Mary did have sex with Joseph Mt. 1:24

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Once again a person who does not believe the Bible to begin with, let alone that it is inspired and preserved, trying to teach those of us who do. What the truth is. The height of hypocrisy is seen in refuting a book you do not believe in.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son[/b]: and he called his name JESUS.

This means he did not know her carnally until after the birth of her first born child emphesis on HER child not their child.

now go and use the built in cross reference of the AV and seek to see what knew, know and known meant in regards to sex and conception of children, even the men of Sodom said to Lot," send out the men who came unto you this day that we may know them"

Genesis 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Lot knew exactly what they were wanting and was willing to send out his virgin daughters. But the angle would not allow it and blinded them.

Should I make mention of Adam Knew his wife and she conceived and bore two sons, and then knew her again and she brought forth Seth. Or of when Noah awoke from his drunken stupor, then he KNEW what his son ham had done unto him.

Try doing some real study of the words in the preserved bible before you post such nonsense.

a reply to: TerryMcGuireElizabeth's baby leapt because of the child already in Mary's womb

Luke 1:41-43 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

blessed (past tense) be the fruit of thy womb indicates she was already pregnant. Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant at that time and Mary stayed three months with her. Pretty sure she was there when John was born, and by that time Mary knew she was pregnant.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Do you realize that they used to have midwifes verify virginity prior to marriage? Several marriages did not happen and women had horrible lives because of accidental hymen breakage... That is also why most marriages happened at or just prior to the onset of puberty, to avoid typical teenage desires to have sex.

Often times teenage girls would marry middle aged men.

Jaden

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Well..if you consider the fact that Mary and Joseph had other children...none of whom is claimed to have been of "virgin birth" then one has to assume that sex was the method of procreation. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, in fact I like to think of myself as a well informed atheist, I just don't get the point of this post.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Well..if you consider the fact that Mary and Joseph had other children...none of whom is claimed to have been of "virgin birth" then one has to assume that sex was the method of procreation. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, in fact I like to think of myself as a well informed atheist, I just don't get the point of this post.

I will explain it to you.

The Catholic Church says she was a perpetual virgin, the oldest surviving Christian Church.

Yet in their own version of the Bible you can clearly see no speculation is necessary.

There is a literal passage that says Joseph could have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

With proof, that nobody to my knowledge has ever made a thread about that proves they are lying.

I think if you do not get that you may consider yourself informed but I am not going to say that I think you are astute.

Because it's a simple subject, my point is clear... yet you think it is worth spending time to tell me you didn't get the point.

What EXACTLY don't you understand?

Because it is not a point one should be lacking comprehension in at all.

Not to be rude but you are trying to say that I either have no point or you just don't get the point.

The same point everyone else seems to understand fine.

Not you though, hmmm.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Good to see someone pick up on these little truths in the Bible .

Keep reading and studying OP and more of the fake biblical news will fall by the wayside .

Just wanted to thank you for the compliment.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Once again a person who does not believe the Bible to begin with,

Your obsession with my beliefs, which you do not know the first thing about, and attempt to claim an unorthodox believer or even an atheist can't understand a book, one you have little comprehension of yourself, is nonsense.

I am literate and understand BETTER than you do, so it's a b.s. theory and your m.o.

Mock,ridicule, discard humility and attack anyone who has anything to say you disagree with.

Your frustration pleases me because you are obnoxious and don't understand what you are reading when you read the Bible.

let alone that it is inspired and preserved, trying to teach those of us who do. What the truth is. The height of hypocrisy is seen in refuting a book you do not believe in.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son[/b]: and he called his name JESUS.

This means he did not know her carnally until after the birth of her first born child emphesis on HER child not their child.

now go and use the built in cross reference of the AV and seek to see what knew, know and known meant in regards to sex and conception of children, even the men of Sodom said to Lot," send out the men who came unto you this day that we may know them"

Genesis 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Lot knew exactly what they were wanting and was willing to send out his virgin daughters. But the angle would not allow it and blinded them.

