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.
Nothing in Scripture indicates that, the apostles certainly didn't teach it, and Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, James and Jude being two of them.
Not a Catholic, but this idea is clearly wrong. The Bible mentions Jesus's (half) brothers (Mark 6:3, Matt 12:46, Luke 8:19, Gal 1:19).
Joseph was either a widower who had children from a previous wife, or those "brothers" of Jesus listed were actually more distant relations such as cousins.
The Aramaic language spoken by Jesus had no word for "cousin". In order to describe a cousin, you would have to say something like "the son of my father's brother". Since that's a pain, they usually just used the same word for "brother" (ܘܐܚܘܗܝ) to describe a cousin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Furthermore, it would be wrong for her to remain one while married, as the Bible commands married couples to have sex (1 Cor 7:3-5).
1 Corinthians 7:5-7: Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Joseph was fine with it as it was the plan all along. They had both made a vow of celibacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Nothing in Scripture indicates that,
Yes it does. Mary and Joseph were already betrothed when the angel came to Mary. Why would she ask "how can this be since I am a virgin" if she expected to soon have sexual relations with Joseph?
Joseph was either a widower who had children from a previous wife, or those "brothers" of Jesus listed were actually more distant relations such as cousins.
The Aramaic language spoken by Jesus had no word for "cousin". In order to describe a cousin, you would have to say something like "the son of my father's brother". Since that's a pain, they usually just used the same word for "brother" (ܘܐܚܘܗܝ) to describe a cousin.
An idea for which there is no biblical support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
1 Corinthians 7:5-7: Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Some "command"
The concession is marriage. Paul acknowledges not all have the same gift of God that he has. Paul says do not deprive one another and allows only a temporary exception. He explicitly says to come together again. Sexless marriages are not countenanced here in any way. Quite the contrary. So the standard is, it is good not to marry. But if you do marry, then sex is commanded.
Does the Bible teach that in order for something to be believed, it must have "biblical support"? If so, where does it teach that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
The concession is marriage. Paul acknowledges not all have the same gift of God that he has. Paul says do not deprive one another and allows only a temporary exception. He explicitly says to come together again. Sexless marriages are not countenanced here in any way. Quite the contrary. So the standard is, it is good not to marry. But if you do marry, the sex is commanded.
This is your interpretation. Why is your interpretation more trustworthy than that of the Fathers and the successors to the Apostles?
Yes it does. Mary and Joseph were already betrothed when the angel came to Mary. Why would she ask "how can this be since I am a virgin" if she expected to soon have sexual relations with Joseph?
Joseph was either a widower who had children from a previous wife, or those "brothers" of Jesus listed were actually more distant relations such as cousins.
The Aramaic language spoken by Jesus had no word for "cousin". In order to describe a cousin, you would have to say something like "the son of my father's brother". Since that's a pain, they usually just used the same word for "brother" (ܘܐܚܘܗܝ) to describe a cousin.
We don't have any writings of Jesus to go by.
Mark recorded Jesus referring to his brothers in Mark 3:33-34. Luke also recorded the incident in Luke 8:19-21. They wrote in Greek, and used the word "adelphos". It means brother. It's used elsewhere to mean brother. It's not cousin.
Quote:
1 Corinthians 7:5-7: Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Some "command"
Yes. It's a command. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by mutual consent "for a time" for prayer.
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.
