Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What about Mary?

dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:34:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

Jesus didn't seem to rate his Mum, or other relatives, particularly highly. I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married! I reckon the virgin birth nonsense was put about to cover the fact Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, which would have been heinous in those unenlightened days.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:34:40 AM, JJ50 wrote:

Jesus didn't seem to rate his Mum, or other relatives, particularly highly. I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married! I reckon the virgin birth nonsense was put about to cover the fact Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, which would have been heinous in those unenlightened days.

I thinked you missed the argument I was making. Nevermind.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 11:05:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What about her? She's a character in a fiction story about a man-god that got killed, came back, then left again for some great place to hang out for eternity. Oh, yeah, he's coming back to get his faithful followers.....sometime.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 12:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:

Hello Gentle Reader. Let me show you an amazing thing. Watch dee-em make a fake argument out of thin air. I call it morphing.

He begins....

When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary.

Why does dee-em expect Paul to have mentioned Marry in official Church correspondence to non-jews? Does he think the epistles are private letters? Is that a reasonable expectation?

Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her.

Morph # 1. How does he know Paul never met Mary? He doesn't. He is hopping from the unreasonable claim that Mary is not mentioned in official Church letters to Gentiles, to Paul never visiting her in one huge illogical leap. He is hoping you, the Gentle Reader, won't be smart enough to notice that he is manufacturing reality. Are you that dumb? I didn't think so. But it appears he does think you're that stupid.

And after meeting Jesus Himself, dee-em thinks Paul should have gone to Mary to learn about Jesus. Brilliant.


Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Now the master of fake "truth" asks you if his illogic is believable! In his first morph, dee-em says Paul "makes no attempt to see Mary...." In his second morph he graduates to, "[Paul] can't spare a quick trip over to talk to [Mary.] Stand by for morph #3.

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening.

Except in the parts of the Gospels dee-em didn't read. (ie, most of them) But notice morph #3. Now, it's not only Paul who ignored Mary, it's the entire early Christian Communities!!

So from a silly and unreasonable idea that Mary should have been mentioned in official letters Paul sent to Non-Jewish churches, some outside of Israel, our intrepid thinker has so far concluded that Mary was ignored and shunned by Paul and the Entire early Christian Community!! Breath-taking isn't it?

(Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

No, it's the same story, he just didn't read it. The Jewish and Roman officials thought of this very thing and took steps to prevent it, but dee-em doen't know this because he didn't actually read the texts he's pontificating about here.

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Would he expect a record to be made of that veneration? By whom? Why? Who would store it? Preserve it? Why? Ah, thought free claims. How easy they are.


The story doesn't stack up.

Not the one he conjured up anyway.

And now, after all the morphing, dee-em's "butterfly" emerges from it's cocoon.

That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

TAA DAA!!!

Wholesale stupidity. Out of thin air. It is a beautiful thing to see a master at work.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 1:33:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

To whom did Jesus entrust the protection of his mother? John. Which Gospel is the most theologically indepth? John. The Gospel of John would have been radically influenced by John knowing Mary.

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Luke noted her title as Kecharitomene - complete fullness of Grace.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer.

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked.


St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church's first great apologist, describes Mary as the "obedient virgin" through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the "disobedient virgin," who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born".

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race":

Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.... And so it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.


http://www.piercedhearts.org...

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

You see it does stack up if you only care to look at the actual evidence.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

There's a reason Jesus supposedly said this;

John 6
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus knew the only reason that flesh existed in this first age was for God's purpose to reveal through His saints how He planned, invisible created and visible formed everything. Not even God's prophets understood the prophecies they wrote for Him.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 1:46:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 1:33:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

To whom did Jesus entrust the protection of his mother? John. Which Gospel is the most theologically indepth? John. The Gospel of John would have been radically influenced by John knowing Mary.

Don't be ridiculous. John was written after 90AD and the author wasn't the apostle. In fact, it is widely accepted that there were multiple authors for the Johannine works. You are simply going on tradition which has been repudiated as unreliable.

However, even if you were right, how does that answer the points I made above?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Roman emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century AD built a temple dedicated to the Roman goddess Venus in order to bury the cave in which Jesus had been buried.[5][6] The first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, ordered in about 325/326 that the temple be replaced by a church.[7]

Fakery centuries after the events. Do you even read your own links? Lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Church of the Nativity is a basilica located in Bethlehem, Palestine. The church was originally commissioned in 327 AD by Constantine and his mother Helena over the site that is still traditionally considered to be located over the cave that marks the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank you for proving my point. There is no evidence of a legitimate grave (or birthplace - a cave?) for either Mary or Jesus. It's all Christian fabrication many centuries later.

