Immaculate birth of Jesus?

[Wildswanderer]

The Bible never said that Mary didn't go on to have other children. It only says she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that Joseph and her didn't have a sexual relationship until after Jesus was born.

 

[Dogknox20]

The perpetual virgin story isn't original I don't think. Plus Jesus had younger siblings.

Sand Dancer good to meet you...
I reply: Jesus did not have siblings. There is no word in Hebrew for cousin! The brothers and sisters of Jesus have different mothers!

The “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is
James and Joseph who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Christians have always matained Mary Perpetual virgin!
Matthew refers to these “brothers” of Jesus as being the sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56, whom John refers to as “Mary wife of Clopas” and the “sister” of Jesus’ mother in John 19:25. Whether John is using “sister” in the literal or more general sense, the relation this Mary has with Jesus’ mother would make the “brothers” of the Lord his cousins.

 

[Dogknox20]

thanks for the reply.

yes, after repentance first and baptism one receives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit.

when you say son, are you using it as a biological son? or metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics, which one?

Brother here is of the Faith and not of blood.
G80 ἀδελφός adelphos (a-d̮el-fos') n.
1. a brother.
2. (of faith) a brother in our Lord, Jesus.
{literally or figuratively; near or remote; much like G1}
[from G1 (as a connective particle) and delphus “the womb”]
KJV: brother

but the Lord Jesus is neither FULL BLOOD. HALF BLOOD, nor UTERINE BLOOD, with his birth Mother or his Birth mother sibling.

I must disagree with you there. the Lord Jesus is in LIKENESS, as human, but, but is the TRUE, and PERFECT Man to come... meaning Glorified. just as angels are men, but he's not an angel. he's God, the TRUE man, remember we're in his image. he is the TRUE MAN/Source we're HIS image.

true for JESUS is the ONLY TRUE GOD in the ECHAD of himself. see 1 Tim 6:16.

?

101G

101G Only man is made in the Image of God! "God is Love"! This means only man can love dogs, chickens' pigs, snake's flies cannot love thus they cannot sin! Man was given "Free Will" otherwise his love could not be true love! Adam the first perfect man made a choice not to love! He was removed from Paradise because only love can enter heaven! The only other perfect man to come alone is Jesus! Only God is perfect God came to earth in the form of a man to save us from death! God took the form of man so he could die as a man! God took it upon himself to save us from the error Sin of the first perfect man, Adam! Adam brought sin into the world thus he brought death! God destroyed death from the cross and restored life!
Jesus died sinless! Death could not hold Jesus in the grave because "The Wages of Sin is death!" Only God is perfect proving Jesus is God!

 

[loverofhumanity]

What makes you say that? If you are going to accuse others of bias you need evidence for it. And no, you simply do not know what evidence is. One cannot use a source unless it has been shown to be reliable. The Bible fails in quite a few ways when it comes to being reliable.

I can only prove something is true for myself from my own personal investigation and I did that and I’m happy with it.

I have all the proof and evidence I need for myself. We use different sources so we will always have different viewpoints.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What makes you say that? If you are going to accuse others of bias you need evidence for it. And no, you simply do not know what evidence is. One cannot use a source unless it has been shown to be reliable. The Bible fails in quite a few ways when it comes to being reliable.

How reliable a source is depends on the purpose, context, and interpretation of the reader. That The Bible is still in print in many languages, is evidence that many millions of people feel able to rely on it for all sorts of reasons, which may or may not make sense to others such as yourself. No book, no song, no poem has ever been written, that appealed to every reader; but to dismiss out of hand that which you do not understand, is clear evidence of bias

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,

101G Only man is made in the Image of God! "God is Love"!

I already know this, so the IMAGE of God is in character, or the characteristics of God correct.
again, I already know this. but as the topic states, "Immaculate birth of Jesus?", which I cannot agree with. as I stated, Jesus is not Born, but Jesus .... "THE CHRIST" is. and I agree with what you posted above, but the million dollars question is how did God come in flesh as, or in Likeness as a man to REDEEM and SAVE what he made.

I say, as an "ECHAD" of himself in the Equal Share he, the "Lord" came, Not the "LORD" but he God as Lord, the Ordinal Last Came in a body of flesh to redeem and save us.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How reliable a source is depends on the purpose, context, and interpretation of the reader. That The Bible is still in print in many languages, is evidence that many millions of people feel able to rely on it for all sorts of reasons, which may or may not make sense to others such as yourself. No book, no song, no poem has ever been written, that appealed to every reader; but to dismiss out of hand that which you do not understand, is clear evidence of bias

And that is just an ad populum fallacy. That is not what makes a source reliable or not.

