In the name of "interpretation" and "open min

[Heidi]

Here's what so many Christians do in the name of interpretation and open minds:

I'm going to say that Mary was a virgin all her life because I say so. But that would mean that I would have to explain away Christ's siblings. Gee, that's a dilemma...I know...how about...the word"brother" didn't really mean biological brother. Yeah, that's a good one...except that Jesus had to explain to them that there is another meaning for the word "brother" which they didn't know when the disciples told them his mothers and brothers were there. So that won't work.

So how about...Joseph was divorced...after all, all any Jew had to do was give his wife a ceritificate of divorce and off she went. It was quite easy then. But wait, Joseph was picked as the father of Christ so he must have been a "good" man of God. So let's say he was widowed. But the bible doesn't say he was widowed. Well, the bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin all her life either so what does that matter? Something has to explain away Christ's siblings.

So let's continue. Boy this making up my own gospel is fun. It's like playing God! So Jospeh was widowed...but the problem is that the bible doesn't mention that Mary & Joseph carted around a bunch of children when they went to Egypt. So maybe they left the children at home. So that would mean that Mary abandoned Joseph's children. But how could she do that if she were sinless? Ooh, that's another dilemma. Oh well, I'll think about that later. I say Mary was a virgin all her life and I can't be wrong! Right now i I have another story to write.

So how do I get around Matthew 1:25? That's a toughy. I know, I can turn around the phrase; "But he didn't have union with her until she gave birth to a son" to read" "And he never had union with her for the rest of their lives." There! That was easy.

Boy, If I can do that with one or 2 verses, just think what I can do with the rest of scripture! I can make it say anything I want, all in the name of interpretation and an open mind. I might as well just throw the whole bible away since my story hs nothing to do with the biblle. Or, I don't have to change my interpretations to fit the bible, I can simply change the bible to fit my intepretations!

So say the catholics and anyone who makes up his own gospel or doesn't believe all of scripture. But those who listen to Christ's voice don't butcher scripture and make up their own instead. I'm actually much more charitable about people who do this than Paul is. He said they will be eternally condemned. But take heart, catholics, I'm sure you can play with his words also to make them say anything you want. So you can throw the bible out (which you've already done) and replace it with your own doctrine. And this is all in the name of "interpretation" and "open minds". Atheists call themselves "free thinkers" with "open minds" also, so it seems the catholics have a lot in common with them.

But the real tragedy of all of this is the catholic congregation who looks to the clergy as the truth instead of to scripture. They are being lied to and told that the pope's word is the Word of God instead of scripture. Otherwise, they wouldn't. play with scripture the way they do in the name of interpretation and open minds.

But I care about the catholics even if they hate me for it. I want them to know the one true God because only He alone can give you the truth. Without knowing him, you have no salvation. That's what the bible says...that is, if you believe the bible. And since the bible says that Christ himself is the word of God, you are not coming to Christ for the truth if you don't believe scripture.

 

[thessalonian]

Heidi,

Your post is alot of blather as usual.

Questions for you:

Was James the Apostle, Son of Alpheus, born of Mary?
Was Lot, Nephew of Abraham, said to be brother of Abraham, born of the same mother as Abraham?
Was Mary, wife of Clopas, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, born of the same woman as Mary, the Mother of Jesus? A yes or no will do. Thanks.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

Your post is alot of blather as usual.

Questions for you:

Was James the Apostle, Son of Alpheus, born of Mary?
Was Lot, Nephew of Abraham, said to be brother of Abraham, born of the same mother as Abraham?
Was Mary, wife of Clopas, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, born of the same woman as Mary, the Mother of Jesus? A yes or no will do. Thanks.

So where does the bible say that James, brother of Jesus, was not the son of Mary? :o It doesn't. So again, you're making up your own gospel as I said in my OP. So you have proven that my OP was not blather, Thess. ;-)

 

[thessalonian]

Heidi,

Your post is alot of blather as usual.

Questions for you:

Was James the Apostle, Son of Alpheus, born of Mary?
Was Lot, Nephew of Abraham, said to be brother of Abraham, born of the same mother as Abraham?
Was Mary, wife of Clopas, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, born of the same woman as Mary, the Mother of Jesus? A yes or no will do. Thanks.

