To: ksen; Thinkin' Gal
Look, I know the whole Mary argument is a favorite among the doubters (even though it was settled before 500 A.D. SOmebody else objected using exactly the same arguments.), but simply, in those days, and today in families like mine, a relative is a relative is a relative. They came from the same house. James was from the same house, either a cousin or a step-brother. Either way, it doesn't matter. They were raised together, probably as brothers.
There is no mention, to my knowledge, that Mary ever birthed more children. There are mention of brothers and sisters, but it's understood, as far as I know, that they were step-sibs and cousins. This info come from at least 1000 years before the 16th century revolters.
To: Desdemona; Thinkin' Gal
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. - Mt 1:18 (KJV)
What does "before they came together" mean in the context of discussing the conception of Jesus?
posted on 10/21/2002 10:05:49 AM PDT
I could post a couple of verses from Matthew 1 (18 and 25), but I'm sure that someboby has spun those too. I just don't find the concept of Mary and Joseph being actually married, all that hard. In fact, if it weren't a real marriage, then that marriage would have been a lie. Kind of a cruel joke to play on both Joseph and Mary.
I love how some Catholics are SO entrenched in their self-superiority that they don't bother to hide it. Your contempt for your Protestant brothers and sisters is clear throughout your posts on this subject. If you're hoping to win converts, I suggest you re-examine your approach . . .
I'm real glad, then, that I live in America where we have freedom of religion. I'd hate to live in a country where you choose the religion that I must practice.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson