@CristianoRomae1986 I do not hate Mary mother of my Savior. In fact, I respect and love her for taking care of my Savior. She is a true follower of Christ as all true Christians should be. I just do not like what the Catholics have done to exalt her so much that it becomes a real dishonor to her and to my Savior.
Did you even see the entirety of my video? Or were you just too close-minded to even hear what I had to say, and started falsely accusing me of hating Mary? Shame on you.
You are mistaken that firstborn infers the birth of other children. The first born is mentioned for a number of reasons. The first born, for example, must be given to the Lord and then ransomed back. The first born is used so that there is no question as to Mary having had no previous children.
You are correct though that brothers refer to brothers and not cousins. The problem, however, is that you restrict your reading to only the bible.
@romy The gospel of James explains in great detail the events leading up to the birth of Christ. It even explains the birth and part of Mary's life. It explains how Joseph was picked to be Mary's husband. It explains that Joseph was an old man who was a widower with children of his own.
Also of great importance is that from the cross Jesus tells Peter that he is to take care of Mary. This is because Mary had no other children. For if she did, they would be in charge of caring for her.
@TrustinJC You are wrong, “firstborn” always implies that there will be more children, NOT that there won‘t be any more children. If, the child is first in the family that certainly means he won’t be the last.
And the Protoevangelium of James is not scripture, especially since it contradicts the other gospels. For one, women were never sent to the temple to be virgins, that happens in pagan temples.
@romybarboza You really need to research more about the first born son and what the parents had to do when he was born. Because you clearly have no understanding of Jewish laws regarding the first born. As well, since Joseph had other sons at the time of his marriage to Marry it was important to mention that Jesus was the first born so as to distinquish him from the other sons.
The gospel of James does not contradict the other gospels. In fact, it sheds light and understanding on them.
@romy Pt 2 And once again your understanding of Jewish traditions and the temple is off. According to the Talmud there was a women's court called the Ezrat Nashim in the Temple and was to the east and main area to the west.
So there is no reason to deny the gospel of James but many reasons to accept it.
@TrustinJC I know there was women court oustide the door of the Temple, that is where the women gathered to offer up their sacrifices to the priests. That place was open to both men and women and other unclean people. What does the women's court have to do with temple virgins. There are no such things as temple virgins in Judaism.
@romy The women's court was not outside the Temple. It was inside the Temple. You are thinking of the sanctuary. Just because the bible does not mention temple virgins does not mean they didn't use the term Temple virgins for the girls who lived in or studied in the womens area. There are many things about the Hebrew life style and Temple practices that are not mentined in the bible. And you are foolish to believe that you understand the Jewish religion and lifestyle by simply reading the bible
@TrustinJC Look at the layout of the Temple in Jesus’ time, the women’s court was definitely outside the door of the Temple, that is, Nicanor gate. Only the Levites and the priests were allowed inside the Temple, that is, the court of the priests where the alter of sacrifice is and the Temple building itself.
Where in the Talmud, in the writings of Josephus, in the Scriptures, in any Jewish literature, is there ever a mention of temple virgins in either the first or second Temple of Solomon?
@TrustinJC Matthew (disciple of Jesus), Mark (according to Peter), Luke (a friend of Paul who investigated the eyewitnesses), and John (disciple of Jesus) are most certainly eyewitnesses. And these 4 gospels are much earlier than the Protoevangelium of James (a work falsely attributed to James). The true James knew of Jewish customs, but this false work does not know any Jewish customs other than pagan temple practices. Temple virgins are by definition virgins who vowed to stay virgins for life
@TrustinJC Now look at what Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle) said, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him…
@romybarboza the "gospel" of james is not a gospel, and only afterwards came to be received as such. the only four gospels are Matthew, Peter, Luke, and John. Mark is crap.
@TrustinJC …Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia”
Thus the 4 gospels most certainly are eyewitnesses of Jesus. The gospel of James is not an eyewitness..
And Jesus never said to Peter to take care of Mary, He said that to John in John's gospel.
@romy Two of the 4 gospels you mention are eyewitness accounts of Christ's ministry. Two are second hand accounts gathered as info from a number of eyewitnesses. The gospel of James is the only eyewitness account of the birth of Christ and the things that transpired prior to his birth.
You are correct though about John. But I notice you still don't want to addresse the fact that none of the brothers of Christ bore the responsibility of caring for Mary, who is their birth mother according to you
@TrustinJC On the rejection of the gospel of James, Origen says in His Commentary on Matthew Book 10 Chap. 17, “But some say, basing it on a tradition in…"The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word........
@romybarboza This does not show rejection of Gospel of James, but shows it was widely accepted as authentic. Origen's comments are neutral on it. He explains why people treasure the work so much and it is because of the books important teaching on her perpetual virginity
@TrustinJC …might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her”.
Even the early church fathers did not believe in this gospel.
So then, you admit that all four gospels are eyewitness accounts of both first and second hand accounts.
And yes, I did address the issue of why the brothers of Christ didn’t bear responsibility of taking care of their mother Mary, Look at my video again at the 9 min. mark.
@TrustinJC You also did not address the contradictions I pointed out about the Proto. Of James in my earlier comments.
In fact here are the contradictions again, including some extras, found in the Proto. Of James
One, Gabriel is called an archangel, but the Gospels never describe Gabriel as an archangel. This arises from apocryphal works around the 1st century. (continued)
@romybarboza there is no contradiction. You are the contradiction because those "apocryphal" works are Scripture. Who are you to say otherwise? and please provide actual evidence, and not your traditions of men.
@TrustinJC 2) Proto. says “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?”, Mary says something totally different then what Luke 1:34 says “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”
3) Proto. Says Jesus was born outside the city of Bethlehem in a cave, yet Matt. 2:1 says explicitly that “Jesus was born IN Bethlehem” in the town of David and in a manger (Luke 2:4,7), for “unto you is born this day IN the city of David a Savior”
@TrustinJC 4) In Luke 1:39, Elizabeth lived in a city of Juda in the hill country, not in or around Bethlehem. And yet she is fleeing with her son John the Baptist from Herod (Proto of James). In Matt. 2:13-15, Only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee from Herod, who attacked only the city of Bethlehem and nowhere else. John the Baptist did not flee but instaed, “the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (Luke 1:80)
@TrustinJC 5) in the Proto., the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him to takes Mary, but she is not mention as his wife. Then the Priest chastises Joseph, accusing him of taking Mary secretly as a wife. Later Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem, but he is reluctant to call her his wife. This completely contradicts Matthew because in Matt. 1:19, Joseph is already Mary’s “husband”. (continued)
@romybarboza it does not contradict. if you knew your Jews, you would know that betrothal is incomplete marriage and not full marriage. complete and incomplete is very different.
@TrustinJC They are already betrothed to each other even before the angel of the Lord visits Joseph, and in Matt. 1:24 after the angels visitation, Joseph keeps Mary as “his wife”.
6) Matt. 1:13-16 makes it clear that Joseph and Mary left before Herod got the chance to find the child, so they didn’t hide the child in an ox-mangeras the Proto. says.
7) even if Zacharias was the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35, the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35 was killed by the religious leaders, not Herod's officers
@TrustinJC 8) the gospel of James does not even know Jewish customs. There being no Temple virgins in Judaism is one example, another example is the Law of jealousies, where only the woman Mary must drink, not the man Joseph, and yet both are drinking.
9) Proto says, the wise men came to BETHLEHEM and inquired of Herod where the child was born, yet Matt. 2:1 says the wise men came to JERUSALEM to inquire where the child king was.
@TrustinJC Must I go on? This is sufficient enough to prove that the Proto. Of James is a false work. Do you honestly believe every single supposed gospel that comes your way. Seriously? You should do your own research first before you willy nilly believe anything that claims to be a gospel of this apostle or that apostle. There was a reason why it never made it in as canon, and I just showed you. My friend, stop with your nonsense because you are the one fooled, and I'm here to enlighten you.
@TrustinJC A complete generation in the biblical sense is 70 years (80 by reason of strength) Ps. 90:10, from birth to death a normal lifespan. And amazingly modern statistics show that 70-80 years is the normal life. Now I’d say that Joseph was 40 years old when Joseph got married to Mary. Even Moses was married when he was 40 years old. So Joseph was still in his prime. And since we no longer here of Joseph beginning in Jesus’ ministry. He probably died at the right bold age of 70 years.
@carlsonap16 The “hill-country” of Judah is about 40 miles long and about 15 miles wide. In Jesus’ times, there were around two dozen cities in that small area. There were two major cities: Jerusalem & Hebron. If we take your example of Winnemucca, then the “city” where Elizabeth lived should have been called Jerusalem or Hebron, NOT Bethlehem. And again, Herod ordered the deaths of babies in Bethlehem only, NOT the entire region.
@carlsonap16 The Proto. Of James is a pseudepigraphical (false) work, not an apocryphal (esoteric, questionable authenticity) work. While some apocryphal works are accepted as scripture by some denominations, pseudepigraphical works are never accepted as scripture. And who are you to say some unkown or controversial work is scriptural? The burden of proof is on you. Provide evidence for the Proto. Of James, not your personal interpretation.
@romybarboza i have a very specific criteria of what is and is not scripture, rather than tradition. and this book of James passes the test. you say its pseudepigraphal, and yet that is also not established, but is your own opinion. scholars when reading history usually assume the writer is being honest unless they have reason to think otherwise. do you have sufficient reason to think otherwise that James was not the author of this book?
@carlsonap16 When I said they were betrothed, I said they were already called Husband and Wife before the angel of the Lord came to Joseph as I showed you in the verses (Matt. 1:18, 20, 24), even though they did not consummate their marriage through sexual intercourse. A betrothed couple in Judaism is already considered husband and wife. Even the angel of the Lord called Mary Joseph’s “wife”.
@romybarboza Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but was not a full husband. They were half married. in Scripture, betrothed individuals are married enough to receive death if there is sex with another man by the woman but nto married enough for them to have sex. Joseph was accused of having sex before being fully married.
@carlsonap16 The Proto. Of James contradicts Matt. Because, after the angel’s visitation, Joseph is accused by the high priest of secretly taking Mary as a wife, and Joseph refused to accept Mary as his wife when going to Bethlehem.
@carlsonap16 Show me where it says that a servant of the Temple has to be a “virgin” or “cannot marry”? Scripture nowhere says such a thing. If Levites and priests, who perpetually served at the Temple, can marry and have children, then so can any other servant of the Temple.
And what does the Essenes living about 100 years have to do with Joseph’s age?
@romybarboza it doesn't say "cannot marry". it says "cannot have sex". now, if you are in the temple every day, what is the point of marrying if you cannot have sex? the primary reason of marrying is to raise a family, but most family's cannot be started without sex.
@carlsonap16 And yes, whether a family has 1 son or more, the first son is called “firstborn”. Yet, if a family has only one son, that is because of the CIRCUMSTANCE of the family not having another son for whatever reason, NOT because of the meaning of the word “firstborn”. Jewish families were encouraged to have more than one child, that is, “multiply”. And my argument against the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary relies on more than just the meaning of the word “firstborn”.
@carlsonap16 Here’s what the Proto of James says, Trans. Alexander Walker: Chap. 17, “And when they had come within three miles... they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead you, and cover your disgrace? For the place is desert” Chap. 18, “And he found a cave there, and led her into it”.....
@carlsonap16 Chap. 21, “And, behold, Joseph was ready to go INTO Judæa. And there was a great commotion IN BETHLEHEM of Judæa, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to the Magi”.....
@carlsonap16 Not only was Joseph not in Bethlehem (he was in a deserted place), but the Magi’s were inquiring in the wrong city, because Luke says they came to Jerusalem and Herod called for them, yet the Proto. Of James says they came to Bethlehem and Herod called for them.
I also have criteria for what is scriptural and what is not. One of those criterion is that if there is contradiction between scripture and the work in question, then that work is not Scriptural.
@carlsonap16 Again, in the Proto. of James, Joseph and Mary was not mentioned as a married couple, even after Joseph took Mary in his house, and when the angel visited Joseph, the angel did not refer to Mary as his "wife" like Matthew said, but instead called her “maiden” (an unmarried woman).
@carlsonap16 Again, betrothed couples are not like engaged couples as we know it today. Betrothed Israelite couples are considered as husband and wife and it is during this time that the laws of adultery apply. Betrothed couples live apart in their own houses until they legally come together in one house after they officially marry. During their betrothal time, the couple can have sexual intercourse if they desire, the Law of Moses does not stop them. As proof, look at Deut. 20:6-7....
@romybarboza Engaged couples are not half married. they are zero married. betrothed couples are half married. it is not completed until the betrothal process has been completed, but yes betrothal is much more than engagement. it is actual marriage, just not a complete/full marriage.
@romybarboza the Law of Moses is not the say all. But at any rate, according to Scripture, only until you complete the process of betrothal can you sleep with your wife. I have a question though for you: if they were husband and wife fully, then why does it say that they didn't have sex until the Messiah was born? It proves one of two things: they were not married fully, but just betrothed, or that sex is forbidden during pregnancy. i believe the latter, but which do you believe?
@carlsonap16 My friend, I have read every translation of Proto. Of James, and all say the same thing, that the commotion in Bethlehem was caused by the Magi coming in and inquiring of the Child. Herod only responded to the commotion, he did not start it. You either misunderstand the passage or you just don’t want to admit that it contradicts scripture.
@carlsonap16 Yes, the word “isha” does mean either woman or wife, however, the context makes it clear whether it is woman or wife. Plus, all bible versions say that Mary was Joseph’s wife in Matt. 1:18-20,24, not a woman.
@carlsonap16 Also, I never argued whether Joseph’s marriage to Mary was full or incomplete. What I was arguing was that Joseph and Mary were called Husband and Wife even during their betrothal time, as scripture says so. And scripture does allow for them to have sex during this time.
And Jews do allow for couples to have sex during pregnancy, in fact, it is recommended they do so to keep the love alive.
@carlsonap16 Think of it this way, when scripture says not to commit adultery, then it has the “say all”, but when scripture is silent on a subject or permits it, then the “say so” belongs to the betrothed couple whether they want to have sex now or later after they get married, especially since they are already considered husband and wife once they are betrothed.
@romybarboza Scripture indicates the father has the rights of the daughter, and before the man can receive the woman fully, the betrothal process must be completed. in other words, betrothal makes it so that the husband owns half of the woman and the father owns the other half. So the man still cant have sex with her because she still belongs to her father even though she is his wife. the betrothal process wiht the father must be completed; he must be satisfied..
@carlsonap16 And judging from your question, are you admitting then that Mary did have sexual intercourse with Joseph after Jesus birth? And the answer to your question is that they were betrothed. There is no proof whatsoever that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
If the Levites and Priests do not daily serve in the Temple, than certainly other servants of the Temple do not serve daily either. Remember, that all Israelites had to work 6 days and rest on the Sabbath day.
@romybarboza it is a sin to have sex on the Sabbath, so no one can have sex on the sabbath. My question basically forces you to accept one of the three possibilities: sex during pregnancy is wrong because Mary and Joseph only had sex afterwards, Mary was a perpetual virgin, or sex during betrothal is not permitted. which do you believe is the answer and why? or if you think there is a fourth answer, what is it and how could that be a sufficient answer other than these three?
@carlsonap16 Again my friend, if the Magi came to Herod, then he would not need to send his officers to get them. The Proto. Of James says they came to Bethlehem, and when Herod heard the commotion in Bethlehem he sent his officers to get them. If the Magi went to Herod, then they should have gone to Jerusalem, not Bethlehem.
@romybarboza Are you aware of something called a gospel harmony? here is the gospel harmony: "And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judæa, for behold, the wise men came from the East to Jerusalem saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him, and sent officers to the Magi. And he sent for the priests,"
@carlsonap16 And another contradiction is that Proto. Of James says the Magi visited Jesus at the cave, yet Matt 2:11 clearly says the Magi visited Jesus at a “house” when Joseph and Mary had finally found a place to live in. Jesus was already a toddler “παιδίον paidion” when the Magi visited, NOT a newborn baby “βρέφος brephos” (Luke 2:16).
@carlsonap16 Are you implying that I said Joseph and Mary had sex during her pregnancy? I said no such thing. Also, the sex on Sabbath thing, the point of mentioning the 6 days of work and 1 day of rest is to show that servants of the Temple had the time to raise a family. Sex is a sacred thing in marriage and is an honorable act between two people that truly love each other. Sex is not a “work” in the sense of hardworking labor, but a beautiful act between two souls that are 1 flesh.
@romybarboza No you dont understand. I'm saying WHY didnt Mary and Joseph have sex if they were able to since they according to you were able to have sex as a betrothed couple. so why didn't they? you have no good answer for this.
Sabbath is not about rest, it is about ceasing, there is a difference. ceasing from our pleasure says Isaiah, and seeking God's pleasure. Sex is NOT God's pleasure, but our pleasure. Seeking your own pleasure is not a "work" either, but isaiah says no.
@carlsonap16 If only gospel harmony worked with Proto. Of James, but it doesn’t. Scripture shows there was no commotion in Bethlehem. That was only in Jerusalem. And as I have already shown, the many contradictions can in no way be harmonized like the four gospels can. The P. O. J. is simply not scripture. You seek the truth, right? So stop fighting it.
@carlsonap16 I was never arguing for Joseph and Mary to be able to have sex during their betrothal. I was only arguing that a betrothed couple could have sex. The reason why Joseph and Mary didn’t have sex during this time is, Scripture makes it clear that Joseph and Mary didn’t have sex for the simple reason that she was pregnant with Jesus. Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so Joseph could not have sex with her until she gave birth to Jesus.
@romybarboza That is not a legitimate reason Joseph and Mary did not have sex. If they could have had sex then they would have. According to Paul, husband and wife should only abstain from acceptable sex for prayer and fasting, and only a short time. Nine months is not a short time. Yes Scripture makes it clear that did not have sex while she was pregnant, but this fact proves either that sex is forbidden during betrothal, sex is forbidden during pregnancy, or she was ever virgin.
