Persevere / endure until the end vs protestant OSAS

Discuss

Some folks would argue their opinion against Christ Himself.

Many in Rome included.

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

The gospels say otherwise with explicit references to his family, including his brothers' names and the phrases, "and sisters". Besides, that idea is absurd. She was married to Joseph and God's command in the OT was to have children. For them not to try would have been sin.

---

This has been explained ad nauseum. Your position has no defense other than "thats absurd" which is as good as an atheist saying thats absurd to Jesus rising bodily from the dead.

You are rejecting even what the founder of your beliefs didnt reject himself and no one rejected until someone named Calvin appeared and later.

Worth considering

You are going to be in shock. But thats how free will go on these things.

---

You cannot win an argument with false assumptions and by declaring victory. The founder of my beliefs is Jesus Christ and the source of my statement about the family of Jesus is from the gospels. The text is quite clear about His mother, brothers, & sisters. Anyone else trying to "explain" the idea that Mary remained a virgin, which is totally illogical and completely unsupported by scripture, is engaged in propaganda. I reject those arguments because God's word is the highest authority.

There is no scriptural basis for praying to anyone but God. Christ is our intercessor, or the Holy Spirit. Paul made that clear in his letters.

historian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

historian said:

---

The gospels say otherwise with explicit references to his family, including his brothers' names and the phrases, "and sisters". Besides, that idea is absurd. She was married to Joseph and God's command in the OT was to have children. For them not to try would have been sin.

---

This has been explained ad nauseum. Your position has no defense other than "thats absurd" which is as good as an atheist saying thats absurd to Jesus rising bodily from the dead.

You are rejecting even what the founder of your beliefs didnt reject himself and no one rejected until someone named Calvin appeared and later.

Worth considering

You are going to be in shock. But thats how free will go on these things.

---

You cannot win an argument with false assumptions and by declaring victory. The founder of my beliefs is Jesus Christ and the source of my statement about the family of Jesus is from the gospels. The text is quite clear about His mother, brothers, & sisters. Anyone else trying to "explain" the idea that Mary remained a virgin, which is totally illogical and completely unsupported by scripture, is engaged in propaganda. I reject those arguments because God's word is the highest authority.

There is no scriptural basis for praying to anyone but God. Christ is our intercessor, or the Holy Spirit. Paul made that clear in his letters.

---

I feel you. It's a great perspective . It flies in the face of 2000 years if teaching and has been shown from the Bible you can have no clue that your opinion is correct which definitely puts your opinion in a weaker position to the extent that we can know

" There is no scriptural basis for praying to anyone but God. Christ is our intercessor, or the Holy Spirit. Paul made that clear in his letters."

Absolute truth. and the bane of the fanatic.

Many years of false teaching has no value while the Bible is of eternal value.

Regarding the siblings of Jesus (Mary's other children), look at Matthew 13. It is explicit and very clear. To interpret it as anything else would require deliberate deception.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks would argue their opinion against Christ Himself.

Many in Rome included.

---

It is funny to hear a Protestant criticize Roman Catholicism for promoting their own opinions when every Sunday tens of thousands of Protestant pulpits are filled with pastors doing exactly that.

And thousands of priests do that every week I. Catholic Churches.

historian said:

---

Many years of false teaching has no value while the Bible is of eternal value.

Regarding the siblings of Jesus (Mary's other children), look at Matthew 13. It is explicit and very clear. To interpret it as anything else would require deliberate deception.

---

No. You're interpreting an interpretation. The same word used for brother was used for cousin elsewhere in scripture. You're making an assumption. Nobody that learned directly from the apostles (early Church fathers) held your view: they unanimously affirmed Marian typology and her being an ever-virgin.

historian said:

---

Many years of false teaching has no value while the Bible is of eternal value.

Regarding the siblings of Jesus (Mary's other children), look at Matthew 13. It is explicit and very clear. To interpret it as anything else would require deliberate deception.

---

St. Jerome, the man that translated the Bible into Latin, literally mocked a man (Helvidius) who tried to say that Mary had other children.