So where does the bible say that James, brother of Jesus, was not the son of Mary? :o It doesn't. So again, you're making up your own gospel as I said in my OP. So you have proven that my OP was not blather, Thess. ;-)

Very sad Heidi, that you won't allow yourself to put two passages together and come to a conclusion.

Gal 1:19
[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

There were 12 Apostles, right Heidi. (and then Barnabas and Paul who also were Apostles) Now two were named James.


Matt 10:
[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Was there a third Apostle named James? I know of none. Did Mary, the mother of Jesus get married to Zebedee or Alpheus?

What's your theory here Heidi? It can't be both ways unless Mary married one of these two men and the Bible nowhere indicates that she did. Especially since Jesus left her to John's care in John 19. Methinks you have egg on your face and are making up your own Gospel by your definition on this one.

Neither were my other two questions answered. Your OP stands as blather until you can fully answer these questions.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

Your post is alot of blather as usual.

Questions for you:

Was James the Apostle, Son of Alpheus, born of Mary?
Was Lot, Nephew of Abraham, said to be brother of Abraham, born of the same mother as Abraham?
Was Mary, wife of Clopas, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, born of the same woman as Mary, the Mother of Jesus? A yes or no will do. Thanks.

So where does the bible say that James, brother of Jesus, was not the son of Mary? :o It doesn't. So again, you're making up your own gospel as I said in my OP. So you have proven that my OP was not blather, Thess. ;-)

Very sad Heidi, that you won't allow yourself to put two passages together and come to a conclusion.

Gal 1:19
[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

There were 12 Apostles, right Heidi. (and then Barnabas and Paul who also were Apostles) Now two were named James.


Matt 10:
[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Was there a third Apostle named James? I know of none. Did Mary, the mother of Jesus get married to Zebedee or Alpheus?

What's your theory here Heidi? It can't be both ways unless Mary married one of these two men and the Bible nowhere indicates that she did. Especially since Jesus left her to John's care in John 19. Methinks you have egg on your face and are making up your own Gospel by your definition on this one.

Neither were my other two questions answered. Your OP stands as blather until you can fully answer these questions.

You first have to quote each passage accurately and I have done so. I have taken Matthew 1:25 together with the passage that says that Jesus had brothers. And what do you get? Christ's brothers are Mary's children. It's very simple when you believe the bible and don't twist it into the opposite of what it says.

I don't need a theory. The bible speaks for itself. All you have to do is believe it. You ought to try it sometime. But I know you can't do that.

 

[Heidi]

And by the way, Thessalonian, you're not going to get me to not beleive the bible no matter how hard you try. Why any Christian would try to tempt another Christian to not believe the bible and make up his own scripture is beyond me, but it won't work with me. So I will not respond to any more of your ridiculous posts.

 

[Free]

I don't need a theory. The bible speaks for itself. All you have to do is believe it. You ought to try it sometime. But I know you can't do that.

If you're going to flame someone, at least base it on sound reasoning. But that really is enough flaming already.

 

[Heidi]

I don't need a theory. The bible speaks for itself. All you have to do is believe it. You ought to try it sometime. But I know you can't do that.

If you're going to flame someone, at least base it on sound reasoning. But that really is enough flaming already.

Flaming is an untrue accusation. I am not going to lie and say that Thessalonian believes Matthew 1:25, when he has admitted outright that he does not. If he idid, then he would know that Mary was not a virgin all her life. So how is that my fault that he doesn't believe it? :o

And if you look at Thessalonian's posts to me, in every single one of them there is an attack on me for believing Matthew 1:25. Do you think that's based on reasoning? If so, what reasoning? :o

 

[TruthMiner]

I don't need a theory. The bible speaks for itself. All you have to do is believe it. You ought to try it sometime. But I know you can't do that.

If you're going to flame someone, at least base it on sound reasoning. But that really is enough flaming already.

Flaming is an untrue accusation. I am not going to lie and say that Thessalonian believes Matthew 1:25, when he has admitted outright that he does not. If he idid, then he would know that Mary was not a virgin all her life. So how is that my fault that he doesn't believe it? :o

And if you look at Thessalonian's posts to me, in every single one of them there is an attack on me for believing Matthew 1:25. Do you think that's based on reasoning? If so, what reasoning? :o

Why do you twist the facts?

 

[Heidi]

I don't need a theory. The bible speaks for itself. All you have to do is believe it. You ought to try it sometime. But I know you can't do that.