Is. 58:12-14 explicitly says their own selfish pleasures. Sex between a married couple is a mutually giving act of pleasure towards each other. It is about building their relationship through intimacy. It is one of the things God Himself instituted as sacred. Thus, sex in marriage is not a selfish pleasure, or self-gratifying pleasure. It is a mutually giving pleasure. One that God delights in because He sees the true love and giving in a marriage.
@romybarboza "your pleasure"="human focused pleasure". having sex with your wife is mutually pleasing your selves. we are commanded to please God not ourselves on Sabbath. furthermore, according to Torah, because of holiness, they were commanded to abstain from sex for three days. sabbath=holiness.
You are being legalistic in saying that one can’t have sex during pregnancy nor during the Sabbath. And you say this while claiming the Bible says so. I thought you said scripture does not have the “say all”? Nowhere in the Bible does it give a direct answer to these issues, yet even scripture equates the intimacy between a husband and a wife with the intimacy God has with His people. Just look at these verses. (Eph. 5:21,31-32; 1 Cor. 7:3-4; Rom. 12:10; Heb. 13:4;etc.)
@romybarboza Actually scripture does address these things specifically. but when you limit yourself to the traditional bible, then u will find your most wonderful desires are usually not condemned, including rape and molestation of children, which are never once condemned in the Bible. fact is, we dont need the bible to know what is moral; i'm so tired of people using the bible as a crutch for this sins.
Philosophically, what i believe is true. Scripture is another matter, but it also agrees.
@carlsonap16 You really don’t know the relationship experienced in marriage. Sex in marriage is only forbidden during the woman’s menstrual period, and yes the couple must set aside sex for prayer and fasting. Yet, there is nothing you have brought up that explicitly covers the issue of sex during pregnancy and betrothal. Sex in marriage is not sinful if it is done out of true intimate love for each other.
@carlsonap16 Dude, you’re sick. Rape and molestation of kids are not “wonderful desires”. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about these things. The issue is on sex in marriage. Rape (Deut 22:25-27) and molestation of children is condemned because it is fornication. Philosophically what you believe is wrong, which just shows that you don’t follow the Messiah Jesus. You don’t follow the Lord of the Sabbath, but your own beliefs.
@carlsonap16 If sex in marriage is not necessarily holy, then it can be holy, since Paul himself said the bed is undefiled. Sex is both an act of procreation (one of the most wonderful things on earth: conceiving and birthing a baby, a new life) and an act of strengthening the relationship of love in marriage. If we are to love our wives, just as Christ loves His Church, then sex is important to keep that love alive in marriage, and thus, is a sacred act.
@romybarboza wrong; nowhere does Scripture say sex is to be done solely for strengthening and love. yes sex is to be in love and bondship, but that is your insertion intot he Scripture the idea that sex should be done for the sake of love. rather, loving sex should be done for the sake of procreation. why do you think Onan was killed by God for having non procreative sex?
@romybarboza sex is not necessary for love. rather loving procreation is necessary for a loving family, and depriving your spouse of loving procreation is contrary to your marriage. but depriving your spouse of nonprocreative sex is a good thing and a moral obligation. this is why we can't have sex when we are like the angels as Messiah said, because sex is for procreation, and procreation is for mortals only. why does death end marriage and why can't we have sex in heaven?
@carlsonap16 As I said, there are many forms of rape, including marital rape, and this of course is wrong. Love never forces itself on another. Love in marriage is of satisfying each other, not one’s own self against another.
@romybarboza Genesis 11:30 "30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. "
Genesis 18:12 "12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?”
Sarah laughed at the idea of having sex in her old age, indicating she did not believe it was permissible to do so (otherwise she would have done it in her old age)
@romybarboza "10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”"
@carlsonap16 Tamar was sister of Absalom, son of Maacah who was one of David’s many wives (1 Chron. 3:9). Tamar was also called one of the “king’s daughters” (2 Sam. 13:18). David never considered giving Tamar to marry Amnon. It was forbidden to do so, for an incestuous relationship was punishable on pain of death.
@romybarboza Yes, Tamar was the daughter of the wife of David, and therefore legally his daughter. But Torah is very careful to specifically state that having sex with a sibling with the same father is wrong and having sex with a sibling of the same mother is wrong. it wouldnt state it this way if all siblings were forbidden. it would simply have said do not marry your brother or sister. but instead it says do not marry your sibling of your blood relation.
@carlsonap16 Yes, I do believe that sometimes it is perfectly fine for a married couple to have sex for intimacy sake. In fact it is a necessity, whether it be pro-creative or not. We can disagree on this because I won’t change my mind and neither will you. So it’s futile to keep arguing about this.
@carlsonap16 The reason why sex will no longer be necessary is because sex was primarily for procreating. When one is in Heaven there is no need to keep giving birth to new life. That is the role for mankind on Earth, but the day will come when the whole earth will enter into eternity and there will no longer be a need to give birth to new life, since all the brothers and sisters have already been born. The intimacy one had in sex will pale in comparison to the intimacy with Christ Himself.
@carlsonap16 Your point does not logically follow because the CIRCUMSTANCE of Joseph and Mary made it so they cannot have sex until Mary gives birth to Jesus. Mary was chosen for the unique task of nourishing the baby Jesus during her pregnancy as a virgin in order to fulfill prophecy. Plus, if a couple has consented to not have sex for a certain period, it is not a sin. Again, you have not proven any part of your point.
@romybarboza nine months is way too long if you take Paul as you are saying. i did think of another one though that i forgot to mention: sex with anyone younger than twenty years old is forbidden, so Mary if she was younger than 20, could not have had sex during that time. so that is a number four option. but so far i know that all four options you disagree with, and yet one of them must be true in my perspective. at any rate, yes it seems neither of us are willing to budge.
@carlsonap16 Of course, nine months is way too long, but it certainly is not impossible. As long as they do procreate.
And I am in total agreement in the case of Sarah, that pleasure is connected to procreative sex.
As for Tamar. Here is what we know, We know Tamar's brother and mother, Absalom and Maacah. We know Amnon's and Absalom's father, David. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that Tamar's father is David, since she is called the king's daughter. There is no other father mentioned.
@romybarboza Why does there need to be another father mentioned? Tamar was not an unrighteous woman; she knew the law. Yet she was 100% convinced that David would allow them to be together, but to do so without marriage would be sinful.
@carlsonap16 I never said there needed to be another father. I said there is no other father. David is Tamar’s and Amnon’s only father. Lev. 18:9; 20:17; and Deut. 27:22 make it clear that a man cannot have sexual relations with his sister on his father’s side because if he does, then he is cursed and put to death. I believe Tamar knew this, and didn’t want her half-brother to die, so she tried to compromise God’s word and say the King will allow them to get married.
@carlsonap16 Clearly, in the past God had allowed it (example, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings of the same father, but different mothers), but when He gave the Law to Moses He forbade it. I believe it was because of the deterioration of Man’s DNA (other than it being an issue of respect within the family). Man lived longer in the past (900, 400, 200), but not anymore. Certainly, if close relatives get married and have children, those kids are deformed or have some kind of mental illness.
@carlsonap16 If God will not allow any sexual union between brothers and sisters, then King David certainly cannot allow Tamar and Amnon to get married, even if he can, because to allow such a marriage is to go against the will of God. Tamar was like Lot when he told the angry crowd to take his daughters and leave the two strangers (angels) alone. She tried to compromise by saying the King will allow it, but you cannot compromise God’s word, for God does not allow it.
Gen 18:12 in no way means that Sarah thought it was not permissible to have non-procreative sex. Read the following verse. “And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety BEAR A CHILD, which am old?” (v.13). Thus, the “pleasure” she mentioned was connected to her disbelief of having a child with Abraham in her old age. The pleasure of sex is always connected to the procreative act of conceiving a child.
@romybarboza the pleasure was having procreative sex. It is pleasing to adopt a child in your old age and pleasing to have a child in your old age. but she laughed at having pleasure of sex in her old age. also in the biblical understanding, have sexual pleasure was the equivalent of procreation. Shall i again have sex/beget/procreate?
@carlsonap16 And Amnon’s rape of Tamar certainly is incestuous rape because their father is David, and thus, they are half-brother and half-sister. Yet, I never said anything about them marrying. Amnon’s punishment should have been death, but David loved Amnon too much and didn’t punish him according to the Law.
@romybarboza no their fatherwas not David. his father was. her father was another man. This is why Tamar says this:"And I, where could I take my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you." Tamar says David would give her to Amnon in marriage.
@carlsonap16 I never said sex was solely for the strengthening of love. I said it was for the sake of both procreation and love. The act of mutual pleasure and procreation cannot be separated. And even if the couple could not procreate (barren woman), that does not mean they can’t have sex for the sake of strengthening love. They most certainly can. And Onan died not because of non-procreative sex, but because he did not want to fulfill the law of raising up children for his brother.