He wrote an entire paper on this fact -

Against Helvidius

When Jerome was questioned about why he used the word "brother" (adelphoi), he stated that he didn't believe that anyone would be foolish enough to think that Jesus had brothers.

As a historian, I would strongly suggest that you research when and why this belief that Mary had other children began.

You will discover that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

You will also discover that as protestants drifted further away from the Church, they begin to develop this notion that Mary had other children to separate themselves further from the Church.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks would argue their opinion against Christ Himself.

Many in Rome included.

---

It is funny to hear a Protestant criticize Roman Catholicism for promoting their own opinions when every Sunday tens of thousands of Protestant pulpits are filled with pastors doing exactly that.

---

Let's hear your evidence. Which specific Protestant pastors are ignoring Scripture in favor of their own opinions?

Real Protestants please, not that mega-church and non-denominational slop.

So the RCC folks say it's wrong to believe what Scripture says.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks would argue their opinion against Christ Himself.

Many in Rome included.

---

It is funny to hear a Protestant criticize Roman Catholicism for promoting their own opinions when every Sunday tens of thousands of Protestant pulpits are filled with pastors doing exactly that.

---

Let's hear your evidence. Which specific Protestant pastors are ignoring Scripture in favor of their own opinions?

Real Protestants please, not that mega-church and non-denominational slop.

---

This is precisely what I mean. A no true Scotsman argument.

"Protestant pastors do this all the time."
"Which ones? But only the true Protestant pastors."

In other words the ones that agree with Pope Oldbear.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks would argue their opinion against Christ Himself.

Many in Rome included.

---

It is funny to hear a Protestant criticize Roman Catholicism for promoting their own opinions when every Sunday tens of thousands of Protestant pulpits are filled with pastors doing exactly that.

---

Let's hear your evidence. Which specific Protestant pastors are ignoring Scripture in favor of their own opinions?

Real Protestants please, not that mega-church and non-denominational slop.

---

This is precisely what I mean. A no true Scotsman argument.

"Protestant pastors do this all the time."
"Which ones? But only the true Protestant pastors."

In other words the ones that agree with Pope Oldbear.

---

Wrong again, hater of your brothers.

Protestants trust Scripture to apply to questions, while it seems RCC depend on whatever Rome wants.

You claimed Protestants just toss off their opinions. So it is completely your obligation to support your claim.

False witness is a sin, sir, even in service to the Rome heirarchy.

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Many years of false teaching has no value while the Bible is of eternal value.

Regarding the siblings of Jesus (Mary's other children), look at Matthew 13. It is explicit and very clear. To interpret it as anything else would require deliberate deception.

---

No. You're interpreting an interpretation. The same word used for brother was used for cousin elsewhere in scripture. You're making an assumption. Nobody that learned directly from the apostles (early Church fathers) held your view: they unanimously affirmed Marian typology and her being an ever-virgin.

---

It depends on context. When Matthew 13 mentions Jesus and people from His hometown (Nazareth), it also mentions His mother, His brothers, and His sisters with the names given for the men. It's unambiguous and there is no reason to think it refers to cousins or anyone else.

"Church fathers" from the early centuries might be a good source of scriptural wisdom but their writings are not scripture. They are fallible.

None of this changes the illogic of a married couple remaining virgins in direct violation of God's command and purpose for marriage.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So the RCC folks say it's wrong to believe what Scripture says.

---

No, the Church 100% believes is what scripture is.

It was the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined what the Bible is.

What I, and Doc, have said is that today's Protestants misunderstand what the scriptures mean. Aramaic had no word for cousin.

I'll ask you to look up when and why Protestants believe that Mary had other children.

Please do some historic research.

Finally, would it damage your Protestant belief if Mary didn't have other children and remained a perpetual virgin?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So the RCC folks say it's wrong to believe what Scripture says.

---

No, the Church 100% believes is what scripture is.

It was the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined what the Bible is.

What I, and Doc, have said is that today's Protestants misunderstand what the scriptures mean. Aramaic had no word for cousin.

