CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

uncertaindrumer · 05-26-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder) Matthew 11:46-50
Matthew 1 (saids Joseph didn't have sex with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. Therefore she was not a virgin after this point. sex is also the consumation of marriage)
peter had a wife (jesus healed his mother in-law) so he was not the first pope. if he was still the first pope then the catholic doctine of clergy not marrying is clearly wrong.
John 7:1-5 (if his brothers are his disciples then why does it single out even his brothers didn't believe? clearly disciples and brothers is not one and the same)
Galatians 1:19-saids James is the Lord's brother.........
Matthew 13:53-57 ( clearly demolishes any arguement that jesus did not have literal brothers and sisters)

but really are you or anyone else going to change their minds. we can argue to we're blue in the face.........
but this is really a side issue to be honest. the main deal is how you or i or anyone else believes salavation occurs. can you do it by keeping the commandments? can you do it by following church tradition? is it in christ alone?

Priestly Celbicay has not always been a practice of the Church, and could CHANGE if need be, although I think that would be a bad idea in this day and age. Of course Peter had a wife, that does not exclude him from being Pope. If that is your only reason, then it is a bad one.

The word "until" does not necessarily mean that afterward they would have. Other passages which use the word "until" but clearly do not mean that it changes afterward:

Matthew: 28:20
1 Timothy 4: 13, 6: 14
Romans 8: 22
Philemon 1: 5
Genesis 8: 5, 49: 10

As you can see, the "until" argument is groundless.

Also, "adelphos" does not mean "disciples", it means "kin". Jesus had kin, He just had no brothers or sisters.

It is funny that you mention Matthew: 55-56 as the cornerstone of your argument becuase it is the cornerstone of MY argument. Two of these "brothers" are in other places named as sons of a DIFFERENT Mary, Mary of Cleophas! Matthew: 27: 56, John 19: 25!

So, apparently, not only does your verse NOT prove Jesus had brothers, it is definitely a good verse for ME to use. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say Mary had other sons. Does it say Jesus had other kin, or "adelphos"? Yes, but that proves nothing.

Alright, Salvation. I believe we are saved through God's grace, manifesting itself in our Faith and Works. What about you?

05-26-2005, 10:27 AM	#129
uncertaindrumer USER INFO » Status: Wound Up Posts: 1,255 Joined: Dec 2004 Currently: Offline	Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder) Matthew 11:46-50 Matthew 1 (saids Joseph didn't have sex with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. Therefore she was not a virgin after this point. sex is also the consumation of marriage) peter had a wife (jesus healed his mother in-law) so he was not the first pope. if he was still the first pope then the catholic doctine of clergy not marrying is clearly wrong. John 7:1-5 (if his brothers are his disciples then why does it single out even his brothers didn't believe? clearly disciples and brothers is not one and the same) Galatians 1:19-saids James is the Lord's brother......... Matthew 13:53-57 ( clearly demolishes any arguement that jesus did not have literal brothers and sisters) but really are you or anyone else going to change their minds. we can argue to we're blue in the face......... but this is really a side issue to be honest. the main deal is how you or i or anyone else believes salavation occurs. can you do it by keeping the commandments? can you do it by following church tradition? is it in christ alone? Priestly Celbicay has not always been a practice of the Church, and could CHANGE if need be, although I think that would be a bad idea in this day and age. Of course Peter had a wife, that does not exclude him from being Pope. If that is your only reason, then it is a bad one. The word "until" does not necessarily mean that afterward they would have. Other passages which use the word "until" but clearly do not mean that it changes afterward: Matthew: 28:20 1 Timothy 4: 13, 6: 14 Romans 8: 22 Philemon 1: 5 Genesis 8: 5, 49: 10 As you can see, the "until" argument is groundless. Also, "adelphos" does not mean "disciples", it means "kin". Jesus had kin, He just had no brothers or sisters. It is funny that you mention Matthew: 55-56 as the cornerstone of your argument becuase it is the cornerstone of MY argument. Two of these "brothers" are in other places named as sons of a DIFFERENT Mary, Mary of Cleophas! Matthew: 27: 56, John 19: 25! So, apparently, not only does your verse NOT prove Jesus had brothers, it is definitely a good verse for ME to use. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say Mary had other sons. Does it say Jesus had other kin, or "adelphos"? Yes, but that proves nothing. Alright, Salvation. I believe we are saved through God's grace, manifesting itself in our Faith and Works. What about you? __________________ Titans baby, Titans.