@romybarboza if he was killed solely for not wanting to fulfill that law, then why wasn't he killed when he agreed to marry her? he obviously wasn't planning on procreation when he married her, so if that was the reason he should have struck him down then and there. but he waited until he had nonprocreative sex, then He struck him down
@carlsonap16 Are you serious? Having sex in Heaven? In Heaven we will no longer have husband/wife relationships, but instead have brother/sister relationships. This is why when we are in Heaven we will be like the angels, not marrying nor being given in marriage.
Depriving one’s husband or wife of any sex, whether procreative or non-procreative, is a moral wrong. It is the duty of both the husband and wife to satisfy each other for happiness sake (1 Cor. 7:2-5), But enough of this. What does this have to do with the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Stick to the topic of the video my friend.
@romybarboza no it is a moral duty to satisfy your spouse with procreative sex, and none other.
the whole point is that Mary did not have sex with joseph whle she was prgenant, so if you believe its permitted to have sex during pregnancy, than either sex during betrothal is not allowed, Mary was a perpetual virgin, or Mary and Joseph sinned by wrongfully withholding sex from each other for nine long months.
@carlsonap16 Also, rape is fornication as well, even fornicating rape is condemned because the man has to pay the woman’s father and must marry her and cannot divorce her. If he refuses or kidnaps her, then he is put to death. Incestuos rape was condemned by penalty of death (Lev. 18:9;20:17), which is what Amnon had committed against Tamar, but David did not punish him according to the Law. So, rape of many forms is dealt with in the Word of God.
@romybarboza Amnon and Tamar was not incest. the Scriptures do not say its a sin for unrelated siblings to marry. only related siblings are forbidden from marrying.
@carlsonap16 Sabbath was made for the good of man, not man for the Sabbath. It pleases God that a husband and a wife have a happy relationship. If they have a loving relationship, then they certainly have a far better relationship with God. God says marriage is sacred, and if it is sacred, then it is holy.
@carlsonap16 My friend, you’re mixing up two things. Sex in marriage is something that’s commanded by God, “multiply”, in THIS age, but when the age of Eternity comes, when Satan and death are defeated and we come to live with God Himself, sex will no longer be necessary. Also, those who die in Christ will be like angels, not marrying nor being given in marriage. Thus in the next life, for those who die in Christ, sex will be gone for good because we will now be brothers and sisters in Heaven.
Your selfish in thinking you know scripture and you use false works to justify your beliefs, when I have proven over and over again that the P.O.J. is a false work. What do you follow, the letter of the Law, or the spirit of the Law? Do you obey the Sabbath or the Lord of the Sabbath? Are you seeking your own truth or the Truth which is Jesus Christ?
@romybarboza You don't understand the letter of the law and the spirit. if you knew what the letter and spirit were, you wouldn't accuse me of being "legalistic" as a bad thing The Lord of the Sabbath cannot be obeyed if you do not also obey the Sabbath. My own truth is the truth of Messiah, and He teaches only the truth.
Its not selfish to believe i am right. its selfish to use my beliefs to gratify sinful desires, and i'm not doing that.
@carlsonap16 Again, you’re mixing up the circumstance of Joseph and Mary and applying it to everyone. You have not proven whether in marriage sex is forbidden during pregnancy or during betrothal. This is only your opinion. You are like the Pharisees who make up their own traditions and make the observance of the Law so strict that no one can keep it. The fact is we need God in order to be moral. Being moral by ourselves will not last because it always ends up bad.
@romybarboza If you knew the Scriptures, you would know that humans do not have sex when they are like angels. my question to you is in what way is being like angels makes it so that you cant have sex? what about being like an angel disqualifies you from having sex righteously?
@carlsonap16 As I have already shown you in scripture, sex during betrothal is permitted, though not encouraged. The betrothed couple is already considered husband and wife, so there is nothing wrong in having sex during this time. I am not however saying that Joseph and Mary had sex during this time, Scripture is very clear they had sexual intercourse after Mary gave birth to Jesus. What I detest are people who are being too legalistic and twisting God’s word to their own selfish purposes.
@romybarboza you have no understanding of what legalism, and you are the one who twists Scripture. And how is it twisting it for selfish purposes? how is anything about what i believe "selfish"? if anything, its just wrong, i dont see how my actions are selfish.
@carlsonap16 DEUT. 20:6 And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it.
7 And what man is there that hath BETROTHED a WIFE, and HATH NOT TAKEN HER? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
@carlsonap16 Also, if Priests and Levites, who daily serve in the Temple and make sacrifices for the people continuously, can still have time to have children, then there certainly is time for any servant to have sex and raise children. If the High Priest himself can do it, than anyone can.
@romybarboza the Priests and Levites do not daily serve in the temple. They take turns according to the Scriptures. they go through the cycles of Levites, each assigned to their various week.
@carlsonap16 Finally, I was being very generous to Joseph in saying he was 40 years old when he married Mary. Conservatively I would have said 30 years old. In our time, 40 years is considered old, but anyways. One is considered old when they start showing grey hair, and that usually happens around 40 years. Hopefully, that clears things up.
@TrustinJC I didn’t say that Joseph having children from a former marriage contradicted the gospels. I said that that was a reason for not accepting the Gospel of James. Joseph never had a former marriage or any children with another woman other than Mary
And just because the word firstborn is used in the Law of Moses does not negate the words meaning of being first. If the child is first, he certainly will not be an only child. Israelites were encouraged to have many children, not just one.
@romy So you're saying the gospel was rejected because it says Joseph was a widower and had children from a previous marriage?
So what is your source for stating this? What age or approximate age does the bible say Joseph was? What does the bible have to say about the mother and father of Mary? Do you honestly believe God's word would included lots of info about the mothers of many lesser biblical characters but leave a blank when it comes to Christ's parents and family?
@romy Pt 2 The fact that Joseph was an aged widower and had children from a previous marriage does not contradict the bible and is not a legitimate reason to reject James's gospel. It only contradicts your false conclusions that are a result of trying to fill in blanks that are there because you do not have all of God's word. Nowhere does the bible state the brothers of Jesus were younger brothers.
Now please do more research regarding the first born. For you are fooling yourself.
@romybarboza Actually, the Torah taaches that a man or woman can be devoted to the priesthood, and essentiallyt hey become their slave or a temple worker. According to Scripture, people can't be in the temple area if they had sex that day. Now, if you are devoted perpetually as a servant of the temple, then you can never have sex, and thus you are a virgin. Mary was dedicated to her service in the temple. As long as she was in the temple area, she could not be unclean by sex.
@TrustinJC One of the reasons why the protoevangelium of James was not accepted was because it claimed that Joseph had kids from a former marriage, and yet it is used to justify Mary's perpetual virginity.
And please tell me where or in what dictionary does "firstborn" mean that there is no other children as you stated. I absolutely know what one had to do with firstborns according to the Law of Moses, but what does that have to do with saying that "firstborn" means there is no other son.
@romybarboza I'm very surprised that you are making videos yet either can't, or simply chose not to understand the term first born. The term first born is used when ever the first son is born. It is used whether or not there are any children to come after. The reason is because there were requirements to be made of the first born and the understanding is that the first born belongs to God and must be bought back at a price. It is not, as you say, only writen to signify other children.
@romy Pt 2 Regarding the virgins. James never says the virgins at the temple were to remain virgins as you interpret temple virgins to mean. They simply went there until they were married, as in the case of Mary. She was never set apart by the priests to remain a virgin.
The gospel of James does not contradict the other gospels simply because, as you say, it speaks of Joseph being previously married and having children by that marriage.
@romy Pt 3 How can James said to contradict something when the other gospels never speak of the age of Joseph or the age of the other children? The truth is that you are simply making assumptions. How can James be said to contradict the other Gospels when the other gospels are not written by eye witness accounts but rather secondary accounts of the birth while James is in fact an eye witness? And you still haven't addressed the point I mentioned about Jesus saying Peter was to look after Mary.
@TrustinJC Two, Matt. 1:13-16 makes it clear that Joseph and Mary left before Herod got the chance to find the child, so they didn’t hide the child in a trough.
Three, Jesus was never born in a cave, Luke 2:7 is very clear that he was born in a manger.
Four, the gospel of James does not even know Jewish customs. There being no Temple virgins in Judaism is one example, another example is the Law of jealousies, where only the woman Mary must drink, not the man Joseph, and yet both are drinking.
@TrustinJC Fifth, even if Zacharias was the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35, the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35 was killed by the religious leaders, not Herod’s officers. I could go on, but the point is that this gospel of James is a false work falsely attributed to James.It is you who have left yourself open to be deceived by works that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus, are not part of God's writen word. The Gospel of James is only meant to glorify Mary, not Jesus.
Why do you hate the Blessed Mother? Shame on you for making this despicable video against the Mother of God.
CristianoRomae1986 1 month ago
@CristianoRomae1986 I do not hate Mary mother of my Savior. In fact, I respect and love her for taking care of my Savior. She is a true follower of Christ as all true Christians should be. I just do not like what the Catholics have done to exalt her so much that it becomes a real dishonor to her and to my Savior.
