? It's plainly what those Scriptures indicate.
Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?Which skips the use of adelphos, and thus does nothing to support your point.
Translators tend to translate in their "biased understanding".
Perhaps you could then review the use of adelphos throughout the LXX OT, the NT, and in the Hellenistic vernacular as opposed to 21st century popular culture.
And the Holy Spirit led the ECFs who were led to canonize the books which are now the NT to understand that Mary was ever-virgin.
As for the present translators, there are errors.
The ECF's (Early Church Fathers) were not translators, they were native speakers of Greek. Are you suggesting they were not led by the Holy Spirit when they determined which books constitute the New Testament?Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?
How did you conclude that those who translated the Greek texts of the bible into English were led by the Holy Spirit? Why then are there so many variations of English translations? Shouldn't there just be one?
John
And 2000+ years after the events, which version would you choose? Word for word; thought for thought; a paraphrase? Which scholarship would be acceptable to you? 1611, 1951, 2000? The information available due to improved translation information and new archialogical finds; or the old tried and true hand written from a combination of written records and oral traditions?How did you conclude that those who translated the Greek texts of the bible into English were led by the Holy Spirit? Why then are there so many variations of English translations? Shouldn't there just be one?
John
Which is to say, my brother is not my sibling? My parents will be surprised.
Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?
None of this or what followed answers my questionAnd 2000+ years after the events, which version would you choose? Word for word; thought for thought; a paraphrase? Which scholarship would be acceptable to you? 1611, 1951, 2000? The information available due to improved translation information and new archialogical finds; or the old tried and true hand written from a combination of written records and oral traditions?
No, it seems to be what you are saying. I am pointing out that the men who treated the present canon of the NT as Holy Scripture also believed that Mary was ever-virgin.