Akan culture also does not have a word for cousin. In the Akan culture, my mother's sister is my mother and her children are my brothers and sisters. Also my father's brother is my father and his children are my brothers and sisters. And my mother's brother is my Uncle, and I can marry my Uncle's children. This same practice was used by the Hebrew people. Europeans must not impose their cultural practices on the Bible.
Ty for sharing this great point! I am Catholic but this has really stumped me about Mary and having other children. Ty for giving a great perspective ❤️❤️ many blessings to you and your family
quote---Akan culture also does not have a word for cousin. In the Akan culture, my mother's sister is my mother and her children are my brothers and sisters. Also my father's brother is my father and his children are my brothers and sisters. And my mother's brother is my Uncle, and I can marry my Uncle's children. This same practice was used by the Hebrew people. Europeans must not impose their cultural practices on the Bible.... unquote WHY are you talking about Africa????? Which country is Akan from? Akan | West African, Ghana, Ivory Coast | Britannica Ghana Most Akan peoples live in Ghana, where they settled in successive waves of migration between the 11th and 18th centuries; others inhabit the eastern part of Côte d'Ivoire and parts of Togo.
¶ Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: But kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Mathew 1-25
The mere fact that there is a focus on Mary being a virgin or not is an issue of its own. Why would it be significant when she was only the mother of Jesus, the human side, and not Jesus, God.
Yup its not relevant to salvation. Whether you think Joseph had sex with Mary, his wife, at some point in their lives or not has no bearing on salvation and faith in Jesus. Jumping through mental hoops to force the bible to support an extreme take on this situation is sketchy not because it matters to salvation but because of the doubt it casts on catholics and their interpretations as a whole
She is the mother of Jesus who is God. Both divine and human. There’s no separation of his divine and human nature. She gave the second person of the holy trinity His human nature which he has united to His divine one. Therefore she is the mother of God. Whether you like it or not
Joseph & Mary had 8 children: Jesus, James, Joses, Jude, Simon, Mary (Mary Jacob, Mary Cleophas, Mary the Gypsy. She was married to Jacob Cleophas), Joanna, Sarah
@@4766376Where is the scripture that supports this presumption? Scripture is very clear Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relationships as husband and wife. Like all normal married couples. That is the reason why Mary had at least six other children. Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is not supported by scripture. Therefore should be rejected for the heresy it is.
@@4766376 quote---Because she was a virgin Consecrated to the Temple by her Mother Anne. Similar to how Samuel’s mother consecrated him to the service of the Lord... unquote ONLY until her marriage!!!!!
Matthew 1:25 can get the same interpretation as 'the other Mary' If matthew meant they never had marital relations he could have ended his sentence with, jospeh did not know mary. But he added 'until her firstborn' which isnt needed unless its changing the content of the sentence.
Because according to the Old Testament, in our Holy Mother, many messianic prophecies are fulfilled. Virgin Birth, Arc of the Covenant, Queen Mother and Proto-disciple. It’s like she said Luke’s gospel, “My Soul magnifies the Lord”. Finally to answer your question directly, without her “Yes” we don’t have HIM.
@@4766376So you have added this Mary myth to the finished work of Christ? Salvation is found in no one else but Jesus. Mary herself was a sinner in need of salvation. What you teaching is another gospel adding this false teaching of Mary. Nowhere is it taught in scripture. Another gospel is of course the spirit of divination or witchcraft. Sums up the blasphemous idolatrous teaching of Mary completely
@@4766376 quote----Because according to the Old Testament, in our Holy Mother, many messianic prophecies are fulfilled. Virgin Birth, Arc of the Covenant, Queen Mother and Proto-disciple... unquote NOPE!!! The ONLY queen of Heaven mention in the bible: What does Jeremiah say about the Queen of Heaven? The Queen of Heaven - Bible Odyssey Jeremiah 7:18 describes specific rites dedicated to the Queen of Heaven: “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven, and they pour out drink offerings to other gods.” These rites were clearly vital to the Judahites: at Jer 44, the people flat-out ... ---- Jeremiah 7:18-22 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. READ THAT AGAIN!! I quote: that they may provoke me (God) to anger. ---
Poppycock! The Jewish people of New Testament times knew the difference between siblings and cousins.... hence John The Baptist and his mother Elizabeth are specifically identified as being Mary's and Jesus' cousins, not siblings. Furthermore, Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 name Jesus' brothers and note only Joseph and Mary as their parents... denoting a nuclear family unit, not extended relatives... no aunts, uncles and cousins. The Pagan-based notion that Mary never consummated her marriage to Joseph is absurd (carrying over from the Pagan goddess mythology, not common sense or Holy Scripture). Matthew 1:24-25 is explicit in this stating that: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." God gave us His Word and also our brains... we need to use more of both.
And even if she didn’t have children, certainly, she was not a virgin as she was married and sex was the consummation. His argument is so bad. And again, what would be the significance of Mary remaining a virgin? It’s only for the Catholic Church to continue to uphold her in a way that is not biblical.
@@fantasia55 that’s a lie. And what does her remaining a virgin have to do with anything? Besides, she was married and had other sons who wrote epistles. Please stop Listening to lies.
Matthew 1:25 heavily implies marital relations. The best ya'll can do is say it doesnt definitely say either way. The counter argument is that Mary is a WIFE and WIVES and HUSBANDS are called to be one flesh. So if Mary is perfect and the ideal woman full of grace and whatnot she would also be a perfect or at least excellent WIFE which means her and Joseph knew each other and were one flesh as the bible tells them to be.
Not necessarily. There is an important historical document which supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Protoevangelium of James was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120). To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22). It was known, culturally at that time and would seem to have been the case for Mary, that a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” could have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. They would still marry so that he was a formal guardian but Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to Mary to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is thought that Joseph was much older than Mary and a widower, with children of his own.