Did you even see the entirety of my video? Or were you just too close-minded to even hear what I had to say, and started falsely accusing me of hating Mary? Shame on you.
romybarboza 1 month ago
You are mistaken that firstborn infers the birth of other children. The first born is mentioned for a number of reasons. The first born, for example, must be given to the Lord and then ransomed back. The first born is used so that there is no question as to Mary having had no previous children.
You are correct though that brothers refer to brothers and not cousins. The problem, however, is that you restrict your reading to only the bible.
con't
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romy The gospel of James explains in great detail the events leading up to the birth of Christ. It even explains the birth and part of Mary's life. It explains how Joseph was picked to be Mary's husband. It explains that Joseph was an old man who was a widower with children of his own.
Also of great importance is that from the cross Jesus tells Peter that he is to take care of Mary. This is because Mary had no other children. For if she did, they would be in charge of caring for her.
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@TrustinJC You are wrong, “firstborn” always implies that there will be more children, NOT that there won‘t be any more children. If, the child is first in the family that certainly means he won’t be the last.
And the Protoevangelium of James is not scripture, especially since it contradicts the other gospels. For one, women were never sent to the temple to be virgins, that happens in pagan temples.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza You really need to research more about the first born son and what the parents had to do when he was born. Because you clearly have no understanding of Jewish laws regarding the first born. As well, since Joseph had other sons at the time of his marriage to Marry it was important to mention that Jesus was the first born so as to distinquish him from the other sons.
The gospel of James does not contradict the other gospels. In fact, it sheds light and understanding on them.
Con't
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romy Pt 2 And once again your understanding of Jewish traditions and the temple is off. According to the Talmud there was a women's court called the Ezrat Nashim in the Temple and was to the east and main area to the west.
So there is no reason to deny the gospel of James but many reasons to accept it.
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@TrustinJC I know there was women court oustide the door of the Temple, that is where the women gathered to offer up their sacrifices to the priests. That place was open to both men and women and other unclean people. What does the women's court have to do with temple virgins. There are no such things as temple virgins in Judaism.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romy The women's court was not outside the Temple. It was inside the Temple. You are thinking of the sanctuary. Just because the bible does not mention temple virgins does not mean they didn't use the term Temple virgins for the girls who lived in or studied in the womens area. There are many things about the Hebrew life style and Temple practices that are not mentined in the bible. And you are foolish to believe that you understand the Jewish religion and lifestyle by simply reading the bible
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Look at the layout of the Temple in Jesus’ time, the women’s court was definitely outside the door of the Temple, that is, Nicanor gate. Only the Levites and the priests were allowed inside the Temple, that is, the court of the priests where the alter of sacrifice is and the Temple building itself.
Where in the Talmud, in the writings of Josephus, in the Scriptures, in any Jewish literature, is there ever a mention of temple virgins in either the first or second Temple of Solomon?
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Matthew (disciple of Jesus), Mark (according to Peter), Luke (a friend of Paul who investigated the eyewitnesses), and John (disciple of Jesus) are most certainly eyewitnesses. And these 4 gospels are much earlier than the Protoevangelium of James (a work falsely attributed to James). The true James knew of Jewish customs, but this false work does not know any Jewish customs other than pagan temple practices. Temple virgins are by definition virgins who vowed to stay virgins for life
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Now look at what Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle) said, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him…
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza the "gospel" of james is not a gospel, and only afterwards came to be received as such. the only four gospels are Matthew, Peter, Luke, and John. Mark is crap.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC …Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia”
Thus the 4 gospels most certainly are eyewitnesses of Jesus. The gospel of James is not an eyewitness..
And Jesus never said to Peter to take care of Mary, He said that to John in John's gospel.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romy Two of the 4 gospels you mention are eyewitness accounts of Christ's ministry. Two are second hand accounts gathered as info from a number of eyewitnesses. The gospel of James is the only eyewitness account of the birth of Christ and the things that transpired prior to his birth.
You are correct though about John. But I notice you still don't want to addresse the fact that none of the brothers of Christ bore the responsibility of caring for Mary, who is their birth mother according to you
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@TrustinJC On the rejection of the gospel of James, Origen says in His Commentary on Matthew Book 10 Chap. 17, “But some say, basing it on a tradition in…"The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word........
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza This does not show rejection of Gospel of James, but shows it was widely accepted as authentic. Origen's comments are neutral on it. He explains why people treasure the work so much and it is because of the books important teaching on her perpetual virginity
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC …might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her”.
Even the early church fathers did not believe in this gospel.
So then, you admit that all four gospels are eyewitness accounts of both first and second hand accounts.
And yes, I did address the issue of why the brothers of Christ didn’t bear responsibility of taking care of their mother Mary, Look at my video again at the 9 min. mark.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC You also did not address the contradictions I pointed out about the Proto. Of James in my earlier comments.
In fact here are the contradictions again, including some extras, found in the Proto. Of James
One, Gabriel is called an archangel, but the Gospels never describe Gabriel as an archangel. This arises from apocryphal works around the 1st century. (continued)
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza there is no contradiction. You are the contradiction because those "apocryphal" works are Scripture. Who are you to say otherwise? and please provide actual evidence, and not your traditions of men.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC 2) Proto. says “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?”, Mary says something totally different then what Luke 1:34 says “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”
3) Proto. Says Jesus was born outside the city of Bethlehem in a cave, yet Matt. 2:1 says explicitly that “Jesus was born IN Bethlehem” in the town of David and in a manger (Luke 2:4,7), for “unto you is born this day IN the city of David a Savior”
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza i have land forty five miles from a city called Winnemucca. guess where the state of Nevada says my land is in? Winnemucca.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC 4) In Luke 1:39, Elizabeth lived in a city of Juda in the hill country, not in or around Bethlehem. And yet she is fleeing with her son John the Baptist from Herod (Proto of James). In Matt. 2:13-15, Only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee from Herod, who attacked only the city of Bethlehem and nowhere else. John the Baptist did not flee but instaed, “the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (Luke 1:80)
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC 5) in the Proto., the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him to takes Mary, but she is not mention as his wife. Then the Priest chastises Joseph, accusing him of taking Mary secretly as a wife. Later Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem, but he is reluctant to call her his wife. This completely contradicts Matthew because in Matt. 1:19, Joseph is already Mary’s “husband”. (continued)
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza it does not contradict. if you knew your Jews, you would know that betrothal is incomplete marriage and not full marriage. complete and incomplete is very different.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC They are already betrothed to each other even before the angel of the Lord visits Joseph, and in Matt. 1:24 after the angels visitation, Joseph keeps Mary as “his wife”.
6) Matt. 1:13-16 makes it clear that Joseph and Mary left before Herod got the chance to find the child, so they didn’t hide the child in an ox-mangeras the Proto. says.
7) even if Zacharias was the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35, the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35 was killed by the religious leaders, not Herod's officers
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC 8) the gospel of James does not even know Jewish customs. There being no Temple virgins in Judaism is one example, another example is the Law of jealousies, where only the woman Mary must drink, not the man Joseph, and yet both are drinking.
9) Proto says, the wise men came to BETHLEHEM and inquired of Herod where the child was born, yet Matt. 2:1 says the wise men came to JERUSALEM to inquire where the child king was.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Must I go on? This is sufficient enough to prove that the Proto. Of James is a false work. Do you honestly believe every single supposed gospel that comes your way. Seriously? You should do your own research first before you willy nilly believe anything that claims to be a gospel of this apostle or that apostle. There was a reason why it never made it in as canon, and I just showed you. My friend, stop with your nonsense because you are the one fooled, and I'm here to enlighten you.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC A complete generation in the biblical sense is 70 years (80 by reason of strength) Ps. 90:10, from birth to death a normal lifespan. And amazingly modern statistics show that 70-80 years is the normal life. Now I’d say that Joseph was 40 years old when Joseph got married to Mary. Even Moses was married when he was 40 years old. So Joseph was still in his prime. And since we no longer here of Joseph beginning in Jesus’ ministry. He probably died at the right bold age of 70 years.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza the ancient Essenes lived on average over 100 years old and that was in the 1st century ad
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 The “hill-country” of Judah is about 40 miles long and about 15 miles wide. In Jesus’ times, there were around two dozen cities in that small area. There were two major cities: Jerusalem & Hebron. If we take your example of Winnemucca, then the “city” where Elizabeth lived should have been called Jerusalem or Hebron, NOT Bethlehem. And again, Herod ordered the deaths of babies in Bethlehem only, NOT the entire region.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza where does the book say this cave was? why can't the cave be in Bethlehem?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 The Proto. Of James is a pseudepigraphical (false) work, not an apocryphal (esoteric, questionable authenticity) work. While some apocryphal works are accepted as scripture by some denominations, pseudepigraphical works are never accepted as scripture. And who are you to say some unkown or controversial work is scriptural? The burden of proof is on you. Provide evidence for the Proto. Of James, not your personal interpretation.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza i have a very specific criteria of what is and is not scripture, rather than tradition. and this book of James passes the test. you say its pseudepigraphal, and yet that is also not established, but is your own opinion. scholars when reading history usually assume the writer is being honest unless they have reason to think otherwise. do you have sufficient reason to think otherwise that James was not the author of this book?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 When I said they were betrothed, I said they were already called Husband and Wife before the angel of the Lord came to Joseph as I showed you in the verses (Matt. 1:18, 20, 24), even though they did not consummate their marriage through sexual intercourse. A betrothed couple in Judaism is already considered husband and wife. Even the angel of the Lord called Mary Joseph’s “wife”.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but was not a full husband. They were half married. in Scripture, betrothed individuals are married enough to receive death if there is sex with another man by the woman but nto married enough for them to have sex. Joseph was accused of having sex before being fully married.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 The Proto. Of James contradicts Matt. Because, after the angel’s visitation, Joseph is accused by the high priest of secretly taking Mary as a wife, and Joseph refused to accept Mary as his wife when going to Bethlehem.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Show me where it says that a servant of the Temple has to be a “virgin” or “cannot marry”? Scripture nowhere says such a thing. If Levites and priests, who perpetually served at the Temple, can marry and have children, then so can any other servant of the Temple.
