James the Apostle in Gal 1:19

[Vic C.]

I am surprised you brought this up. The Messanic prophecy is that a "virgin shall bear a child".

Heh, andi I'm confused as to why you are surprised. I only mentioned the variences in some translations because not everyone is aware of this difference. I did admit I believe Messiah would be born of a virgin.

I think you zeroed in on the wrong part of my verse. I'm asking if there is ANY scripture that suggest Mary HAD to remain a virgin. Many people believe in the perpetual virginity as though who Jesus is depended on it. Whether or not Mary remained a virgin changes nothing about the nature of our Savior. He is who He is regardless.

People, the NT is about the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus plus nothing saves.

 

[mutzrein]

I am surprised you brought this up. The Messanic prophecy is that a "virgin shall bear a child".

Heh, andi I'm confused as to why you are surprised. I only mentioned the variences in some translations because not everyone is aware of this difference. I did admit I believe Messiah would be born of a virgin.

I think you zeroed in on the wrong part of my verse. I'm asking if there is ANY scripture that suggest Mary HAD to remain a virgin. Many people believe in the perpetual virginity as though who Jesus is depended on it. Whether or not Mary remained a virgin changes nothing about the nature of our Savior. He is who He is regardless.

People, the NT is about the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus plus nothing saves.

Amen!

 

[Imagican]

Thank you bic.

And Thess,

Not only did the Catholics of the past determine that their 'followers' were incapable of discerning the Word for themselves, the CC of today still considers the 'people' incapable of an understanding of the scriptures on their own. You yourself have indicated as much in replies to me in the past. That I am NOT capable of understanding scripture WITHOUT the guidance of the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

I have always considered the James in question to be exactly what he is described as being, the 'brother' of Christ. And the ONLY reason that you would have started this thread is for the attacks that have been made on 'your' doctrine that states Mary was/is the 'perpetual virgin'. So, please..........

I have read much of the History of your Church and I believe that in your heart you can see the evidence of this in my posts. i have NEVER indiscriminately created statements on my own concerning the RCC without making it clear that they were MY opinion. However, much of what I have offered has been fact, embarrassing as it may be, fact that anyone with just a small amount of study can prove for themselves.

I need not spend the rest of my life reading any and every book available in order to prove something to myself that I already know. That I will leave up to you if you wish to know the truth about the history of the RCC. i will offer what I am capable, but there is MUCH more available to anyone that wishes to learn it.

Thess, I personally have absolutely NOTHING against you. I have offered that I admire you perseverance in the defense of this religion and have even stated outright that I envy NOT your position. But beware of what you create in the forums for there are many that have much knowledge of the history of the RCC and oft times some of these matters would be easier left 'un-opened'. Your choice though. It simply pains me to see what you must go through at times.

When I made the statement that you chose to refute, you took it out of context much as you do so with scripture itself at times. What I stated was not what you offered. You used a small part of a statement to attack rather than allow it to be used as intended. I simply said, EVEN IF, but the important issue was what was stated AFTER this. That there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason to believe that Mary DID NOT fulfill her sexual duties as Josephs wife. You do realize that the MAIN reason people of that time married was to fulfill their legal obligation so as to be able to 'sleep' together without it being against God's law or even man's, right?

So, please, unless you just want to argue with me, don't take what I say out of context or I will feel need to offer a correction. And I promise that I will do the best that I can to offer you the same courtesy.

Thanks.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and Thess,

I have offered my testimony in the 'General' topics if you're curious. But, to condense it into just a few words: I could be accused of committing just about every sin known to man. I have not physically murdered anyone to my knowledge, but short of that and rape, I am guilty. So, there is little that your Church could offer to condemn me of what has already been openly admitted. Since I claim NO denomination of my own, anything that your Church could claim against them is of no consequence to me. So, you see, there is at least ONE consolation in being a 'one man show'. You and I have ONLY ME to blame for my failures.

Fortunately for me, God has seen fit to change my life into something that resembles one that is worthwhile compared to what it was in the past.

Most of what I offer concerning the RCC or CC is common knowledge, (or at least I thought it was. I really never considered myself to be an overly learned man in most respects so I always assumed that the history of these denominations was universally known by most, if not all Christians).

I have offered some speculation but have only done so from adding one plus one plus one. The answer is quite obvious to anyone who does the math. But I do know that many haven't, so this is why I offer it. I try my best to indicate opinion verses fact though, and you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

 

[Georges]

Does it really matter? I mean if we all voted that he was Mary & Joseph's son, would it make any difference to you?

Again, as in another thread, I agree with you that it doesn't really matter. I am not familiar with ANY messianic prophecy that states that the Mother of Messiah must remain a virgin. George, this is your area; correct me if I'm wrong.

I do agree that Scripture says Messiah would be born of a virgin; though this depends on how "almah" is translated in Isaiah 7:14. The word has been translated as Virgin, Young woman, maiden, girl, etc.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/tex ... rgoryw.htm

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

`almah {al-maw'}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 1630b from 05958
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) virgin, young woman

a) of marriageable age

b) maid or newly married
++++


Can be any of them.....in this case, I think it is a reference to Isaiah's wife in the next chapter....

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

and a reference to the same child...

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach [even] to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

the reference to Immanuel, simple is a name in action....Immanuel simple means "God is with us" as in "God is for us". That the predictions in Isaiah 7 and 8 come to pass simply shows the people that "God is truely with them as a nation". The prophecy indicates that a young woman will bear a child, and that before the child is old enough to know good from bad, the Assyrians will conquer the land.

This may be a dual prophecy in that in the continuing chapter's it is obviously prophecy to be fulfilled, ie Isaiah 9:11.

Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isa 7:17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; [even] the king of Assyria.

It's obvious that the land wasn't conquered by the Assyrians when Jesus was old enough to know good from bad....so...Mary could very well be a young woman of marrying age.....I don't discount the power of God however, in the fact that he did create Adam out of dirt....so do I believe it is possible for a virgin to concieve? Yes.

Question....is it possible to impregnate a women today without a penetration....in the manner of a test tube baby? Just a random thought.

 

[mutzrein]

The issue is not whether Mary was a virgin when she conceived (no problem with that) but whether she remained a virgin all her life as catholicism claims.

 

[thessalonian]

The issue is not whether Mary was a virgin when she conceived (no problem with that) but whether she remained a virgin all her life as catholicism claims.

That actually is NOT the issue of this thread. The issue of this thread is whether or not the James mentioned in Galations is the son of Mary, i.e. "brother of Jesus" = son of Mary.

I have made no claim in this thread about perpetual virginity of Mary so don't cloud the issue. Your prejudice with regard to Catholic thinking is showing quite nicely that you view the Bible through a lense of anti-catholicism. You cannot honestly look at a passage without viewing it through a lense of what Catholics think about the passage. Thanks for demonstrating this as has everyone on this thread.

Blessings