₦airaland Forum

StillDtruth:
No issue. The topic is not about James but about Mary and Joseph's children so its a departure from the argument.

How's it a departure? Trying to identify the mother of James and Jose who you are claiming to be Mary's other children?

StillDtruth:
It is you people who make atheists say christians don't think and are brainwashed for if you were truly a living soul, you would have remembered that all the say your church has said all come from humans like you, And humans lie and can be wrong, so their sayings must be checked and rechecked, like the posts and threads here in nairaland.

But this is not the issue, so Off Point!



Did i not say so?
Off Point.



There is nothing to debate after all you veered off point because you could not counter my points, so you got nothing here at all.

I shall ignore as this is really shallow.

Don't see which points I didn't counter!!!

StillDtruth:
John 19:26 shows that James is a disciple and that means James, the son of Zebedee, not son of joseph and Mary.

So, you miss.

Besides this is Departure from Post/Off Poin!.

This is not a departure but a confirmation of who James the Less' mother is. - Mary wife of Clopas.
You got the wrong disciple in Jn 19:26, certainly not James son of Zebedee (it's John his brother)

Kingsempires:
stilltruth just hate catholic but he is a Christian that is why I always tell my fellow christian that out of 100% christian is only 5 percentage that practices true christianity.but that is the truth

Unfortunately, when individuals interpret scripture outside of sacred tradition and historical context, this leads to confusion and heretical views.

I Don't really care but this thread is proving what you said up, is not true for it shows you saying one thing while your brother.ubenedict says another.

Clearly, no unity here

We go to what the church says not our own interpretations. The church has said a lot on the matter and I don't see where I've contradicted my brother. I'm amazed that you don't really care what the reformers said on this matter!

No where did i say they are the same, as ark Mary is not the same with Noah's ark.

However, we all know an ark is used for carrying things hence the analogy and it was you who started it. So No Road!

The Ark of the covenant was no ordinary ark as it carried the word of God and his literal presence.
“The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, who died after they entered the Lord’s presence and burned the wrong kind of fire before him. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Warn your brother, Aaron, not to enter the Most Holy Place behind the inner curtain whenever he chooses; if he does, he will die. For the Ark’s cover — the place of atonement — is there, and I myself am present in the cloud above the atonement cover” (Leviticus 16:1-2).

This would be a departure from post and fallacy of reversal of the burden of proof.

Don't have the time for long debates these days but I put up a question based on your previous responses, this was not intended to derail but to show you the implication of your responses . Up to you to answer.

StillDtruth:
Your words gave the implication and Matthew 13:55-56 shows us what happened after.



See they had 4 children but you are asking about 1 James?

So, only one person can bear James in the whole of Isreal?

GotQuestions.org
https://www.gotquestions.org › life-...
Who was James, the brother of Jesus, in the Bible?
5 Jan 2022 — James was a son of Mary and Joseph and therefore a half-brother to Jesus and brother to Joseph, Simon,

Good old got questions!! These guys were there in the early days?
As a Jewish man, you don't think he would have been obligated to take in his mother after Jesus' crucifixion?

I see you've ignored John 19:25 to get more details on who the Mother of James (and Jose) is.

Stop fallacying! Your church saying and teaching so, doesn't make it True.

But you think your novel interpretations are true 2000 years later?!! Who do I believe, you or the established church?

And see yourself, the bible gave us the facts surrounding her virginity in that we see no one penetrated her, which is why every reasonable person acknowleges that.she was a virgin even though she was carrying a child.

Because we know Virginity is extinguished in 2 ways;
1) upon entrance (penetration) aka sex or
2) exit (birth)

And Mary gave birth! So virginity was lost thereafter.

And that is why after her birth, the bible never ever called her virgin again.

So you and your church have no right to call her so.

No other person has ever conceived as a virgin so I don't know where you got your point 2 from. The church was given the power to bind and lose and you will find many other examples of what it has pronounced and you take for granted now.

StillDtruth:
1)

We are not talking about instances but we are talking about the case of Mary and Joseph and the word until, which you confess does not mean perpetual, which is what your catholic brother Benedict implied.

So, thank you for shooting him.