If you're going to flame someone, at least base it on sound reasoning. But that really is enough flaming already.

Flaming is an untrue accusation. I am not going to lie and say that Thessalonian believes Matthew 1:25, when he has admitted outright that he does not. If he idid, then he would know that Mary was not a virgin all her life. So how is that my fault that he doesn't believe it? :o

And if you look at Thessalonian's posts to me, in every single one of them there is an attack on me for believing Matthew 1:25. Do you think that's based on reasoning? If so, what reasoning? :o

Why do you twist the facts?

Excuse me but what did I twist? Do you think I should agree with Thessalonian when he tells me that Matthew 1:25 means that Jospeh and Mary never had sex?

Do you think I sould agree with him that we should erect statues of people and pray to them?

If you do, then I disagree with you. Yet if you look at all the posts that Thessalonian has made to me, they are rude, sarcastic, caustic, and all because there isn't one scripture I don't believe. I have also received nasty pm's from him so until you know the facts, then you have no right to judge me.

Do you know how Jesus treated those who claimed to be holy and distorted the bible? :o Yet Jesus would probably be accused of flaming here if he called them "snakes' and "blind guides". The Phrarisees would be just as indignant as Thessalonian is when I tell him he is distorting scripture.

Sorry, TruthMiner, I have had it with people twisting scripture to make it say anything they want. It bothers Jesus and it bothers me. But people here don't mind if Christ's words are attacked and butchered, but they sure do mind if their own opinions are questioned! It's called pride. And if there were no pride, then everyone would believe the bible exactly as written. So yes, I do mind when scripture is distorted. You don't have to.

 

[thessalonian]

It is ridiculous to put two Bible passages together and draw a conclusion? Heidi, do tell how James an Apostle was a son of Mary if he had as a father either Zebedee or Alpheus? Where does the Bible tell us Mary remarried. You avoid the question and it is very sad. I believe the Bible wholeheartedly but I don't feel the need to check my brain in at the door. Sorry.

Blessings to you

 

[Heidi]

It is ridiculous to put two Bible passages together and draw a conclusion? Heidi, do tell how James an Apostle was a son of Mary if he had as a father either Zebedee or Alpheus? Where does the Bible tell us Mary remarried. You avoid the question and it is very sad. I believe the Bible wholeheartedly but I don't feel the need to check my brain in at the door. Sorry.

Blessings to you

Thessalonian, you just accused me of not being able to put two bible verses together! If you do not draw a conclusion from at least 2 bible verses, then you are saying that one of them is a lie, are you not?

Once again, the bible does not lie. It is simply the truth that Joseph didn't have union with Mary until she gave birth to a son. You either believe the bible or you don't. I do. So I will not allow you to try to get me to not believe that passage. It is written in very clear and simple terms.

And there is no place where the bible contradicts Matthew 1:25. No place. So since you have not provided any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I'll have to go with scripture.

Also, there are at least 4 James's in the NT and one of them is listed as "the Lords brother". Now since the bible does not lie and explains that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations and Jesus had a brother named James, then what reason is there to assume that James was not Christ's brother? Where does the bible say that Mary and Joseph didn't have normal sexual relations? And where does the bible say that James was not Christ's real bother? :o It doesn't.

I once heard a pastor say; "refuse to speculate where the bible is silent." the devil has a hayday with people who make up rumors and different gospels than what the bible teaches. That's where the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married came from! That's where all sorts of rumors start about Christ and passed along as true. And that's why Paul tells us that anyone who preaches a different gospel than he preached, will be eternally condemned. Which part of that don't you believe or understand? I'd really like to know.

But you first have to know what a made-up gospel is. Can you define it, Thessalonian? Because if you can, then you will know what Paul means here.

 

[TruthMiner]

It is ridiculous to put two Bible passages together and draw a conclusion? Heidi, do tell how James an Apostle was a son of Mary if he had as a father either Zebedee or Alpheus? Where does the Bible tell us Mary remarried. You avoid the question and it is very sad. I believe the Bible wholeheartedly but I don't feel the need to check my brain in at the door. Sorry.

Blessings to you

Thessalonian, you just accused me of not being able to put two bible verses together! If you do not draw a conclusion from at least 2 bible verses, then you are saying that one of them is a lie, are you not?

No, your conclusion would be wrong there.

