 
     |
| Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage (Page 23/31) |
|
avengador1
|
JUN 03, 07:26 PM
|
|
| quote | you do know your life long virgin had more sons and daughters too??
your bible even names the boys
a his brother james fought with saul/paul over dogma |
|
You got me on that one. I did some more research into it and found the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/co..._other_children.html
I also re-read my links above and found this.
| quote | "There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angle to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
[John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562] |
|
| quote | The Bible's teaching on this subject is so clear, that all Christian denominations agree on what it means.
Catholics believe that Mary stayed a virgin and did not have any other children. Some denominations claim that Mary did have other children. They say this because the Bible sometimes refers to "brethren of the Lord". But in Biblical times all close family members, including cousins, were considered "brethren". And so we see that in the Bible the term "brethren" is sometimes used when the people concerned are not bretheren in the way that we understand the word.
Some biblical examples of this are:
[Gen 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his BROTHER was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."
The "brother" in question here is Lot. Now, was Lot the brother of Abram? No. He was the son of Aran, Abram's deceased brother (Gen 11:26-28). This makes Lot Abram's NEPHEW.
[Gen 29:15] "And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my BROTHER, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?"
Was Laban the brother of Jacob? No, he is his UNCLE.
The explanation for this is simple: there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for "cousin". The writers either had to use "brother" or "sister" or write "the son of the sister of my father" every time. Needless to say, they used "brother".
You see, in biblical terms, "brother", "sister", and "brethren" can mean close relatives, kinsmen, or even close friends such as:
[I Kings 9:13] "And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day."
and
[II Sam 1:26] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
It can also just mean an ally!:
[Amos 1:9] "Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant"
Some also sight the words that "Mary had no relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus" to mean that she did have relations afterwards. In the Bible, however, the concept of until simply means "up to the time of"-- it doesn't have the connotation that we have in English of meaning "after it was different". The Bible mentions a man who produced no offspring "until the time of his death". I think it is safe to assume that he didn't produce any after it either. ;-)
A careful look at the New Testament will show us what a stretch it really is to say that Mary had other children:
When Jesus is found in the temple at age 12, (Luke 2:41-51) no mention is made of other children, although the entire family made the journey together. The people of Nazareth refer to Him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary". The Greek expression implies that He is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons, even when they are called Jesus' "brethren".
There is another point which requires an understanding of ancient Eastern cultures. In such cultures, the term "brethren" was used to refer to elders-- older relatives whose role is to give advice to younger ones. In John 7:3-4, we find the "brethren" of Jesus telling Him to leave Galilee and go to Judea so His disciples could see His works. If "brethren" is understood in the way it was used in this culture, they would have to have been older than Jesus, which eliminates them as His actual brothers, since we know that Jesus ws Mary's "first-born".
Finally, consider what happened at the foot of the Cross (John 19: 26-27). If James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were indeed His "brothers", why would Jesus have overlooked such a close family relation and entrusted His Mother to His disciple John? The Gospel tells us that "from that hour, the disciple took her into his own home". Why would she go to the home of a disciple if she had four or more other children? |
|
So it seems she was indeed a lifelong virgin.[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-03-2009).]
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JUN 03, 07:47 PM
|
|
Just guessing here but I assume the original topic of this thread is no longer of interest?
Ron
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JUN 03, 08:18 PM
|
|
I don't like Levis, I prefer Wranglers.  I don't care who the company supports if I like a product. I don't buy the things I buy because of the companies agendas, I buy because I like the products.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
JUN 03, 08:20 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by avengador1:
So it seems she was indeed a lifelong virgin.
|
|
If you look at the Hebrew text it says that a young woman (almah) will give birth, not a virgin (bethulah).
But don't let generations of translations from one language to another then picked by the counsel and translated again be overridden by that little fact. Dogma over reality![This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 06-03-2009).]
|
|
|
madcurl
|
JUN 03, 08:29 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
As with most scientific leaning it came from observation. Just because the bible tells you to wash your hands means what exactly? It was pretty common across the world at that time.
|
|
Scientific Observations using what? Go back a few centuries people were burned at the stake thinking the world was flat and people would fall off. Burned by who? Religion. Now isn't that something, being burned for blasphemy and yet the Bible speaks of the world being round. I point out this bad example of just how religious sects can take things out of context to serve their own means. Had the Bible been translated and used among the peoples--- darkness, the Crusades and evil that Christianity displayed may have changed a few today. Instead, religious leaders in that day wanted to have a choke hold around everyone's neck.