Also check out Luther and Calvin on this. They agreed that she remained a virgin after Christ. Also an interesting rebuke of this is st. Jerome vs Helvidius in the 5 th century. Jerome as you know is regarded as one of the most gifted scriptural theologians he spoke fluent Hebrew, Latin and Greek. He translated the Sacred Scripture from the Greek to the Latin. Peace
It is simple ;If Mary had other children by her husband Joseph that would make Mary less than what the roman Catholic church teaches about her. The church teaches Mary can intercede for us but that is nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary's a mediator. That is nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary was immaculately conceived. That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary was assumed into heaven. That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary remained a virgin. That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary took a vow of Chasity along with Joseph . That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus,. That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches Mary is to be prayed to and asked to convey prayers , CCC 2679 That's nowhere in scripture. The church teaches that Mary is a dispenser of grace. That's nowhere found in scripture. This is why the Roman Catholic church hates the Bible and sola scriptura. The Word of God is the enemy of the Roman church because it refutes the false teachings of the church. The written word of God, not protestant theology ,refutes roman Catholic beliefs on Mary. Tim Staoles is a good articulate speaker and is telling you what the roman Catholic church teaches not necessarily what God's written word says. Heb 12:2
Tim also was anti Catholic like you and studied at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College under top Protestant minds . . . until the Truth set him free. You forget that the Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible, and no where in it does it say "The Bible Alone". Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). Also the only place Scripture says "Faith Alone" is in James where we are NOT justified by Faith alone. Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking! The past 40 years have seen tens of thousands of Protestants return to Rome. Many of these were learned Bible scholars (some bringing whole congregations with them) who came to see how a faith, based on men from the 16th century, just totally got away from the teaching of the apostles and their successions. When reading the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers, they only found the Catholic Church. As the famous Anglican convert John Henry Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
@@frankpmarsala7682 You forget that the Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible, The roman Catholic church did not give us the bible , God did . The roman Catholic translated the scriptures into Latin not the common language of the people at that time ? Control of what was to be taught. The bible is God's written word and is available to us today . and no where in it does it say "The Bible Alone". You are correct there is no place where it is bible alone that is presented . The bible is to be used for ? 2 Tim 3:15-17 Romans 15: 4 All through the bible we see examples of what we are to believe. There is nothing wrong with tradition when it lines up with scripture . Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). What we find in scripture is Paul telling us the past tense of traditions not telling the church to make new traditions . Got your brown scapular , an interesting tradition that denies what scripture teaches! Also the only place Scripture says "Faith Alone" is in James where we are NOT justified by Faith alone. Yes James 2: says that NOT by faith alone . Who is James addressing ? James 1:1 , and when you realize that the Jews had faith in God but had not accepted Jesus as their messiah . Jesus tells the Jews what works they required in John 6:27-29 So Not by faith alone but by believing in the son of God .. Salvation is a gift , we do not work for the gift but because of that gift. Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking! Yes without authority to do so and his version of the scriptures do not exist today. St. Jerome in the 5th century also removed 7 books from the canon stating they were good for historical reference but not doctrine. Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Yes to be deep in history and the scriptures is to be no longer a protestant but a believer in Christ according to the gospel presented in the bible . I would embrace the roman Catholic church IF they were scripturally based and held only those doctrines that the bible has contextual proof of. here is a question I would like you to answer; in 73 books of our bible we find that no one prays to anyone but God. Please tell me why CCC 2679 is in the Catechism?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 (The Roman Catholic church did not give us the bible , God did . The roman Catholic translated the scriptures into Latin not the common language of the people at that time ? Control of what was to be taught. The bible is God's written word and is available to us today .) I beg to differ, it was through the Catholic Church that the Canon of Scripture was established from the many gospels and writings that were floating around by the 4th century. And the Church had the authority directly from Christ to do this . . . "Whatever you bind on earth . . ." Throughout God's plan of salvation, He provided people, He designated, to teach the masses His will. At first He sent Patriarchs, Prophets, Judges, who were to lead and represent His authority. Then the Son became one of us and fulfilled the Plan, by establishing His Church. Those He chose as leaders He gave the authority to "bind and loose". It was their task to make sure that Christ's teachings remained pure and not corrupted. The Holy Spirit would guarantee it. The Church was not just for one generation, so as the Apostles died, they passed on the authority to their successors. And yes, it was their duty to control what was to be taught. That was how the teachings remained pure and universal for 1500 years until the Reformation opened the floodgates with private interpretation, making a mess of everything and producing tens of thousands of denominations . . . this was not of the Spirit, but the result of men taking control apart from God. (All through the bible we see examples of what we are to believe. There is nothing wrong with tradition when it lines up with scripture.) And those Traditions with a capital "T" held by the Church are exactly in line with Scripture through the "binding and loosing". Remember, as Paul said, Scripture is only a part of the Tradition, the other part is handed down orally, some of it later put in writings apart from the Scriptures.Once again, Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). (What we find in scripture is Paul telling us the past tense of traditions not telling the church to make new traditions . Got your brown scapular , an interesting tradition that denies what scripture teaches!) Sorry, but this is your flawed private interpretation. You were not given the ability to "bind and loose". I wear my scapular, bound by Jesus through His Church, proudly, In honor of His Mother who teaches us to, "Do whatever He tells you!" (Yes James 2: says that NOT by faith alone . Who is James addressing ? James 1:1 , and when you realize that the Jews had faith in God but had not accepted Jesus as their messiah . Jesus tells the Jews what works they required in John 6:27-29 .So Not by faith alone but by believing in the son of God .. Salvation is a gift , we do not work for the gift but because of that gift.) This is REALLY stretching it. Jame's letter is to the Church, which at first was VERY Jewish. But Paul and James are saying the same thing. James was more down to earth, Paul, the scholar, can talk over your head. Peter addresses this about Paul in 3 Peter 3:16 (that has a ring to it) "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Faith cannot exist without works, it is dead! Works without Faith have no meaning for salvation. They go hand in hand. As far as Salvation goes, you can't have one without the other. (Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking! Yes without authority to do so and his version of the scriptures do not exist today.) But many today hold him up as a hero . . . a hero who felt God had it wrong . . . nice! (St. Jerome in the 5th century also removed 7 books from the canon stating they were good for historical reference but not doctrine. Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated.) Jerome was wrong and was properly corrected by Christ through His Church. (Yes to be deep in history and the scriptures is to be no longer a protestant but a believer in Christ according to the gospel presented in the bible .) No, to be deep in history is to be a believer In Christ according to the Magisterial teaching seen in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Church. (I would embrace the Roman Catholic church IF they were scripturally based and held only those doctrines that the bible has contextual proof of.) It is! Welcome aboard! (Here is a question I would like you to answer; in 73 books of our bible we find that no one prays to anyone but God. Please tell me why CCC 2679 is in the Catechism?) Sure . . . because, instituted by Christ, the Church bound CCC2679 here on earth and Jesus promised that it is bound in Heaven.
@@frankpmarsala7682 . because, instituted by Christ, the Church bound CCC2679 here on earth and Jesus promised that it is bound in Heaven. So that explains why there are so many beliefs of Catholics that have no correspondence to scripture! Want to bring in a doctrine not found in contextual scripture , no problem we will just state Jesus told us too!
