Posted on 10/16/2017 8:57:59 AM PDT by Gamecock
This is just one more of them.
Simple logic tells us that if Jesus HAD been married; His mother would NOT have been handed over to John to take care of.
Cruel to force a 'wife' to NOT have sexual relations; too.
(Hey; it works for Mary!)
Yet Paul wrote...
NIV
1 Corinthians 7:1-11
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
It's too bad that a LARGE Christian religious group teaches that Joseph and Mary had NO sexual relations with one another.
Here comes the 'cousin' theory.
You’re right
LOL!!!
ravenwolf-"No, it does not state any such thing, just no more than assumptions."
And I would suggest you are making an assumption that Mary did not have any more children. This too cannot be supported. However, an objective analysis of the scriptures including Matt 1:25, Matt 12, Mark 3, Luke 8, John 7, Acts 1, Gal 1, and others, plus an understanding of Jewish culture in which bareness was a stigma should all serve to support risimmon's view.
Most certainly does.
-Mark 6:3 and the Matthew 13:55–56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Jude and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. They also refers to his sisters.
It does cause those people who first read it to assume that Mary had other children.
Jesus most likely had a dozen or two that could be called brothers but only four of them are named, most likely the most known ones, James, Jose`s, Jude and Simon.
But just try finding out who the Parents of these so called brothers of Jesus were, read.
25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
26 When Jesus saw his mother* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
This does not prove anything but it does indicate that Jesus
was Mary`s only child.
Oh, but we can not believe that because that is what the Catholics believe.
And I would suggest you are making an assumption that Mary did not have any more children.
So the one i go with is when Jesus put his Mother into John`s care and yes it is an assumption, i assume that Jesus could not and would not have done it if he was not her only child.
That is not necessarily true. Scripture tells us:
Joh 2:24-25 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
Jesus would not entrust himself to anyone because He knew what man was capable of. Thus, it is fair to say that our Lord entrusted His earthly mother to the care of John because He knew that John would take care of her and John would be the only Apostle not martyred.
As for other siblings, such as James, unlike John he died early on most likely while Mary was still alive. Jesus knew that many of His believing siblings would not live. So that argument does not support your assumption.
See my note above. Catholicism has nothing to do with it. Some of the early Protestants fathers thought the same way. They were making assumptions based on biases that were not there.
A careful reading of scripture (many that I have listed) and an understanding of Jewish beliefs and customs does not support this assumption. There are far more verses supporting the fact that our Lord had half brothers and sisters. Mary, according to custom, would have found herself disgraced if there were not other siblings. I cannot believe that God would not have honored and blessed Mary and Joseph with children of their own.
I said Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, only that those who hate Christians want to believe she was so they can use her devotion to discredit Christ.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. We know this, but many Christ haters do not, and if they do, they don’t care. They still have the same attitude as those Pharisees.
So that argument does not support your assumption.
See my note above. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.
I have mentioned several times that Joseph and Mary are never mentioned as the Father and mother of any of the so called brothers of Jesus, but others are named as their parents.
Oh well, i guess all i would get is excuses any way.
There may be some that will read this thread. Every little bit helps cut into the stony hearts of now presently unbelievers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.