Once again, the bible does not lie.
It is simply the truth that Joseph didn't have union with Mary until she gave birth to a son. You either believe the bible or you don't. I do. So I will not allow you to try to get me to not believe that passage. It is written in very clear and simple terms.

You aren't listening, perhaps selectively. The Greek word heos DOES NOT operate exactly like the English word UNTIL. They do not mean exactly the same thing. This is a common problem in translations. Naive people often think it is just a matter of plugging in equivalent words from one language to another. This is not even possible since equivalent words very often do not even exist from one language to another. This is one case in point. Our closest English word is UNTIL. This does not thereby mean that the original Greek word meant exactly the same thing as your English word UNTIL. It only means this was the closest word English translators could find. This is why Seminarians take Greek. It is necessary because of things like this.

The Greek word heos does not imply a change of condition like the English word UNTIL.

And there is no place where the bible contradicts Matthew 1:25. No place. So since you have not provided any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I'll have to go with scripture.

Perhaps if you would just listen, this post of yours would not be so meaningless.

Also, there are at least 4 James's in the NT and one of them is listed as "the Lords brother".

In the ancient Jewish world, this does NOT necessarily indicate a full blood brother. Apparently you do not wish to know that.

Now since the bible does not lie and explains that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations

No, it doesn't. Your imagination says that, not the Bible. It is plain to see from your posts that you cannot see the difference.

and Jesus had a brother named James, then what reason is there to assume that James was not Christ's brother? Where does the bible say that Mary and Joseph didn't have normal sexual relations? And where does the bible say that James was not Christ's real bother? :o It doesn't.

The REASON is the facts. I doubt that you have looked at any of them.

I once heard a pastor say; "refuse to speculate where the bible is silent."

It isn't silent. And why do you now insinuate that it is silent when just above you are arguing the opposite. In doing so, you betray yourself.

the devil has a hayday with people who make up rumors and different gospels than what the bible teaches. That's where the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married came from! That's where all sorts of rumors start about Christ and passed along as true. And that's why Paul tells us that anyone who preaches a different gospel than he preached, will be eternally condemned. Which part of that don't you believe or understand? I'd really like to know.

But you first have to know what a made-up gospel is. Can you define it, Thessalonian? Because if you can, then you will know what Paul means here.

Can you focus?

 

[Heidi]

It is ridiculous to put two Bible passages together and draw a conclusion? Heidi, do tell how James an Apostle was a son of Mary if he had as a father either Zebedee or Alpheus? Where does the Bible tell us Mary remarried. You avoid the question and it is very sad. I believe the Bible wholeheartedly but I don't feel the need to check my brain in at the door. Sorry.

Blessings to you

Thessalonian, you just accused me of not being able to put two bible verses together! If you do not draw a conclusion from at least 2 bible verses, then you are saying that one of them is a lie, are you not?

No, your conclusion would be wrong there.

Once again, the bible does not lie.
It is simply the truth that Joseph didn't have union with Mary until she gave birth to a son. You either believe the bible or you don't. I do. So I will not allow you to try to get me to not believe that passage. It is written in very clear and simple terms.

You aren't listening, perhaps selectively. The Greek word heos DOES NOT operate exactly like the English word UNTIL. They do not mean exactly the same thing. This is a common problem in translations. Naive people often think it is just a matter of plugging in equivalent words from one language to another. This is not even possible since equivalent words very often do not even exist from one language to another. This is one case in point. Our closest English word is UNTIL. This does not thereby mean that the original Greek word meant exactly the same thing as your English word UNTIL. It only means this was the closest word English translators could find. This is why Seminarians take Greek. It is necessary because of things like this.

The Greek word heos does not imply a change of condition like the English word UNTIL.

[quote:c5b0d]
And there is no place where the bible contradicts Matthew 1:25. No place. So since you have not provided any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I'll have to go with scripture.

Perhaps if you would just listen, this post of yours would not be so meaningless.

Also, there are at least 4 James's in the NT and one of them is listed as "the Lords brother".

In the ancient Jewish world, this does NOT necessarily indicate a full blood brother. Apparently you do not wish to know that.

Now since the bible does not lie and explains that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations

No, it doesn't. Your imagination says that, not the Bible. It is plain to see from your posts that you cannot see the difference.

and Jesus had a brother named James, then what reason is there to assume that James was not Christ's brother? Where does the bible say that Mary and Joseph didn't have normal sexual relations? And where does the bible say that James was not Christ's real bother? :o It doesn't.

