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

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.

Kingsempires:
just like what Jesus in the scripture said give to Caesar what belong to Caesar and give to God what belong to God so why did the protestant use the book of the so called evil person gathered as you have explained in your comments


So now you want to tell me that God uses Satan to build Christianity just watch your statement

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,

btoks:
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.

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

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!

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

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

btoks:


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

btoks:
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.

btoks:

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!

btoks:

The Ark of the covenant was no ordinary ark as it carried the word of God and his literal presence.

btoks:

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.

Kingsempires:
just like what Jesus in the scripture said give to Caesar what belong to Caesar and give to God what belong to God so why did the protestant use the book of the so called evil person gathered as you have explained in your comments

So now you want to tell me that God uses Satan to build Christianity just watch your statement

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!.

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.

btoks:

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)

btoks:

I shall ignore as this is really shallow.

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

StillDtruth:


Its like you are beginning to go mad.

Even the Jews are not Romans nor catholics yet, you imply the bible which is their own records is catholic book? And you think you are ok?

Clearly, you do not have any reasonable thing to.say.

StillDtruth:


Wow! What a twist and reversal!

Now you know the meaning of God can use anyone to fulfil His purposes exactly how He used armed robbers and human traffickers to bring the bible to us.

Truth remains the Truth irrespective of who is used to deliver it.

StillDtruth:


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

btoks:

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

btoks:

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.

btoks:

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

You already know that Truth is what remains after every reasonable doubt is cleared until we reach the point where there is no reasonable doubt which is why it is said

Once you eliminate all the impossible, then whatever remains, however unpleasant, must be the Truth. Arthur Conan Doyle

virginity is based on the fact that nothing has entered the vagina and womb nor has a baby exited.

And disvirginity occurs once a vagina is penetrated even if no child is in the womb.

So, also it stands to good reason that disvirginty will also occur once a baby comes out of the vagina and womb, even if nothing penetrated it.

btoks:

So where is this so-called 'truth' about Mary having other children taught in antiquity? Which church fathers agree with this?.

btoks:

I've mentioned that Matt 13 doesn't even prove the brothers are Mary's children

btoks:

Biology or good reason doesn't explain how Mary conceived our Lord Jesus. No point bringing it to his birth.

btoks:

The scriptures also say nothing about Mary losing her virginity .

StillDtruth:


You are the one being fraudulent here. No one asks you about the dedication of your child who may be the only child or he might have siblings.

And do we count the number of children a couple has at the beginning?

Is it not when the couple stopped birthing after passage of time that we count if they had only one child or 2 or 12?

And you know this is so but because you are being deceitfull, you therefore pretend not to know and go and check to see whether Mary had other children especially as The Commandment was just only for the period of time she was carrying The Holy Child.

The issue is even you, do not go around and call your only child, first born.

Ubenedictus:

I will repeat the question.

The law says a Jewish man must dedicate his first born, does the man have to wait for him to have a second child before doing the dedication?

You already argued that a first born cannot be called firstborn unless there is a second child.

StillDtruth:


And the passage immediately drew attention to his his brothers and named them

Of which It would not make any sense why Mathew would name Jesus's cousins because the whole of Istreal including Mathew are His Cousins. And we have even argued that which saw you land on Clopas which i pointed out that Simon and Judas are not in your Clopas's lineage.

So which lie are you going to spin now to hang simon and judas and co on?

And besides, if they were cousins, the bible told us as it did for Clopas and Elizabeth, so, no road here.

So do.you have any other place to hang the lies your church created?

StillDtruth:


And i repeat the answer we do not count the number of children a couple has at the beginning

It is when the couple stopped birthing or did not have other children after passage of time that we count

Ubenedictus:


So a Jewish couple will not dedicate their child until they have finished giving birth? Then they will identify the "firstborn"?

Is that your answer?

Ubenedictus:


So a Jewish couple will not dedicate their child until they have finished giving birth? Then they will identify the "firstborn"?

Is that your answer?

Ubenedictus:

The bible does not at any point call those relatives Children of Mary. You can argue all day but the bible doesn't say it.
Judas is the same name as Jude, he wrote an epistle, he is a brother of James.

Ubenedictus:

Personally I'm not particularly interested in matching all the names. For me, it suffice to show you that those who you think were blood brothers a few of them had their parents well accounted for in the bible. So they are not blood brothers