I'll ask you to look up when and why Protestants believe that Mary had other children.

Please do some historic research.

Finally, would it damage your Protestant belief if Mary didn't have other children and remained a perpetual virgin?

---

Historian was clear, and I agree with him. It's you standing against Scripture.

Pride is also a sin, sir.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So the RCC folks say it's wrong to believe what Scripture says.

---

No, the Church 100% believes is what scripture is.

It was the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined what the Bible is.

What I, and Doc, have said is that today's Protestants misunderstand what the scriptures mean. Aramaic had no word for cousin.

I'll ask you to look up when and why Protestants believe that Mary had other children.

Please do some historic research.

Finally, would it damage your Protestant belief if Mary didn't have other children and remained a perpetual virgin?

---

Historian was clear, and I agree with him. It's you standing against Scripture.

Pride is also a sin, sir.

---

So, in other words, you are not open to and don't want to look at the historical viewpoint. You are content with your viewpoint. What was it you said about pride?

Having said that, the Catholic view is PERFECTLY aligned with scripture when you understand that the bible existed well before the 16th century KJV.

Why did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

The Church as always understand the correct meaning of the word "adelphoi."

Like I stated earlier, it was protestants that change the original belief.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You certainblSo the RCC folks say it's wrong to believe what Scripture says.

---

No, the Church 100% believes is what scripture is.

It was the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined what the Bible is.

What I, and Doc, have said is that today's Protestants misunderstand what the scriptures mean. Aramaic had no word for cousin.

I'll ask you to look up when and why Protestants believe that Mary had other children.

Please do some historic research.

Finally, would it damage your Protestant belief if Mary didn't have other children and remained a perpetual virgin?

---

Historian was clear, and I agree with him. It's you standing against Scripture.

Pride is also a sin, sir.

---

So, in other words, you are not open to and don't want to look at the historical viewpoint. You are content with your viewpoint. What was it you said about pride?

Having said that, the Catholic view is PERFECTLY aligned with scripture when you understand that the bible existed well before the 16th century KJV.

Why did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

The Church as always understand the correct meaning of the word "adelphoi."

Like I stated earlier, it was protestants that change the original belief.

---

My, you certainly get angry easily.

Let me ask you plainly about the passage Historian cited where Jesus' brothers showed up with Mary. You make such a deal of Aramaic having no word for 'cousin', but if they were cousins, why was there no explanation such as the town they were from, or whose kids they were - the passage plainly describes them as Jesus' brothers.

Now you put great stock in certain men. Humans.

Historian and I trust Scripture, because there are dozens of books for a reason, and where one passage is unclear there are others to clarify.

You throw out many false accusations. I forgive you, knowing where you heard them in the first place, but will also pray for you to learn the truth and clean your behavior.

That is not to pretend I am perfect, but Scripture is useful far beyond any human for that purpose, as humans tend to screen out the Holy Spirit in favor of their own opinions.

historian said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

historian said:

---

Many years of false teaching has no value while the Bible is of eternal value.

Regarding the siblings of Jesus (Mary's other children), look at Matthew 13. It is explicit and very clear. To interpret it as anything else would require deliberate deception.

---

No. You're interpreting an interpretation. The same word used for brother was used for cousin elsewhere in scripture. You're making an assumption. Nobody that learned directly from the apostles (early Church fathers) held your view: they unanimously affirmed Marian typology and her being an ever-virgin.

---

It depends on context. When Matthew 13 mentions Jesus and people from His hometown (Nazareth), it also mentions His mother, His brothers, and His sisters with the names given for the men. It's unambiguous and there is no reason to think it refers to cousins or anyone else.

"Church fathers" from the early centuries might be a good source of scriptural wisdom but their writings are not scripture. They are fallible.

None of this changes the illogic of a married couple remaining virgins in direct violation of God's command and purpose for marriage.