You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was the main concern about that verse was to confirm that Joseph had no role in the conception. Through sacred tradition we know that Mary remained a virgin.
Also then stated that the use of until is not a confirmation of what happened afterwards

2) Mat 2:1 shows us that the until in Mat 1:25 was fulfilled and complied with which leaves the question, so did Joseph "knew his wife"?

And this is where Matthew 13:55-56 answers the question showing us that they had their own children.

So question answered and case closed!

One of the children is James the Apostle, please confirm whether Mary the mother of Jesus was is mother

[quote author=StillDtruth post=131834373]

Good! At least, you have admitted that "until" does not mean perpetuity,which clearly means therefore that by virtue of this verse no one can and should call her a perpetual virgin for immediately the "until" is fulfilled, she is therefore free to fuqk her husband, as you have stated via your examples above.

So this verse is against you.

I never said 'until' in Greek always means perpetuity. what is a fact in the OT an NT is that there are instances were the condition doesn't change after the use of 'until'. In Mat 1:25, there is no indication as to what occurred afterwards as that wasn't the point of the text

And of course no one calls a woman who has given birth a virgin because Virginty is always before birth and stands only before birth.

And virginity is extinguished in 2 ways;
1) upon entrance (penetration) aka sex or
2) exit (birth)

Mary did not get lose her virginity by the usual entrance of penetration but she lost it by birth and exitation of a child.

And at no ever calls a woman who has given birth, a virgin.

So, you have 3 Points against you!

You have no points against me, I'm giving you what the Church teaches. The fact is no one calls a pregnant woman a Virgin either but I'm sure you believe that. Where was it mentioned that Mary lost her virginity?

So, this is your own leg of argument different from your other brothers own which did not stand.

So, clearly, you people have no common foundation on which you base your perpetual virginity belief but it is based on individuallly created grounds.

This is not true. The Catholic church ( & the EO, OO) looks at the whole of the word of God, written and orally transmitted and do not rely on 1 verse taken out of context as modern protestants do in order to make an argument. You might be surprised to know that the early reformers (Luther, Calvin, even Wesley much later) also affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity.

No, problem, i will examine any ground presented here.

So your ground is "Mary as the Ark of the new covenant"

First point did the bible declare Mary as so? No, it didnt. This is a creation and declaration of men and not of God!

Secondly, after the ark in Noah did its service, did anyone frame it and praise it? No

Even the Ark of the covenant, did it have any value greater than the wagons which carried the Isrealites? No.

Its value and super magnification came because God sanctified it and put Himself in it, as with Mary.

But, by her birthing Christ, God left ark Mary and never returned therein exactly how Noah and co left the ark and never returned to it and the ark returned to its normal value.

So as Noah had no further use for the ark and it could be chopped for use and other purposes, so also was ark Mary returned to her husband and now usable by him as proven by the "until" commandment.

So, your ark Mary belief Falls and does not stand.

While I don't want to delve into the Ark of the covenant on this thread, I'll point out a couple of things.
You are mixing up your arks. Noah's ark is not the same as the ark of the covenant. You'll need to do more research to see whether the Ark of the covenant lost its significance!

Re: new ark
John saw the ark in his vision - Rev 11:19 to 12:6 ( Recall this would have been one long text before the books were divided into chapters). Who is the woman depicted as the ark?
There are many more references that show the ark parallels but got no time for that now.

Fallacy of reversal of burden of proof and Departure from post.

I was rebutting your catholic brother's answer only and did not say any of the above, so it is you who said it ooo and not i.

After reading all your previous responses, this was my question to you as part of my contribution and I'll ask it again. Apostle James the Less was called Jesus's brother, was Mary the Mother of Jesus his mother? If she was, why didn't he take Mary into his home after Jesus Crucifixion?[/font][font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

StillDtruth:
Exactly!

The "until" is very very clear and understandable.

But how can "until" be stretched to mean "perpetual"? Who does that!

So imagine, when the bible Said Exodus 12:10 Do not leave any of it until morning" it means they could keep the manna forever?

Exodus 12:10 isn't saying that, in fact it further states what should happen to the manna that remains.

