Mary was not a virgin after Jesus borth. "he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."

[Mattb]

Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
him the name Jesus.

Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
marriage to Joseph.

[Robert]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:27:20 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
--
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Heb 11:6 KJV)

[St.John Smythe]

Any religion that claims virgin birth of its messiah is a fantasyland.
The conception and birth of a baby is the creator’s masterpiece.
Denying it is extremely stupid, and discredits said masterpiece.

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:27:20 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>

Seems rather clear that there is exactly nothing of an admission about having
children afterwards. Celibacy is elective in many men and women of God.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

NOT HER sons and daughters named. They were clearly the brothers and sisters of
Jesus but no mention as to whom mom is.
the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

[Robert]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:38:41 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)

Which means the very same thing.
gino¯sko¯
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

[servant]

Matt had some thoughts:

>
>
>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>

How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.

>18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>quietly.
>
>20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
>
>22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and

>they will call him Immanuel (which means God with us).

>
>24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>him the name Jesus.

The ""until" of Matthew 1:25: above in the ancient greek meant up to the
current time, ie. they did not consummate the marrage before the birth and
remains silent to events after the birth.

>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>marriage to Joseph.

Not by any info you have presented.

[Mattb]

>ginoŻskoŻ

>3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

Wonder if there are any descendants of Joseph and Mary alive today.

[Mattb]

On 19 Feb 2020 18:14:30 GMT, servant wrote:

>Matt had some thoughts:
>>
>>
>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>
>How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
>of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
>biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
>regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.

How does it not.

>
>>18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>>Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>>together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>>Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>>want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>>quietly.
>>
>>20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>>him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>>take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>>the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>>him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
>>
>>22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>>prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
>>they will call him Immanuel (which means God with us).
>>
>>24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>>commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>>consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>>him the name Jesus.
>
>The ""until" of Matthew 1:25: above in the ancient greek meant up to the
>current time, ie. they did not consummate the marrage before the birth and
>remains silent to events after the birth.

Yes and there is no doubt of that but after Mary did not remain a
virgin. Passage seem rather straightforward about that with the
words "he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a
son".
>

>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>marriage to Joseph.
>
>Not by any info you have presented.

Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?

[St.John Smythe]

>> Celibacy is elective in many men and women of God.
>> the dukester, American-American

Any religion that states, claims, requires, suggests, implies, that celibacy is holy, or holier,
is a fantasyland. The opposite is closer to the truth.

Male and female are OPPOSITE, YANG AND YIN.
Either one is out of balance with nature, with God’s LAW.
Together they become balanced.
you will always be seeking this balance, until you find it.

[servant]

Robort chimes in on the "begin" question:

>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>
>Which means the very same thing.

>gino=AFsko=AF

>3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

Indeed, but the hebrew is not relevant, the greek word there for "until"
is.

From a web source on the topic of the "greek" use of "until" in scripture:

"Some would cite the use of the "until" in Scripture ("...and he knew her
not until (Greek eos) her having brought forth her firstborn son..."
(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)) to indicate that after she gave birth to the
God-man, that St. Joseph then "knew" her maritally. Again, this is a
translation problem.

From this webpage:

This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until
after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original,
eos, indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations
with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this
statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the
conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding
that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely
indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had
relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the
father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a
standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and
meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it
clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim
it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the
daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she,
then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did
Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we
read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not
return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of
the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never
returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until
after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that
"Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew"
her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my
Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit
at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies
have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that
"Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first
born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up
until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and
clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her
before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception
of Jesus."

[servant]

>>Matt had some thoughts:
>>>
>>>
>>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>
>>How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
>>of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
>>biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
>>regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.
>
> How does it not.

Read it again carefully. He was not the bilogical father of Christ because
he did not concieve him. That is the only way in fewish kinship He could
be a son. Marriage did not make sons of those not in the father's kinship
line, only adoption after the fact could.

Correction, the greek "until" does not say that. It speaks to the time
before the birth with no indication for events after the birth. The
english translation is misleading on the greek meaning.

>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>
>>Not by any info you have presented.
>
> Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?

That was the belief up to and including the protestant movement founders.
Only in more recent times did it change.

[Mattb]

On 19 Feb 2020 18:51:31 GMT, servant wrote:

>
>>>Matt had some thoughts:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>>
>>>How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
>>>of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
>>>biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
>>>regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.
>>
>> How does it not.
>
>Read it again carefully. He was not the bilogical father of Christ because
>he did not concieve him. That is the only way in fewish kinship He could
>be a son. Marriage did not make sons of those not in the father's kinship
>line, only adoption after the fact could.

Yes I see what you are trying to say but Jesus was raised by Joseph
as his son. May not have been of blood but did Jesus know that as a
child of say 10?

You are saying Jesus was his step-son I agree with that.

Is it?

Where does the Bible say Mary remained a virgin her whole life?

>
>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>
>>>Not by any info you have presented.
>>
>> Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?
>
>That was the belief up to and including the protestant movement founders.

Was it? You do know the RCC was not the only early Church.

[Robert]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:07:57 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>

>>gino¯sko¯

>>3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
>
>Wonder if there are any descendants of Joseph and Mary alive today.
>

I would bet there are baring some natural calamity that wiped out
every person in their area.

[Robert]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:14:04 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Servant, is not one that believes the bible unless it is convenient
for her.

Two things are against Mary being a virgin, her "cherry" would have
been broken during the birthing process is one, the other being that
Joseph "knew" here after Jesus was born and the days of her
uncleanliness were over, even if she had no other children.

The same scripture that said that Joseph knew his wife also names the
children of Mary.

[tesla sTinker]

On 2/18/2020 9:10 PM, Robert scribbled:

u need to ACCEPT the chronology of the DRV ONLY catholic bible. Because
that is how the other Bibles came about, and they were changed from the
original. Whether you like it or not this is fact. And never do they
print inside your false copy's the chronolgy. If you do not use the
Chronology you have no idea which time frame your in of the true History
of itself. OF whom it is speaking about yes. Many had same names. Many
MARYS, THERE WERE in fact THREE OF THEM AT THE CRUCIFIXION.
Well, do not be ignorant, go learn who they are, because that is what
you want.