---

Naming the men doesn't disambiguate the kinship category, it just identifies who's meant. Adelphos still carries the same lexical range whether or not a name follows it, and that range (in Koine and in the Hebrew ach behind it) covers half-siblings, cousins, and kinsmen, not just full siblings. Specificity of names narrows the referent, not the word.

These "brothers" are never once called Mary's sons. At the cross, Jesus hands His mother to John, a non-relative…which makes zero sense under Jewish law if she had other living sons obligated to take her in.

On the Fathers, I wasn't citing them as a second Bible. I was citing them as the closest native speakers we have to the cultural and linguistic context, with no doctrinal incentive to invent this. Unanimous testimony from people closer to the source is historical evidence. If you believe in apostolic succession, which you should, then you should believe the apostles laid hands on those exact men to carry the faith and to carry what they were taught orally.

Marriage validity was never contingent on consummation in Jewish law (betrothal alone created a binding marriage). And Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 treats voluntary celibacy within a valid marriage as the higher calling, not a violation of one. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a command to creation, not a clause in every individual marriage contract… or every infertile and post menopausal marriage is "illogical" too.

Every one of these debates: Mary, the canon, the Eucharist, baptism, it all traces back to one prior commitment: did the apostles hand down an authoritative teaching office and a body of unwritten tradition alongside their writings, or didn't they?

Scripture itself says they did. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold to what they were taught "whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15): explicitly placing oral teaching on par with written. He tells Timothy to guard "what you have heard from me" and entrust it to faithful men who will teach others (2 Tim 2:2), that's succession of teaching authority, in plain text, not an inference. They taught men for years, so obviously not everything taught was written down.

All Protestants have to functionally treat that office as having either ceased or never carried binding authority in the first place. So the real question isn't "where does the Bible say X about Mary/the Eucharist/whatever", it's "on what basis does anyone get to declare the apostolic teaching office null after the first generation?," because nothing in Acts or the Epistles announces that shutdown. It's just assumed, post hoc, by groups that emerged 1,500 years later and needed the previous teaching authority to not exist.

Do you Protestants understand what you're actually protesting?

Jesus affirms an institutional teaching authority that is, at the time He's speaking, not even staffed by good faith actors. In Matthew 23, Jesus tells the crowds to obey the scribes and Pharisees because they "sit on Moses' seat", and He says this in the same breath as calling them hypocrites and blind guides. That only makes sense if institutional teaching authority is separable from the personal worthiness of whoever holds it. Jesus is affirming an office. The "seat of Moses" is nowhere instituted in the Torah. There's no verse establishing it, no command setting up an ongoing teaching office tied to a physical chair. It emerged entirely through second-temple Jewish oral tradition and practice…and Jesus not only doesn't correct that as illegitimate, He affirms it with full binding authority ("do what they tell you").
The rule CANT be scripture alone for authority.

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My, you certainly get angry easily.

Let me ask you plainly about the passage Historian cited where Jesus' brothers showed up with Mary. You make such a deal of Aramaic having no word for 'cousin', but if they were cousins, why was there no explanation such as the town they were from, or whose kids they were - the passage plainly describes them as Jesus' brothers.

Now you put great stock in certain men. Humans.

Historian and I trust Scripture, because there are dozens of books for a reason, and where one passage is unclear there are others to clarify.

You throw out many false accusations. I forgive you, knowing where you heard them in the first place, but will also pray for you to learn the truth and clean your behavior.

That is not to pretend I am perfect, but Scripture is useful far beyond any human for that purpose, as humans tend to screen out the Holy Spirit in favor of their own opinions.

---

You are reading anger into my posts when it is not there. I am truly laughing at this.

At the crucifixion, Matthew (27:56) identifies a different Mary as the mother of James and Joseph -

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.


This evidence presents a compelling challenge to modern Protestant assumptions, though it's understandable why it's difficult for many to reconcile with what they've long been taught.

I've asked you to look at history, but you refuse citing that you "trust the scriptures" even though we've demonstrated that this particular protestant view is mistaken.

Again, I ask, without anger, why did the earliest reformers differ from your view and how would it impact you if Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My, you certainly get angry easily.

