Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

"Zero responses from our friends."

So you are reduced to blatant lying now, I observe.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

---

The learned man would umderstand correctly those are Jesus' adelphoi

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

in, ** 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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

---

The learned man would umderstand correctly those are Jesus' adelphoi

---

Again, it's reasonable to go by Scripture. You are free to depend on tales told to you that assume otherwise.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Zero responses from our friends."

So you are reduced to blatant lying now, I observe.

---

Hmmm. My eyes deceive me? Please cinfirm.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

in, ** 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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

---

The learned man would umderstand correctly those are Jesus' adelphoi

---

Again, it's reasonable to go by Scripture. You are free to depend on tales told to you that assume otherwise.

---

When one weighs the preponderance of the evidence available and understood from the beginning, the choice is simple.

Matthew mentions 'brothers' fifteen times in his Gospel. Not one of them referred to a cousin or distant relative.

Mark mentions 'brothers' seven times, again never as a cousin or distant relative.

Luke ten times and again the same meaning was never 'cousin'.

And John's Gospel mentions 'brothers' five times, and never as cousins.

Throughout the New Testament, in the 182 times 'brother' is mentioned, it's never used to mean cousin but sibling, as close a relative as possible.

Your 'Tradition' is in defiance to the clear meaning of Scripture on the matter of Jesus' brothers .

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

in, ** 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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

---

The learned man would umderstand correctly those are Jesus' adelphoi

---

Again, it's reasonable to go by Scripture. You are free to depend on tales told to you that assume otherwise.

---

The issue is, not the least of which, if one misinterprets this what else is one misinterpreting. Weve discussed many, but this is just another example when one becomes one's own pope

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

---

Sounds very John 6:66

Jesus' brothers might not be described explicitly as Mary's sons but it is strongly implied when scripture, God's holy word, His mother, brothers, and sisters. The Bible clearly lists in logical order members of a single family unit all from the village of Nazareth and described as His family. They are not distant relations.

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

Do you what else the Bible never says? It never once states or even implies that husband and wife Joseph and Mary remained celebrate forever. Obviously, it doesn't say it because it's not true and it would make no sense. There was no reason for them not to have more children. In fact, the opposite is true: they had every reason personally, economically, culturally, and scripturally to have several kids so that Jesus would have numerous brothers and sisters. Common sense works.

On the cross, Jesus gave John responsibility for His mother because he was there. Everyone else had abandoned Him. Even earlier, in the context of His family visiting, His family and village had rejected Him so He turned us attention to those who were receptive to the gospel.

While it is true that married couples have faced infertility throughout history (Abraham's wife Sarah in Genesis), the way they knew it to be an issue was through making the attempt. It was not a problem for virgins. And we have no reason to assume that if Joseph and Mary.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

in, ** 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?

---

I am not the one arguing that Joseph and Mary had no children.

---

Ohhhh. Well thats not what I said. We know Jesus and Mary had no children as has been explained ajd full defense thereof by at least 3 posters these many months. (A blip though of the 2000 years it has been taught and understood)

Believing they did has been around about as long as the thought that men can have babies.

---

Scripture names Jesus' brothers. It's your lot pretending otherwise.

---

The learned man would umderstand correctly those are Jesus' adelphoi

---

Again, it's reasonable to go by Scripture. You are free to depend on tales told to you that assume otherwise.

---

The issue is, not the least of which, if one misinterprets this what else is one misinterpreting. Weve discussed many, but this is just another example when one becomes one's own pope

---

You are wrong yet again.

No Popes on my side, and it seems you have kicked Scripture out of yours.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

---

Sounds very John 6:66

---

Sadly yes, you left Him in preference of human pride.

Great video on the Theotokos:

Fre3dombear said:

---

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

---

Block those you can't argue against?

historian said:

---

Jesus' brothers might not be described explicitly as Mary's sons but it is strongly implied when scripture, God's holy word, His mother, brothers, and sisters. The Bible clearly lists in logical order members of a single family unit all from the village of Nazareth and described as His family. They are not distant relations.