@brucewmclaughlin9072 We get nowhere going back and forth. I put a test before you . . . We in the Church believe that Jesus has been sending his Mother to warn us of impending Chastisement due to mankind's turning from him. Recent warnings have been at Fatima, Portugal where she appeared to 3 children. Oct 13, 1917 saw 70,000 people witness the "Miracle of the Sun" which God performed. It was pouring rain and after the event the ground and everyone were bone dry, Look it up, the whole event was documented by the local media. This was in 1917, the world had just seen a war. Mary told the Children that if people did not repent, a greater war was coming in the pontificate of Pope Pius XI. The sky would turn red just before it. On the eve of WW2, in 1939, there was a red Aurora seen all through Europe. More recently she appeared in Garabandal, Spain in 1961-65. In one of the apparitions in 1963, Pope John XXIII had just died. She told the 4 children that, "there would be 3 more Popes and then will begin the End of the Times . , , however, I am not including a 4th Pope who will not occupy the office for long." Here, in 1963, she predicted the short pontificate of John Paul I . . . 33 days in 1978. So the 3 Popes are Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis is the Pope whom she said will begin the "End of the Times" , , , Not the End of Time mind you, but the beginning of the end of Satan's reign over mankind . . . think of him being chained in the abyss. She said after a "Synod" (back in the 60's there were no synods but councils) and the Pope goes to Moscow, there will be a Warning from God to all mankind, an illumination of conscience, where everyone will see were he stands in God's eyes. following which God will place a Miraculous event in the pines near Garabandal for all to see. If people do not repent, there will be a great Chastisement. Then there will be an era of peace. This "Synod" began last October and will conclude this October 2024, so when we see a Pope go to Moscow, these things will come to pass. I believe we are on the verge in the next few years where things will start happening. I leave you this test before you . . . is the Virgin being sent by God? Has she been warning us? These were just two of her many visitations, but in all cases her predictions have com true. When the above happens, we will know for sure.
You guys are so lost, how do you explain away Mathew 1 chapter 25. You explain this away so you can continue your worship of Mary. Idolatry idolatry idolatry. Proclaiming to be wise but they are fools.
Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus so these were the half brothers of Jesus. The last three mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name.
So why did Jesus at Calvary on the cross, entrust Mary to the care of John the apostle who wasn’t her biological son or relative, rather than entrust Her to her “other sons” wouldn’t that be an obvious violation of the 4th commandment? Especially considering that she was a widow and about to lose her son as well? Part of Jewish tradition at the time and even in secular society today, it would be scandalous and outrageous to abandon your parents especially your widowed mother in her older years. Also where were these “other sons of Mary” when her and Joseph presented Jesus at the temple, where were they during their flight to Egypt when Herod was looking to kill Jesus, and when they lost and found him at the temple when he was 12, there’s no mention of them at the wedding at Cana either. They weren’t there at the cross. But there were 2 other Mary’s there, Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Clopas (who was the father to James, Jude, Simon and Joseph) Nor did Joseph have a previous marriage or children from a previous marriage, nowhere is that found in scripture, it amazes me that for Protestant who are such followers of “sola scriptura” ignore the concept when it comes to the unbiblical notion of Jospeh being married and having children previous to his marriage with Mary.
If you do the reading of the other siblings, they did not believe until Jesus’s death and resurrection. So, they were not around to see. Joseph and Marry were married! Part of the Jewish tradition of marriage is to consummate the marriage. Your analysis is horrible.
And, since we are speaking the text, there was no where in the text that says Mary is the mother of God, nor did it say that she remained a virgin, nor was she revered as high as the Catholics have made her.
Goodness gracious. Mary was not a virgin and had lots of kids. We don't know if any of them were actually born before Jesus. So what do the apologists have to do? Make up nonsense about what brother means and then totally ignore "all his sisters". Yet another reason why so few young people have any use for religion. The credibility issues are legion.
Talk about credibility . . . you make blanket statements with no backup . . . just pull them out of the blue. If you recall (maybe you don't) Jesus, on the cross, gave Mary to John, the youngest apostle probably in his late teens or early 20's, to take into his house. Why would He do that if Mary had other children, who would be older than John? Total nonsense on your part!
@@frankpmarsala7682 There you go again, asserting that Bronze Age fables really did happen. Talk about making statements with no backup. The pot is calling the kettle black.
@@frankpmarsala7682 quote--- If you recall (maybe you don't) Jesus, on the cross, gave Mary to John, the youngest apostle probably in his late teens or early 20's, to take into his house. Why would He do that if Mary had other children, who would be older than John? unquote NONE on His brothers believed He as the Messiah!!!!! - According to the Apostle John, “not even his brothers believed in him” (John 7:5). That's incredible. Those who had lived with Jesus for 30 years.... >>>John 7:3-8 The Message (MSG) His brothers said, “Why don’t you leave here and go up to the Feast so your disciples can get a good look at the works you do? No one who intends to be publicly known does everything behind the scenes. If you’re serious about what you are doing, come out in the open and show the world.” His brothers were pushing him like this because they didn’t believe in him either. Jesus came back at them, “Don’t pressure me. This isn’t my time. It’s your time-it’s always your time; you have nothing to lose. The world has nothing against you, but it’s up in arms against me. It’s against me because I expose the evil behind its pretensions. You go ahead, go up to the Feast. Don’t wait for me. I’m not ready. It’s not the right time for me.” >>>>John 7:4-6 King James Version (KJV) For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. >>>John 7:4-6 New American Standard Bible - NASB 1995 (NASB1995) For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus *said to them, “My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. >>>There is NO mention as to where the brothers were. Maybe did not care?? Gone away working?? -----John was about 24 years old at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, In the time of Jesus, almost all Jewish young men were married, and usually by age 18. But in the Gospels, Peter is the only disciple known to have been married (Matthew 8:14-15). No other disciples’ wives are ever mentioned. So this tells us that the disciples may have all been under 20, with some as young as 15. >>>In Matthew 11:25, Mark 10:24, Luke 10:21, and John 13:33, Jesus calls his trainees “little children” or “little ones”. As the Incarnate Word/Son of God, we think Jesus can make a paternal reference to any human and it would be fitting… and yes it would. But let’s not void Jesus human nature and the nature of his patriarchal cultural. Older men, were treated with respect as fathers. Calling his disciples “children” may indicate they were mostly - gasp! - children! Or at least much younger than their Master. >>>Here’s something else. In Exodus 30:14-15, we read that every male over the age of 20 was to pay a tax to maintain the “Sanctuary” or Temple. In Matthew 17:24-27, we read that when questioned about this tax, Jesus instructs Peter to pay this tax - but only for “me and you”. But all the disciples are present (“they came to Capernaum” vs 24). We might reasonably conclude that the others were under age 20 and did not need to pay. >>>>And as to the plausibility of them being young enough to still be around to write about all this in the 60’s - 80’s, there is no problem at all. Young John, perhaps 15 during the life of Jesus, would be only 85 if he wrote his gospel, letters and Revelation in the year 90. >>>>>
Not only this but in the Old Testament: The Ark was set up in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, and the Beth-shemites offered sacrifices and burnt offerings. Out of curiosity the men of Beth-shemesh gazed at the Ark; and as a punishment, seventy of them (fifty thousand and seventy in some translations) were struck down by the Lord. When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God. If I knew these stories and I was Joseph and knew my wife was going to be the New Ark of the Covenant, I would have never touched her. Another point to discuss when you non believers get a clue that she was always a virgin and never had any other children.
Quite a lot of taking scripture out of context to try and justify the false teaching of Mary's eternal virginity. But of course that is what all false teachers do, whether it is the cults or the pope. Scripture is clear that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relationships after the virgin birth. That Mary had at least six other children. Other myths about Mary are the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary. She was a sinner who needed salvation. That is why she called God her saviour. All these false teachings about Mary do not come from scripture. But from pagan sources. Because of this idolatry, it is clear that these so called appearances of Mary at Lourdes for example. Are clearly demonic appearances. Because Satan is behind these false teachings.
As a protestant, I found your argument insightful but also inconsistent. You’re using defilement as the reason why David can no longer go into his wives as a parallel to why Joseph can’t go into Mary. You can’t mean that Joseph can’t go into Mary because she was “defiled” by the Holy Spirit, right? Also, would Mary saying yes to God make her a adulterer then as if she said yes to another man? I think the answer is clearly “no”. Because this is God, different rules apply as the bible as clearly demonstrated. So how can the rules of treating an adulterous wife be applied to this situation? I don’t believe it does so the whole “Joseph can’t go into Mary” can’t hold up in this context.
There is no doubt Jesus had brothers and sisters several scripture back it up , it is amazing how ye guys can twist scripture how about twisting this one if you can,math 1-24-25 quote then Joseph being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son ( notice firstborn meaning she must had more than one).not knowing his wife simply means not having sex with her until: time word: after Jesus was born, also if as you guys say Mary was a virgin all her life all I can say is poor Joseph what did he do, where was the line drawn was he allowed to touch her, give her a hug etc,in reality what type of guy would get married to his wife and go to bed every night for the rest of their lives and not have sex pretty unique, come on guys get real and stop twisting scripture.
They are not twisting it. I come to encounter an explanation about this. One verse I remember was when Jesus said I will be with you till the end of times. Question: Does this mean after the end of times Jesus will not be with us anymore?
All false teachers twisting scripture to try and justify their deceptions. The Pope is no exception. Scripture is clear that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relationships after the virgin birth. Mary had at least six other children.
@@Michael-yl9rl The key is not found in the word “until” by itself; it is found in the entire prepositional phrase begun by the word until. “Until the end of time” modifies a reality within eternity. The same is true for phrases that use other references to eternity, heaven, or the timelessness of the spirit realm, such as, until the end of the age, until everlasting, until the heavens be no more, etc. Because timelessness is an element of these phrases, the phrases obviously cannot be strictly limited to a specific period of time. Contrast that with instances in which the word “until” modifies an event within time and space or historical events on planet earth. “Until you have repaid him in full,” or “until his death” or “until the harvest comes in”are examples of references to events within history in the here and now. They limit the time between the word until and the named future events to a finite period of time. The phrase “until she had given birth to a son” necessarily limits the time after the word “until” to a finite period of time, in this case, about 9 months or so. That is the plain meaning of the phrase. Neither timelessness nor eternity is in view, but simply an event to occur within history after the elapse of a finite period of time, here, the length of a human pregnancy. Had the inspired author meant to suggest that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage but lived together as brother and sister, without progeny, the entire prepositional phrase would be not only entirely unnecessary, but misleading, as it strongly suggests a normal marital sex life was deferred until after Jesus’ birth.
It's possible, but the most reasonable explanation is that they were children of Mary. Even catholics such as Joh Meier, Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer agree that the cousins, etc. is hard to accept.
So your claim is that Jesus’ guarantee has failed and the gates of hell did indeed triumph over the Church HE established? The Bible says the “Church” is “the Pilar and Foundation of truth”. When that was written there was only one church and it was ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church.
Sir, first, no matter the denomination or faith there is only one church. TRUE! But the church is the pillar of truth. But the foundation is Jesus. Not Mary. Not Joseph. Or any other. And, just because the Catholic Church claims to be universal does not make the Catholic Church correct. Especially when the Catholic Church does not line up with The Word of God. And, before the Catholic Church was established, the church was universal. Why? Because the church was already founded in and on Jesus Christ. The idea of making the church universal was to say we will teach all the same. But if the teaching is not totally Christ centered then the teaching is wrong. It is not the church that establishes. It is the word of God, Strictly, that establishes the church. Which then makes the church a pillar!
@@CoolDude-xc4hnBrilliant the church is founded on the apostles doctrine clearly taught in scripture. The risen Christ is the foundation, and the chief cornerstone. Of course Jesus is the rock not the Pope on which the church is built. Any deviation from biblical doctrine is an apostate doctrine. The Roman Catholic church deviates from scripture so much.Examples being the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary. That Mary remained a virgin, when scripture is clear she had other children. Obviously teachings from pagan sources. The idolatry bowing to lifeless idols and praying the rosary two examples of the idolatrous practices. The vow of celibacy to be a "priest" as scripture says a doctrine of devils. Peter of course who was never the Pope just a mere man who refused any kind of worship. Bowing down to him or kissing a ring. Was a married man. Also describes himself as an elder. Also he was a hypocrite Paul has to rebuke him. The blasphemous titles of the Pope. Holy father, when the true holy Father is Almighty God. In fact we should call no one father as a religious title. The vicar of Christ, absolute blasphemy. It is God the Holy Spirit who is infallible and leads us into all truth. Not some man in the Vatican. All these unbilical false teachings, which are nothing more than man made traditions that nullify the word of God Clearly demonstrates that ithe Roman Catholic church is nothing more than an apostate church.
@@4766376 quote---the gates of hell did indeed triumph over the Church HE established?.. unquote I suggest you read that again. What is the "Church"? PEOPLE!!!! NOT a building!!! And btw--when has hell ever been describes with gates??? Keep the dead in??Or out?? It means even His death will NOT stop his word!!! ----quote---When that was written there was only one church and it was ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church... unquote The quote IT FROM the Bible church named: ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church..
Not really. There is no proof one way or the other. If it was clear then it would say something like it does in Mark 16 'When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome ...'
@@yeshua64 Tortuous logic? OH BOY! I get to play your game. Where in the Bible does it say that MARY had children other than Jesus? He is the only one named to her.
The clearest most beautiful explanation of such a topic, right on the nose. Thank you very much, I think I will read the book.
That Absolom David reference is a neat angle of typology and hermeneutics.
I love Tim Staples God bless you Sir
God bless you and stay safe too.
Akan culture also does not have a word for cousin. In the Akan culture, my mother's sister is my mother and her children are my brothers and sisters. Also my father's brother is my father and his children are my brothers and sisters. And my mother's brother is my Uncle, and I can marry my Uncle's children. This same practice was used by the Hebrew people. Europeans must not impose their cultural practices on the Bible.
Ty for sharing this great point! I am Catholic but this has really stumped me about Mary and having other children. Ty for giving a great perspective ❤️❤️ many blessings to you and your family
This is awesome! What is Akan? I've never heard of that Ethnicity before.
Thanks 😊
quote---Akan culture also does not have a word for cousin. In the Akan culture, my mother's sister is my mother and her children are my brothers and sisters. Also my father's brother is my father and his children are my brothers and sisters. And my mother's brother is my Uncle, and I can marry my Uncle's children. This same practice was used by the Hebrew people. Europeans must not impose their cultural practices on the Bible.... unquote
WHY are you talking about Africa?????
Which country is Akan from?