The REASON is the facts. I doubt that you have looked at any of them.

I once heard a pastor say; "refuse to speculate where the bible is silent."

It isn't silent. And why do you now insinuate that it is silent when just above you are arguing the opposite. In doing so, you betray yourself.

the devil has a hayday with people who make up rumors and different gospels than what the bible teaches. That's where the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married came from! That's where all sorts of rumors start about Christ and passed along as true. And that's why Paul tells us that anyone who preaches a different gospel than he preached, will be eternally condemned. Which part of that don't you believe or understand? I'd really like to know.

But you first have to know what a made-up gospel is. Can you define it, Thessalonian? Because if you can, then you will know what Paul means here.

Can you focus?[/quote:c5b0d]

:o

The bible is silent about a lot of things, including what the thorn is in Paul's flesh. But many people have decided what it is.

The bible is silent about how many sisters Christ had because God didn't think it was something we needed to know.

The bible is silent about the hour of end times because he wanted us to be ready at all times.

I was trying to explain to Thessalonian what a made-up gospel is. A made-up gospel is one that is not in the bible. It is therefore guessing what happened when the bible doesn't say what happened.

But the bible does say that Mary wasn't a virgin all her life. The bible does say that Mary saw God as her savior which means she wasn't sinless. The bible does say that Christ had brothers. So to explain that away, the catholics have decided that Christ's brothers were not his real brothers when the bible doesn't sy that. So why do it? :o

Sorry, Truth, but the Greek translation of that passage is;

"And took as the wife of him and did not know her until she bore the son of her. The firstoborn."

And in case you didn't know this, but the phrase; "to know one's wife" means sexual intercourse between husband and wife in the bible. And you'll also notice that the word for "until" is translated the same as in the Greek.

So again, your attempt to use the "mistranslation" excuse to not believe the bible won't work.

And by the way, if the pope had never declared Mary a virgin all her life, nobody would even have had a problem with Matthew 1:25 or Christ's brothers, because the words are plain as day.

And if those words were used in any other book besides the bible, they would be as easy to understand as as any other book would be. But since the devil hates scripture, he will do everything in his power to twist it as he did in the garden and with Jesus in the wilderness. So twisting scripture will work with the servants of the devil, but it will not work with true born-again Christians. Sorry. :wink:

 

[Heidi]

Truth,
And what FACTS do you have that James (whom Paul refers to as the Lord's brother) and so does Mark6:3, is not Christ's biological brother? So put your money where your mouth is and provide scripture for your statements instead of accusing others of lying who do provide scripture! So verses please.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

But the bible does say that Mary wasn't a virgin all her life. The bible does say that Mary saw God as her savior which means she wasn't sinless. The bible does say that Christ had brothers.

Why dont you listen? Its not hard. Okay, Mary still needed a Saviour. Without the redemptive work of Christ going to happen, Mary would not have been preserved. People were forgiven of their sins before the Crucifixion. How is that possible if the Crucifixion is the only reason we can be forgiven? Well, first off, its God. Second, it was forgiveness in anticipation of the Cross. Mary was preserved by grace in anticipation, so still needed Christ.

Sorry, Truth, but the Greek translation of that passage is;

"And took as the wife of him and did not know her until she bore the son of her. The firstoborn."

And in case you didn't know this, but the phrase; "to know one's wife" means sexual intercourse between husband and wife in the bible. And you'll also notice that the word for "until" is translated the same as in the Greek.

But they just proved to you that the Greek didnt translate so cleanly. I looked it up! My goodness!

And whether you have more than one child, that first and maybe only child is still the firstborn. And if that word that 'until' in greek didnt mean exactly until, which it didnt, the scripture may very well mean that he just didnt 'know' his wife. Furthermore, Mary is often referred to in the Greek language in relation to the greek Goddess (cant remember which one) that was beautiful and EVER VIRGIN so the greeks had no wrong perception of Mary's virginity.

So again, your attempt to use the "mistranslation" excuse to not believe the bible won't work.

Actually, it did.

And by the way, if the pope had never declared Mary a virgin all her life, nobody would even have had a problem with Matthew 1:25 or Christ's brothers, because the words are plain as day.