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

Do you what else the Bible never says? It never once states or even implies that husband and wife Joseph and Mary remained celebrate forever. Obviously, it doesn't say it because it's not true and it would make no sense. There was no reason for them not to have more children. In fact, the opposite is true: they had every reason personally, economically, culturally, and scripturally to have several kids so that Jesus would have numerous brothers and sisters. Common sense works.

On the cross, Jesus gave John responsibility for His mother because he was there. Everyone else had abandoned Him. Even earlier, in the context of His family visiting, His family and village had rejected Him so He turned us attention to those who were receptive to the gospel.

While it is true that married couples have faced infertility throughout history (Abraham's wife Sarah in Genesis), the way they knew it to be an issue was through making the attempt. It was not a problem for virgins. And we have no reason to assume that if Joseph and Mary.

---

So Jesus had all these brothers and sisters and yet none of them played a role in the church that was documented? That may answer your question which many many learned men discussed and write about 2 millenia before you existed.

However, I'm sure a newly minted protestant Christian 1600 years later came across a new thinking that is the correct answer none before them, even those that walked WITH those people, were able to.

That makes perfect sense.

Your 2nd last paragraph exhibits a complete lack of understanding of the Jewish culture, laws and expectstions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

---

Sounds very John 6:66

---

Sadly yes, you left Him in preference of human pride.

---

As a Catholic, my actions state otherwise weekly and often more frequently.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

---

Sounds very John 6:66

---

Sadly yes, you left Him in preference of human pride.

---

As a Catholic, my actions state otherwise weekly and often more frequently.

---

Last I checked, only Jesus' actions have merit.

So much arrogance from you. It's like you're rooming with BTD.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So much arrogance from you. It's like you're rooming with BTD.

---

Just because you disagree with it doesnt make it arrogant. What is btd?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is clear.

There is no purpose in debating further.

You may cling to your tradition, I will depend on the Word of God.

---

Sounds very John 6:66

---

Sadly yes, you left Him in preference of human pride.

---

As a Catholic, my actions state otherwise weekly and often more frequently.

---

Last I checked, only Jesus' actions have merit.

---

They shall know them by their fruit

Look at your own hypocrisy. You state an action you claim i do. I state a fact i do. You claim the fact I do has no merit but hang your argument on a lie of an action I don't do and have never done.

When it gets that complicated for you it's time to take a step back and question what you think you believe

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

historian said:

---

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

---

"Mother, cousins, and cousins" would not be redundant in a language with gendered noun forms.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

---

Seriously, you need to take your own advice, brother.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

---

Seriously, you need to take your own advice, brother.

---

Please note a personal attack from me. I can't help it if it gets personal for you. Only you can control you. Pointing out flaws in your logic or misunderstandings you have isnt a personal attack as bad as you want it to be one.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

---

Seriously, you need to take your own advice, brother.

---

Please note a personal attack from me. I can't help it if it gets personal for you. Only you can control you. Pointing out flaws in your logic or misunderstandings you have isnt a personal attack as bad as you want it to be one.

---

Check your 9:57 post. Calls me a hypocrite as well as implies I am stupid.

Should I continue further back?

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

---

"Mother, cousins, and cousins" would not be redundant in a language with gendered noun forms.

---

That language also has a specific word for "cousins" which the writer doesn't use. That's the problem with the RC and Orthodox ad hoc view here.

But the main issue is this: according to RC and Orthodoxy, even though God's word directly states that Jesus had "adelphos" (brothers), the Christian is to NOT understand that by its plain meaning, but rather MUST believe that it is referring to his cousins or kinsmen or else they are anathematized to Hell. In other words, RC and Orthodoxy effectively ties this belief to one's salvation, which is changing the gospel (and thus, the only real anathema here).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

---

"Mother, cousins, and cousins" would not be redundant in a language with gendered noun forms.

