Sheesh....I had to go help the neighbor.... hah! A good deed! And you know what St. Paul told those pagan Romans! .....
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
So I’m kinda tired.... I thought this science was amazing....I’m gonna dig deeper into it....Yes we know....There are no verses concerning Joseph, just as there are no verses concerning The Trinity, and no verses that validate justification by faith alone as well.
You also cannot prove a 12 year old Jesus in the Temple had any siblings..... you cannot prove Joseph was a young virile studly guy, you cannot prove he was not previously married or a previous father....... We do know Joseph was out of the picture early.....And no one can know why......
We do know Joseph and Mary were NOT your ordinary couple. Unless angels visiting you is ho-hum Kind of thing for ya. We DO KNOW angels had visited them on multiple occasions, and can assume the Angels would not have just left them alone after warning them to go to Eygypt and then to come back. If Elizabeth knew Mary was the “Mother of my Lord” then so did Joseph.Talk about killing a sex drive. Then of course we have Jesus disregarding Jewish law and giving Mary to John from the cross.....and making John take Mary as his Mother.....which I am sure Jesus “ siblings” Would have liked to have had a say in that...... You Can’t give your mother to someone else..... spin that one from Christ on the Cross....
your faith in the miraculous is so limiting... 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! Christ can be transfigured with Moses, Isaiah- Rise from the dead.... Ascend into Heaven.... but Joseph has a more important libido to take care of....as the Angels looked on....Now THAT’S some major league pressure right there....
Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider only James; similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).
Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.
This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question, but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children. Catholic Answers.
In case you hadn't noticed, God is in the business of using ordinary, ho-hum kind of people.
God is no respecter of persons, as that is a sin and Catholicism elevating people and then claiming God is using them because they are so *special* makes Him that.
We DO KNOW angels had visited them on multiple occasions, and can assume the Angels would not have just left them alone after warning them to go to Eygypt and then to come back.
Assuming is dangerous.
An angel only visited Mary ONCE, and Joseph a couple times. Does that make Joseph more special than Mary?
If Elizabeth knew Mary was the “Mother of my Lord” then so did Joseph.Talk about killing a sex drive.
Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
God told him to take Mary AS HIS WIFE. That comes with certain responsibilities and privileges.
And Scripture tells us he waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex with her. Again, the question arises, what's the big deal with Mary and Joseph having a normal marriage and relations and having other children as a result?
Then of course we have Jesus disregarding Jewish law and giving Mary to John from the cross.....and making John take Mary as his Mother.....which I am sure Jesus “ siblings” Would have liked to have had a say in that...... You Can’t give your mother to someone else..... spin that one from Christ on the Cross....
There's no record of His brothers being at the cross. They weren't there or I'm sure He would have done it. John was.
Also, show me in the Law where it's required that the firstborn son pass on the care of his parents to a sibling. I've missed that in my reading of the OT.
Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins.
No, not most commonly held view. The most pushed Catholic talking point.
This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question, but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children. Catholic Answers.
So they are unable to determine the siblings exact status but then go on to definitively state that "the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children"????
Yeah, right.
Scripture demonstrates no such thing. Catholics only wish it were so.
And again, what's the big deal with Mary not being perpetually virgin and having other children?
How does that detract from either her or Jesus?
Meaning you were acting more like an evangelical than those who Rome overall manifestly considers to be members in life and in death:
Religious Practices, by Denomination
| A. attend church | B. read Bible | C. pray to God | D. attend Sun sch | E. small group | F. church volunteer | G. donate money | H. share faith | H. Sample size | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| all adults | 43% | 38% | 82% | 16% | 15% | 16% | 18% | 24% | 6038 | |
| Adventist | 47 | 49 | 79 | 18 | 27 | 16 | 16 | 26 | 89 | |
| Assembly of God | 69 | 66 | 93 | 35 | 29 | 30 | 22 | 61 | 94 | |
| Baptist (any type) | 50 | 55 | 92 | 30 | 22 | 19 | 20 | 43 | 1035 | |
| Catholics | 48 | 23 | 88 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 10 | 1358 | |
| Church of Christ | 58 | 53 | 92 | 37 | 28 | 22 | 29 | 35 | 118 | |
| Episcopal | 30 | 30 | 85 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 17 | 14 | 112 | |
| Lutheran (any type) | 43 | 32 | 84 | 13 | 13 | 19 | 21 | 21 | 287 | |
| Methodist (any) | 49 | 43 | 90 | 18 | 15 | 19 | 23 | 20 | 392 | |
| Mormon/Latter Day Saints | 71 | 67 | 95 | 62 | 27 | 40 | 24 | 26 | 86 | |
| Christian non-denominational | 61 | 66 | 94 | 21 | 32 | 22 | 26 | 57 | 321 | |
| Pentecostal/Foursquare | 66 | 75 | 97 | 36 | 37 | 25 | 27 | 61 | 124 | |
| Presbyterian (any) | 49 | 48 | 89 | 17 | 18 | 26 | 17 | 23 | 192 | - https://www.barna.com/research/protestants-catholics-and-mormons-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity/ (bg color changed by me for visiblity) |
Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%. ^
Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12% ^
American evangelicals gave four times as much money, per person, to churches as did all other church donors in 2001. 88 percent of evangelicals and 73 percent of all Protestants donated to churches. John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006),12. http://www.generousgiving.org/stats#
Data from a variety of researchers indicates that Catholics give one-third to one-half the portion of income that Protestants give. http://www.emptytomb.org/cathgiv.html
A Catholic survey reports that 4 percent of US Catholics described themselves as “very” involved in parish or religious activities other than attending Mass, and 11% as “somewhat involved, and 64% as “not involved at all.” Among weekly (or more) attendees (approx 22% of adult Catholics), 13% were very” involved, 29% “somewhat involved and 25% not involved at all.” http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/devotionpractice.pdf
More more , by the grace of God.
