Old topic, new thought

[Uphill Battle]

Scripture never ONCE says Mary had other children, or that she and Joseph had sexual relations. Why must people continue to say it does?

I don't think you have to see it in black and white to understand that is likely true.

Man and wife typically have sex. The Yunaika argument makes no sense. he took mary as HIS (note the posessive) woman. another way of saying....

 

[Uphill Battle]

Because of a misapplied understanding of the word "until" in:

[bible]matthew 1:25[/bible]

It is assumed that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary started kickin' it.

right.

along the same lines of All not meaning all, brother not meaning brother, sister not meaning sister, etc....

yes, WE misunderstand......

 

[ScottBot]

I don't think you have to see it in black and white to understand that is likely true.

Man and wife typically have sex. The Yunaika argument makes no sense. he took mary as HIS (note the posessive) woman. another way of saying....

It also says that he did this right after the angel talked him out of divorcing her.....yet Jesus was not born yet and the bible says that he didn't "know" her till Jesus was born.

So, THAT is your apparent contradiction, UB.

Joseph "takes" his wife before Jesus is born, but does not "know" her until after....both "taking" and "knowing" are biblical metaphors for "kickin' it".

So, just when did Mary and Joseph start knockin' boots? When he took her into his house, which would have been the Jewish custom, or after Mary delivered Jesus? If its the latter, doesn't it mean that they weren't "married" until they started shakin' the house after Jesus was born? Oh wait, they were fleeing to Egypt....maybe in the tent in the desert?

Why don't you and IAA lay out the logistics here for us, since the bible is so clear on the matter.

 

[ScottBot]

right.

along the same lines of All not meaning all, brother not meaning brother, sister not meaning sister, etc....

yes, WE misunderstand......

You misunderstand the Aramaic roots of the bible, that much is obvious.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You misunderstand the Aramaic roots of the bible, that much is obvious.

*snort.

 

[ScottBot]

*snort.

*hands UB some Sudafed.*

 

[Uphill Battle]

*hands UB some Sudafed.*

dude, the *snort was the "you dont get Aramaic background" comment.

Gospels were not written in Aramaic.

the words used in question, All, Brother, Sister, Until, etc... Were written in Greek.

 

[ScottBot]

dude, the *snort was the "you dont get Aramaic background" comment.

Gospels were not written in Aramaic.

the words used in question, All, Brother, Sister, Until, etc... Were written in Greek.

What language did Jesus speak with his Apostles in? Though the bible was written in Greek (although there is continuing debate about the Gospel of Matthew), the words that Jesus and everyone involved in the bible were spoken in Aramaic (primarily), Hebrew (Jesus and the Pharisees) and Latin (Pontius Pilate). Greek was not a common language in Jewish Palestine, except as a written trade language. But, since Jesus was not a merchant, that point is irrelevant.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It also says that he did this right after the angel talked him out of divorcing her.....yet Jesus was not born yet and the bible says that he didn't "know" her till Jesus was born.

Joseph "takes" his wife before Jesus is born, but does not "know" her until after....both "taking" and "knowing" are biblical metaphors for "kickin' it".

I think you are adding meaning. Taking for wife is not synonymous with knowing.

So, just when did Mary and Joseph start knockin' boots? When he took her into his house, which would have been the Jewish custom, or after Mary delivered Jesus? If its the latter, doesn't it mean that they weren't "married" until they started shakin' the house after Jesus was born? Oh wait, they were fleeing to Egypt....maybe in the tent in the desert?

when doesn't concern me. I don't really care when. The details belong to them.

Why don't you and IAA lay out the logistics here for us, since the bible is so clear on the matter.

uncessessary.

 

[ScottBot]

I think you are adding meaning. Taking for wife is not synonymous with knowing.

when doesn't concern me. I don't really care when. The details belong to them.


uncessessary.

I think it is. Since you are making the claim that Jesus and Mary engaged in carnal relations, I'd like to know some specifics. What about some detail on the birth of Jesus' siblings. Jesus where were they when Joseph and Mary had to go looking for Jesus when He was 12 and went to the temple to preach? I don't see any mention of Jesus' brothers or sisters there. You would think that at 12, Joseph and Mary would have had at least one of them, but I don't see any mention of other children anywhere.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think it is. Since you are making the claim that Jesus and Mary engaged in carnal relations, I'd like to know some specifics.

funny how those who turn there nose up at sola scriptura use just the same thing when trying to prove their point.

What about some detail on the birth of Jesus' siblings.

don't need it. There's no birth record for about 99.9% of the people in the bible. Yet, you don't question whether or not the existed. Interesting!

where were they when Joseph and Mary had to go looking for Jesus when He was 12 and went to the temple to preach? I don't see any mention of Jesus' brothers or sisters there. You would think that at 12, Joseph and Mary would have had at least one of them, but I don't see any mention of other children anywhere.

again, not needed. They were traveling with friends and relatives. Whatever children where there can be included in that.

The Gospel record doesn't focus on the lives of other people. It focuses on Christ. We don't know anything at all about some of the Apostles from scripture as well.

Claiming that the birth of Jesus' siblings, or where they were at any given time is not in scripture, so didn't exist is very very poor argumentation.

What we DO have is

Mention of brothers and sisters of Christ
a passage that shows the Until Jesus was born, Mary remained a virgin.

Now, you claim "you don't understand the language or the culture" but that is completely bogus. You'd have to believe that the people who penned the Gospels were deliberatly misleading, as the language they could have used would be far more simple if they wanted to prove that Mary was ever virgin.

There would be no need to say "And he didn't know her until Jesus was born." If they are saying that to prove her ever virginity, they are out of their minds, and God isn't doing his job in inspiring scripture. It would be very very simple to write "and he knew her not." Or "she remained a virgin." If this was known, and important, the author would most certainly use the language required.