And what does the Essenes living about 100 years have to do with Joseph’s age?
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza it doesn't say "cannot marry". it says "cannot have sex". now, if you are in the temple every day, what is the point of marrying if you cannot have sex? the primary reason of marrying is to raise a family, but most family's cannot be started without sex.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza i mentioned the Essenes living to 100 because you seemed to find Joseph's old age unlikely or something
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 And yes, whether a family has 1 son or more, the first son is called “firstborn”. Yet, if a family has only one son, that is because of the CIRCUMSTANCE of the family not having another son for whatever reason, NOT because of the meaning of the word “firstborn”. Jewish families were encouraged to have more than one child, that is, “multiply”. And my argument against the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary relies on more than just the meaning of the word “firstborn”.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza fair enough
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Here’s what the Proto of James says, Trans. Alexander Walker: Chap. 17, “And when they had come within three miles... they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead you, and cover your disgrace? For the place is desert” Chap. 18, “And he found a cave there, and led her into it”.....
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Chap. 21, “And, behold, Joseph was ready to go INTO Judæa. And there was a great commotion IN BETHLEHEM of Judæa, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to the Magi”.....
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza It says there was a great commotion in Bethlehem because of Herod, not because the Magi were in Bethlehem.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Not only was Joseph not in Bethlehem (he was in a deserted place), but the Magi’s were inquiring in the wrong city, because Luke says they came to Jerusalem and Herod called for them, yet the Proto. Of James says they came to Bethlehem and Herod called for them.
I also have criteria for what is scriptural and what is not. One of those criterion is that if there is contradiction between scripture and the work in question, then that work is not Scriptural.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza that is agood crtieria. i agree with you on that, but i think there is no contradiction, but you are misinterpretting the reading
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Again, in the Proto. of James, Joseph and Mary was not mentioned as a married couple, even after Joseph took Mary in his house, and when the angel visited Joseph, the angel did not refer to Mary as his "wife" like Matthew said, but instead called her “maiden” (an unmarried woman).
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza in Hebrew, the word for "wife" and an unmarried woman that you fornicate with or if you dont fornicate with is the same word: "iyshah".
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Again, betrothed couples are not like engaged couples as we know it today. Betrothed Israelite couples are considered as husband and wife and it is during this time that the laws of adultery apply. Betrothed couples live apart in their own houses until they legally come together in one house after they officially marry. During their betrothal time, the couple can have sexual intercourse if they desire, the Law of Moses does not stop them. As proof, look at Deut. 20:6-7....
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Engaged couples are not half married. they are zero married. betrothed couples are half married. it is not completed until the betrothal process has been completed, but yes betrothal is much more than engagement. it is actual marriage, just not a complete/full marriage.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza the Law of Moses is not the say all. But at any rate, according to Scripture, only until you complete the process of betrothal can you sleep with your wife. I have a question though for you: if they were husband and wife fully, then why does it say that they didn't have sex until the Messiah was born? It proves one of two things: they were not married fully, but just betrothed, or that sex is forbidden during pregnancy. i believe the latter, but which do you believe?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 or it proves perpetual virginity.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 My friend, I have read every translation of Proto. Of James, and all say the same thing, that the commotion in Bethlehem was caused by the Magi coming in and inquiring of the Child. Herod only responded to the commotion, he did not start it. You either misunderstand the passage or you just don’t want to admit that it contradicts scripture.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza the commotion in Bethlehem was caused by the Magi coming to Herod, not by the Magi coming to Bethlehem.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Yes, the word “isha” does mean either woman or wife, however, the context makes it clear whether it is woman or wife. Plus, all bible versions say that Mary was Joseph’s wife in Matt. 1:18-20,24, not a woman.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Also, I never argued whether Joseph’s marriage to Mary was full or incomplete. What I was arguing was that Joseph and Mary were called Husband and Wife even during their betrothal time, as scripture says so. And scripture does allow for them to have sex during this time.
And Jews do allow for couples to have sex during pregnancy, in fact, it is recommended they do so to keep the love alive.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza i detest the Orthodox Jews as they justify many sins, including sex during pregnancy and sex on sabbath.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Think of it this way, when scripture says not to commit adultery, then it has the “say all”, but when scripture is silent on a subject or permits it, then the “say so” belongs to the betrothed couple whether they want to have sex now or later after they get married, especially since they are already considered husband and wife once they are betrothed.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Scripture indicates the father has the rights of the daughter, and before the man can receive the woman fully, the betrothal process must be completed. in other words, betrothal makes it so that the husband owns half of the woman and the father owns the other half. So the man still cant have sex with her because she still belongs to her father even though she is his wife. the betrothal process wiht the father must be completed; he must be satisfied..
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 And judging from your question, are you admitting then that Mary did have sexual intercourse with Joseph after Jesus birth? And the answer to your question is that they were betrothed. There is no proof whatsoever that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
If the Levites and Priests do not daily serve in the Temple, than certainly other servants of the Temple do not serve daily either. Remember, that all Israelites had to work 6 days and rest on the Sabbath day.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza it is a sin to have sex on the Sabbath, so no one can have sex on the sabbath. My question basically forces you to accept one of the three possibilities: sex during pregnancy is wrong because Mary and Joseph only had sex afterwards, Mary was a perpetual virgin, or sex during betrothal is not permitted. which do you believe is the answer and why? or if you think there is a fourth answer, what is it and how could that be a sufficient answer other than these three?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Again my friend, if the Magi came to Herod, then he would not need to send his officers to get them. The Proto. Of James says they came to Bethlehem, and when Herod heard the commotion in Bethlehem he sent his officers to get them. If the Magi went to Herod, then they should have gone to Jerusalem, not Bethlehem.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Are you aware of something called a gospel harmony? here is the gospel harmony: "And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judæa, for behold, the wise men came from the East to Jerusalem saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him, and sent officers to the Magi. And he sent for the priests,"
There is no contradiction.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 And another contradiction is that Proto. Of James says the Magi visited Jesus at the cave, yet Matt 2:11 clearly says the Magi visited Jesus at a “house” when Joseph and Mary had finally found a place to live in. Jesus was already a toddler “παιδίον paidion” when the Magi visited, NOT a newborn baby “βρέφος brephos” (Luke 2:16).
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Are you implying that I said Joseph and Mary had sex during her pregnancy? I said no such thing. Also, the sex on Sabbath thing, the point of mentioning the 6 days of work and 1 day of rest is to show that servants of the Temple had the time to raise a family. Sex is a sacred thing in marriage and is an honorable act between two people that truly love each other. Sex is not a “work” in the sense of hardworking labor, but a beautiful act between two souls that are 1 flesh.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza No you dont understand. I'm saying WHY didnt Mary and Joseph have sex if they were able to since they according to you were able to have sex as a betrothed couple. so why didn't they? you have no good answer for this.