Should I make mention of Adam Knew his wife and she conceived and bore two sons, and then knew her again and she brought forth Seth. Or of when Noah awoke from his drunken stupor, then he KNEW what his son ham had done unto him.

Try doing some real study of the words in the preserved bible before you post such nonsense.

i

Matthew says they could have sex but not until the birth of the Messiah, in plain English.

You have a problem with the English language?

Or the Bible saying what it says?

Then you don't believe in the Bible because you deny truth more than LITERALLY any human I have ever known and your attitude is intolerant and atrocious.

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Well..if you consider the fact that Mary and Joseph had other children...none of whom is claimed to have been of "virgin birth" then one has to assume that sex was the method of procreation. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, in fact I like to think of myself as a well informed atheist, I just don't get the point of this post.

I will explain it to you.

The Catholic Church says she was a perpetual virgin, the oldest surviving Christian Church.

Yet in their own version of the Bible you can clearly see no speculation is necessary.

There is a literal passage that says Joseph could have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

With proof, that nobody to my knowledge has ever made a thread about that proves they are lying.

I think if you do not get that you may consider yourself informed but I am not going to say that I think you are astute.

Because it's a simple subject, my point is clear... yet you think it is worth spending time to tell me you didn't get the point.

What EXACTLY don't you understand?

Because it is not a point one should be lacking comprehension in at all.

Not to be rude but you are trying to say that I either have no point or you just don't get the point.

The same point everyone else seems to understand fine.

Not you though, hmmm.

Way to get defensive and take an argument into the personal...but I won't address that further.

Anyone that has studied any sort of biblical history knows that the "jesus" had brothers and sisters, fathered by Joseph. If the Catholic church denies this, then it's quite obvious they are wrong.

Jesus's brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.

Even a simple google search would have netted you that result.

linky thing

linky thing 2

So again...are you trying to derail the catholic church or are you pointing out something that most people know?

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Man If I was married to a woman who got pregnant under mysterious circumstances because she is a virgin the LAST thing I'd be doing is withholding sex until she gave birth. Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Man If I was married to a woman who got pregnant under mysterious circumstances because she is a virgin the LAST thing I'd be doing is withholding sex until she gave birth. Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

Umm. I have never been into pregnant chicks, although I never got one pregnant past a month so...

The Bible is a book of esoteric myths, it's not b. s. Christians just don't understand anything esoteric or want to so they benefit little from it.

There was no virgin birth, that much I can assure you as the Jewish Christians did not believe in it, the Romans added it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

Or maybe just maybe a real angel of the Lord appeared to him and explained it out. Tell me . what would you do or say if a real angel of God appeared to you and said something ?

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Why are you so mad because I explained what you asked me to, oh, because it wasn't complicated and I said so?

Too bad, don't ask for explanations for things you don't understand unless you want an answer, if it is a simple concept and someone brings it up, don't get pissy, it's you who doesn't get the point.

Do you get it yet? Sensitive one.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Well..if you consider the fact that Mary and Joseph had other children...none of whom is claimed to have been of "virgin birth" then one has to assume that sex was the method of procreation. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, in fact I like to think of myself as a well informed atheist, I just don't get the point of this post.

I will explain it to you.

The Catholic Church says she was a perpetual virgin, the oldest surviving Christian Church.

Yet in their own version of the Bible you can clearly see no speculation is necessary.

There is a literal passage that says Joseph could have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

With proof, that nobody to my knowledge has ever made a thread about that proves they are lying.

I think if you do not get that you may consider yourself informed but I am not going to say that I think you are astute.

Because it's a simple subject, my point is clear... yet you think it is worth spending time to tell me you didn't get the point.

What EXACTLY don't you understand?

Because it is not a point one should be lacking comprehension in at all.

Not to be rude but you are trying to say that I either have no point or you just don't get the point.