---

That language also has a specific word for "cousins" which the writer doesn't use. That's the problem with the RC and Orthodox ad hoc view here.

But the main issue is this: according to RC and Orthodoxy, even though God's word directly states that Jesus had "adelphos" (brothers), the Christian is to NOT understand that by its plain meaning, but rather MUST believe that it is referring to his cousins or kinsmen or else they are anathematized to Hell. In other words, RC and Orthodoxy effectively ties this belief to one's salvation, which is changing the gospel (and thus, the only real anathema here).

---

I'm pretty sure Aramaic doesn't have a specific word for cousins. The Greek language does, but it wouldn't make any sense to use it if you're referring to a group of various relatives.

As others have mentioned, this reasoning is far from ad hoc. It is the historical Christian view.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

---

"Mother, cousins, and cousins" would not be redundant in a language with gendered noun forms.

---

That language also has a specific word for "cousins" which the writer doesn't use. That's the problem with the RC and Orthodox ad hoc view here.

But the main issue is this: according to RC and Orthodoxy, even though God's word directly states that Jesus had "adelphos" (brothers), the Christian is to NOT understand that by its plain meaning, but rather MUST believe that it is referring to his cousins or kinsmen or else they are anathematized to Hell. In other words, RC and Orthodoxy effectively ties this belief to one's salvation, which is changing the gospel (and thus, the only real anathema here).

---

I'm pretty sure Aramaic doesn't have a specific word for cousins. The Greek language does, but it wouldn't make any sense to use it if you're referring to a group of various relatives.

As others have mentioned, this reasoning is far from ad hoc. It is the historical Christian view.

---

I meant "expression" for "cousins". In Aramaic, it would be expressed as "son of the uncle" and the like. There would not have been any problem translating that into Greek. "Historical view" doesn't mean it isn't ad hoc.

Regardless, the main issue of RC and Orthodoxy adding to the gospel by making one's salvation dependent on all this remains.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

---

Seriously, you need to take your own advice, brother.

---

Please note a personal attack from me. I can't help it if it gets personal for you. Only you can control you. Pointing out flaws in your logic or misunderstandings you have isnt a personal attack as bad as you want it to be one.

---

Check your 9:57 post. Calls me a hypocrite as well as implies I am stupid.

Should I continue further back?

---

Oh describing your personal attack on me is a personal attack? Ok. Moving on.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I find it interesting that you claim that "Scripture does not mean what it says."

We both have valid arguments given the text. Doc and I are using the what the original Greek says, and you are using a "modern KJV" that says brothers and sisters.

When a question arises about what the scriptures mean, Doc and I (and the entire Orthodox and Catholic Church) look to what the people CLOSEST to the apostles believed.

I've demonstrated that Catholic/Orthodox position is 100% inline with Church fathers, Jerome (who translated the bible and wrote a paper mocking the "brothers and sisters" position, and history.

Your view, while understandable given the English language, does not square with history.

With respect to your "making a fraud of Joseph" comment, there's a lot to unpack there.

You are assuming that anyone that doesn't or can't have children is a "fraud."

Second, Mary wasn't' planning of having children based off her response to the angel when she says that "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" The Protoevangelium of James (not scripture, but very important) tells us that Mary was going to dedicate her life to God as a virgin and Joseph was going to protect her.

She was already married (betrothed which is legally married in the Jewish custom) and she certainly knew how babies were made.

Joseph isn't a fraud because he didn't consummate their marriage. He understood that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Your logic is OFF again. You are conflating sinners in the Church verses Church teachings.

The Church readily admits that it has sinners. But the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus, has no errors in its teaching.

If it did, the Jesus was wrong in Matthew 16:18-19.




BTW, if I switch to from a Latin (or Western) rite Catholic to Byzantine Catholic, will you still refer to me (and others) as Roman Catholic?