Let me ask you plainly about the passage Historian cited where Jesus' brothers showed up with Mary. You make such a deal of Aramaic having no word for 'cousin', but if they were cousins, why was there no explanation such as the town they were from, or whose kids they were - the passage plainly describes them as Jesus' brothers.

Now you put great stock in certain men. Humans.

Historian and I trust Scripture, because there are dozens of books for a reason, and where one passage is unclear there are others to clarify.

You throw out many false accusations. I forgive you, knowing where you heard them in the first place, but will also pray for you to learn the truth and clean your behavior.

That is not to pretend I am perfect, but Scripture is useful far beyond any human for that purpose, as humans tend to screen out the Holy Spirit in favor of their own opinions.

---

You are reading anger into my posts when it is not there. I am truly laughing at this.

At the crucifixion, Matthew (27:56) identifies a different Mary as the mother of James and Joseph -

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.


This evidence presents a compelling challenge to modern Protestant assumptions, though it's understandable why it's difficult for many to reconcile with what they've long been taught.

I've asked you to look at history, but you refuse citing that you "trust the scriptures" even though we've demonstrated that this particular protestant view is mistaken.

Again, I ask, without anger, why did the earliest reformers differ from your view and how would it impact you if Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin?

---

Your anger is evident by your refusal to accept explanations given. Instead, you seem to be compelled to alter what is said to something else.

Now the meat of the issue is the plain fact in the passage cited by historian, the men are plainly identified as brothers of Jesus. No additional words implying they are cousins, or anything other than brothers. Just as Scripture says.

At that point the matter is effectively decided. Yet you follow a human tradition in plain opposition to Scripture.

As for 'looking at history', sorry but no one is obliged to put human tradition over God's word. In fact there are a number of occasions in Scripture where Jesus rebukes tradition with Scripture, sir.

Your pride leads you into sin here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

---

Look, another quip with no context, AGAIN.

How would you feel is a Catholic posted -

Quote:

---

** sigh **

Protestants vs Scripture.

---

?

Doc spent two posts thoughtfully explaining scripture and the Catholic belief, yet you dismiss it with your trivial post.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My, you certainly get angry easily.

Let me ask you plainly about the passage Historian cited where Jesus' brothers showed up with Mary. You make such a deal of Aramaic having no word for 'cousin', but if they were cousins, why was there no explanation such as the town they were from, or whose kids they were - the passage plainly describes them as Jesus' brothers.

Now you put great stock in certain men. Humans.

Historian and I trust Scripture, because there are dozens of books for a reason, and where one passage is unclear there are others to clarify.

You throw out many false accusations. I forgive you, knowing where you heard them in the first place, but will also pray for you to learn the truth and clean your behavior.

That is not to pretend I am perfect, but Scripture is useful far beyond any human for that purpose, as humans tend to screen out the Holy Spirit in favor of their own opinions.

---

You are reading anger into my posts when it is not there. I am truly laughing at this.

At the crucifixion, Matthew (27:56) identifies a different Mary as the mother of James and Joseph -

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.


This evidence presents a compelling challenge to modern Protestant assumptions, though it's understandable why it's difficult for many to reconcile with what they've long been taught.

I've asked you to look at history, but you refuse citing that you "trust the scriptures" even though we've demonstrated that this particular protestant view is mistaken.

Again, I ask, without anger, why did the earliest reformers differ from your view and how would it impact you if Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin?

---

Your anger is evident by your refusal to accept explanations given. Instead, you seem to be compelled to alter what is said to something else.

Now the meat of the issue is the plain fact in the passage cited by historian, the men are plainly identified as brothers of Jesus. No additional words implying they are cousins, or anything other than brothers. Just as Scripture says.

At that point the matter is effectively decided. Yet you follow a human tradition in plain opposition to Scripture.

As for 'looking at history', sorry but no one is obliged to put human tradition over God's word. In fact there are a number of occasions in Scripture where Jesus rebukes tradition with Scripture, sir.

Your pride leads you into sin here.