Use this link ITS THE ONLY ONLINE one I KNOW OF, it is in jpg images of
what it says THE true Chronology. These were put together by many old
theologians working together a long time ago on many archeology
findings. And artifacts etc etc. That were used with the dates to
explain the scrolls.

http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/dogma/catholicbooks/HolyBible/titlepg.htm

http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/ChronHistory.htm

Under AM old testament, is the Hebrew year we do believe. on the left....

Under AD in new testament is the new calendar, Im not sure if its
Julian or Gregorian and it stops at the year 96. on the left.

You can use the converter if you need it. Its been on the net
along time, and it converts the calendars with each other.
But you must have Java Script to use it. In your browser.
It will tell you on the page whether it works or not.

I do not see a mention in the Chronology of Holy Maria getting pregnant
again, so no, we do not believe it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

[tesla sTinker]

On 2/19/2020 11:14 AM, Mattb scribbled:

You have to understand there are other Marys in the text involved.
Magdalen as well. You HAVE TO USE cHRONOLGY, TO FOLLOW DATES.
i SAID THIS TO Robert, the links to figure time are above in the post
i answered to him. Use em. So you can get those jpg images of dates and
times with names. Save them once you get em. Then use the converter if
you need it. But since its not mentioned in that Chronology, Its not
true what you are saying. Yes,
is the answer until she was raised up into heaven. They never found her
body. At least not to my knowledge in reading the Bible.

[tesla sTinker]

On 2/19/2020 11:14 AM, Mattb scribbled:

look at this? God spoke to Moses telling him to say this;

Numbers Chapter 5

The man whose wife shall have gone astray, and contemning her husband,
13 Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover
it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses,
because she was not found in the adultery: 14 If the spirit of jealousy
stir up the husband against his wife, who either is defiled, or is
charged with false suspicion, 15 He shall bring her to the priest, and
shall offer an oblation for her, the tenth part of a measure of barley
meal: he shall not pour oil thereon, nor put frankincense upon it:
because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, and an oblation searching out
adultery. 16 The priest therefore shall offer it, and set it before the
Lord. 17 And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall
cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it. 18 And
when the woman shall stand before the Lord, he shall uncover her head,
and shall put on her hands the sacrifice of remembrance, and the
oblation of jealousy: and he himself shall hold the most bitter waters,
whereon he hath heaped curses with execration. 19 And he shall adjure
her, and shall say: If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou
be not defiled by forsaking thy husband's bed, these most bitter waters,
on which I have heaped curses, shall not hurt thee. 20 But if thou hast
gone aside from thy husband, and art defiled, and hast lain with another
man: 21 These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse,
and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot,
and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. 22 Let the cursed waters
enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the
woman shall answer, Amen, amen. 23 And the priest shall write these
curses in a book, and shall wash them out with the most bitter waters,
upon which he hath heaped the curses, 24 And he shall give them her to
drink. And when she hath drunk them up, 25 The priest shall take from
her hand the sacrifice of jealousy, and shall elevate it before the
Lord, and shall put it upon the altar: yet so as first, 26 To take a
handful of the sacrifice of that which is offered, and burn it upon the
altar: and so give the most bitter waters to the woman to drink. 27 And
when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her
husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and
her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse,
and an example to all the people. 28 But if she be not defiled, she
shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. 29 This is the law of
jealousy. If a woman hath gone aside from her husband, and be defiled,
30 And the husband stirred up by the spirit of jealousy bring her before
the Lord, and the priest do to her according to all things that are here
written: 31 The husband shall be blameless, and she shall bear her
iniquity .

Now, does anyone really think that after Holy Blessed Maria had read
this, (and she might of) and she is carrying the son of God, that she
would really have more children? You would seem to have forgot who it
is she is pleasing to, Almighty God the Father, and to be to the one God
she wanted of.

Another words no, it makes no sense to think what you wrote above
subject title....You guys, just don't read the Bible. Even I did not
know this was written of until today. The real Bible is important, or,
you cannot understand what God wants of and is Jealous of, you bet He is
Jealous. But to prove, use Chronology for your own proof, tracking names
and dates. And try to remember, there are many in the Bible with the
same names.

[Robert]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:48:43 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 19 Feb 2020 18:51:31 GMT, servant wrote:
>
>>
>>>>Matt had some thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>>>
>>>>How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
>>>>of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
>>>>biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
>>>>regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.

Nonetheless Jesus was raised as his own and as witnessed by all the
people at Nazareth.

>>>
>>> How does it not.
>>
>>Read it again carefully. He was not the bilogical father of Christ because
>>he did not concieve him. That is the only way in fewish kinship He could
>>be a son. Marriage did not make sons of those not in the father's kinship
>>line, only adoption after the fact could.
>
> Yes I see what you are trying to say but Jesus was raised by Joseph
>as his son. May not have been of blood but did Jesus know that as a
>child of say 10?
>
> You are saying Jesus was his step-son I agree with that.
>

And Jesus knew who was his literal Father before that.

Here are three well known Greek to English literal translations, along
with the lexicon of the word Heos.

and did not know her till she brought forth her son—the first-born,
and he called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 YLT)

and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he
called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 LITV)

But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her
firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 AMPC)

Until
heo¯s
Thayer Definition:
1) till, until

Matt, here is a kicker for you as this will undoubtedly come up. And
this is why we also need to read the whole Bible to better understand
the New Covenant.

It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his
mother would have other children, **Psa_69:8; **Psa_69:9, If his
"brethren" were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin,
kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar_6:4, Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44;
Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Luk_18:26, Act_10:24, Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7;
Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21), and cousin (Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58) was available
to indicate this, but was not used. Note that "brethren" is
distinguished from "kinsmen" at Luk_14:12 and Luk_21:16. +*Mar_6:3,
+*Mat_13:55, Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10, Act_1:14, 1Co_9:5,
2Co_5:16, Gal_1:19.

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>marriage to Joseph.
>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.

And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?

[Patrick B]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)

How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?

>Which means the very same thing.

>ginoŻskoŻ

>3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

Jo mama.
Meaning you are lying.

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:38:41 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

What's the big deal? The ultimate statement is that Jesus is not the son of a
man but of God..

Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
revealed.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:14:04 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nope.

>>Not by any info you have presented.
> Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?

The RCatholic position, but the key is before the birth of Jesus, not after.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:48:43 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Chruch of the Way was, but eventually named the Catholic Church.

>>Only in more recent times did it change.

Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

>heoŻs

>Thayer Definition:
>1) till, until
>
>Matt, here is a kicker for you as this will undoubtedly come up. And
>this is why we also need to read the whole Bible to better understand
>the New Covenant.
>
> It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his
>mother would have other children, **Psa_69:8; **Psa_69:9, If his
>"brethren" were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin,
>kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar_6:4, Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44;
>Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Luk_18:26, Act_10:24, Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7;
>Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21), and cousin (Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58) was available
>to indicate this, but was not used. Note that "brethren" is
>distinguished from "kinsmen" at Luk_14:12 and Luk_21:16. +*Mar_6:3,
>+*Mat_13:55, Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10, Act_1:14, 1Co_9:5,
>2Co_5:16, Gal_1:19.

Of course he had brothers but they were the children of Joseph by a prior
marriage.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

Nope, children of Joseph.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

That's right. Never found her body as it was lifted body and soul into heaven.
the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

Yes and no one said differently. Why do you want it to seen
otherwise. Did you read the entire passage?

>
>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>revealed.

Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".


>the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

Really? History doesn't support your claim. Through murder you
did destroy most the others.

>
>>>Only in more recent times did it change.
>
>Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.

Yes and they had good reason to change as the RCC no longer
followed Jesus.


>the dukester, American-American

[Rod B]

On 2/18/2020 11:10 PM, Robert wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:27:20 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>

>> Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>

>> 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>> Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>> together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>> Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>> want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>> quietly.
>>
>> 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>> him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>> take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>> the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>> him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
>>
>> 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>> prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and

>> they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

>>
>> 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>> commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>> consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>> him the name Jesus.
>>

>> Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>> marriage to Joseph.
>>
>>

> Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
> well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>

Nope!

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

It keeps my faith focused on Jesus Christ which ensures blessings in
this life as well as entry into heaven.

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>
>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>

Every person that has been Born Again.

>
>>Which means the very same thing.

>>gino¯sko¯

>>3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
>
>Jo mama.
>Meaning you are lying.

Why did you snip out the context of the post?

[Robert]

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her until she
had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
(Mat 1:24-25 NKJV)

[Robert]

>>heo¯s

>>Thayer Definition:
>>1) till, until
>>
>>Matt, here is a kicker for you as this will undoubtedly come up. And
>>this is why we also need to read the whole Bible to better understand
>>the New Covenant.
>>
>> It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his
>>mother would have other children, **Psa_69:8; **Psa_69:9, If his
>>"brethren" were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin,
>>kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar_6:4, Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44;
>>Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Luk_18:26, Act_10:24, Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7;
>>Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21), and cousin (Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58) was available
>>to indicate this, but was not used. Note that "brethren" is
>>distinguished from "kinsmen" at Luk_14:12 and Luk_21:16. +*Mar_6:3,
>>+*Mat_13:55, Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10, Act_1:14, 1Co_9:5,
>>2Co_5:16, Gal_1:19.
>
>Of course he had brothers but they were the children of Joseph by a prior
>marriage.
>the dukester, American-American

I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

[Robert]

(Speaking of Jesus)

I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

[Robert]

Even the OT declares you wrong.

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>
>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>
>
>Every person that has been Born Again.

according to dwain and robt.

How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?

When will you apologize for insulting me?

[Patrick B]

Excellent.
Youi can read and copy the Gospels.

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>(Speaking of Jesus)
>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

That had nothing to do with Jesus.
I have already explained this to you.
Do you need another lesson?

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

This was a revealing clue about David.
Read my earlier post.

Do you need another lesson?

When will you apologize to me for the insults?

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:24:09 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>
>>And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?
>
>It keeps my faith focused on Jesus Christ which ensures blessings in
>this life as well as entry into heaven.

If you are focused on Jesus, why did you insult me?
If you followed Jesus you would seek forgiveness.
When will you apologize to me?

Get it over with, robt.
And admit that you have sinned.

[Patrick B]

Prove it.
The OT does not prove anyone to be wrong.
That was a false statement.
which means it was a LIE>
False Testament.
A sin.
When will you admit you are a sinner?

When will you apologize to me for your insults?

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:32:30 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:24:09 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>>>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>>
>>>And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?
>>
>>It keeps my faith focused on Jesus Christ which ensures blessings in
>>this life as well as entry into heaven.
>
>If you are focused on Jesus, why did you insult me?
>If you followed Jesus you would seek forgiveness.
>When will you apologize to me?
>
>Get it over with, robt.
>And admit that you have sinned.

Because you feel insulted that means I have sinned? Where is that to
be found?

Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:34:00 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 

Psalms is not false. Neither is any OT book.

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>>
>>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>>
>>
>>Every person that has been Born Again.
>
>according to dwain and robt.

How many times are you going to lie about a "dwain"?

Plus using lower case letters on a name is showing contempt and
disrespect. Do I take offence? Nah, Jesus said I should expect this
from the likes of you.

>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>

The whole Body of Christ.

>When will you apologize for insulting me?

Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:28:40 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

Plus mine eyes do see the truth. :)

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:31:01 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>
>This was a revealing clue about David.

You do not know David.

>Read my earlier post.
It was full of stuff you do not understand.
Reading that pasted by you is like reading something that Einstein
wrote but was posted by a second grader for their science project.

>Do you need another lesson?
>
>When will you apologize to me for the insults?

Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 

[Robert]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:29:49 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>(Speaking of Jesus)
>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>
>That had nothing to do with Jesus.

This had everything to do with Jesus. When was David ever offered a
cup like Jesus was when he was thirsty?

>I have already explained this to you.

You? You explained nothing. Even DRB recognizes this chapter was about
Jesus.

>Do you need another lesson?
>
>When will you apologize for insulting me?

Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>>>
>>>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Every person that has been Born Again.
>>
>>according to dwain and robt.
>
>How many times are you going to lie about a "dwain"?
>Plus using lower case letters on a name is showing contempt and
>disrespect.