Once again you are showing that you do not or will not know, for indeed there are many verses concerning The Trinity, with the Divinity of Christ and of the Spirit which necessitates this, and which Scriptural warrant was the basis for its formulation, and is why "Bible Christians" overall affirm it. You can only wish that Perpetual Marian Virginity (PMV) had anything close to the warrant that necessitates the Triunity of God.
Likewise, contrary to the typical Cath strawman of sola fide, Scripture indeed teaches that justification is by effectual obedience-effecting, regenerating, heart-purifying faith - the faith that is behind works and which are inseparable in effect from it - and as shown you, Luther himself taught that it was only this effectual faith that was salvific as SCripture does:
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith [before baptism]. (Acts 15:7-9)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: (Romans 4:4-11)
To which James 2 must be reconciled by understanding what is being argued.
You also cannot prove a 12 year old Jesus in the Temple had any siblings.....
which status is an exception to the norm, as is an non-consummated marriage, and is NOT to be assumed unless, as in the case of the virgin birth, this is what is revealed in Scripture.
you cannot prove Joseph was a young virile studly guy,
But which would be the norm, and is to be assumed.
you cannot prove he was not previously married or a previous father.......
Which need not to be proved, and if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn then he would have been legal heir to David's throne.
We do know Joseph was out of the picture early.....And no one can know why.....
Apparently, and which is not much of an exception to the norm after about 30 years of marriage.
We do know Joseph and Mary were NOT your ordinary couple.
Because the Holy Spirit characteristically reveals notable exceptions to the norm even among lesser persons, as has been shown.
If Elizabeth knew Mary was the “Mother of my Lord” then so did Joseph.Talk about killing a sex drive
Another assumption. There was nothing commanded or inferred as to Joseph and Mary not consummating their marriage, which exception to the norm the Holy Spirit does provide in the case of the nonconsummated marriage (presumed in the light of intimacy) btwn David and Abishag (1 Kings 1:4) And in contrast, we have the explicit statement that Joseph "knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25)(Mt. 1:25) Here, true to form, in order for Catholics to argue for an exceeding exception to the norm, they must resort to arguing for another exceedingly rare exception to the norm, that the Greek word for "til" (heōs) does not mean a terminus is inferred. As said and ignored.
Then of course we have Jesus disregarding Jewish law and giving Mary to John from the cross.... You Can’t give your mother to someone else..
What Scriptural Jewish law (not custom) did the Lord disregard? Who say the one who is greater than the Sabbath cannot give His mother to someone else, who unlike His brethren whom John states did not believe on Him in John 7:5, someone who like Mary, was His brother? (Matthew 12:49) In addition, rather than Jesus having no other biological kin being the reason, there is at least two compelling reasons for choosing the "disciple whom Jesus loved" - the so-called "apostle of love," John, to take care of His mother. For John is shown to be the most caring, and the one who would not due early by martyrdom.
your faith in the miraculous is so limiting..
Sophistry. Arguing that because God can do something is not a basis for asserting His did do something, while to deny that that Mary could consummate her marriage and raise other children along with the Son of God (rather than Christ being an only child, which is inconsistent with His experiencing humanity) is what is lacking in faith and reason.
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! Christ can be transfigured with Moses, Isaiah- Rise from the dead.... Ascend into Heaven.... but Joseph has a more important libido to take care of....as the Angels looked on....Now THAT’S some major league pressure right there....
Please! This is inferring the marital relations are unclean, contrary to Scripture, and which angels see all the time, and is an extension of the closeness Joseph had with Mary, rather than she being some sort of untouchable vestal virgin. Angels would expect Josephs and Mary to conform to how God described marriage:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
There is not actual warrant for assuming the holy couple did not. Even temple priests did not living in perpetual continence.
the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
No, it does not, much less that Josephs and Mary did not conform to how God described marriage and consummate their sanctified union.
Catholic Answers.
Which explains the sophistry.