Akan | West African, Ghana, Ivory Coast | Britannica
Ghana
Most Akan peoples live in Ghana, where they settled in successive waves of migration between the 11th and 18th centuries; others inhabit the eastern part of Côte d'Ivoire and parts of Togo.
What about Josephus' text? What word is used for James in it? Brother, cousin, or one that could mean both?
Perfect answer! Very well.
My Protestant friends call me "brother" all the time. Brother's in Christ perhaps. But, I have noticed that.
Matthew 13:55 KJV
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
¶ Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
But kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Mathew 1-25
The mere fact that there is a focus on Mary being a virgin or not is an issue of its own. Why would it be significant when she was only the mother of Jesus, the human side, and not Jesus, God.
Luke 1 45-49
You will know her as blessed.
@@Stevebeast11 what does that have to do with prayer?
Wow
Yup its not relevant to salvation. Whether you think Joseph had sex with Mary, his wife, at some point in their lives or not has no bearing on salvation and faith in Jesus.
Jumping through mental hoops to force the bible to support an extreme take on this situation is sketchy not because it matters to salvation but because of the doubt it casts on catholics and their interpretations as a whole
She is the mother of Jesus who is God. Both divine and human. There’s no separation of his divine and human nature. She gave the second person of the holy trinity His human nature which he has united to His divine one. Therefore she is the mother of God. Whether you like it or not
Joseph & Mary had 8 children: Jesus, James, Joses, Jude, Simon, Mary (Mary Jacob, Mary Cleophas, Mary the Gypsy. She was married to Jacob Cleophas), Joanna, Sarah
Shut the hell up
Jews took very seriously the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. So why would Mary take a vow of perpetual virginity?
Because she was a virgin Consecrated to the Temple by her Mother Anne. Similar to how Samuel’s mother consecrated him to the service of the Lord.
Is that in the Bible?@@4766376
@@4766376Where is the scripture that supports this presumption? Scripture is very clear Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relationships as husband and wife. Like all normal married couples. That is the reason why Mary had at least six other children. Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is not supported by scripture. Therefore should be rejected for the heresy it is.
@@4766376 Yes but since Protestants only look to the Bible and not early Church Fathers, they don't know this.
@@4766376 quote---Because she was a virgin Consecrated to the Temple by her Mother Anne. Similar to how Samuel’s mother consecrated him to the service of the Lord... unquote
ONLY until her marriage!!!!!
Brilliant explanation of Our Lady’s true relationship with the Holy Spirit and St Joseph.
Matthew 1:25 can get the same interpretation as 'the other Mary'
If matthew meant they never had marital relations he could have ended his sentence with, jospeh did not know mary. But he added 'until her firstborn' which isnt needed unless its changing the content of the sentence.
no
Tomatoe, tomato how is that relevant to your salvation would anyone tell me?
Because according to the Old Testament, in our Holy Mother, many messianic prophecies are fulfilled. Virgin Birth, Arc of the Covenant, Queen Mother and Proto-disciple. It’s like she said Luke’s gospel, “My Soul magnifies the Lord”. Finally to answer your question directly, without her “Yes” we don’t have HIM.
@@4766376So you have added this Mary myth to the finished work of Christ? Salvation is found in no one else but Jesus. Mary herself was a sinner in need of salvation. What you teaching is another gospel adding this false teaching of Mary. Nowhere is it taught in scripture. Another gospel is of course the spirit of divination or witchcraft. Sums up the blasphemous idolatrous teaching of Mary completely
@@4766376 quote----Because according to the Old Testament, in our Holy Mother, many messianic prophecies are fulfilled. Virgin Birth, Arc of the Covenant, Queen Mother and Proto-disciple... unquote
NOPE!!!
The ONLY queen of Heaven mention in the bible:
What does Jeremiah say about the Queen of Heaven?
The Queen of Heaven - Bible Odyssey
Jeremiah 7:18 describes specific rites dedicated to the Queen of Heaven: “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven, and they pour out drink offerings to other gods.” These rites were clearly vital to the Judahites: at Jer 44, the people flat-out ...
---- Jeremiah 7:18-22 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
READ THAT AGAIN!! I quote: that they may provoke me (God) to anger.
---
Poppycock! The Jewish people of New Testament times knew the difference between siblings and cousins.... hence John The Baptist and his mother Elizabeth are specifically identified as being Mary's and Jesus' cousins, not siblings. Furthermore, Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 name Jesus' brothers and note only Joseph and Mary as their parents... denoting a nuclear family unit, not extended relatives... no aunts, uncles and cousins. The Pagan-based notion that Mary never consummated her marriage to Joseph is absurd (carrying over from the Pagan goddess mythology, not common sense or Holy Scripture). Matthew 1:24-25 is explicit in this stating that: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." God gave us His Word and also our brains... we need to use more of both.
Shut up heretic
And even if she didn’t have children, certainly, she was not a virgin as she was married and sex was the consummation. His argument is so bad. And again, what would be the significance of Mary remaining a virgin? It’s only for the Catholic Church to continue to uphold her in a way that is not biblical.
Church Fathers were unanimous that Mary remained a virgin, but you know better?
@@fantasia55 that’s a lie. And what does her remaining a virgin have to do with anything? Besides, she was married and had other sons who wrote epistles. Please stop
Listening to lies.
Matthew 1: 25 says otherwise
Matthew 1: 25 says otherwise
@petermunyaradzimuzarewetu8089 You are contradicting the Church Fathers because of an English translation of before/until? Well alrighty then.
Matthew 1:25 heavily implies marital relations.
The best ya'll can do is say it doesnt definitely say either way.
The counter argument is that Mary is a WIFE and WIVES and HUSBANDS are called to be one flesh. So if Mary is perfect and the ideal woman full of grace and whatnot she would also be a perfect or at least excellent WIFE which means her and Joseph knew each other and were one flesh as the bible tells them to be.
Not necessarily. There is an important historical document which supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Protoevangelium of James was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120). To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22). It was known, culturally at that time and would seem to have been the case for Mary, that a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” could have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. They would still marry so that he was a formal guardian but Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to Mary to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is thought that Joseph was much older than Mary and a widower, with children of his own.
Also check out Luther and Calvin on this. They agreed that she remained a virgin after Christ.
Also an interesting rebuke of this is st. Jerome vs Helvidius in the 5 th century.
Jerome as you know is regarded as one of the most gifted scriptural theologians he spoke fluent Hebrew, Latin and Greek.
He translated the Sacred Scripture from the Greek to the Latin.
Peace
It is simple ;If Mary had other children by her husband Joseph that would make Mary less than what the roman Catholic church teaches about her.
The church teaches Mary can intercede for us but that is nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary's a mediator. That is nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary was immaculately conceived. That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary was assumed into heaven. That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary remained a virgin. That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary took a vow of Chasity along with Joseph . That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus,. That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches Mary is to be prayed to and asked to convey prayers , CCC 2679 That's nowhere in scripture.
The church teaches that Mary is a dispenser of grace. That's nowhere found in scripture.