Sabbath is not about rest, it is about ceasing, there is a difference. ceasing from our pleasure says Isaiah, and seeking God's pleasure. Sex is NOT God's pleasure, but our pleasure. Seeking your own pleasure is not a "work" either, but isaiah says no.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 If only gospel harmony worked with Proto. Of James, but it doesn’t. Scripture shows there was no commotion in Bethlehem. That was only in Jerusalem. And as I have already shown, the many contradictions can in no way be harmonized like the four gospels can. The P. O. J. is simply not scripture. You seek the truth, right? So stop fighting it.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza You simply dont understand that language permits what i am saying.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 I was never arguing for Joseph and Mary to be able to have sex during their betrothal. I was only arguing that a betrothed couple could have sex. The reason why Joseph and Mary didn’t have sex during this time is, Scripture makes it clear that Joseph and Mary didn’t have sex for the simple reason that she was pregnant with Jesus. Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so Joseph could not have sex with her until she gave birth to Jesus.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza That is not a legitimate reason Joseph and Mary did not have sex. If they could have had sex then they would have. According to Paul, husband and wife should only abstain from acceptable sex for prayer and fasting, and only a short time. Nine months is not a short time. Yes Scripture makes it clear that did not have sex while she was pregnant, but this fact proves either that sex is forbidden during betrothal, sex is forbidden during pregnancy, or she was ever virgin.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
Is. 58:12-14 explicitly says their own selfish pleasures. Sex between a married couple is a mutually giving act of pleasure towards each other. It is about building their relationship through intimacy. It is one of the things God Himself instituted as sacred. Thus, sex in marriage is not a selfish pleasure, or self-gratifying pleasure. It is a mutually giving pleasure. One that God delights in because He sees the true love and giving in a marriage.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza "your pleasure"="human focused pleasure". having sex with your wife is mutually pleasing your selves. we are commanded to please God not ourselves on Sabbath. furthermore, according to Torah, because of holiness, they were commanded to abstain from sex for three days. sabbath=holiness.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
You are being legalistic in saying that one can’t have sex during pregnancy nor during the Sabbath. And you say this while claiming the Bible says so. I thought you said scripture does not have the “say all”? Nowhere in the Bible does it give a direct answer to these issues, yet even scripture equates the intimacy between a husband and a wife with the intimacy God has with His people. Just look at these verses. (Eph. 5:21,31-32; 1 Cor. 7:3-4; Rom. 12:10; Heb. 13:4;etc.)
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Actually scripture does address these things specifically. but when you limit yourself to the traditional bible, then u will find your most wonderful desires are usually not condemned, including rape and molestation of children, which are never once condemned in the Bible. fact is, we dont need the bible to know what is moral; i'm so tired of people using the bible as a crutch for this sins.
Philosophically, what i believe is true. Scripture is another matter, but it also agrees.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 You really don’t know the relationship experienced in marriage. Sex in marriage is only forbidden during the woman’s menstrual period, and yes the couple must set aside sex for prayer and fasting. Yet, there is nothing you have brought up that explicitly covers the issue of sex during pregnancy and betrothal. Sex in marriage is not sinful if it is done out of true intimate love for each other.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Dude, you’re sick. Rape and molestation of kids are not “wonderful desires”. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about these things. The issue is on sex in marriage. Rape (Deut 22:25-27) and molestation of children is condemned because it is fornication. Philosophically what you believe is wrong, which just shows that you don’t follow the Messiah Jesus. You don’t follow the Lord of the Sabbath, but your own beliefs.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Deuteronomy condemns rape of married woman not rape.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 If sex in marriage is not necessarily holy, then it can be holy, since Paul himself said the bed is undefiled. Sex is both an act of procreation (one of the most wonderful things on earth: conceiving and birthing a baby, a new life) and an act of strengthening the relationship of love in marriage. If we are to love our wives, just as Christ loves His Church, then sex is important to keep that love alive in marriage, and thus, is a sacred act.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza wrong; nowhere does Scripture say sex is to be done solely for strengthening and love. yes sex is to be in love and bondship, but that is your insertion intot he Scripture the idea that sex should be done for the sake of love. rather, loving sex should be done for the sake of procreation. why do you think Onan was killed by God for having non procreative sex?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza sex is not necessary for love. rather loving procreation is necessary for a loving family, and depriving your spouse of loving procreation is contrary to your marriage. but depriving your spouse of nonprocreative sex is a good thing and a moral obligation. this is why we can't have sex when we are like the angels as Messiah said, because sex is for procreation, and procreation is for mortals only. why does death end marriage and why can't we have sex in heaven?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 As I said, there are many forms of rape, including marital rape, and this of course is wrong. Love never forces itself on another. Love in marriage is of satisfying each other, not one’s own self against another.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza love also indicates that sex for nonprocreative reasons is a sin
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 What if the woman was barren? Can the married couple have sex or not, since they cannot procreate? I believe they can.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Genesis 11:30 "30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. "
Genesis 18:12 "12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?”
Sarah laughed at the idea of having sex in her old age, indicating she did not believe it was permissible to do so (otherwise she would have done it in her old age)
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza "10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”"
Reapplied =)
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Tamar was sister of Absalom, son of Maacah who was one of David’s many wives (1 Chron. 3:9). Tamar was also called one of the “king’s daughters” (2 Sam. 13:18). David never considered giving Tamar to marry Amnon. It was forbidden to do so, for an incestuous relationship was punishable on pain of death.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Yes, Tamar was the daughter of the wife of David, and therefore legally his daughter. But Torah is very careful to specifically state that having sex with a sibling with the same father is wrong and having sex with a sibling of the same mother is wrong. it wouldnt state it this way if all siblings were forbidden. it would simply have said do not marry your brother or sister. but instead it says do not marry your sibling of your blood relation.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Yes, I do believe that sometimes it is perfectly fine for a married couple to have sex for intimacy sake. In fact it is a necessity, whether it be pro-creative or not. We can disagree on this because I won’t change my mind and neither will you. So it’s futile to keep arguing about this.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 The reason why sex will no longer be necessary is because sex was primarily for procreating. When one is in Heaven there is no need to keep giving birth to new life. That is the role for mankind on Earth, but the day will come when the whole earth will enter into eternity and there will no longer be a need to give birth to new life, since all the brothers and sisters have already been born. The intimacy one had in sex will pale in comparison to the intimacy with Christ Himself.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Your point does not logically follow because the CIRCUMSTANCE of Joseph and Mary made it so they cannot have sex until Mary gives birth to Jesus. Mary was chosen for the unique task of nourishing the baby Jesus during her pregnancy as a virgin in order to fulfill prophecy. Plus, if a couple has consented to not have sex for a certain period, it is not a sin. Again, you have not proven any part of your point.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza nine months is way too long if you take Paul as you are saying. i did think of another one though that i forgot to mention: sex with anyone younger than twenty years old is forbidden, so Mary if she was younger than 20, could not have had sex during that time. so that is a number four option. but so far i know that all four options you disagree with, and yet one of them must be true in my perspective. at any rate, yes it seems neither of us are willing to budge.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Of course, nine months is way too long, but it certainly is not impossible. As long as they do procreate.
And I am in total agreement in the case of Sarah, that pleasure is connected to procreative sex.
As for Tamar. Here is what we know, We know Tamar's brother and mother, Absalom and Maacah. We know Amnon's and Absalom's father, David. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that Tamar's father is David, since she is called the king's daughter. There is no other father mentioned.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza Why does there need to be another father mentioned? Tamar was not an unrighteous woman; she knew the law. Yet she was 100% convinced that David would allow them to be together, but to do so without marriage would be sinful.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 I never said there needed to be another father. I said there is no other father. David is Tamar’s and Amnon’s only father. Lev. 18:9; 20:17; and Deut. 27:22 make it clear that a man cannot have sexual relations with his sister on his father’s side because if he does, then he is cursed and put to death. I believe Tamar knew this, and didn’t want her half-brother to die, so she tried to compromise God’s word and say the King will allow them to get married.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Clearly, in the past God had allowed it (example, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings of the same father, but different mothers), but when He gave the Law to Moses He forbade it. I believe it was because of the deterioration of Man’s DNA (other than it being an issue of respect within the family). Man lived longer in the past (900, 400, 200), but not anymore. Certainly, if close relatives get married and have children, those kids are deformed or have some kind of mental illness.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 If God will not allow any sexual union between brothers and sisters, then King David certainly cannot allow Tamar and Amnon to get married, even if he can, because to allow such a marriage is to go against the will of God. Tamar was like Lot when he told the angry crowd to take his daughters and leave the two strangers (angels) alone. She tried to compromise by saying the King will allow it, but you cannot compromise God’s word, for God does not allow it.
romybarboza 4 months ago
Gen 18:12 in no way means that Sarah thought it was not permissible to have non-procreative sex. Read the following verse. “And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety BEAR A CHILD, which am old?” (v.13). Thus, the “pleasure” she mentioned was connected to her disbelief of having a child with Abraham in her old age. The pleasure of sex is always connected to the procreative act of conceiving a child.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza the pleasure was having procreative sex. It is pleasing to adopt a child in your old age and pleasing to have a child in your old age. but she laughed at having pleasure of sex in her old age. also in the biblical understanding, have sexual pleasure was the equivalent of procreation. Shall i again have sex/beget/procreate?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 God gave Onan the chance to do the right thing. That is why He did not strike Onan at his marriage with her.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 And Amnon’s rape of Tamar certainly is incestuous rape because their father is David, and thus, they are half-brother and half-sister. Yet, I never said anything about them marrying. Amnon’s punishment should have been death, but David loved Amnon too much and didn’t punish him according to the Law.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza no their fatherwas not David. his father was. her father was another man. This is why Tamar says this:"And I, where could I take my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you." Tamar says David would give her to Amnon in marriage.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 I never said sex was solely for the strengthening of love. I said it was for the sake of both procreation and love. The act of mutual pleasure and procreation cannot be separated. And even if the couple could not procreate (barren woman), that does not mean they can’t have sex for the sake of strengthening love. They most certainly can. And Onan died not because of non-procreative sex, but because he did not want to fulfill the law of raising up children for his brother.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza sex should never be done solely for strengthening of love. you believe that sometime is it okay to have sex only for intimacy.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza if he was killed solely for not wanting to fulfill that law, then why wasn't he killed when he agreed to marry her? he obviously wasn't planning on procreation when he married her, so if that was the reason he should have struck him down then and there. but he waited until he had nonprocreative sex, then He struck him down
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Are you serious? Having sex in Heaven? In Heaven we will no longer have husband/wife relationships, but instead have brother/sister relationships. This is why when we are in Heaven we will be like the angels, not marrying nor being given in marriage.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza why though you didn't answer why it will be like that.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
Depriving one’s husband or wife of any sex, whether procreative or non-procreative, is a moral wrong. It is the duty of both the husband and wife to satisfy each other for happiness sake (1 Cor. 7:2-5), But enough of this. What does this have to do with the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Stick to the topic of the video my friend.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza no it is a moral duty to satisfy your spouse with procreative sex, and none other.