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Luke noted her title as Kecharitomene - complete fullness of Grace.

Decades later. Yes, very convincing. Not. My point is that Mary was unknown until the arrival of the gospel stories. Why had Paul never heard of her? Why wasn't she immediately venerated? She gave birth to the son of God supposedly (!) and yet she was a nobody for decades. Is that credible?

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. ... For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.
http://www.piercedhearts.org...

I don't accept religious sites as a source of reliable historical information.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

You see it does stack up if you only care to look at the actual evidence.

Since you haven't actually addressed the points I made, my argument about the invisibility of Mary until the much later emergence of the gospel stories stands unrefuted.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 1:51:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
ethang5, I suspect even Christians would be embarassed by your inane posts. You might do better to just stay away from posts where your desperate apologetics falls flat.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

James, the younger of Mary"s three biological sons, was sired by a man named Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas, and as James was already a young man when Jesus began his ministry, Mary must have married Cleophas when Jesus was a young boy.

Cleophas=Alpheaus, was also the father of the Simeon and Jude, who were members of the family of Mary, but were not born of the same womb as their half brother Jesus.

Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas was called the twin because he held such a striking resemblance to one with whom he shared a common father. Judas (Hebrew) is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for "TWIN",and Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas is also called Thomas=Tau"ma, the Aramiac for "TWIN". Thomas Didymus Jude, the half brother of Jesus is the son of the carpenter Alpheaus/Cleophas the second Husband Of Mary the mother of Jesus.

In "The Acts of Thomas, sometime called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, Judas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban."

There are other instances in the New Testament, where an individual has three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic, Perhaps Cleophas (" The GREEK for "Of a Renown Father") and Alphaeus ("The ARAMAIC for "Of a Renown father), are one and the same as Joseph "HEBREW" the son of Alexander Helios, "A FATHER OF RENOWN?" Perhaps this is why Jude the son of the carpenter and half brother of Jesus, was called, "THE TWIN."

The religious authorities of those days who had access to all the bills of divorce which were filed away in the temple in Jerusalem, were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery. It was then that the hypocritical priests thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.

Bringing forward his mother, who was among the crowd who were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?" They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He to who she was legally married at that time.

Jesus then turned the tables on them by saying, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone."

Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, Perhaps he may have written, "As ye judge, so shall ye be judged." Most men in those days who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, "Is there no one left to condemn you?" No one Lord she answered. "Well then," said Jesus, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but don"t sin again," and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, James, Simeon, and Jude, and the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, "Mary the wife of Cleophas," into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Although we know near to nothing about Joseph the half brother to Jesus, there is more that a greater probability that he was Joseph from Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own FAMILY TOMB THAT HAD NEVER BEEN USED, suggesting that His Father, Joseph the son of Jacob, who was the first husband of Mary, was still alive. It seems strange that in a book which is so condensed, one would bother to add the trivia, that the tomb in which Jesus was laid, was the FAMILY tomb of Joseph which had never been used, when saying, He was buried in a tomb close by, would have sufficed.

Acts 1: 14; reveals that after the ascension of Jesus, the apostle would frequently gather to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, he ran straight to the house where he knew the believers would be gathered in prayer for his safety, straight to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed "MARK."

young John who was surnamed "MARK" which name means "Hammer, or The Hammerer," has been identified with young John the beloved disciple who was entrusted with the care of Mary the mother of Jesus who had surnamed him "Son of Thunder."

After the departure of Jesus, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, took his half sister Mary and young John who was surnamed "MARK" up into the land of Pamphilia, where in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John, can still be visited to this day.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:12:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 1:51:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

ethang5, I suspect even Christians would be embarassed by your inane posts.

A Christian would NEVER be ashamed of their Savior, or of the wonderful words telling us of His grace and truth.

You might do better to just stay away from posts where your desperate apologetics falls flat.

lol. Ok.

The Gentle Reader will read both our posts and decide. They will also see your "reply" here and form an opinion. That is satisfactory to me.

Ethan,
In anti-morph mode
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:25:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yah, that works for me.

I look at my post and I look at your post and I know which one is cringe-worthy. The Christian troll has been and gone and only the bad smell lingers.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:01:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 4:54:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
Gentorev, that's a great yarn masquerading as pseudo-history. I have a single-word question.

Relevance?

What's your problem dee-em? Do you think that James the brother of Jesus and son of Alpheaus, who Young's Analytical concordance to the bible, identifies as the same person as Cleophas, is not of the same womb as Jesus?

Do you think that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli, who is also the father of Mary?

Do you not think that the only two women at the cross of Jesus by the name Mary, were his mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, who is the mother of Jesus, Joseph and James, and Mary Magdalene, who is thought to be his wife, as all Rabbi's in those days were expected to be married?

But then, why would one of the godless religion, who are totally ignorant to the Holy Scriptures, be expected to understand that which is recorded in the bible>
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

Immediately before his death Jesus made sure that his mother was cared for.

As the eldest male of the family, her care was his responsibility, and he passed that responsibility on to the most trusted of his disciples.

Mary was not the mother of god, or of a demi god either. She was the mother of Jesus and it was 30 years before he presented himself to fulfil his role as the fleshly son of God, when his personality and memories were exchanged for those of God's son.

No doubt his faithful willingness to carry out the role he was born and brought up for will be rewarded in resurrection.

There is no reason at all why Mary should be mentioned in scripture after Jesus death, she got little enough mention before it. She was simply just anther faithful worshipper of Jehovah, albeit one who had been used for a very special purpose.

Until her husband died, no doubt she remained home looking after the rest of her children, but on the death of her husband would have joined her eldest son in his travels, and is occasionally mentioned as doing so.

No doubt she lived out the rest of her life faithfully serving the Apostles in Jerusalem, and being cared for, principally by John in whose care she was placed, but doubtless with the aid of the others also.

However few of Jesus brothers and sisters got much of a mention in scripture either, James being the exception. We are not even told how many became his followers. Nor is there any record of the life of faithful Joseph after Jesus baptism, who did such a good job of raising Jesus and grooming him for his future role.

Mary was nothing more than just another faithful worshipper of Jehovah.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:13:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:34:40 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.


Jesus didn't seem to rate his Mum, or other relatives, particularly highly. I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married! I reckon the virgin birth nonsense was put about to cover the fact Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, which would have been heinous in those unenlightened days.

Jesus gave his mother the respect she deserved as another faithful worshipper of Jehovah, the God he worshipped, and as the Christ worships still.

As far as Catholicism goes it is yet another evidence of the Satanic influence behind them. It truly is a case of anything which will take attention away from "The God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ", Jehovah.

Something for which so called Christian churches are also used, because his God and father are rarely mentioned despite the fact that Jesus told us to pray for his fathers name, which they removed from scripture, to be hallowed, or made holy.

Typical Christian hypocrisy.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:18:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 12:52:20 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:

Hello Gentle Reader. Let me show you an amazing thing. Watch dee-em make a fake argument out of thin air. I call it morphing.

He begins....

When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary.

Why does dee-em expect Paul to have mentioned Marry in official Church correspondence to non-jews? Does he think the epistles are private letters? Is that a reasonable expectation?

Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her.

Morph # 1. How does he know Paul never met Mary? He doesn't. He is hopping from the unreasonable claim that Mary is not mentioned in official Church letters to Gentiles, to Paul never visiting her in one huge illogical leap. He is hoping you, the Gentle Reader, won't be smart enough to notice that he is manufacturing reality. Are you that dumb? I didn't think so. But it appears he does think you're that stupid.

And after meeting Jesus Himself, dee-em thinks Paul should have gone to Mary to learn about Jesus. Brilliant.


Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Now the master of fake "truth" asks you if his illogic is believable! In his first morph, dee-em says Paul "makes no attempt to see Mary...." In his second morph he graduates to, "[Paul] can't spare a quick trip over to talk to [Mary.] Stand by for morph #3.

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening.

Except in the parts of the Gospels dee-em didn't read. (ie, most of them) But notice morph #3. Now, it's not only Paul who ignored Mary, it's the entire early Christian Communities!!

So from a silly and unreasonable idea that Mary should have been mentioned in official letters Paul sent to Non-Jewish churches, some outside of Israel, our intrepid thinker has so far concluded that Mary was ignored and shunned by Paul and the Entire early Christian Community!! Breath-taking isn't it?

(Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

No, it's the same story, he just didn't read it. The Jewish and Roman officials thought of this very thing and took steps to prevent it, but dee-em doen't know this because he didn't actually read the texts he's pontificating about here.