And what makes you think that I "dismiss it out of hand"? That is a rather serious charge. Have you not investigated the Bible at all? You do not appear to be aware of its many failures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only prove something is true for myself from my own personal investigation and I did that and I’m happy with it.

I have all the proof and evidence I need for myself. We use different sources so we will always have different viewpoints.

That is not a good sign. It is easy to fool ourselves. That is why reliable evidence, which you did not appear to have, is so important.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Sand Dancer good to meet you...
I reply: Jesus did not have siblings. There is no word in Hebrew for cousin! The brothers and sisters of Jesus have different mothers!

The “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is
James and Joseph who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Christians have always matained Mary Perpetual virgin!
Matthew refers to these “brothers” of Jesus as being the sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56, whom John refers to as “Mary wife of Clopas” and the “sister” of Jesus’ mother in John 19:25. Whether John is using “sister” in the literal or more general sense, the relation this Mary has with Jesus’ mother would make the “brothers” of the Lord his cousins.

There are many verses showing he had siblings. Where are you getting your creative interpretation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many verses showing he had siblings. Where are you getting your creative interpretation?

The Catholic Church has that interpretation. It is part of their "Sex is bad, mmkay?" mythology.

 

[Dogknox20]

I can only prove something is true for myself from my own personal investigation and I did that and I’m happy with it.

I have all the proof and evidence I need for myself. We use different sources so we will always have different viewpoints.

loverofhumanity to say what you do... Before you decide what is true don't you think you should first decide what sources you use are the truth!

 

[wellwisher]

Since it is Christmas coming up, do we have any proof? I use to read on another debate forum I use to belong to that Mary was really raped by a Roman soldier. Is there any proof of that?

If a modern virgin was artificially inseminated using arthroscopic surgery would she still be a virgin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a modern virgin was artificially inseminated using arthroscopic surgery would she still be a virgin?

No surgery needed. But I would say yes.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Catholic Church has that interpretation. It is part of their "Sex is bad, mmkay?" mythology.

I did read that earlier. Hmm...

 

[GardenLady]

I reply: Jesus did not have siblings. There is no word in Hebrew for cousin! The brothers and sisters of Jesus have different mothers!

This is a non-sequitur. One assertion does not follow from the other. There is no basis to conclude from the absence of a word for "cousin" that people referred to as Jesus' siblings were cousins. This argument is made to support the non-scriptural "ever-virgin" assertion that Mary never had normal marital relations with her husband.

Because the Catholic church could never venerate (excessively) a normal, sexual adult woman.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is not a good sign. It is easy to fool ourselves. That is why reliable evidence, which you did not appear to have, is so important.

My sources are reliable to me and that’s all that matters. What other people believe is according to their own sources.

 

[loverofhumanity]

loverofhumanity to say what you do... Before you decide what is true don't you think you should first decide what sources you use are the truth!

Yes for sure. My sources which I use I believe are very reliable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Bible never said that Mary didn't go on to have other children. It only says she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that Joseph and her didn't have a sexual relationship until after Jesus was born.

I agree with you..
..but people just love to make things up, and decide by vote what is "true"

 

[Subduction Zone]

My sources are reliable to me and that’s all that matters. What other people believe is according to their own sources.

And again that just leads to confirmation bias. I want to know as many true things as possible. Most believers just want to believe and being right or wrong often does not matter.

But, have you ever made the mistake of claiming that history supports the Bible?

 

[loverofhumanity]

And again that just leads to confirmation bias. I want to know as many true things as possible. Most believers just want to believe and being right or wrong often does not matter.

But, have you ever made the mistake of claiming that history supports the Bible?

We all make mistakes.

My greatest one was to be an atheist.

I once used to be stuck in atheism. It’s a stage I found one goes through on the way towards enlightenment and spiritual maturity. I was lucky in that I escaped from it and now enjoy a spiritual mind and conscience. The problem with atheism is it’s a passion that the person really thinks they are right and all religion is nonsense but once I realised how ignorant I was I’m so glad I never remained an atheist as I was dead wrong all along yet condescended and criticised everyone who believed in God or religion.

In that condition I was my own worst enemy listening to whatever my ego said. Although as an atheist I claimed not to believe in God yet I had constructed and made my ego into my own god to worship.