This is why the Roman Catholic church hates the Bible and sola scriptura. The Word of God is the enemy of the Roman church because it refutes the false teachings of the church. The written word of God, not protestant theology ,refutes roman Catholic beliefs on Mary.
Tim Staoles is a good articulate speaker and is telling you what the roman Catholic church teaches not necessarily what God's written word says.
Heb 12:2
Tim also was anti Catholic like you and studied at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College under top Protestant minds . . . until the Truth set him free. You forget that the Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible, and no where in it does it say "The Bible Alone". Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). Also the only place Scripture says "Faith Alone" is in James where we are NOT justified by Faith alone. Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking! The past 40 years have seen tens of thousands of Protestants return to Rome. Many of these were learned Bible scholars (some bringing whole congregations with them) who came to see how a faith, based on men from the 16th century, just totally got away from the teaching of the apostles and their successions. When reading the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers, they only found the Catholic Church. As the famous Anglican convert John Henry Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
@@frankpmarsala7682 You forget that the Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible,
The roman Catholic church did not give us the bible , God did . The roman Catholic translated the scriptures into Latin not the common language of the people at that time ? Control of what was to be taught. The bible is God's written word and is available to us today .
and no where in it does it say "The Bible Alone".
You are correct there is no place where it is bible alone that is presented . The bible is to be used for ?
2 Tim 3:15-17 Romans 15: 4
All through the bible we see examples of what we are to believe. There is nothing wrong with tradition when it lines up with scripture .
Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
What we find in scripture is Paul telling us the past tense of traditions not telling the church to make new traditions . Got your brown scapular , an interesting tradition that denies what scripture teaches!
Also the only place Scripture says "Faith Alone" is in James where we are NOT justified by Faith alone.
Yes James 2: says that NOT by faith alone . Who is James addressing ? James 1:1 , and when you realize that the Jews had faith in God but had not accepted Jesus as their messiah . Jesus tells the Jews what works they required in John 6:27-29
So Not by faith alone but by believing in the son of God .. Salvation is a gift , we do not work for the gift but because of that gift.
Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking!
Yes without authority to do so and his version of the scriptures do not exist today.
St. Jerome in the 5th century also removed 7 books from the canon stating they were good for historical reference but not doctrine. Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Yes to be deep in history and the scriptures is to be no longer a protestant but a believer in Christ according to the gospel presented in the bible .
I would embrace the roman Catholic church IF they were scripturally based and held only those doctrines that the bible has contextual proof of.
here is a question I would like you to answer;
in 73 books of our bible we find that no one prays to anyone but God. Please tell me why CCC 2679 is in the Catechism?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
(The Roman Catholic church did not give us the bible , God did . The roman Catholic translated the scriptures into Latin not the common language of the people at that time ? Control of what was to be taught. The bible is God's written word and is available to us today .)
I beg to differ, it was through the Catholic Church that the Canon of Scripture was established from the many gospels and writings that were floating around by the 4th century. And the Church had the authority directly from Christ to do this . . . "Whatever you bind on earth . . ." Throughout God's plan of salvation, He provided people, He designated, to teach the masses His will. At first He sent Patriarchs, Prophets, Judges, who were to lead and represent His authority. Then the Son became one of us and fulfilled the Plan, by establishing His Church. Those He chose as leaders He gave the authority to "bind and loose". It was their task to make sure that Christ's teachings remained pure and not corrupted. The Holy Spirit would guarantee it. The Church was not just for one generation, so as the Apostles died, they passed on the authority to their successors. And yes, it was their duty to control what was to be taught. That was how the teachings remained pure and universal for 1500 years until the Reformation opened the floodgates with private interpretation, making a mess of everything and producing tens of thousands of denominations . . . this was not of the Spirit, but the result of men taking control apart from God.
(All through the bible we see examples of what we are to believe. There is nothing wrong with tradition when it lines up with scripture.)
And those Traditions with a capital "T" held by the Church are exactly in line with Scripture through the "binding and loosing". Remember, as Paul said, Scripture is only a part of the Tradition, the other part is handed down orally, some of it later put in writings apart from the Scriptures.Once again, Paul teaches “Stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
(What we find in scripture is Paul telling us the past tense of traditions not telling the church to make new traditions . Got your brown scapular , an interesting tradition that denies what scripture teaches!)
Sorry, but this is your flawed private interpretation. You were not given the ability to "bind and loose". I wear my scapular, bound by Jesus through His Church, proudly, In honor of His Mother who teaches us to, "Do whatever He tells you!"
(Yes James 2: says that NOT by faith alone . Who is James addressing ? James 1:1 , and when you realize that the Jews had faith in God but had not accepted Jesus as their messiah . Jesus tells the Jews what works they required in John 6:27-29 .So Not by faith alone but by believing in the son of God .. Salvation is a gift , we do not work for the gift but because of that gift.)
This is REALLY stretching it. Jame's letter is to the Church, which at first was VERY Jewish. But Paul and James are saying the same thing. James was more down to earth, Paul, the scholar, can talk over your head. Peter addresses this about Paul in 3 Peter 3:16 (that has a ring to it) "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Faith cannot exist without works, it is dead! Works without Faith have no meaning for salvation. They go hand in hand. As far as Salvation goes, you can't have one without the other.
(Luther changed his Bible (to his condemnation according to Scripture) to fit his thinking! Yes without authority to do so and his version of the scriptures do not exist today.)
But many today hold him up as a hero . . . a hero who felt God had it wrong . . . nice!
(St. Jerome in the 5th century also removed 7 books from the canon stating they were good for historical reference but not doctrine. Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated.)
Jerome was wrong and was properly corrected by Christ through His Church.
(Yes to be deep in history and the scriptures is to be no longer a protestant but a believer in Christ according to the gospel presented in the bible .)
No, to be deep in history is to be a believer In Christ according to the Magisterial teaching seen in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Church.
(I would embrace the Roman Catholic church IF they were scripturally based and held only those doctrines that the bible has contextual proof of.)
It is! Welcome aboard!
(Here is a question I would like you to answer; in 73 books of our bible we find that no one prays to anyone but God. Please tell me why CCC 2679 is in the Catechism?)
Sure . . . because, instituted by Christ, the Church bound CCC2679 here on earth and Jesus promised that it is bound in Heaven.
@@frankpmarsala7682 . because, instituted by Christ, the Church bound CCC2679 here on earth and Jesus promised that it is bound in Heaven.
So that explains why there are so many beliefs of Catholics that have no correspondence to scripture! Want to bring in a doctrine not found in contextual scripture , no problem we will just state Jesus told us too!
@brucewmclaughlin9072 We get nowhere going back and forth. I put a test before you . . .
We in the Church believe that Jesus has been sending his Mother to warn us of impending Chastisement due to mankind's turning from him. Recent warnings have been at Fatima, Portugal where she appeared to 3 children. Oct 13, 1917 saw 70,000 people witness the "Miracle of the Sun" which God performed. It was pouring rain and after the event the ground and everyone were bone dry, Look it up, the whole event was documented by the local media. This was in 1917, the world had just seen a war. Mary told the Children that if people did not repent, a greater war was coming in the pontificate of Pope Pius XI. The sky would turn red just before it. On the eve of WW2, in 1939, there was a red Aurora seen all through Europe.