Just to add other examples of the use of until ( where no reversal occurs)

Act25: 21 But when Paul has appealed ..........., I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Ceaser
(Paul was still held in Roman custody after this event)
Gen 9:7 .. and sent out the Raven and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up. ( it's apparent that this raven never returned even after the water dried up.)

Mary's perpetual virginity is not streched from that verse. One needs to look at the wider context of her role e.g. Mary as the Ark of the new covenant. We know how the original ark was treated.

Are you saying Mary , Jesus mother, was Apostle James the Less' mother? Where was he when his mother was given to Apostle John at the foot of the cross?

StillDtruth:
This argument took place 4 weeks back so 4 weeks ago, i proved that the constatine people were wrong here.

Matthew 13:55-56 and other scriptures prove she had other children.

Christ's divinity is/was already proven and settled by the fact that His Holyness was not corrupted at all whether at His implanting or in His Gestation period, which is why the Angel commanded Joseph not to touch her till after He was born.

Note the word [/color]"After the child is born"

So, Christ's Holiness was preserved and therefore His divinity is not affected at all.

All was done and Mary was free of her Commandment after she birthed The Christ

So she became free as other wives and could fucqk her husbandand have children. The angel did not give her a perpetual command

Also, the knew her not until in it's use in Greek (Matt 1: 25) at the time does not indicate what happened afterwards. Matthew's main concern was to clarify Joseph had no hand in the conception. Through sacred tradition, it is known Mary remained a virgin in marriage.

StillDtruth:
Now you have changed your leg of argument from your fear that Christ's divinity would be contamimated which i have shown it is not contaminated at all.

We all read the proceedings of Acts 15 and the rightfullness of the decision therein stands since then till the world ends

I have never seen the constatinople proceedings but from their judgment speaks of their error.

For Matbew 13:55 already confirms what we all feel and know to be true in nature and clearly it states that Mary and Joseph had other children, even stating the names of the other children. So what more can Mathew say and should he say beyond what he has already said?

Secondly, since you state that Matthew 13:55-56 doesn't prove these were Mary's children, please show and prove how it does not, if you can reasonably and validly do so.

No, I haven't change my leg of argument at all. I first pointed out what the implications of Mary having children would have been especially in the early days not 2000 years later when all the debates have already been had. Please note, the church already existed before things (not every detail) were even recorded.Matters within scripture have been made clearer through sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the church, exactly like Acts 15. Councils did not end with this Jerusalem council and their decisions have been just as rightful in the living church.

Regarding Matthew 13:55-56 , Ubenedictus has already done a good job explaining things.

I can also point to several church fathers from the 1st 3 centuries who delved into these matters and I trust them over your modern interpretations.

StillDtruth:
This argument took place 4 weeks back so 4 weeks ago, i proved that the constatine people were wrong here.

Matthew 13:55-56 and other scriptures prove she had other children.

Christ's divinity is/was already proven and settled by the fact that His Holyness was not corrupted at all whether at His implanting or in His Gestation period, which is why the Angel commanded Joseph not to touch her till after He was born.

Note the word [/color]"After the child is born"

So, Christ's Holiness was preserved and therefore His divinity is not affected at all.

All was done and Mary was free of her Commandment after she birthed The Christ

So she became free as other wives and could fucqk her husbandand have children. The angel did not give her a perpetual command

Unfortunately Matthew 13:55-56 doesn't prove these were Mary's children. Trust me, these arguments would have been brought up at the council. The fact that this matter had to go to council just like the Acts 15 matter, meant that some were questioning or deviating from church sacred tradition. The council decided, I believe them over any modern interpretations, Catholics/ Eastern Orthodox cannot reject this teaching.

StillDtruth:
Now, you.have shifted to another leg since the one you used has fallen.

If you were truly sincere, you would see that the bible is about Jesus and not about Mary and her children, exactly how in Genesis,it focused on Abraham and not on his brothers.

And secondly, it is known the bible has always described lineage in terms of the father, in this case Joseph and not on mothers which is where Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So your church has lied to you!

"There is no valid argument against the Truth"

Or is there any other leg of argument you can make?

This issue has been decided as far back as year 553 by the 2nd Council of Constantinople. Mary was a perpetual Virgin.