You are sooooo perceptive today.

>o I take offence? Nah, Jesus said I should expect this
>from the likes of you.

No, He didn't.

>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>
>The whole Body of Christ.

How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?

[Patrick B]

Nope.
But you can still copy the Gospels.

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:39:05 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:29:49 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>(Speaking of Jesus)
>>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>>
>>That had nothing to do with Jesus.
>This had everything to do with Jesus. When was David ever offered a
>cup like Jesus was when he was thirsty?

Show me the "cup" part again....
Haven't you ever been offered a drink when you were thirsty?
Will you be comparing yourself to Jesus next?

>>I have already explained this to you.
>
>You? You explained nothing. Even DRB recognizes this chapter was about
>Jesus.

The DRB?
Do you mean that hack who "graduated" from "Bible College?"

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:35:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:31:01 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>>
>>This was a revealing clue about David.
>
>You do not know David.

And you do?
Go ahead and quote that hack who graduated from "Bible College."

>>Read my earlier post.

>It was full of stuff you do not understand.

It was you who failed to comprehend.
And I gave you several references.
All of them proved that you are full of shit.

[Patrick B]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:21:37 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:32:30 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:24:09 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>>>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>>>>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>>>
>>>>And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?
>>>
>>>It keeps my faith focused on Jesus Christ which ensures blessings in
>>>this life as well as entry into heaven.
>>
>>If you are focused on Jesus, why did you insult me?
>>If you followed Jesus you would seek forgiveness.
>>When will you apologize to me?
>>
>>Get it over with, robt.
>>And admit that you have sinned.
>
>Because you feel insulted that means I have sinned? Where is that to
>be found?

I was insulted.
And it was meant to be an insult.
Does Jesus approve of you insulting a real Christian?

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>>wrote:

>>>>>> Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>> marriage to Joseph.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>>>> well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>>>
>>>> Nope!
>>>
>>>Even the OT declares you wrong.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>The OT does not prove anyone to be wrong.
>>That was a false statement.
>>which means it was a LIE>
>>False Testament.
>>A sin.
>>When will you admit you are a sinner?
>>
>>When will you apologize to me for your insults?

>Mat 23:32  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 
>Mat 23:33  Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the
>condemnation of hell? 
>Mat 23:34  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and
>scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
>will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 
>
>Psalms is not false. Neither is any OT book.

The Psalms do not claim Mary was NOT a virgin.
You are a liar.

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:43:31 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:21:37 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:32:30 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:24:09 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>>>>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>>>>>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>>>>
>>>>>And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?
>>>>
>>>>It keeps my faith focused on Jesus Christ which ensures blessings in
>>>>this life as well as entry into heaven.
>>>
>>>If you are focused on Jesus, why did you insult me?
>>>If you followed Jesus you would seek forgiveness.
>>>When will you apologize to me?
>>>
>>>Get it over with, robt.
>>>And admit that you have sinned.
>>
>>Because you feel insulted that means I have sinned? Where is that to
>>be found?
>
>I was insulted.
>And it was meant to be an insult.

What was meant to be an insult.

>Does Jesus approve of you insulting a real Christian?

Who was the "real Christian" that I insulted?

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:45:12 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

The Psalms speaks of the mother of Jesus as having sons.

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:36:45 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>>>>
>>>>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Every person that has been Born Again.
>>>
>>>according to dwain and robt.
>>
>>How many times are you going to lie about a "dwain"?
>>Plus using lower case letters on a name is showing contempt and
>>disrespect.
>
>You are sooooo perceptive today.
>

It is your way just as it is Earls way.

>
>>o I take offence? Nah, Jesus said I should expect this
>>from the likes of you.
>
>No, He didn't.
>

Luk 6:22  Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude
you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of
Man's sake. 
Luk 6:23  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward
is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the
prophets. 

Joh 15:18  "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before
it hated you. 
Joh 15:19  If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet
because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world,
therefore the world hates you. 
Joh 15:20  Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not
greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also
persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:40:25 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:39:05 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:29:49 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>(Speaking of Jesus)
>>>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>>>
>>>That had nothing to do with Jesus.
>>This had everything to do with Jesus. When was David ever offered a
>>cup like Jesus was when he was thirsty?
>
>Show me the "cup" part again....
>Haven't you ever been offered a drink when you were thirsty?

Psa 69:21  They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they
gave me vinegar to drink. 

>Will you be comparing yourself to Jesus next?
>
>
>
>>>I have already explained this to you.
>>
>>You? You explained nothing. Even DRB recognizes this chapter was about
>>Jesus.
>
>The DRB?
>Do you mean that hack who "graduated" from "Bible College?"
>

Douay-Rheims Bible. Did you mean hacks?

[Patrick B]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:11:33 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:36:45 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>>>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Every person that has been Born Again.
>>>>
>>>>according to dwain and robt.
>>>
>>>How many times are you going to lie about a "dwain"?
>>>Plus using lower case letters on a name is showing contempt and
>>>disrespect.
>>
>>You are sooooo perceptive today.

>It is your way just as it is Earls way.

Absolutely.
I am trying to show you that you are below contempt.

>>>o I take offence? Nah, Jesus said I should expect this
>>>from the likes of you.
>>
>>No, He didn't.
>>
>
>Luk 6:22  Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude
>you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of
>Man's sake. 

OK, now you think you are blessed.
Where does it say you should expect my insults?

>Luk 6:23  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward
>is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the
>prophets. 

The prophets were martyrs.
Are you willing to give your life up to me?

>Joh 15:18  "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before
>it hated you. 

<Yawn>
Yes, the Jewsih people had a difficult time believing Jesus and His
Apostles. And it sounds like John knew this might happen.

Did you know I would make fun of your heretical interpretations?

>Joh 15:19  If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet
>because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world,
>therefore the world hates you. 

Are you claiming you are not of this world then?
Cuz you bin saved?
cuz you have your discussions with yer little god?

And the world doesn't really hate you.
No more than if the world hates retards, idiots.

>Joh 15:20  Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not
>greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also
>persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 

Are you claiming to be the servant? or the master?

[Patrick B]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:18:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:40:25 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:39:05 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:29:49 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>(Speaking of Jesus)
>>>>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>>>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>>>>
>>>>That had nothing to do with Jesus.
>>>This had everything to do with Jesus. When was David ever offered a
>>>cup like Jesus was when he was thirsty?
>>
>>Show me the "cup" part again....
>>Haven't you ever been offered a drink when you were thirsty?
>
>Psa 69:21  They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they
>gave me vinegar to drink. 

OK then.
Someone once turned me on to Long Island Ice Tea.
https://www.loseabdominalfats.com/diet4/tashi/483/?cep=7Yky5Kc4rUcXAFYLFnSRgWxmdsrfeE1I1SHeA5K0tAgWSKSavSPtYM9dTaisirE1zsTno3AfofTdIZNB9ZMFZa8_6vih38i-oYH08nbKAmXZrInh0867OrVuhapZh2rWMy13S2g_s83SQVgFu2n3-iwrLuUpa4_ymLvpx0FJ3AIoH26_HhyRae-TsCBBSu8vXl7Ju4JdX0ZwexIrjgVp1uwf4HJVQ4v6S2ZbhIKyZXNP6fxaBd69WCgQfUFyi4Hv61SecB5vaYYamn4W0U0lOpD_nTEz5AssrxjmnKEFArQGBQLk0OL1aZBZH_Kamx56qtHKVe_QzoGxVFbkpdYE-2FTmnNvb9AXxKWcexPYXDmaawynOqmUlpf00otxu6CNTvIh9bqfE3Zy4CxIwJOU0oML23arnuuqK2JhmTDUR_8NXGCJ6v2spfcNkKX1MWzaqfy5dW0ulyc1CVALDMB1Inw3pkQCFkdIruN6X3AzpM0roPIxdf9KqakkeyATADMB-V-oqorHkIcghS_GWUS_lFA8V1rYtbhtDZWnfZnOWUrNpM_wdxl-JCQb_qJ3km5m7ya-S9DLIUT39mIMiBalDtLsdAJJ-DEpgoW77naQzPQ&lptoken=156d82ac29df2746394c&MatchType=b&BidMatchType=bb&Device=c&OrderItemId=76072767227187&QueryString=drink%20vinegar&TargetId=kwd-76072767227187:loc-190&AdGroupId=1217159758478745&AdId=76072585364118&msclkid=ae1f491d00481b8c10dd1752d7e7067e

>>Will you be comparing yourself to Jesus next?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I have already explained this to you.
>>>
>>>You? You explained nothing. Even DRB recognizes this chapter was about
>>>Jesus.
>>
>>The DRB?
>>Do you mean that hack who "graduated" from "Bible College?"

>Douay-Rheims Bible. Did you mean hacks?

If you use an abbreviation on me, tell me what it is.
Then .... prove your allegation.

[Patrick B]

Ohhhhhh. Excellent. Now you are following matty's lead.
He says something, is questioned about it, ignores the question for a
while, and then pleads ignorance of what was being discussed.

[Patrick B]

OK. Where?

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:56:00 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

Even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other
children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says
that the Mother of Christ’s children are “ those who obey God’s commandments and
hold to the testimony of Jesus.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:17:24 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:21:08 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:38:41 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:38:16 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:27:20 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>>>
>>>>>18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>>>>>Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>>>>>together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>>>>>Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>>>>>want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>>>>>quietly.
>>>>>
>>>>>20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>>>>>him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>>>>>take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>>>>>the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>>>>>him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
>>>>>
>>>>>22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>>>>>prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
>>>>>they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
>>>>>
>>>>>24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>>>>>commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>>>>>consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>>>>>him the name Jesus.
>>>>>

>>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>>

>>>>Seems rather clear that there is exactly nothing of an admission about having
>>>>children afterwards. Celibacy is elective in many men and women of God.
>>>>the dukester, American-American
>>>
>>>
>>>25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a
>>>son.
>>
>>What's the big deal? The ultimate statement is that Jesus is not the son of a
>>man but of God..

> Yes and no one said differently. Why do you want it to seen
>otherwise. Did you read the entire passage?

The issue is whether Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus.
Scripture is totally silent.

>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>revealed.

> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".

Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.

If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>revealed.

>>the dukester, American-American
>
>Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord
>commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her until she
>had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
>(Mat 1:24-25 NKJV)

"Until" and "until after.......". are different issues.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>>> It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his
>>>mother would have other children, **Psa_69:8; **Psa_69:9, If his
>>>"brethren" were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin,
>>>kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar_6:4, Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44;
>>>Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Luk_18:26, Act_10:24, Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7;
>>>Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21), and cousin (Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58) was available
>>>to indicate this, but was not used. Note that "brethren" is
>>>distinguished from "kinsmen" at Luk_14:12 and Luk_21:16. +*Mar_6:3,
>>>+*Mat_13:55, Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10, Act_1:14, 1Co_9:5,
>>>2Co_5:16, Gal_1:19.
>>
>>Of course he had brothers but they were the children of Joseph by a prior
>>marriage.
>>the dukester, American-American

>
>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:20:35 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Was it? You do know the RCC was not the only early Church.

>>The Chruch of the Way was, but eventually named the Catholic Church.

> Really? History doesn't support your claim. Through murder you
>did destroy most the others.

The Church at Rome, which would later develop into what we know as Roman
Catholicism, was started in the apostolic times (circa AD 30-95). Although we do
not have records of the first Christian missionaries to Rome, it is obvious that
a church existed there as the New Testament Scriptures were being written.

>>>>Only in more recent times did it change.
>>Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.
> Yes and they had good reason to change as the RCC no longer
>followed Jesus.

Nope, they were upset because Jesus directed the Pope be the Bishop of Rome, not
the Bishop of the eastern Church.

>>the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:33:34 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:31:52 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:38:20 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:14:04 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19 Feb 2020 18:14:30 GMT, servant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Matt had some thoughts:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>>>>

>>>>>How does any of the below support that? In the kinship system of the jews
>>>>>of the time a father/son definition is defined only in the father's
>>>>>biological line. A father could adopt a son, this is a common belief
>>>>>regarding Joseph but not defined by marrage.
>>>>
>>>> How does it not.

>>>>>
>>>>>>18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>>>>>>Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>>>>>>together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>>>>>>Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>>>>>>want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>>>>>>quietly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>>>>>>him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>>>>>>take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>>>>>>the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>>>>>>him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>>>>>>prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and

>>>>>>they will call him Immanuel (which means God with us).

>>>>>>
>>>>>>24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>>>>>>commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>>>>>>consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>>>>>>him the name Jesus.
>>>>>

>>>>>The ""until" of Matthew 1:25: above in the ancient greek meant up to the
>>>>>current time, ie. they did not consummate the marrage before the birth and
>>>>>remains silent to events after the birth.
>>>>
>>>> Yes and there is no doubt of that but after Mary did not remain a
>>>>virgin. Passage seem rather straightforward about that with the
>>>>words "he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a
>>>>son".
>>>>>

>>>>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>>>marriage to Joseph.
>>>>>

>>>>>Not by any info you have presented.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?
>>>
>>>Servant, is not one that believes the bible unless it is convenient
>>>for her.
>>>
>>>Two things are against Mary being a virgin, her "cherry" would have
>>>been broken during the birthing process is one, the other being that
>>>Joseph "knew" here after Jesus was born and the days of her
>>>uncleanliness were over, even if she had no other children.
>>>
>>>The same scripture that said that Joseph knew his wife also names the
>>>children of Mary.
>>
>>Nope, children of Joseph.
>>the dukester, American-American
>
>(Speaking of Jesus)

>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)

Romans 8:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Jesus is Son of God.
the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:12:44 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:11:33 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:36:45 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:04 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>>>>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every person that has been Born Again.
>>>>>
>>>>>according to dwain and robt.
>>>>
>>>>How many times are you going to lie about a "dwain"?
>>>>Plus using lower case letters on a name is showing contempt and
>>>>disrespect.
>>>
>>>You are sooooo perceptive today.
>
>>It is your way just as it is Earls way.
>
>Absolutely.
>I am trying to show you that you are below contempt.

Patrick this is what you do to any who disagree with you. You will
lie for your agenda.

[Mattb]

>Scripture is totally silent.

Then the RCC would have no valid evidence for their
claims....Thanks.

>
>>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>>revealed.
>
>> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".
>
>Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.
>
>If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.

What are you talking about. Lets see she had Jesus as God the
father and then children from Joseph. Where are you having
difficulty?

>the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:55:52 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:20:35 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Was it? You do know the RCC was not the only early Church.
>
>>>The Chruch of the Way was, but eventually named the Catholic Church.
>
>> Really? History doesn't support your claim. Through murder you
>>did destroy most the others.
>
>The Church at Rome, which would later develop into what we know as Roman
>Catholicism, was started in the apostolic times (circa AD 30-95). Although we do
>not have records of the first Christian missionaries to Rome, it is obvious that
>a church existed there as the New Testament Scriptures were being written.

Yet not that of the RCC.

>
>>>>>Only in more recent times did it change.
>>>Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.
>> Yes and they had good reason to change as the RCC no longer
>>followed Jesus.
>
>Nope, they were upset because Jesus directed the Pope be the Bishop of Rome, not
>the Bishop of the eastern Church.

No you need to do more reading.

[Mattb]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:30:29 -0600, Rod B <dx70...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/2020 11:10 PM, Robert wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:27:20 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>>>
>>> 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>>> Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>>> together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>>> Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>>> want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>>> quietly.
>>>
>>> 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>>> him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>>> take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>>> the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>>> him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
>>>
>>> 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>>> prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
>>> they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
>>>
>>> 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>>> commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>>> consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>>> him the name Jesus.
>>>
>>> Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>> marriage to Joseph.
>>>
>>>

>> Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>> well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>>
>
> Nope!

Did you read the whole passage?

[Miloch]

In article <k2ep4f5trnhfrdklj...@4ax.com>, Mattb says...

>
>
>
>Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
>
>18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother
>Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
>together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19
>Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet e did not
>want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
>quietly.
>
>20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
>him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
>take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
>the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
>him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
>
>22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
>prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
>they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
>
>24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
>commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not
>consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave
>him the name Jesus.
>
>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>marriage to Joseph.
>
>
>

...so whose sperm fertilized Mary's egg?...'cause...you know...fallopian tubes!




*

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:18:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

>>>I was insulted.
>>>And it was meant to be an insult.
>>
>>What was meant to be an insult.
>
>Ohhhhhh. Excellent. Now you are following matty's lead.
>He says something, is questioned about it, ignores the question for a
>while, and then pleads ignorance of what was being discussed.

Childish game over.

[Robert]

Copied for all to see the truth.

Rev 12:17  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make
war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God,
and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. 

The woman spoken of there is Israel. The mentioning of this starts in
V1

God declared that He was a husband to Israel (Jeremiah 31:32) Israel
is the woman spoken of here as this portion of REV speaks to the last
week of Daniel's 70 weeks of years as promised to them.

The Church is the bride of Christ.

[Robert]

Psalms 69:8 speaks as to whom is the mother of the children of Joseph,
as does v25 above. Only an agendized person would be blind to that.

>>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>>revealed.
>
>> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".
>
>Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.
>

Matt never claimed that nor has anyone else except the Jews and the
Christ haters.

>If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.
>the dukester, American-American

and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he
called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 LITV)

And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)

but did not live with her until she had given birth to a son. The
child's name he called JESUS. (Mat 1:25 WNT)

but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his
name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 ESV)

But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her
firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 AMPC)

Need more?

[Robert]

That is unreasonable for any adult to say or think, unless they never
went to school and had no teaching.

Someone is going to shoot you but not until they go to the store and
buy some bullets for their gun.

versus

Someone is going to shoot you but not until after they go to the store
and buy some bullets for their gun.

Which statement is actionable?

Which one should be of no concern to you?

[Robert]

No it doesn't as I pointed out in another post of yours. The Woman
spoken of there is "Israel".

Children of his mother is biological. It is specific. Her children
whether by wedlock or illicit sex.

>the dukester, American-American

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:55:52 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:

Show the cite.

>>>the dukester, American-American
>the dukester, American-American

[Robert]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:17:02 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>

Been there done that.

[Robert]

I have never denied that. But the verse you pointed to speaks of
people like myself.

