Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Yeah, I place people into two general categories. Those who can examine an argument and respond to it, and those who can not.

LOL and you go ahead finish your own circle that you started.

BigMack

[wmfights]

"Dave, I posted the Greek. It means sex between a man and a woman. Now why you want to claim I am not looking at it fully it not true."
_____________________________________

I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

I agree with your reading of SCRIPTURE and also find it pretty straight forward. Hang in there!

[SoothingDave]

Dave, the Greek is the idiom for sex between a man and a woman. What else could that possibly mean?

Are you still here a week later not undestanding what the objection is?

Apparently. It's like a wise person once said "you seem to have a difficult time recognizing what aspects of an argument are in agreement and which are in dispute."

No one is arguing that the words "knew her not" don't refer to sex. Duh.

The point being argued is that "till" does not have to mean what you think it does. Especially in the Greek.

There is no reason at all to look for another meaning when that one is perfectly clear.

Exactly why you remain purposefully ignorant. Since there exists a "clear" meaning, you insist that must be the only possible one.

This is a logical fallacy. Words can mean more than one thing.

Now, if you care to engage in a real conversation, you could begin by identifying one person from Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The Bible says Jesus was the firstborn, meaning other came after.

Again, this is the most uneducated of arguments, it is a wonder a more enlightened Protestant doesn't correct you on this.

Have you ever looked at the Old Testament?

SD

[SoothingDave]

"Dave, I posted the Greek. It means sex between a man and a woman. Now why you want to claim I am not looking at it fully it not true."

_____________________________________

I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

You don't understand the objection either. It's not about what "knew" means in the Biblical lingo. Anytime you or FC care to engage the arguments put forth, and not the make-believe arguments you create in your own minds, feel free.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Mack, is it impossible to think about an idea without accepting it as your own belief?

Is it possible to admit that a text allows for different interpretations without sinning by choosing the wrong one?

Must Biblical Fundamentalism go hand-in-hand with the unwillingness to accept that others may have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments?

SD

[wmfights]

"I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

You don't understand the objection either. It's not about what "knew" means in the Biblical lingo. Anytime you or FC care to engage the arguments put forth, and not the make-believe arguments you create in your own minds, feel free."
______________________________________

Thanks for making my case for me!

If SD doesn't like the interpretation put forth and can't refute it he will make snide comments and denigrate the individual.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The scriptures are plain and decided about the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

It is evident that the Greek adelphos (brothers/sisters) is used in the case of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the flesh. And before you start there is also no evidence or reason to say that these were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

The main reason there is controversy over this matter is because of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

BigMack

[Full Court]

Humor Break


May 2005

Dear Dr. Adams: I read with great interest your recent article "Red Headed Woodpeckers." Tell me Dr., how come you kill deer and watch birds? Why don't you put down your rifle and watch them both?

Raymond


Hi Raymond. That's a good question, with a simple answer. I like the taste of roasted venison, but not roasted woodpecker. Let me know if I can be of further assistance, Ray.


Mike Adams


Funny guy. Tell me this, Dr. Smarta**, have you EVER given money to a panhandler?


Raymond


No, Raymond, I haven't. What's your point?

Mike Adams


My point is that if you feed birds and not the homeless, you are (sic) pompous, hypocritical a**. Obviously, you value the birds more than the homeless.

Raymond


I don't have a problem with that, Raymond. The birds don't steal my hubcaps and crack dealers don't accept seeds.

Mike Adams

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Must Biblical Fundamentalism go hand-in-hand with the unwillingness to accept that others may have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments?

I have always accepted that you have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments.

BigMack

[wmfights]

"The main reason there is controversy over this matter is because of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary."
_______________________________

Is it possible that if Roman Catholic's recognized that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was wrong they might have to recognize their doctrines about her Ascension and ability to amplify prayers for consideration by the LORD could be wrong too. It could explain why there is such an obstinate fight over this.

[OLD REGGIE]

My point is that it's a rather large leap from this which we have evidence for ... to the presumption that scripture has somehow been twisted (or obliterated) beyond recognition.

Well, that is a giant leap from anything I have ever said. I have stated many times (at least a few times :)) that our present day Bible(s) while not perfect are good enough to live by. Any "errors" are inconsequential.

[Full Court]

Reggie, are you an ex catholic?

[SoothingDave]

It is evident that the Greek adelphos (brothers/sisters) is used in the case of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the flesh.

You're sure that adelphos could never be used for step-brothers/half-brothers?

And before you start there is also no evidence or reason to say that these were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

There's no evidence to say they were not either.

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If SD doesn't like the interpretation put forth and can't refute it he will make snide comments and denigrate the individual.

Sorry, guy, but there's nothing snide in pointing out that you don't understand what part of the verse is under question. You guys high fiving each other because you "proved" that "knew her" means sex is juvenile.

That part has never been questioned, no matter how many times you re-post it as if you've hit a eureka moment.

SD

[Jaded]

Thanks for the humor break. Co-workers are staring at me now. Wait, they always do that.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

Thats 4 and if you count the sisters....but still you will not accept this because it would kill the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I understand your problem Dave, you're in a no win situation here.

When you have studied both sides and shaved away (Occam's razor) everything the plain truth screams thru.

BigMack

[Jaded]

Firstborn does not necessarily mean there were others. If Mary'd had 12 girls and then Jesus, He would still be considered the firstborn. If He'd been the only one ever, He'd still be the firstborn. It's also an important Jewish designation.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, are you an ex catholic?

Yes, and ex-Protestant too. I am one of those dreaded Unitarians who believes God has provided many ways for all people to be welcomed into His house.

BTW I am a very conservative Unitarian, more closely attuned to the Christian/Biblical group.

[Uri’el-2012]

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

That what is says in all the versions that I have, Mack.

b'shem Y'shua