Featured The Bible on History Channel

Oh, please! Your first paragraph is stupid and ridiculous.

Don't you understand artistic license? I can't believe the nitpicking I'm seeing here.

 

Here is an interesting article from an ex-Roman Catholic. In some of his views on other things, he is rather extreme, but this is a good article:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/virginity-of-mary.htm

 

I agree, its NEVER a bad thing to point people to Christ. My two nephews were interested in it, and they come from a relatively godless home. For those who said there is no gospel message, I counted at least three time the Jesus character quoting verses that present the gospel plain as day.

 

Using the old 'didn't know Mary until argument' How about that Michal, wife of David, had no children 'until the day she died'? By this writers logic this necessarily means that Michal had children AFTER she died, ridiculous! The use of the word "until" is meant to show an absolute state of being -- incontestible. Yeshua 1 tried to make the same argument as this writer. This does not imply that Mary and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus' birth, but rather, it establishes Christ's parentage. Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." I guess these means that Jesus is not with us after the end of the world?



Then the writer uses the 'first born argument'. First-born was a title and a legal description, not an implication that there were other children as the writer alleges. It conferred certain rights on the first-born son to the father's property and was an honorific.

He continues to repeat the 'first-born' and úntil' argument which don't hold water.

And this ex-Catholic doesn't seem to know that the Catholic position is NOT that these were cousins of Jesus (as you have insinuated is the Catholic position as well) and goes on and on about 'how come adelphos was used and not anepsios?'

Not at all convincing.

 

The amazing part to me has always been how the founders of Protestantism believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and recognized this teaching as having always been taught be the Church. Yet now, with all of their scriptural illogicality many modern Protestants renounce this belief in its entirety with no apparent intellectual discomfort. Hmmm.... It must be nice to exist in such a place.

WM

 

They wouldn't recognize the aorist tense if you stuck their nose in it.

WM

 

I knew that the ever-virgin-believing crowd would focus on the very two things you focused on in the article (which I discarded immediately) and ignore the significant parts. I thought about just posting the latter but decided to link to the entire article. Too much to expect forthright examination and commentary on the entire article and its able refutation of the ever-virgin fable, I guess.

 

The founders of Magisterial Protestantism did not throw off all vestiges of Roman Catholicism, keeping infant baptism, and state churchism with its policy of persecution and murder of other Christians.

It is easy to renounce a belief which has absolutely no basis in scripture and is actually refuted by scripture. It is a vain invention of men, a fable.

 

Look, jack, stick your blanket insults where the sun can't get to them.

You don't know whom you're addressing. I was an undergraduate English major and have a doctorate. You're not talking to a hillbilly with an IQ of 75 and a sixth grade education. That's the only kind with whom you could win a debate.

 

About as ridiculous as Him picking up a whip to cleanse the temple? Like I said artistic license.

As I also said, if people are unhappy with this presentation of God and Jesus, they can go look at their favorite "reality show". Or maybe they can find God presented in Dancing with the Stars.

 

And what are the 'significant parts'? Are you refering to the messianic: Psalm 69:8,9? The word "sons" in this verse is the Hebrew "bane."

Here is the Strong's entry:

"a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition..."

That is followed by some 20 different terms that are used to translate this word.

The equivalent Greek term says: "apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship..."

The writer who you hold in such high esteem says, 'please note that Scripture explicitly declares that Jesus' mother (Mary) had other "sons" (Psalm 69:8)!' Is this the part you believe is so significant because, even in my Baptist Bible college I was taught that 'sons' in that verse refers to the nation of Israel.

 

I don't know why some have to say things that I have nowhere stated. Where did I say that I hold this guy in high esteem? HUH???? Point that out, or admit that you have just posted a falsehood. In fact, I explicitly stated that he was rather extreme.

I am saying he made some excellent points; he made them with regard to the scriptures that I have already posted and commented upon, and some others, as well.

I can be objective, and I can attest to truth when I see it, even though I may disagree with the person in other areas. What I have found is that many, maybe even most, cannot be objective, especially if they see something that gores their favorite theological bull.