Please think of the implications of Mary having other children, not in 2024 but in the 1st century AD before anything was even recorded. How exactly could you prove Jesus' exclusive divinity if there were others who were born through the same womb? How exactly could it be proven that Mary conceived Lord Jesus as a virgin if she gave birth to others.

There is more to reading the scriptures with 2024 eyes and the fact is early christianity believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and affirmed by the 2nd Council of Constantinople. I'll urge you to read the acts from this council. Those who reject this are to be anamethised.

Catholic Church beliefs are not based on Sola Scriptura but on the 3 legs of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Christianity has been like this from day 1: example - Acts 15.

spiSeyi:
FYI : Nigeria can afford it and I don't think this should be a problem because our GDP is 100x the price of that plane and it's not a personal property.

Well, you can say that but the reality is - money would be better spent building infrastructure that would benefit many more at the moment. I don't really see the benefits of the Nigerian president having his own jet at this time. It costs a lot to maintain.
If for anything, it'll be good to show that government is serious about cutting unnecessary costs.

We have no pipe borne water, poor education, inadequate power, many problems. Nigerian president could do without this jet for now.

spiSeyi:
The Air Force 1 is not a 34 year old plane and that US Air Force 1 will buy 20 PCs of the Nigerian Air Force 1.
After all the newly acquired aircraft is not PBAT property bcs he is not taking it with him out of the office

US can afford the Air force 1 with a GDP more than 60 times Nigeria's GDP. And budget revenues more than 100 times Nigeria's.
We really need to be cutting our cloth accordingly.

If it's a fast food business, hope there are no issues naming it Donald's as it is very simlar to McDonald's, the fast company. Could lead to a lawsuit.

flyinnizam:
how many international airport does USA has? stop comparing US to many nations including Nigeria. they are not making enough money here dey won't be here since 1930s

I only cited an example of USA, BA flies 100s of routes across the world.

Are you aware that BA was banned from flying into Nigeria for over a year between 1997 and 1998? It certainly didn't crush their business. One could only fly indirect into UK then.

Nigeria/UK is a major route but not even top 20 of the routes flown out of UK, that's the point I was trying to make.

flyinnizam:
you don't have sense at all. so u don't know those airlines are making a lot of money from Nigerians. mumu fooollllll

In the grand scheme of things I doubt BA makes that much from the Nigerian route. It only has 2 routes to and from Nigeria. BA has over 100 routes into USA alone for example.

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/flight-information/our-route-network

Ebubu3:
If he diverts BA and Virgin to Ebonyi airport and Borno airport respectively, Nigerian passengers on BA and Virgin will divert to another airline that flies from London to Lagos and Abuja that is not BA and Virgin, maybe Ethiopia or Etihad airways. End of the matter is BA and Virgin will lose passengers to competitors who are able to land in Lagos and Abuja because they are flying to Ebonyi.

How about that?

If he wants to reciprocate, why not divert to the equivalent of Gatwick in terms of distance from Lagos/ infrastructure/ available services.

I doubt MMIA can even compete with Gatwick as it is!

Objectivist04:
. really ?I need education then,
Why did sunak announce for election if it is constitutionally 5 year term.

Joe Biden doesn't need to announce US election because everyone knows when it will take place being a periodic exercise.

Why do prime ministers under parliamentary system of government always call for election and in some cases the same election will sweep them out ?
.
I understand that when you form a coalition with other parties to form a government and the coalition breaks down the prime minister have to call for early election but in the case of sunak, there is no coalition.

The PM has the power to call an election anytime within the 5 year parliamentary term. They usually call it when circumstances best suit their party. In Rishi's case he could have waited a few months up to Jan 2025 but he alone knows why he called it this time. Perhaps he saw things getting worse or projected that the flagship Rwandan policy would have failed. I'm sure he'll write his reasons in a book some day.

NinjaMetahuman:
you can read opinion polls because the population is not big and majority of the voters are online sharing their opinion.

Same can't be said for countries in Africa, especially in Nigeria.

Opinion polling employs different methods and techniques though. Phone calls, physical visits etc. Not all those polled would have done this online

Bigboytinz:
UK democracy is just a smokescreen that's a fact

How is it a smokecreen? Please point me to the exemplary democracy across the world.