The same point everyone else seems to understand fine.

Not you though, hmmm.

Way to get defensive and take an argument into the personal...but I won't address that further.

Anyone that has studied any sort of biblical history knows that the "jesus" had brothers and sisters, fathered by Joseph. If the Catholic church denies this, then it's quite obvious they are wrong.

Jesus's brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.

Even a simple google search would have netted you that result.

linky thing

linky thing 2

So again...are you trying to derail the catholic church or are you pointing out something that most people know?

I was just making a thread, if you think that I have the power to derail Catholicism, well, I get now why you don't get my point.

And it is my turn to ask, what is your point, because it is far from clear and not anything I really care about, doesn't damage anything I have said and I certainly don't need a link when I have the Bible right here in front of me?

Maybe you require an interpreter, I don't.

Plus I was polite, you are being defensive because you got caught asking a dumb question when my point is obvious as isht, yet you require an explanation.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

Or maybe just maybe a real angel of the Lord appeared to him and explained it out. Tell me . what would you do or say if a real angel of God appeared to you and said something ?

I would call a shrink.

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Why are you so mad because I explained what you asked me to, oh, because it wasn't complicated and I said so?

Too bad, don't ask for explanations for things you don't understand unless you want an answer, if it is a simple concept and someone brings it up, don't get pissy, it's you who doesn't get the point.

Do you get it yet? Sensitive one.

I'm not mad. I'm not the one resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I understand if you want to derail the teachings of catholicism. I think it's quite funny. But I also think that your posting is kind of like putting a thread out there that says "ZOMG The sky is BLUE!"

But maybe that's because I actually paid attention in bible school? (Which is why I'm atheist now.)

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Ahh. I see.

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Man If I was married to a woman who got pregnant under mysterious circumstances because she is a virgin the LAST thing I'd be doing is withholding sex until she gave birth. Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

The Bible is a book of esoteric myths, it's not b. s. Christians just don't understand anything esoteric or want to so they benefit little from it.

There was no virgin birth, that much I can assure you as the Jewish Christians did not believe in it, the Romans added it.

And this I completely agree with.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Man If I was married to a woman who got pregnant under mysterious circumstances because she is a virgin the LAST thing I'd be doing is withholding sex until she gave birth. Either Joseph is the biggest beta male I've ever seen or the Bible is full of #.

The Bible is a book of esoteric myths, it's not b. s. Christians just don't understand anything esoteric or want to so they benefit little from it.

There was no virgin birth, that much I can assure you as the Jewish Christians did not believe in it, the Romans added it.

And this I completely agree with.

Great!

So what is with the pissy bs about me and my point about or thinking I care about derailing Catholicism?

Now to me that sounds a bit grandiose, but what do I know, I am just a guy who makes pointless threads.

Chill out, I'm just breaking ballz.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek


But can you blame me?

I clearly intended to prove that despite the insistence of the perpetual virgin believers like Catholics and the thousands of years of debate that the answer was in the first chapter of the first book of the NT all along.

It's a good point, one I have yet to hear from anyone and I am interested in such things, so I was reading Matthew as I do every January and I said, hmmm. This says they were allowed to have sex.

So why would I not make a thread about it?

Search the thread and see if one person
chimed in to say "no isht, I already read and knew that!"

You will see people saying no isht, but not a single person said that they were aware proof existed, and to top everything off it is a, THE Catholic Bible.

The NRSV is widely acknowledged for its accuracy, though I find things occasionally that I don't think are translated as accurately as the Jerusalem Bible, it is damn good. I use both translations, one for reading and one for note taking while reading and either way, a Catholic Bible proves a lie is a lie and like the NS A tapping phones, nobody cares even now that they know.

Unlike the previously mentioned agency, nobody really knows this.

That is fascinating to me.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I would call a shrink.

and what happens if you end up with a crazy one ? I hear they have a higher rate of suicide demographically. just saying