Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex

annalex wrote:
“What I would admit is that the scripture makes the false notion of other children possible if it is interpreted in a certain false way.”

What a great example of mischief!

annalex, you are priceless!


2,228 posted on 11/16/2010 6:16:13 AM PST by Belteshazzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2224 | View Replies ]


To: Belteshazzar; annalex; metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...
annalex, you are priceless!

Oh yea! that's a keeper.

A straight read of the verses indicate a matter of fact indifference in mentioning the siblings of Jesus by name. There is no attempt by the Gospel writers to explain what they meant by brothers and sisters of Jesus. This seems to indicate two things, no other explanation was needed (Jesus had brothers and sisters), AND certainly no theological meaning either way.

The Gospel writers certainly did not go out of their way to imply perpetual virginity!

Again, perpetual virginity serves NO purpose and even if TRUE, was apparently irrelevant to the writers of the New Testament.

The only purpose I see is to maintain Mary's demi goddess status and support the "Queen of Heaven" and "Co-Redemptrix" titles, Moving the focus from Jesus.

2,238 posted on 11/16/2010 8:44:04 AM PST by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2228 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson