T
Thekla
Guest
The basis for your assumption is inference.
To call my position illogical would require that you show that it is ...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But since there's NO reason to ASSUME that, any other option such as yours, has no logical basis.
In like manner, there's no logical basis for ASSUMING Mary remained a virgin. However, there is a logical basis for concluding that Mary had sex.
I'm sorry, but that's not "evidence." She had stepchildren, yes, because Joseph had been married before, as he was a widower when they met.Let's flip it around. Do u realize there's nothing in the Bible that says she didn't have sex? Not even an implication of such. And seeing how there's no reason why Mary wouldn't have sex, the chances are much more in favor that she did sleep with Joseph, seeing that this is what married couples do.
However, there's evidence that she DID have sex, such as in the repeated statements that Jesus had brothers, and even sisters. In short, there's reason to believe Mary had sex, but no reason to believe she didn't.
I already showed why. Catholics claim something as a Biblical truth when there's no Biblical evidence to back that up. That's not logical.The basis for your assumption is inference.
To call my position illogical would require that you show that it is ...
Do you have Biblical evidence of this? Otherwise, there's no reason to regard this statement whatsoever.I'm sorry, but that's not "evidence." She had stepchildren, yes, because Joseph had been married before, as he was a widower when they met.
Do you have Biblical evidence of this? Otherwise, there's no reason to regard this statement whatsoever.
So in other words, you don't have any Biblical evidence to support your position.The so-called "biblical evidence" which you have produced is only inferential, not solid evidence since the word used for "brothers and sisters" is also used for cousins and other relatives. In addition, many people have already discussed the use of the word "until," which taken in context, does not mean what you have implied that it means.
Simply speaking, you are pontificating your own opinions, which are of recent vintage, but not those held by the ancient Church and the early church fathers.
Recall that Jude said that Christ has given the unchanging faith to the Apostles and to us. The Early Church Fathers preached that unchanging faith in season and out of season. They died for that unchanging holy faith.
Incorrect, we have posted plenty on the various threads on this topic. Anyway, who said that biblical is the only acceptable evidence? That is an artificial requirement usually imposed by those who can't seem to comprehend that the Church produced the Bible, not the other way around.So in other words, you don't have any Biblical evidence to support your position.
Nope! That is you reading your preconceived perceptions back into the texts.Meanwhile, there is evidence to support that Mary had sex.
In Hebrew culture, any children Joseph had prior to his betrothal to Mary would be Jesus' brothers and sisters. The attitudes of His brethren recorded in scripture are indicative of older siblings.Furthermore, there's NO evidence that the places where Jesus is said to have brothers, is just in generic familial terms.[
Here you simply parrot your unqualified opinion. There are a few of us here who are fluent in Greek and are able to read the text without recourse to lexicons or concordances. Quite simply you are wrong, but there is no law against that. Also, the bible only states that Joseph and Mary were "betrothed". It never says they were married.On top of which, there's no evidence that the word "until" isn't refering to a limited point in time. It may not negate Mary having sex, but at the same time, it might. But there's no evidence to suggest "until" wasn't for a fixed point in time, after Christ's birth. And being that they were married, there's no logical reason either.
No, it is the position of those who ignore the evidence. There seems to be no shortage of such people on these forums.Thus, concluding Mary had sex is not only the more logical position, it's the position which actually has evidence.
Really?Peace.
Biblical evidence is the best evidence on something no one but God can be absolutely certain of.Incorrect, we have posted plenty on the various threads on this topic. Anyway, who said that biblical is the only acceptable evidence? That is an artificial requirement usually imposed by those who can't seem to comprehend that the Church produced the Bible, not the other way around.
The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers, and that Mary had sons. There's no Biblical evidence that this isn't what the Bible really means. Only speculative assertions from Catholics. No Biblical evidence Joseph was married prior to Mary.Nope! That is you reading your preconceived perceptions back into the texts.
two whole days since you posted this, and no reply. that says a lot about the reliability of this "ever-virgin" Mary doctrine.Can someone show where the word ἕως used as a conjunction and rendered as "until" or "til" not used to denote an expiring condition? Lets keep it simple and just compare the usages in Matthew.
We've just begun the Nativity fast. Expect a lot less responses from Orthodox until after Christmas.two whole days since you posted this, and no reply. that says a lot about the reliability of this "ever-virgin" Mary doctrine.
I'm on this site a lot. Otrthodox people post constantly, including today. So that's just an excuse.We've just begun the Nativity fast. Expect a lot less responses from Orthodox until after Christmas.
Have a blessed Advent,
John
I already showed why. Catholics claim something as a Biblical truth when there's no Biblical evidence to back that up. That's not logical.
There is however, evidence that Mary had sex, which makes believing that logical.
see the second post of this thread
Can someone show where the word ἕως used as a conjunction and rendered as "until" or "til" not used to denote an expiring condition? Lets keep it simple and just compare the usages in Matthew.
Even if the word is used in generic terms, the word is also used to specifically mean sharing the same parents. There's no evidence that this isn't how brother is used when talking about Jesus' brothers. Unless we have reason to think otherwise, we can only conclude that "brothers" means specifically that.Again; the term "adelphos/adelphi" is broad, and indicates a biological, metaphorical, or spiritual relationship typically through a male (homopatria is the defining boundary for adelphi given in the Perseus lexicon). For cousins, the male defining relationship is the common grandfather. For countrymen, the common male is the fatherland. For spiritual brothers, the common male is God the Father. For households, the defining male is the head of household (whether that head is a father, an uncle, etc.).
When the term has a narrow meaning, a further description is required.
The use of the term adelphos/adelphi does nothing to support the claim that Mary had other children. Lot and his uncle are referred to as adelphos; did they have the same mother ?
how is this evidence that "until" is not used to denote a fixed point and time? unless you show why, it's not evidence at all.5:18
22:44
(may be more, perhaps others can add ... also, are we to delineate between created and uncreated time in this ? or that which is constant but not always witnessed by creatures ?)
Even if the word is used in generic terms, the word is also used to specifically mean sharing the same parents. There's no evidence that this isn't how brother is used when talking about Jesus' brothers. Unless we have reason to think otherwise, we can only conclude that "brothers" means specifically that.
The fact that the Bible says Mary is the mother of a man who's "the brother of the Lord (James)", gives futher evidence that Mary had children. And the Bible specifically shows that this "mother" is Mary, mother of Jesus, when the Bible names Jesus' mother, father, and brothers. (Matt 13:55).
This is loads of Biblical evidence that Mary had children.
Peace.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?