More recently she appeared in Garabandal, Spain in 1961-65. In one of the apparitions in 1963, Pope John XXIII had just died. She told the 4 children that, "there would be 3 more Popes and then will begin the End of the Times . , , however, I am not including a 4th Pope who will not occupy the office for long." Here, in 1963, she predicted the short pontificate of John Paul I . . . 33 days in 1978. So the 3 Popes are Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis is the Pope whom she said will begin the "End of the Times" , , , Not the End of Time mind you, but the beginning of the end of Satan's reign over mankind . . . think of him being chained in the abyss. She said after a "Synod" (back in the 60's there were no synods but councils) and the Pope goes to Moscow, there will be a Warning from God to all mankind, an illumination of conscience, where everyone will see were he stands in God's eyes. following which God will place a Miraculous event in the pines near Garabandal for all to see. If people do not repent, there will be a great Chastisement. Then there will be an era of peace. This "Synod" began last October and will conclude this October 2024, so when we see a Pope go to Moscow, these things will come to pass. I believe we are on the verge in the next few years where things will start happening.
I leave you this test before you . . . is the Virgin being sent by God? Has she been warning us? These were just two of her many visitations, but in all cases her predictions have com true. When the above happens, we will know for sure.
You guys are so lost, how do you explain away Mathew 1 chapter 25. You explain this away so you can continue your worship of Mary. Idolatry idolatry idolatry. Proclaiming to be wise but they are fools.
Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus so these were the half brothers of Jesus. The last three mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name.
So why did Jesus at Calvary on the cross, entrust Mary to the care of John the apostle who wasn’t her biological son or relative, rather than entrust Her to her “other sons” wouldn’t that be an obvious violation of the 4th commandment? Especially considering that she was a widow and about to lose her son as well? Part of Jewish tradition at the time and even in secular society today, it would be scandalous and outrageous to abandon your parents especially your widowed mother in her older years. Also where were these “other sons of Mary” when her and Joseph presented Jesus at the temple, where were they during their flight to Egypt when Herod was looking to kill Jesus, and when they lost and found him at the temple when he was 12, there’s no mention of them at the wedding at Cana either. They weren’t there at the cross. But there were 2 other Mary’s there, Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Clopas (who was the father to James, Jude, Simon and Joseph) Nor did Joseph have a previous marriage or children from a previous marriage, nowhere is that found in scripture, it amazes me that for Protestant who are such followers of “sola scriptura” ignore the concept when it comes to the unbiblical notion of Jospeh being married and having children previous to his marriage with Mary.
If you do the reading of the other siblings, they did not believe until Jesus’s death and resurrection. So, they were not around to see. Joseph and Marry were married! Part of the Jewish tradition of marriage is to consummate the marriage. Your analysis is horrible.
And, since we are speaking the text, there was no where in the text that says Mary is the mother of God, nor did it say that she remained a virgin, nor was she revered as high as the Catholics have made her.
@@levrai944no one said Joseph had a family nor was he previously married. What are you speaking of?
Goodness gracious. Mary was not a virgin and had lots of kids. We don't know if any of them were actually born before Jesus. So what do the apologists have to do? Make up nonsense about what brother means and then totally ignore "all his sisters". Yet another reason why so few young people have any use for religion. The credibility issues are legion.
Talk about credibility . . . you make blanket statements with no backup . . . just pull them out of the blue. If you recall (maybe you don't) Jesus, on the cross, gave Mary to John, the youngest apostle probably in his late teens or early 20's, to take into his house. Why would He do that if Mary had other children, who would be older than John? Total nonsense on your part!
@@frankpmarsala7682 There you go again, asserting that Bronze Age fables really did happen. Talk about making statements with no backup. The pot is calling the kettle black.
So where are the descendants of Jesus brothers and sisters?
@@esewey1289 Where indeed. A big feature of mythology is that it does not have to make sense.
@@frankpmarsala7682 quote--- If you recall (maybe you don't) Jesus, on the cross, gave Mary to John, the youngest apostle probably in his late teens or early 20's, to take into his house. Why would He do that if Mary had other children, who would be older than John? unquote
NONE on His brothers believed He as the Messiah!!!!!
- According to the Apostle John, “not even his brothers believed in him” (John 7:5). That's incredible. Those who had lived with Jesus for 30 years....
>>>John 7:3-8 The Message (MSG)
His brothers said, “Why don’t you leave here and go up to the Feast so your disciples can get a good look at the works you do? No one who intends to be publicly known does everything behind the scenes. If you’re serious about what you are doing, come out in the open and show the world.” His brothers were pushing him like this because they didn’t believe in him either. Jesus came back at them, “Don’t pressure me. This isn’t my time. It’s your time-it’s always your time; you have nothing to lose. The world has nothing against you, but it’s up in arms against me. It’s against me because I expose the evil behind its pretensions. You go ahead, go up to the Feast. Don’t wait for me. I’m not ready. It’s not the right time for me.”
>>>>John 7:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready.
>>>John 7:4-6 New American Standard Bible - NASB 1995 (NASB1995)
For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus *said to them, “My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
>>>There is NO mention as to where the brothers were. Maybe did not care?? Gone away working??
-----John was about 24 years old at the time of Jesus' crucifixion,
In the time of Jesus, almost all Jewish young men were married, and usually by age 18. But in the Gospels, Peter is the only disciple known to have been married (Matthew 8:14-15). No other disciples’ wives are ever mentioned. So this tells us that the disciples may have all been under 20, with some as young as 15.
>>>In Matthew 11:25, Mark 10:24, Luke 10:21, and John 13:33, Jesus calls his trainees “little children” or “little ones”. As the Incarnate Word/Son of God, we think Jesus can make a paternal reference to any human and it would be fitting… and yes it would. But let’s not void Jesus human nature and the nature of his patriarchal cultural. Older men, were treated with respect as fathers. Calling his disciples “children” may indicate they were mostly - gasp! - children! Or at least much younger than their Master.
>>>Here’s something else. In Exodus 30:14-15, we read that every male over the age of 20 was to pay a tax to maintain the “Sanctuary” or Temple. In Matthew 17:24-27, we read that when questioned about this tax, Jesus instructs Peter to pay this tax - but only for “me and you”. But all the disciples are present (“they came to Capernaum” vs 24). We might reasonably conclude that the others were under age 20 and did not need to pay.
>>>>And as to the plausibility of them being young enough to still be around to write about all this in the 60’s - 80’s, there is no problem at all. Young John, perhaps 15 during the life of Jesus, would be only 85 if he wrote his gospel, letters and Revelation in the year 90.
>>>>>
"we have made a goddess of the Virgin Mary" -. Archbishop Georg Strossmayer: 1870
Hardly, since we don't worship Mary. We love, respect and honour her and call her Blessed, as Scripture tells us to do.
