[ealgeone]

Context O....context. Search the thread. I’ve already explained the passage in question. Not doing so again. But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer. Y’all freepmail and figure out your answer. Out for the night.

[omegatoo]

Saying that you’ve made your point is not the same as actually making your point.

You have yet to show me why my interpretation, although different from yours, is wrong.

I have given you scripture that backs my interpretation. I know you have a different interpretation, but what authority do you have to impose your interpretation on me?

Love,
O2

P.S. I’ve never freepmailed anyone about these discussions, I simply consult my Bible. Projecting much?

[af_vet_1981]

I assume these are the two questions from post 188 you keep referring to and complaining that were unanswered :


1. If these were children from Joseph's prior marriage would not the Jews had referred to them as Joseph's children?
   
   
2. If you were to introduce someone as your brother/sister would people begin to ask...are they from another marriage of your dad's? Are these your cousins? etc.

These questions were already answered here:

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses twenty three to twenty nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Although groups such as the Pharisees and Mormons support your position, the Greek Orthodox do not.

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

...

The Lord's "Brothers"

There are several questions based on Scripture that are often raised by those skeptical about the doctrine of ever-virginity. The first of these involves the passages which state explicitly that the Lord had "brothers." There are nine such passages: Matthew 12:46-47 and 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32 and 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12 and 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; and 1-Corinthians 9:5. The Greek word used in all these passages and generally translated "brother" is adelphos.

The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Apostles (abbreviated LXX) includes specific words for "cousin," notably adelphinos and anepsios, but they are rarely used. The less specific word adelphos, which can mean "brother," "cousin," "kinsman," "fellow believer," or "fellow countryman," is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27-31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14-16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.

Is there anywhere a clear statement in the Scriptures establishing Jesus brothers as literally the children of Mary? In fact, there is not. Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers. The formula for speaking of the Lord's family is "His mother and His brothers." In Mark the possessive, anavtou"of Him," is inserted before both "His mother" and "His brothers," making a clear distinction. In Acts 1:14, the separation is more pronounced: "Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers." Some manuscripts use the conjunctive syn "along with, in company with," so that the text reads "Mary the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers." In any case, Mary is never identified as the mother of Jesus' brothers (nor they as her children), but only as the Mother of Jesus

[af_vet_1981]

But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer.

Which post did you mean with the claim that I was not willing to answer ?

[af_vet_1981]

But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer.

202 posted on 5/14/2017, 2:59:26 PM by ealgeone

was not addressed to me. If that is the post you meant with your comment to omegatoo, it was wrong.