Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RightlyDivided, you have been caught in a falsehood but have done nothing about it.
Either prove that your claim about what can be found in Scripture is not untrue by citing a verse that supports your assertion (which of course you cannot do), or be honest, admit that you made a false claim, and retract it.
Simply trying to brazen it out by ignoring the fact that you were caught is not going to help your case.
You know I have not made a false statement and scripture proves me right and you wrong.
Read it yourself. In Matthew it say's they had sex after Jesus was born. Do you have a bible? Can you read? Stop listening to what some cult leader has told you you must believe and listen to God.
So it is you who are caught in your falsehood and can do nothing about it other than admit it or pretend it didn't happen. But it did.
Last edited by Rightly Divided; 05-10-2014 at 04:27 PM..
I guess people is a code word for Sola Scriptura followers.
I was talking about the 40,000 Sola Scriptura denominations.
Who are these 40,000 Sola Scriptura denominations and can you provide evidence they are all Sola Scriptura please. I would not be familiar with them since I am not in a denomination like you are.
Who are these 40,000 Sola Scriptura denominations and can you provide evidence they are all Sola Scriptura please. I would not be familiar with them since I am not in a denomination like you are.
The numerous Protestant denominations have been discussed many times before. Do a search in the forum. I know you are not Sola Scriptura and I congratulated you for that.
You know I have not made a false statement and scripture proves me right and you wrong.
I know the opposite is true: you have made a false statement, and scripture does not prove you right.
Quote:
Read it yourself. In Matthew it say's they had sex after Jesus was born.
This is an outright lie.
Quote:
Do you have a bible? Can you read?
I do have a Bible, and I can read. What is more, I can read Greek, which is the language the New Testament is written in. Can you?
Quote:
Stop listening to what some cult leader has told you you must believe and listen to God.
Physician, heal thyself! YOU are the one unable to understand the meaning of the words you read, and YOU are the one who is listening to a cult leader who is telling you what you must believe about blatantly inaccurate translations of Scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightly Divided
Matthew 1:25
New International Version (NIV)
25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.
If you do not understand what "consummate their marriage" means, just ask.
Except the NIV isn't the original text, is it? I already addressed this verse in post 90 of this very thread, and I shall quote myself:
The original Greek is
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
Do you see that word "heos", which gets translated as "till"? What does it really mean? Since it is abundantly clear to me that you don't know, I will tell you: it signifies the end point in time of something you are talking about, but it says nothing about what occurs next. For example, you find the same word "heos" used the same way in 2 Samuel 6:23, which in the Septuagint reads
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
"And Michal the daughter of Saul gave birth to no child till the day of her death." Do you really think that Michal started giving birth to children AFTER the day of her death?????? No, that "till" means "all the way up to that time", but does not indicate anything about what followed.
Here is another: in the Septuagint, Psalm 109 (110) begins:
ΕΙΠΕΝ ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.
"The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool."
This verse refers to Christ. Do you really think that he will not ALWAYS sit at the right hand of the Father, even after his enemies are destroyed?????? Do you think that after his enemies are overcome, he will no longer be next to his Father??????
Matthew's gospel ends (Matt 28:20) with Jesus telling his followers:
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος
"and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." In your vain attempt to defend your indefensible position, are you going to claim that this means that after the end of the world, Jesus will NO LONGER be with us?
In the case of Matthew 1:25, the verse is telling us that at no time before the birth of Jesus did Joseph have any relations with Mary, so that the child could not possibly be anything other than miraculously born of a virgin. However, you cannot then infer anything about what happened next, let alone claim that what was previously indicated has now changed; the word "heos" simply does not work that way.
While you may think you are justified in imagining something about the relationship between Mary and Joseph, there is nothing in the plain text of the gospel that supports your claim. To say that there is, and to claim falsely and repeatedly that a verse of scripture explicitly says that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, is untrue, dishonest, and profoundly wrong.
I know the opposite is true: you have made a false statement, and scripture does not prove you right.
This is an outright lie.
I do have a Bible, and I can read. What is more, I can read Greek, which is the language the New Testament is written in. Can you?
Physician, heal thyself! YOU are the one unable to understand the meaning of the words you read, and YOU are the one who is listening to a cult leader who is telling you what you must believe about blatantly inaccurate translations of Scripture.
Except the NIV isn't the original text, is it? I already addressed this verse in post 90 of this very thread, and I shall quote myself:
The original Greek is
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
Do you see that word "heos", which gets translated as "till"? What does it really mean? Since it is abundantly clear to me that you don't know, I will tell you: it signifies the end point in time of something you are talking about, but it says nothing about what occurs next. For example, you find the same word "heos" used the same way in 2 Samuel 6:23, which in the Septuagint reads
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
"And Michal the daughter of Saul gave birth to no child till the day of her death." Do you really think that Michal started giving birth to children AFTER the day of her death?????? No, that "till" means "all the way up to that time", but does not indicate anything about what followed.
Here is another: in the Septuagint, Psalm 109 (110) begins:
ΕΙΠΕΝ ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.
"The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool."
This verse refers to Christ. Do you really think that he will not ALWAYS sit at the right hand of the Father, even after his enemies are destroyed?????? Do you think that after his enemies are overcome, he will no longer be next to his Father??????
Matthew's gospel ends (Matt 28:20) with Jesus telling his followers:
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος
"and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." In your vain attempt to defend your indefensible position, are you going to claim that this means that after the end of the world, Jesus will NO LONGER be with us?
In the case of Matthew 1:25, the verse is telling us that at no time before the birth of Jesus did Joseph have any relations with Mary, so that the child could not possibly be anything other than miraculously born of a virgin. However, you cannot then infer anything about what happened next, let alone claim that what was previously indicated has now changed; the word "heos" simply does not work that way.
While you may think you are justified in imagining something about the relationship between Mary and Joseph, there is nothing in the plain text of the gospel that supports your claim. To say that there is, and to claim falsely and repeatedly that a verse of scripture explicitly says that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, is untrue, dishonest, and profoundly wrong.
You are wrong. Case has been proven and closed. You loose. Move on!
You are wrong. Case has been proven and closed. You loose. Move on!
No, as a matter of fact, his post was 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong.
Is this the level of discourse we're going to have here ?
"it's been real"....
No, as a matter of fact, his post was 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong.
Is this the level of discourse we're going to have here ?
"it's been real"....
Matthew 1:25
New International Version (NIV)
25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.
Mary had sex. Proven 100%. Anything else is a lie. Case closed! Thank you for playing
I know the opposite is true: you have made a false statement, and scripture does not prove you right.
This is an outright lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
No, as a matter of fact, his post was 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong.
Is this the level of discourse we're going to have here ?
"it's been real"....
You know it's a very serious charge to call someone a liar and then for another person to say, "he is 100% correct" just to try to prove what the RCC teaches is correct.
Here's a very good article for anyone interested in the subject:
While it is true that the Greek construction heos hou (until) does not necessarily imply that they engaged in sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase followed by a negative occurs, it “always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1976, 1:42, emp. added). Bruce observed: “Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding” (Nicoll, n.d., 1:69). Alford agreed: “On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prima facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1980, 1:9).
The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4). Mary’s marriage to Joseph, and their subsequent production of offspring after the birth of Jesus, had the approval and blessing of heaven. To engage in hermeneutical gymnastics in an effort to protect a doctrine conceived from a misassessment of the sacred and divine nature of marriage and family is the epitome of misplaced religious ardor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