>the dukester, American-American

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>Psalms 69:8 speaks as to whom is the mother of the children of Joseph,
>as does v25 above. Only an agendized person would be blind to that.

No, it does not.
I've explained its meaning to you several times.
What are you... stupid?

[Patrick B]

Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>I have never denied that. But the verse you pointed to speaks of
>people like myself.

You are a self-proclaimed prophet (heretic).

[Patrick B]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:12:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:18:52 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>>>I was insulted.
>>>>And it was meant to be an insult.
>>>
>>>What was meant to be an insult.
>>
>>Ohhhhhh. Excellent. Now you are following matty's lead.
>>He says something, is questioned about it, ignores the question for a
>>while, and then pleads ignorance of what was being discussed.
>
>Childish game over.

Excellent news.
Now it is time for you to FO.

[Patrick B]

You are so full of shit.

[Mattb]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:18:47 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
wrote:

> Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>>Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>marriage to Joseph.

>>Yes, especially when her sons were named and she had two daughters as
>>well. It also shows that Joseph knew him to be the Messiah.
>

>And how does this get you to heaven any quicker?

How does it not?

[tesla sTinker]

On 2/20/2020 5:33 AM, duckg...@cox.net scribbled:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:27:53 -0800, tesla sTinker
> <truecath...@truecarpentry.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/2020 11:14 AM, Mattb scribbled:

>>>>> Seem rather clear Mary did not stay a virgin, but did consummate her
>>>>> marriage to Joseph.
>>>>

>>>> Not by any info you have presented.
>>>
>>> Then you are claiming Mary remained a virgin her whole life?
>>>

>> You have to understand there are other Marys in the text involved.
>> Magdalen as well. You HAVE TO USE cHRONOLGY, TO FOLLOW DATES.
>> i SAID THIS TO Robert, the links to figure time are above in the post
>> i answered to him. Use em. So you can get those jpg images of dates and
>> times with names. Save them once you get em. Then use the converter if
>> you need it. But since its not mentioned in that Chronology, Its not
>> true what you are saying. Yes,
>> is the answer until she was raised up into heaven. They never found her
>> body. At least not to my knowledge in reading the Bible.
>
> That's right. Never found her body as it was lifted body and soul into heaven.
> the dukester, American-American
>
did not address you, and I certainly do not need your ok, u
excommunicated ass hole piece of shit. go to hell Novus Ordo. All of
you bastards especially the US government. Yee are not in Church at all.
And of all things,
you are certainly not an American you communist evil satanic devil
loving bastard. You may as well jump off the empire state building.
You cannot enter the true catholic church.

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:27 -0500, Patrick B <BARK...@ERINET.COM>
>wrote:

>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:17:22 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>>>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)
>>

>>How many second borns are mentioned in the Bible?

>Every person that has been Born Again.

Yep, robert is in over his head.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

I'm glad you're happy, but I don't see why. The statement says that he did not
have sexual relations with Mary as concerns the birth of Jesus. That's all that
means. Joseph is NOT the Father of Jesus.

>>>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>>>revealed.
>>> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".

Until what? Until after Joseph died??

>>Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.
>>
>>If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.

> What are you talking about. Lets see she had Jesus as God the
>father and then children from Joseph. Where are you having
>difficulty?

She..........had Jesus as "God the Father"??? Now I know you're nuts.

the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

"Until" is totally silent as to what occurs "after".

>>>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>>>revealed.
>>> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".

Silent after.

>>Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.

>Matt never claimed that nor has anyone else except the Jews and the
>Christ haters.

I know. This discussion is about "until" and "until after".

>>If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.
>>the dukester, American-American

>and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he
>called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 LITV)

Right, "after" is silent.

>And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he
>called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 DRB)

>but did not live with her until she had given birth to a son. The
>child's name he called JESUS. (Mat 1:25 WNT)

>but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his
>name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 ESV)

A clear statement that Joseph is NOT the Father of Jesus.

>But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her
>firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Mat 1:25 AMPC)
>Need more?

"After" is silent.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

"After" = they go to the store and buy some bullets.
"After" = Jesus is born

>versus

>Someone is going to shoot you but not until after they go to the store
>and buy some bullets for their gun.

There you go again. "After" nails your mistake. Totally silent as to whether
he went to the store to actually buy the bullets.

>Which statement is actionable?
>Which one should be of no concern to you?

the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

No one is suggesting Joseph is the father of Jesus just that Mary
did not remain a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus.

>
>>>>>Whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not
>>>>>revealed.
>>>> Yes it is "he did not consummate their marriage until".
>
>Until what? Until after Joseph died??
>
>>>Joseph is not the Father of Jesus.
>>>
>>>If the statement was "until after......", that would be a different issue.
>
>> What are you talking about. Lets see she had Jesus as God the
>>father and then children from Joseph. Where are you having
>>difficulty?
>
>She..........had Jesus as "God the Father"??? Now I know you're nuts.

Why are you so desperately trying to make this about something I
did not say/write or imply?

Is your little group so desperate you need to do what your Pope
called calumny, with disinformation?

For the record I do not claim Joseph is the biological father of
Jesus.


>
>the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:43:31 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:45:15 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:28 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his
>>>>>mother would have other children, **Psa_69:8; **Psa_69:9, If his
>>>>>"brethren" were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin,
>>>>>kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar_6:4, Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44;
>>>>>Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Luk_18:26, Act_10:24, Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7;
>>>>>Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21), and cousin (Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58) was available
>>>>>to indicate this, but was not used. Note that "brethren" is
>>>>>distinguished from "kinsmen" at Luk_14:12 and Luk_21:16. +*Mar_6:3,
>>>>>+*Mat_13:55, Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10, Act_1:14, 1Co_9:5,
>>>>>2Co_5:16, Gal_1:19.
>>>>
>>>>Of course he had brothers but they were the children of Joseph by a prior
>>>>marriage.
>>>>the dukester, American-American
>>>
>>>I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother's
>>>children; (Psa 69:8 NKJV)
>>
>>Even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other
>>children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says
>>that the Mother of Christ’s children are “ those who obey God’s commandments and
>>hold to the testimony of Jesus.