Not only this but in the Old Testament:
The Ark was set up in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, and the Beth-shemites offered sacrifices and burnt offerings. Out of curiosity the men of Beth-shemesh gazed at the Ark; and as a punishment, seventy of them (fifty thousand and seventy in some translations) were struck down by the Lord.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
If I knew these stories and I was Joseph and knew my wife was going to be the New Ark of the Covenant, I would have never touched her.
Another point to discuss when you non believers get a clue that she was always a virgin and never had any other children.
Quite a lot of taking scripture out of context to try and justify the false teaching of Mary's eternal virginity. But of course that is what all false teachers do, whether it is the cults or the pope. Scripture is clear that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relationships after the virgin birth. That Mary had at least six other children. Other myths about Mary are the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary. She was a sinner who needed salvation. That is why she called God her saviour. All these false teachings about Mary do not come from scripture. But from pagan sources. Because of this idolatry, it is clear that these so called appearances of Mary at Lourdes for example. Are clearly demonic appearances. Because Satan is behind these false teachings.
@@henrylaurel1188 LOL... the Christians are quarrelling again!
As a protestant, I found your argument insightful but also inconsistent. You’re using defilement as the reason why David can no longer go into his wives as a parallel to why Joseph can’t go into Mary. You can’t mean that Joseph can’t go into Mary because she was “defiled” by the Holy Spirit, right?
Also, would Mary saying yes to God make her a adulterer then as if she said yes to another man? I think the answer is clearly “no”. Because this is God, different rules apply as the bible as clearly demonstrated. So how can the rules of treating an adulterous wife be applied to this situation? I don’t believe it does so the whole “Joseph can’t go into Mary” can’t hold up in this context.
There is no doubt Jesus had brothers and sisters several scripture back it up , it is amazing how ye guys can twist scripture how about twisting this one if you can,math 1-24-25 quote then Joseph being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son ( notice firstborn meaning she must had more than one).not knowing his wife simply means not having sex with her until: time word: after Jesus was born, also if as you guys say Mary was a virgin all her life all I can say is poor Joseph what did he do, where was the line drawn was he allowed to touch her, give her a hug etc,in reality what type of guy would get married to his wife and go to bed every night for the rest of their lives and not have sex pretty unique, come on guys get real and stop twisting scripture.
They are not twisting it. I come to encounter an explanation about this. One verse I remember was when Jesus said I will be with you till the end of times. Question: Does this mean after the end of times Jesus will not be with us anymore?
All false teachers twisting scripture to try and justify their deceptions. The Pope is no exception. Scripture is clear that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relationships after the virgin birth. Mary had at least six other children.
@@Michael-yl9rl The key is not found in the word “until” by itself; it is found in the entire prepositional phrase begun by the word until. “Until the end of time” modifies a reality within eternity. The same is true for phrases that use other references to eternity, heaven, or the timelessness of the spirit realm, such as, until the end of the age, until everlasting, until the heavens be no more, etc. Because timelessness is an element of these phrases, the phrases obviously cannot be strictly limited to a specific period of time.
Contrast that with instances in which the word “until” modifies an event within time and space or historical events on planet earth. “Until you have repaid him in full,” or “until his death” or “until the harvest comes in”are examples of references to events within history in the here and now. They limit the time between the word until and the named future events to a finite period of time.
The phrase “until she had given birth to a son” necessarily limits the time after the word “until” to a finite period of time, in this case, about 9 months or so. That is the plain meaning of the phrase. Neither timelessness nor eternity is in view, but simply an event to occur within history after the elapse of a finite period of time, here, the length of a human pregnancy. Had the inspired author meant to suggest that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage but lived together as brother and sister, without progeny, the entire prepositional phrase would be not only entirely unnecessary, but misleading, as it strongly suggests a normal marital sex life was deferred until after Jesus’ birth.
It's possible, but the most reasonable explanation is that they were children of Mary. Even catholics such as Joh Meier, Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer agree that the cousins, etc. is hard to accept.
I guess you didn't pay attention then.
Catholic Church just lies! It's sad
So your claim is that Jesus’ guarantee has failed and the gates of hell did indeed triumph over the Church HE established? The Bible says the “Church” is “the Pilar and Foundation of truth”. When that was written there was only one church and it was ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church.
Sir, first, no matter the denomination or faith there is only one church. TRUE! But the church is the pillar of truth. But the foundation is Jesus. Not Mary. Not Joseph. Or any other. And, just because the Catholic Church claims to be universal does not make the Catholic Church correct. Especially when the Catholic Church does not line up with The Word of God. And, before the Catholic Church was established, the church was universal. Why? Because the church was already founded in and on Jesus Christ. The idea of making the church universal was to say we will teach all the same. But if the teaching is not totally Christ centered then the teaching is wrong. It is not the church that establishes. It is the word of God, Strictly, that establishes the church. Which then makes the church a pillar!
@@4766376 What?
@@CoolDude-xc4hnBrilliant the church is founded on the apostles doctrine clearly taught in scripture. The risen Christ is the foundation, and the chief cornerstone. Of course Jesus is the rock not the Pope on which the church is built. Any deviation from biblical doctrine is an apostate doctrine. The Roman Catholic church deviates from scripture so much.Examples being the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary. That Mary remained a virgin, when scripture is clear she had other children. Obviously teachings from pagan sources. The idolatry bowing to lifeless idols and praying the rosary two examples of the idolatrous practices. The vow of celibacy to be a "priest" as scripture says a doctrine of devils. Peter of course who was never the Pope just a mere man who refused any kind of worship. Bowing down to him or kissing a ring. Was a married man. Also describes himself as an elder. Also he was a hypocrite Paul has to rebuke him. The blasphemous titles of the Pope. Holy father, when the true holy Father is Almighty God. In fact we should call no one father as a religious title. The vicar of Christ, absolute blasphemy. It is God the Holy Spirit who is infallible and leads us into all truth. Not some man in the Vatican. All these unbilical false teachings, which are nothing more than man made traditions that nullify the word of God Clearly demonstrates that ithe Roman Catholic church is nothing more than an apostate church.
@@4766376 quote---the gates of hell did indeed triumph over the Church HE established?.. unquote
I suggest you read that again. What is the "Church"? PEOPLE!!!!
NOT a building!!!
And btw--when has hell ever been describes with gates???
Keep the dead in??Or out??
It means even His death will NOT stop his word!!!
----quote---When that was written there was only one church and it was ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church... unquote
The quote IT FROM the Bible church named: ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic church..
The bible's pretty clear: yes; she had more kids.
Not really. There is no proof one way or the other.
If it was clear then it would say something like it does in Mark 16 'When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome ...'
@@dave_ecclectic It's torturous logic, but it must be comforting.
@@yeshua64 Tortuous logic?
OH BOY! I get to play your game.
Where in the Bible does it say that MARY had children other than Jesus? He is the only one named to her.
How do you explain that people for 2000 years have called her "the virgin Mary?"
I guess you didn't pay attention and therefore you stick to the only point you know.