DeepSight:
I am talking real-politik and power-de-facto and you are busy explaining to me de-jure fronts.
I repeat: British democracy is a pretense at democracy. There is no real democracy in Britain.
Also, anyone who thinks the King has no real power is just naive.

Even as Prince of Wales, Charles was in the habit of writing memos to govt ministers which they treated with deference. The Guardian of the UK did an expose on this.

I wonder where there is there any real democracy anywhere in the world then!

Charles can write all he wants, the fact is the Monarch can literally do nothing without the PM's advice. That's the fact

DeepSight:
Thats merely a smokecreen through which a very old and wise institution has deceived its subjects into a pretense at democracy.

Well, the royal family don't really have that power any longer, only what the parliament allows. The English revolution brought about a constitutional monarchy and that has created a balance of power- Monarch, PM, parliament.

UK obviously needs the monarchy for many reasons and could easily have got rid of them like the French. Saying that, no democracy is perfect and many don't like the exclusivity of the royal family.

StOla:
UK Prime Minister wey fit resign after 1month in office.

No power, no levels at all.

The parliamentary system is obviously different from the presidential system. While it is 'relatively' easier to get rid of a PM, the PM with a sizeable majority can pretty much get new laws passed easier than a president as a PM is also part of the legislative arm.

Both systems have their pros and cons.

DeepSight:
Everyone knows who the big dog is in Britain and he sits in a palace, not at 10 Downing.

That's only in theory as the monarch only acts on the advise of the PM. This makes the PM the big dog in practice.

Ubenedictus:
yeah life happened. Time for long arguments with people who have already solidified their misconceptions gradually dissappeared

True, same here.
It doesn't seem like there are many arguments these days unlike years before.

From the bulk of comments here, just shows we haven't even begun the journey to good governance yet.

Make people dey wallow in their suffering and smiling.
Shior

Nigra:
But why can't he meet the pope Jesus Christ allowed everyone to meet him/touch him,so who is this mere human that will deny another human the right to see himomoh these religious leaders dey use people catch cruise..#itsnotonlyafricabutallovertheworld#
WAKE UP TO KNOW WE ARE ALL VESSELS OF CHRIST.

Could have gone there on Wednesday or next Wednesday for a general audience with the pope. Or at at least tried to book an appointment.

For someone like the pope, don't you think over a million other people would want to see him at any point!

CheapHomes1:
Are you and the guy I responded to part of those who in the "1st 1000 years of Christianity"? Are we in the "1st 1000 years of Christianity"? Was my statement directed at "1st 1000 years of Christianity"?

How did you arrive at the following conclusions? :

"And I stated that most people couldn't read anyway up until recently. So your assertion holds no water. What people have always had is church guidance as Jesus clearly set up."

When is "recently"? Kindly give a specific date.

The place you are "interpreting" or better still "misinterpreting ", can you pls quote the scripture for me?

You obviously don't get the point I'm making. You made an assertion without thinking of the implication. you stated thay catholics don't read the bible so don't understand what Christianity is all about. how do you think those who couldn't read for centuries understood what Christianity was all about?!
In any case catholics do read the bible.
You need to check the data for global illiteracy rates over the centuries, a majority still couldn't read 300 years ago.

CheapHomes1:
What has people not being able to read according to you in the "1st 1000 years of Christianity"?

Seems you didn't read the scriptures I quoted which confirms my 1st statement or are you part of the people who couldn't read in the "1st 1000 years of Christianity"?

Pls read verse 2 of the scripture I quoted which you didn't read before commenting

You made this statement -
Wow...you are so ignorant? Catholics hardly read the bible so they barely know what Christianity is all about
And I stated that most people couldn't read anyway up until recently. So your assertion holds no water. What people have always had is church guidance as Jesus clearly set up.

Regarding Bishops, the church in fact used to have married bishops but changed the discipline over time to require celibacy (as they saw fit for the running of the church). The verse quoted does not mandate bishops to be married but must not have been married more than once. This is the ancient position.
This is why guidance is required in interpreting scriptures