AS for the brothers and sisters, I don't exactly know why they would use brothers and sisters for the cousins of Christ, when they use Cousins for other people, such as Elizabeth.

I don't need to use "misunderstanding of language or culture" to wrap scripture like a pretzel to fit my dogmas.

 

[ScottBot]

funny how those who turn there nose up at sola scriptura use just the same thing when trying to prove their point.

don't need it. There's no birth record for about 99.9% of the people in the bible. Yet, you don't question whether or not the existed. Interesting! again, not needed. They were traveling with friends and relatives. Whatever children where there can be included in that.

The Gospel record doesn't focus on the lives of other people. It focuses on Christ. We don't know anything at all about some of the Apostles from scripture as well.

Claiming that the birth of Jesus' siblings, or where they were at any given time is not in scripture, so didn't exist is very very poor argumentation.

What we DO have is

Mention of brothers and sisters of Christ
a passage that shows the Until Jesus was born, Mary remained a virgin.

Now, you claim "you don't understand the language or the culture" but that is completely bogus. You'd have to believe that the people who penned the Gospels were deliberatly misleading, as the language they could have used would be far more simple if they wanted to prove that Mary was ever virgin.

There would be no need to say "And he didn't know her until Jesus was born." If they are saying that to prove her ever virginity, they are out of their minds, and God isn't doing his job in inspiring scripture. It would be very very simple to write "and he knew her not." Or "she remained a virgin." If this was known, and important, the author would most certainly use the language required.

AS for the brothers and sisters, I don't exactly know why they would use brothers and sisters for the cousins of Christ, when they use Cousins for other people, such as Elizabeth.

I don't need to use "misunderstanding of language or culture" to wrap scripture like a pretzel to fit my dogmas.

Of course you don't, you make them up as you go along to fit your limited understanding of Scripture.

I think Burger King had a jingle for that kind of theology:

"have it your way, have it your way, have it your way with sola scriptura....."

 

[Uphill Battle]

Of course you don't, you make them up as you go along to fit your limited understanding of Scripture.

I think Burger King had a jingle for that kind of theology:

"have it your way, have it your way, have it your way with sola scriptura....."

ah... how nice. scan post, spew rhetoric, ignore inconcistancies of own position, ignore points made.

Par for the course!

 

[ScottBot]

ah... how nice. scan post, spew rhetoric, ignore inconcistancies of own position, ignore points made.

Par for the course!

Riiiiiight.

At least my "perspective" is backed by 2,000 years of theology and is historically continuous and agreed upon by nearly 1.5 billion christians worldwide. Your perspective is relatively new and has NO theological history to go along with it. That said, what you believe MUST be considered a misplaced understanding of a fringe few who want to change the traditional understanding of the bible and Christianity as a whole. I don't ignore inconsistencies, I have been pointing them out for you for a while now.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Riiiiiight.

At least my "perspective" is backed by 2,000 years of theology and is historically continuous and agreed upon by nearly 1.5 billion christians worldwide. Your perspective is relatively new and has NO theological history to go along with it. That said, what you believe MUST be considered a misplaced understanding of a fringe few who want to change the traditional understanding of the bible and Christianity as a whole. I don't ignore inconsistencies, I have been pointing them out for you for a while now.

let me correct your post.

CLAIMED 2000 years of theology. You don't see much about Mary before 300AD.

1.5 Billion Christians, the vast majority who beleive what they are told to believe.

OWN inconcistancies.

But hey, if you want to believe that God decided that his scripture should be unintelligable... that's your choice.

 

[ScottBot]

let me correct your post.

CLAIMED 2000 years of theology. You don't see much about Mary before 300AD.

1.5 Billion Christians, the vast majority who beleive what they are told to believe.

OWN inconcistancies.

But hey, if you want to believe that God decided that his scripture should be unintelligable... that's your choice.

Thanks for giving me that. I have to go now and plug my brain into the Vatican database and receive the latest uploaded database of mandatory beliefs.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thanks for giving me that. I have to go now and plug my brain into the Vatican database and receive the latest uploaded database of mandatory beliefs.

you telling me there's no mandatory belief?

If the RCC forumulates Doctrine, and you have trouble accepting it, you just have to find a way to accept it, or not be Catholic, am I correct?

(or, you could be a closet subversive, I suppose.)

I don't see any middle ground you can take.

 

[IamAdopted]

Of course you don't, you make them up as you go along to fit your limited understanding of Scripture.

I think Burger King had a jingle for that kind of theology:

"have it your way, have it your way, have it your way with sola scriptura....."

Funny. We allow the scriptures to say what they say. We don't try to say they don't say what they say. Why because we believe the Word of God as it is written. We have no Dogma or belief that we have to try to make the scriptures back up. Ever virgin would have been pretty easy to say back then also. Only Begotton was used but NOT for Mary. First born son was used to describe Mary.

 

[ScottBot]

Funny. We allow the scriptures to say what they say. We don't try to say they don't say what they say. Why because we believe the Word of God as it is written. We have no Dogma or belief that we have to try to make the scriptures back up. Ever virgin would have been pretty easy to say back then also. Only Begotton was used but NOT for Mary. First born son was used to describe Mary.

I believe in the scriptures as the were written. Unfortunately, all we have is translations of translations.

 

[ScottBot]

you telling me there's no mandatory belief?

If the RCC forumulates Doctrine, and you have trouble accepting it, you just have to find a way to accept it, or not be Catholic, am I correct?

(or, you could be a closet subversive, I suppose.)

I don't see any middle ground you can take.

*stares into the void with a blank look on his face*

That does not computed. Accept belief or be excommunicated. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.