the whole point is that Mary did not have sex with joseph whle she was prgenant, so if you believe its permitted to have sex during pregnancy, than either sex during betrothal is not allowed, Mary was a perpetual virgin, or Mary and Joseph sinned by wrongfully withholding sex from each other for nine long months.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Also, rape is fornication as well, even fornicating rape is condemned because the man has to pay the woman’s father and must marry her and cannot divorce her. If he refuses or kidnaps her, then he is put to death. Incestuos rape was condemned by penalty of death (Lev. 18:9;20:17), which is what Amnon had committed against Tamar, but David did not punish him according to the Law. So, rape of many forms is dealt with in the Word of God.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza you can rape your wife and thats not fornication. is it okay to rape my wife? scripture doesnt say.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@romybarboza Amnon and Tamar was not incest. the Scriptures do not say its a sin for unrelated siblings to marry. only related siblings are forbidden from marrying.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Sabbath was made for the good of man, not man for the Sabbath. It pleases God that a husband and a wife have a happy relationship. If they have a loving relationship, then they certainly have a far better relationship with God. God says marriage is sacred, and if it is sacred, then it is holy.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza marriage is sacred and holy, but sex is not necessarily so.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 My friend, you’re mixing up two things. Sex in marriage is something that’s commanded by God, “multiply”, in THIS age, but when the age of Eternity comes, when Satan and death are defeated and we come to live with God Himself, sex will no longer be necessary. Also, those who die in Christ will be like angels, not marrying nor being given in marriage. Thus in the next life, for those who die in Christ, sex will be gone for good because we will now be brothers and sisters in Heaven.
romybarboza 4 months ago
Your selfish in thinking you know scripture and you use false works to justify your beliefs, when I have proven over and over again that the P.O.J. is a false work. What do you follow, the letter of the Law, or the spirit of the Law? Do you obey the Sabbath or the Lord of the Sabbath? Are you seeking your own truth or the Truth which is Jesus Christ?
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza You don't understand the letter of the law and the spirit. if you knew what the letter and spirit were, you wouldn't accuse me of being "legalistic" as a bad thing The Lord of the Sabbath cannot be obeyed if you do not also obey the Sabbath. My own truth is the truth of Messiah, and He teaches only the truth.
Its not selfish to believe i am right. its selfish to use my beliefs to gratify sinful desires, and i'm not doing that.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Again, you’re mixing up the circumstance of Joseph and Mary and applying it to everyone. You have not proven whether in marriage sex is forbidden during pregnancy or during betrothal. This is only your opinion. You are like the Pharisees who make up their own traditions and make the observance of the Law so strict that no one can keep it. The fact is we need God in order to be moral. Being moral by ourselves will not last because it always ends up bad.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza If you knew the Scriptures, you would know that humans do not have sex when they are like angels. my question to you is in what way is being like angels makes it so that you cant have sex? what about being like an angel disqualifies you from having sex righteously?
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 As I have already shown you in scripture, sex during betrothal is permitted, though not encouraged. The betrothed couple is already considered husband and wife, so there is nothing wrong in having sex during this time. I am not however saying that Joseph and Mary had sex during this time, Scripture is very clear they had sexual intercourse after Mary gave birth to Jesus. What I detest are people who are being too legalistic and twisting God’s word to their own selfish purposes.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza you have no understanding of what legalism, and you are the one who twists Scripture. And how is it twisting it for selfish purposes? how is anything about what i believe "selfish"? if anything, its just wrong, i dont see how my actions are selfish.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 DEUT. 20:6 And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it.
7 And what man is there that hath BETROTHED a WIFE, and HATH NOT TAKEN HER? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Also, if Priests and Levites, who daily serve in the Temple and make sacrifices for the people continuously, can still have time to have children, then there certainly is time for any servant to have sex and raise children. If the High Priest himself can do it, than anyone can.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza the Priests and Levites do not daily serve in the temple. They take turns according to the Scriptures. they go through the cycles of Levites, each assigned to their various week.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@carlsonap16 Finally, I was being very generous to Joseph in saying he was 40 years old when he married Mary. Conservatively I would have said 30 years old. In our time, 40 years is considered old, but anyways. One is considered old when they start showing grey hair, and that usually happens around 40 years. Hopefully, that clears things up.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC I didn’t say that Joseph having children from a former marriage contradicted the gospels. I said that that was a reason for not accepting the Gospel of James. Joseph never had a former marriage or any children with another woman other than Mary
And just because the word firstborn is used in the Law of Moses does not negate the words meaning of being first. If the child is first, he certainly will not be an only child. Israelites were encouraged to have many children, not just one.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romy So you're saying the gospel was rejected because it says Joseph was a widower and had children from a previous marriage?
So what is your source for stating this? What age or approximate age does the bible say Joseph was? What does the bible have to say about the mother and father of Mary? Do you honestly believe God's word would included lots of info about the mothers of many lesser biblical characters but leave a blank when it comes to Christ's parents and family?
Con't
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romy Pt 2 The fact that Joseph was an aged widower and had children from a previous marriage does not contradict the bible and is not a legitimate reason to reject James's gospel. It only contradicts your false conclusions that are a result of trying to fill in blanks that are there because you do not have all of God's word. Nowhere does the bible state the brothers of Jesus were younger brothers.
Now please do more research regarding the first born. For you are fooling yourself.
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romybarboza Actually, the Torah taaches that a man or woman can be devoted to the priesthood, and essentiallyt hey become their slave or a temple worker. According to Scripture, people can't be in the temple area if they had sex that day. Now, if you are devoted perpetually as a servant of the temple, then you can never have sex, and thus you are a virgin. Mary was dedicated to her service in the temple. As long as she was in the temple area, she could not be unclean by sex.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC One of the reasons why the protoevangelium of James was not accepted was because it claimed that Joseph had kids from a former marriage, and yet it is used to justify Mary's perpetual virginity.
And please tell me where or in what dictionary does "firstborn" mean that there is no other children as you stated. I absolutely know what one had to do with firstborns according to the Law of Moses, but what does that have to do with saying that "firstborn" means there is no other son.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@romybarboza I'm very surprised that you are making videos yet either can't, or simply chose not to understand the term first born. The term first born is used when ever the first son is born. It is used whether or not there are any children to come after. The reason is because there were requirements to be made of the first born and the understanding is that the first born belongs to God and must be bought back at a price. It is not, as you say, only writen to signify other children.
Con't
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romy Pt 2 Regarding the virgins. James never says the virgins at the temple were to remain virgins as you interpret temple virgins to mean. They simply went there until they were married, as in the case of Mary. She was never set apart by the priests to remain a virgin.
The gospel of James does not contradict the other gospels simply because, as you say, it speaks of Joseph being previously married and having children by that marriage.
Con't
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romy Pt 3 How can James said to contradict something when the other gospels never speak of the age of Joseph or the age of the other children? The truth is that you are simply making assumptions. How can James be said to contradict the other Gospels when the other gospels are not written by eye witness accounts but rather secondary accounts of the birth while James is in fact an eye witness? And you still haven't addressed the point I mentioned about Jesus saying Peter was to look after Mary.
TrustinJC 4 months ago
@romybarboza firstborn means the first child that is born. If you ahve only one child, which is your first child? the only one that is born.
carlsonap16 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Two, Matt. 1:13-16 makes it clear that Joseph and Mary left before Herod got the chance to find the child, so they didn’t hide the child in a trough.
Three, Jesus was never born in a cave, Luke 2:7 is very clear that he was born in a manger.
Four, the gospel of James does not even know Jewish customs. There being no Temple virgins in Judaism is one example, another example is the Law of jealousies, where only the woman Mary must drink, not the man Joseph, and yet both are drinking.
romybarboza 4 months ago
@TrustinJC Fifth, even if Zacharias was the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35, the Zacharias of Matt. 23:35 was killed by the religious leaders, not Herod’s officers. I could go on, but the point is that this gospel of James is a false work falsely attributed to James.It is you who have left yourself open to be deceived by works that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus, are not part of God's writen word. The Gospel of James is only meant to glorify Mary, not Jesus.
romybarboza 4 months ago