Incorrect. It was actually a teaching from very early on. Writers in the FIRST century were making reference to Mary in that way.

Oh, and if James was Jesus' brother, why did Jesus give his mother to John at the cross? Culturally, that would have been inappropriate. She woulda gone to James.

And if those words were used in any other book besides the bible, they would be as easy to understand as as any other book would be.

Depends on the language. The devil hates the Catholic Church too.

Truth,
And what FACTS do you have that James (whom Paul refers to as the Lord's brother) and so does Mark6:3, is not Christ's biological brother? So put your money where your mouth is and provide scripture for your statements instead of accusing others of lying who do provide scripture! So verses please.

Whats the point Heidi? We have all provided scripture against your position. We went to the original languages (okay, so I didnt but im just not that cool). You simply use one scripture, Matthew 1:25, to 'prove' your point. The bible doesnt contradict itself. If one verse seems to contradict another, then obviously we cant take one of them at face value. You are doing just that and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Hiedi, you are wrong. Thats it. The people in this thread have jumped succesfully through your hoops.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

double... :evil:

 

[thessalonian]

Thessalonian, you just accused me of not being able to put two bible verses together! If you do not draw a conclusion from at least 2 bible verses, then you are saying that one of them is a lie, are you not?

No, I think you are capable of it but seem to be refusing to here.
Nope. Not saying one is a lie. But I am taking the culture and languages of the time in to consideration and brother does not always mean of the same mother in scripture. How could Lot be Abraham's brother (same mother) and his nephew at the same time? Seems like God was pulling off more than immaculate conceptions. Were there two Mary's in the same family (John 1:19). Mary, come here, no not you Mary the other Mary. Rather confusing.

Once again, the bible does not lie.

Your are quite correct and I have reconciled the passages. You have not.

It is simply the truth that Joseph didn't have union with Mary until she gave birth to a son. [\quote]

This statement of yours is absolutely correct.

[quote:45ae6]You either believe the bible or you don't.

With my last dying breath. To death I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, containes no contraditions and is the word of Go.

I do. So I will not allow you to try to get me to not believe that passage. It is written in very clear and simple terms. And there is no place where the bible contradicts Matthew 1:25. No place.[\quote]

I agree. But you have presented me with no passage that says that Mary and Joseph had sex at 7 pm on Tuesday evening. The Bible is not concerned with their sex life. It does not tell us if they did or didn't have sex. It only tells us they did not have sex while Mary was pregnant with Jesus. You go beyond what is written.

[quote:45ae6] So since you have not provided any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I'll have to go with scripture.

Neither have you. You have not provided me with a verse that says when Mary and Joseph had sex or even if they did. You have provided me a passage that gives a time frame in which they did not.

Also, there are at least 4 James's in the NT and one of them is listed as "the Lords brother". Now since the bible does not lie and explains that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations and Jesus had a brother named James, then what reason is there to assume that James was not Christ's brother?

What you refuse to deal with is that there is a man named James who is said to be a brother of the Lord. One problem. He is also said to be an apostle. We only have two James listed as Apostles, or is their a third. Please show me if there is. I'm all ears. Did Mary marry Zebedee of Alpheus? Have an affair with one of them, what? You can't keep running around in circles on this one.

Where does the bible say that Mary and Joseph didn't have normal sexual relations? And where does the bible say that James was not Christ's real bother? :o It doesn't.

It does not. I agree. However what you cannot see is that it doesn't say they did either. You go beyond what is written.

I

once heard a pastor say; "refuse to speculate where the bible is silent." the devil has a hayday with people who make up rumors and different gospels than what the bible teaches. That's where the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married came from! That's where all sorts of rumors start about Christ and passed along as true. And that's why Paul tells us that anyone who preaches a different gospel than he preached, will be eternally condemned. Which part of that don't you believe or understand? I'd really like to know.

I agree 100% that the Bible does not say Mary and Joseph did not have normal relations in any kind of explict way. Can you admit that it does not say they did either in any kind of explicit way? You have no verse that says it. You infer it from some passages but I am afraid there is alot of hand waving and gap filling going on that you won't admit.

But you first have to know what a made-up gospel is. Can you define it, Thessalonian? Because if you can, then you will know what Paul means here.

[/quote:45ae6][/quote:45ae6]

I don't make it up Heidi. Sorry.