---

Are you angry for not accepting what the Church has taught for nearly 2000 years?

You're using a quote for Jesus out of context when he rebukes those that forego taking care of their parents in favor of the Korbon vow. Ironically, you are foregoing Mary as a perpetual virgin.

Look carefully at your own tradition which is less than 500 years old. Looks who's clinging to a tradition with no basis.

Doc pointed out that the Greek used for brother and sister (adelphos and adelphai, respectively) can mean sibling, cousin, or kinsmen.

This is NOT going against scripture, this is what EVERYONE believed including Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.

Why do you argue with the "reformers?"

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

---

Look, another quip with no context, AGAIN.

How would you feel is a Catholic posted -

Quote:

---

** sigh **

Protestants vs Scripture.

---

?

Doc spent two posts thoughtfully explaining scripture and the Catholic belief, yet you dismiss it with your trivial post.

---

They've probably never heard of arguments like this. My father in law has taught Sunday school at a baptist church for 30 years and he had no idea what the seat of Moses was, what apostolic succession even conceptually is, what typologies are nor what Orthodox/Catholics actually believe. They're mostly not aware of these arguments.

Most converts I've talked to almost all say it was their first time reading the early Church fathers, listening to debates and looking at the history that lead them to Orthodoxy.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

---

Look, another quip with no context, AGAIN.

How would you feel is a Catholic posted -

Quote:

---

** sigh **

Protestants vs Scripture.

---

?

Doc spent two posts thoughtfully explaining scripture and the Catholic belief, yet you dismiss it with your trivial post.

---

I'm not the one claiming Scripture does not mean what it says, but somehow something is true which is never said in Scripture, which would make a fraud of Joseph, and which defies God's order for marriage.

You are again getting bitter on this. You might want to just let this one go before you stray further.

How long was Abraham before Jesus?

How long did Judaism stray from God before Jesus arrived?

You seem to think that a long habit is by definition true.

Enough so that you will defy Scripture in favor of your habits.

I certainly do not pretend Protestants were without error, but the RCC and the Orthodox have their own sins and mistaken beliefs. The difference seems to be that you refuse to acknowledge this truth.

Ahhhh ecumenism and one wonders how the flock gets confused. Keep the faith!

First "tradition", now you depend on YouTube.

I'm fine using Scripture, thanks.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

---

Look, another quip with no context, AGAIN.

How would you feel is a Catholic posted -

Quote:

---

** sigh **

Protestants vs Scripture.

---

?

Doc spent two posts thoughtfully explaining scripture and the Catholic belief, yet you dismiss it with your trivial post.

---

They've probably never heard of arguments like this. My father in law has taught Sunday school at a baptist church for 30 years and he had no idea what the seat of Moses was, what apostolic succession even conceptually is, what typologies are nor what Orthodox/Catholics actually believe. They're mostly not aware of these arguments.

Most converts I've talked to almost all say it was their first time reading the early Church fathers, listening to debates and looking at the history that lead them to Orthodoxy.

---

And this is why we do what we do

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Catholics vs Scripture.

---

Look, another quip with no context, AGAIN.

How would you feel is a Catholic posted -

Quote:

---

** sigh **

Protestants vs Scripture.

---

?

Doc spent two posts thoughtfully explaining scripture and the Catholic belief, yet you dismiss it with your trivial post.

---

I'm not the one claiming Scripture does not mean what it says, but somehow something is true which is never said in Scripture, which would make a fraud of Joseph, and which defies God's order for marriage.

You are again getting bitter on this. You might want to just let this one go before you stray further.

---

Why do you think Joseph had no children?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Persevere / endure until the end vs protestant OSAS

Discuss

---

Zero responses from our friends.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Hello protestant Christians. Which of the proto-reformers did not believe in the intercession of the saints? I am curious to learn of this and when it crept into your religion.

We know do the earliest church did from Biblical evidence and their writings to the 1st century.

---

Zero responses from our friends.

I would like to add to the question of my topic for them to speak to when the leaders of their faith first began to teach Jesus had biological siblings from Mary