I could never be a part of a denomination which has so many doctrines that explicitly contradict scripture, such as the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, her perpetual virginity, papal infallibility, transsubstantiation, mandatory clerical celibacy -- and the list goes on. If you can be a part of such, that's your problem; maybe you can resolve it by ignoring the truth and elevating such man-made nonsense above scripture, as the RCC does.

I am sympathetic to your predicament and journey, but the RCC by their extra-Biblical, non-Biblical, and even anti-Biblical doctrines is, well, let the reader fill in the blank.

 

Here are some parts of the article which I found important:

"A more clear indication of this occurred when Jesus, as a full grown man, came to his hometown (Nazareth) and began to teach. People from there, who apparently knew his family, stated the following in disbelief:

Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" They asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matt. 13:54-56).

According to that text, Mary had at least four other sons, besides Jesus, and at least two daughters. Some argue that the word "brothers," found in this passage, merely means relatives such as cousins. If that is the true intended meaning, then one must wonder why the Greek word meaning "cousin" (anepsios) was not used there as it was in Col. 4:10:

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.

Again, in contrast to Col. 4:10, a different Greek word is used in Matt. 13:55 -- adelphos. This Greek word translated "brothers" comes from the word, delphus, which means womb.

Furthermore, we should also focus our attention in upon the word "sisters" in Matt. 13:56. The Greek word for "sisters" is adelphe. It is also found in the following:

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity (1 Tim 5:1,2).

As in Matt. 13:56, the usage of adelphe in 1 Tim. 5:2 means natural sister born as to the same mother. The context from verse 1 shows the meaning to be the natural family. This is how the same Greek word must be understood in Matt. 13:56, since spiritual sister can't fit the context. The virginity of Mary was temporary."


I also found parts of the following significant:


"So according to Scripture, Mary did not remain a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. This basic Biblical truth is in direct conflict with what millions of people have been taught, but nonetheless, it is God's word on this subject not any man's. The following is but one errant statement about perpetual virginity of Mary from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Mary ‘remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (p. 128, bold emphasis mine).

Dear reader, that quote was from the Catholic theologian, Augustine (who also was the original source of modern-day Calvinism). The following is another important quote which shows how Roman Catholicism counters Matt. 13:55:

"Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,' are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary." They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 126, bold emphasis mine).

Friend, examine Matt. 13:54-56 for yourself, which shows the subjects as being from Jesus' hometown, thereby enabling them to identify His own mother Mary and His natural brothers and sisters. That passage is clear about this:

Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

That passage can't possibly be referring to "the other Mary," as some want us to believe, but Jesus' own mother!

Moreover, trying to sweep all of the New Testament passages away by stating that the phrase "brothers of Jesus" is merely an "Old Testament expression" is to ignore all the other verses which show Joseph and Mary had sexual union, but not until, Jesus was born. Matt. 1:25 couldn't be more clear, especially when considered with Psa. 69:8, which explicitly shows Mary had other children.

Friend, what you will continue to believe about perpetual virginity of Mary is left entirely up to you. You have read what Scripture declares and what the present-day position from Roman Catholicism declares. But know this, you can't believe both declarations, since they are antithetical to each other. One must be in error."

 

The scriptures that I have referenced and other relevant scriptures that this author used all show conclusively that, taken in context, Mary was not perpetually a virgin, and that this doctrine is a vain invention of men. It was invented because of pagan influence and because of the view that normal sexual relations between husband and wife was somehow impure.

 

I viewed it last night...pretty boy Jesus, wooden actors, devil that looks like Obama...nutty vodka commercial. Naaaa

 

Maybe you can find something on network TV that presents God, Jesus, and the Bible. Good luck.

 

That was the artistic license mentioned earlier. Honestly, I didn't think he picked up the stone to pretend to use it against her, but to use it as an illustration in the way pastors bring props to the pulpit. This is exactly what adding this kind of artistic license is intended for, to get you thinking.

 

They didn't rewrite anything. The Bible never said He didn't pick up a rock, you are doing the very thing you are accusing them of...reading something into the text that's just not there. Jesus could have had anything in His hand. He could have said a lot more than was written down. We don't know... and there is nothing wrong or blasphemic about showing Him pick up a stone.