2003cobra,
First, I would like to respond to your failure to see the paradox with your points regarding "brothers" of Jesus. Your entire argument in this thread has been that there are errors in the Scriptures; yet, for the point regarding Jesus' brothers, you rely solely and heavily on a single word. The application of "brother" to mean siblings is negated by information contained within the Scriptures (specifically, verses which list the parentage of the four listed "brothers," as not being Mary (mother of Jesus) and Joseph). And still, you dismiss the negating evidence, insisting on the single word to have a static and single meaning.
That is the paradox. To restate it, in order to emphasize it: You claim errors exist within the Scripture, and rely on a single word as a defamation of doctrine (Perpetual Virginity of Mary).
No, not a single word. His hometown people also knew his sisters. Joseph and Mary were also blessed with daughters.
It was a rhetorical question. From now on, if it is helpful, I will distinguish rhetorical questions from actual questions, or answer them myself.
That practice would be helpful. It is difficult to identify which questions you want answered and which you don’t.
You have reference twice now the development of "the myth of the perpetual virginity of Mary" gaining followers, yet have not provided proof of the sudden inception of this doctrine.
Nor did I claim it was sudden.
It wasn’t.
The fictional Protoevangelium of James is from 150, and 150 years later Eusebius was rightly declaring James to be a son of Joseph.
I must continue later. The baby must be watched.
You can claim that it began in 150 AD,
I don’t think I claimed it started then. Please be careful not to read into my words.
using an apocryphal work, which is dismissed by both Catholic and Protestant scholars (hence, the application of "apocryphal"). Also, the Protoevangelium of James, also called "the Nativity," does not assert the perpetual virginity of Mary, only that Mary was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.
There are several quotes from early Christians which support an early belief and acceptance of Mary as ever-Virgin, before 150 AD. If I can find them, I will provided them via a PM, if that suffices.
Do post them in the clear. Others may be interested.
You have simply dismissed evidence found within the Scriptures. Everything from the Annunciation to the Crucifixion.
None Of those passages imply or state perpetual virginity.
I think you are projecting this analysis, due to the contextual evidence disproving your claim.
I have seen no evidence to support your view.
The evidence that I have presented from scripture and Eusebius is compelling.
My evidence is Scriptural, cross referenced, and contextual to history/culture.
You realize that my argument cross-referenced this verse? (It was when I mentioned there being two James')
Only only one is called the Lord’s brother, and Eusebius makes it clear he was the son of Joseph.
Correct, as far as waiting to make the declaration as doctrine. In fact, the first time the RCC could declare anything was 325 AD, because until that point, a large gathering could have led to death, as they were persecuted until that time. Basic historical knowledge.
And in 300 AD a prominent bishop of the Church was declaring James the Lord’s brother a son of Joseph.
My point here is that you have specifically twisted your phrasing, in order to make your claim connect. The midwives were ordered to murder the Hebrew males. Yet, they feared God, and saved the males. They did this by lying to Pharoh, after the males were born. Then, God blessed them.
You purposefully left out the context of the situation, as well as aggravating information, in order to portray God as rewarding dishonesty. The contextual evidence points to God rewarding belief and subsequent protection of children.
I understand this revelation violates your preferences and opinions, but I did none of these things that you falsely accuse me of.
I believe that I have another example, but it will have to wait until the grandbaby is back with her mother.
Look at this logically and critically. If something is not "inerrant," what is it?
The work of people.
I never said that an imperfection renders something worthless. That is your projection.
Then you recognize that the Bible could have minor, insignificant errors and still be valuable, instructive, and authoritative?
You mean the same people who said that Joseph was Jesus' father? Yeah, they seem reliable and knowledgeable, don't they.
You don’t seriously present this as an argument, do you?
Again, though, you are ignoring cultural, historical, and linguistic context/evidence.
Not at all
Do you wish to progress in the discussion?
Sure. I gave you a way out on the virgin birth in thinking that James, the Lord’s
Brother, was a son of widower Joseph.
But the scriptures are clear. Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Because right here, you claim to rely on multiple witnesses to establish facts, yet you are relying on only a few as a base of faith. Even then, you are claiming that these sources are erroneous. So, the root of this entire discussion come to surface: How can you trust what is said and claimed in the Scriptures?
We have many witnesses. Four gospels, Paul, Peter, even the Lord’s brother!
Did Jesus goes to the festival after he told his brothers that he would not?
I wrote:
Your turn — but do respond to this: Jesus did go to the festival, didn’t he?
That is the one question I specifically asked you do address. It wasn’t rhetorical.