Common Hygiene Observations? It wasn't until this century that washing of hands became important in the medical field. Notice Phranc never has anything to back his claims against God, his word, or any point that I've presented... just rambling about who's brainwashed. Phranc's ramblings carry no weight especially during the Civil wars were many doctors didn't practice hygiene nor did they fully understand the way in which diseases are spread. Even today, people commonly don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Phranc's ramblings are easily defeated if you use the Bible and common sense.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
JUN 03, 08:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by madcurl:
Scientific Observations using what? Go back a few centuries people were burned at the stake thinking the world was flat and people would fall off. Burned by who? Religion. Now isn't that something, being burned for blasphemy and yet the Bible speaks of the world being round. I point out this bad example of just how religious sects can take things out of context to serve their own means. Had the Bible been translated and used among the peoples--- darkness, the Crusades and evil that Christianity displayed may have changed a few today. Instead, religious leaders in that day wanted to have a choke hold around everyone's neck.
Common Hygiene Observations? It wasn't until this century that washing of hands became important in the medical field. Notice Phranc never has anything to back his claims against God, his word, or any point that I've presented... just rambling about who's brainwashed. Phranc's ramblings carry no weight especially during the Civil wars were many doctors didn't practice hygiene nor did they fully understand the way in which diseases are spread. Even today, people commonly don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Phranc's ramblings are easily defeated if you use the Bible and common sense. |
|
Scientific observation using their eyes. But I'm sure the cuneiform tablets that predate the bible by a few generations that call for washing and bandages don't back me up, oh wait they do. Maybe if you were a little more educated or even took the time to look up what I stated you wouldn't be talking out your ass.
If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies? You are still in over your head chump. But you use people not washing their hands after taking a piss as an argument against people knowing hygiene was important thousands of years ago. Still showing you aren't that bright. But don't stop. And keep up that dishonesty. There is nothing like watching a chump with out integrity lie like you do.
|
|
|
madcurl
|
JUN 03, 09:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies?
|
|
Well, who was he and what is his name? Did you report this to the authorities?
|
|
|
|
Slayre
|
JUN 03, 09:21 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
Scientific observation using their eyes. But I'm sure the cuneiform tablets that predate the bible by a few generations that call for washing and bandages don't back me up, oh wait they do. Maybe if you were a little more educated or even took the time to look up what I stated you wouldn't be talking out your ass.
If my ramblings are so easily defeated by using the bible and common sense why have you failed so badly and resorted asking me if I had been raped and making up lies? You are still in over your head chump. But you use people not washing their hands after taking a piss as an argument against people knowing hygiene was important thousands of years ago. Still showing you aren't that bright. But don't stop. And keep up that dishonesty. There is nothing like watching a chump with out integrity lie like you do. |
|
Hang on Phranc. In all fairness I think you were defeated on page 5. I mean telling people to ride certain parts of your anatomy or do you have a friend named... Well you know what I mean. Your articulation droped severely also ( sign of anger,last resort ) It just seemed like you were grabing things out of thin air. To be honest its starting to sound like a broken record now. I think everyone who has read this thread understands where you stand. We have the bible to back up what we say, its what we believe, its our right. You have ? to back your claims. Your own conclusion / theory ? Christians do not understand that., but thats what you believe, and thats your right. So, does this get resolved? I think not. Christians will pray about it, you will continue to believe what you want about it and the world keeps turning. No harm no foul, just good debate.[This message has been edited by Slayre (edited 06-03-2009).]
|
|
|
|
WhiteDevil88
|
JUN 03, 09:37 PM
|
|
|
Damn, I don't care much for Phranc's "style", but "Where you raped?"?! Come on. I got to ask, what about your upbringing would make you ask that? Is rape so common among Negroes that it is the first choice for the reason why someone disagrees with you? One might wonder, were you raped? Personally, I don't care and have no desire to know, but it says something about you culture I think.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
JUN 03, 10:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Slayre:
Hang on Phranc. In all fairness I think you were defeated on page 5. I mean telling people to ride certain parts of your anatomy or do you have a friend named... Well you know what I mean. Your articulation droped severely also ( sign of anger,last resort ) It just seemed like you were grabing things out of thin air. To be honest its starting to sound like a broken record now. I think everyone who has read this thread understands where you stand. We have the bible to back up what we say, its what we believe, its our right. You have ? to back your claims. Your own conclusion / theory ? Christians do not understand that., but thats what you believe, and thats your right. So, does this get resolved? I think not. Christians will pray about it, you will continue to believe what you want about it and the world keeps turning. No harm no foul, just good debate.
|
|
Yes, you have a book of mostly fiction and I have historical facts and science to back me up. I see christians don't understand that and have pointed out why several times. And that why is generational brainwashing. And the programming is deeply ingrained.
|
|
|
|