>No it doesn't as I pointed out in another post of yours. The Woman
>spoken of there is "Israel".

Mary is Queen of Heaven.

>Children of his mother is biological. It is specific. Her children
>whether by wedlock or illicit sex.

I acknowledge your words, but at the same time, you could be 100% wrong at which
I would be correct. You're playing a game that says "Jesus is not a real man".

[duckg...@cox.net]

Try truth for a change.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:45:40 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:55:52 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:20:35 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Was it? You do know the RCC was not the only early Church.
>>
>>>>The Chruch of the Way was, but eventually named the Catholic Church.
>>
>>> Really? History doesn't support your claim. Through murder you
>>>did destroy most the others.
>>
>>The Church at Rome, which would later develop into what we know as Roman
>>Catholicism, was started in the apostolic times (circa AD 30-95). Although we do
>>not have records of the first Christian missionaries to Rome, it is obvious that
>>a church existed there as the New Testament Scriptures were being written.
>>
>>>>>>Only in more recent times did it change.
>>>>Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.
>>> Yes and they had good reason to change as the RCC no longer
>>>followed Jesus.
>>
>>Nope, they were upset because Jesus directed the Pope be the Bishop of Rome, not
>>the Bishop of the eastern Church.

>Show the cite.

That's the way it's been since the getco. The split between Wesern and Eastern
Chruchs was precisely because the Patriarch of Constantinople was never the
Pope.

The eastern and western churches split over differences in theology, practice,
politics and culture. As Constantinople became an important center of government
in the eastern half of the Roman Empire, the church "there" began to challenge
the supremacy of Rome. Without a common language and culture, the two halves of
the Christian Church drifted apart in the face of their disagreements.

A couple of more minor points also played a part.
the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

And Jesus is God, the Son., baptized in the NAME (singular) Father, Son, Holy
Spirit.
the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

You can learn truth from reading no RCC priest needed. There is
this place called a library.


>the dukester, American-American

[Mattb]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:00:12 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:45:40 -0800, Robert <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:55:52 -0600, duckg...@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:20:35 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Was it? You do know the RCC was not the only early Church.
>>>
>>>>>The Chruch of the Way was, but eventually named the Catholic Church.
>>>
>>>> Really? History doesn't support your claim. Through murder you
>>>>did destroy most the others.
>>>
>>>The Church at Rome, which would later develop into what we know as Roman
>>>Catholicism, was started in the apostolic times (circa AD 30-95). Although we do
>>>not have records of the first Christian missionaries to Rome, it is obvious that
>>>a church existed there as the New Testament Scriptures were being written.
>>>
>>>>>>>Only in more recent times did it change.
>>>>>Long before the Eastern Church left in 1054.
>>>> Yes and they had good reason to change as the RCC no longer
>>>>followed Jesus.
>>>
>>>Nope, they were upset because Jesus directed the Pope be the Bishop of Rome, not
>>>the Bishop of the eastern Church.
>
>>Show the cite.
>
>That's the way it's been since the getco. The split between Wesern and Eastern
>Chruchs was precisely because the Patriarch of Constantinople was never the
>Pope.

That is not what historical documents show.

[Rod B]

On 2/19/2020 3:58 PM, tesla sTinker wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/2020 11:14 AM, Mattb scribbled:

> look at this? God spoke to Moses telling him to say this;
>
> Numbers Chapter 5
>
> The man whose wife shall have gone astray, and contemning her husband,
> 13 Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover
> it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses,
> because she was not found in the adultery: 14 If the spirit of jealousy
> stir up the husband against his wife, who either is defiled, or is
> charged with false suspicion, 15 He shall bring her to the priest, and
> shall offer an oblation for her, the tenth part of a measure of barley
> meal: he shall not pour oil thereon, nor put frankincense upon it:
> because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, and an oblation searching out
> adultery. 16 The priest therefore shall offer it, and set it before the
> Lord. 17 And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall
> cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it. 18 And
> when the woman shall stand before the Lord, he shall uncover her head,
> and shall put on her hands the sacrifice of remembrance, and the
> oblation of jealousy: and he himself shall hold the most bitter waters,
> whereon he hath heaped curses with execration. 19 And he shall adjure
> her, and shall say: If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou
> be not defiled by forsaking thy husband's bed, these most bitter waters,
> on which I have heaped curses, shall not hurt thee. 20 But if thou hast
> gone aside from thy husband, and art defiled, and hast lain with another
> man: 21 These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse,
> and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot,
> and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. 22 Let the cursed waters
> enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the
> woman shall answer, Amen, amen. 23 And the priest shall write these
> curses in a book, and shall wash them out with the most bitter waters,
> upon which he hath heaped the curses, 24 And he shall give them her to
> drink. And when she hath drunk them up, 25 The priest shall take from
> her hand the sacrifice of jealousy, and shall elevate it before the
> Lord, and shall put it upon the altar: yet so as first, 26 To take a
> handful of the sacrifice of that which is offered, and burn it upon the
> altar: and so give the most bitter waters to the woman to drink. 27 And
> when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her
> husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and
> her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse,
> and an example to all the people. 28 But if she be not defiled, she
> shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. 29 This is the law of
> jealousy. If a woman hath gone aside from her husband, and be defiled,
> 30 And the husband stirred up by the spirit of jealousy bring her before
> the Lord, and the priest do to her according to all things that are here
> written: 31 The husband shall be blameless, and she shall bear her
> iniquity .
>
> Now, does anyone really think that after Holy Blessed Maria had read
> this, (and she might of) and she is carrying the son of God, that she
> would really have more children?   You would seem to have forgot who it
> is she is pleasing to, Almighty God the Father, and to be to the one God
> she wanted of.
>
> Another words no,  it makes no sense to think what you wrote above
> subject title....You guys, just don't read the Bible. Even I did not
> know this was written of until today.  The real Bible is important, or,
> you cannot understand what God wants of and is Jealous of, you bet He is
> Jealous. But to prove, use Chronology for your own proof, tracking names
> and dates.  And try to remember, there are many in the Bible with the
> same names.
>

One thing about the bible is that it more often than not produces
nutters like you. You screwballs seem to gravitate to it then isolate
yourselves from others then go stark raving crazy!