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Would he expect a record to be made of that veneration? By whom? Why? Who would store it? Preserve it? Why? Ah, thought free claims. How easy they are.


The story doesn't stack up.

Not the one he conjured up anyway.

And now, after all the morphing, dee-em's "butterfly" emerges from it's cocoon.

That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

TAA DAA!!!

Wholesale stupidity. Out of thin air. It is a beautiful thing to see a master at work.

It is entirely possible that Paul would not have met Mary. Even on his trips to Jerusalem, he may not have been introduced to her because she as, as she had been during Jesus ministry, just another woman ministering to the faithful.

She certainty had no special status amongst the women, other than being certain she was cared for on his death, Jesus took no special notice of her, which tells us that we should not either.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:26:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:01:34 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/20/2015 4:54:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
Gentorev, that's a great yarn masquerading as pseudo-history. I have a single-word question.

Relevance?

What's your problem dee-em? Do you think that James the brother of Jesus and son of Alpheaus, who Young's Analytical concordance to the bible, identifies as the same person as Cleophas, is not of the same womb as Jesus?

Do you think that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli, who is also the father of Mary?

Do you not think that the only two women at the cross of Jesus by the name Mary, were his mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, who is the mother of Jesus, Joseph and James, and Mary Magdalene, who is thought to be his wife, as all Rabbi's in those days were expected to be married?

But then, why would one of the godless religion, who are totally ignorant to the Holy Scriptures, be expected to understand that which is recorded in the bible>

The answer is no to all your questions. I repeat. What relevance does anything you have posted (as entertaining as it is) have to the OP?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:26:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:09:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

Immediately before his death Jesus made sure that his mother was cared for.

As the eldest male of the family, her care was his responsibility, and he passed that responsibility on to the most trusted of his disciples.

Mary was not the mother of god, or of a demi god either. She was the mother of Jesus and it was 30 years before he presented himself to fulfil his role as the fleshly son of God, when his personality and memories were exchanged for those of God's son.

No doubt his faithful willingness to carry out the role he was born and brought up for will be rewarded in resurrection.

There is no reason at all why Mary should be mentioned in scripture after Jesus death, she got little enough mention before it. She was simply just anther faithful worshipper of Jehovah, albeit one who had been used for a very special purpose.

Until her husband died, no doubt she remained home looking after the rest of her children, but on the death of her husband would have joined her eldest son in his travels, and is occasionally mentioned as doing so.

No doubt she lived out the rest of her life faithfully serving the Apostles in Jerusalem, and being cared for, principally by John in whose care she was placed, but doubtless with the aid of the others also.

However few of Jesus brothers and sisters got much of a mention in ave divine glory because of his total obediencescripture either, James being the exception. We are not even told how many became his followers. Nor is there any record of the life of faithful Joseph after Jesus baptism, who did such a good job of raising Jesus and grooming him for his future role.

Mary was nothing more than just another faithful worshipper of Jehovah.

I am glad to see that you are not one of those idiots who believe that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to God's son without the introduction of male semen into her uterus, and that she was just another mother of a normal human being, to whom God gave divine glory, because of his total obedience.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:46:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:32:06 AM, dee-em wrote:
Other posters, please ignore MCB. He's simply here to witness and derail this thread.

I am sure others are more than capable of making up their own minds whether or not to ignore me. At least I give them credit for that level of intelligence, even if you apparently do not.

Up to them whether they ignore me or not, but I have no intention of derailing the thread, and what I have posted is 100% relevant.

It is those who respond to me who tend to drag me off in different directions.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:50:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:26:37 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:09:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

Immediately before his death Jesus made sure that his mother was cared for.

As the eldest male of the family, her care was his responsibility, and he passed that responsibility on to the most trusted of his disciples.

Mary was not the mother of god, or of a demi god either. She was the mother of Jesus and it was 30 years before he presented himself to fulfil his role as the fleshly son of God, when his personality and memories were exchanged for those of God's son.

No doubt his faithful willingness to carry out the role he was born and brought up for will be rewarded in resurrection.

There is no reason at all why Mary should be mentioned in scripture after Jesus death, she got little enough mention before it. She was simply just anther faithful worshipper of Jehovah, albeit one who had been used for a very special purpose.

Until her husband died, no doubt she remained home looking after the rest of her children, but on the death of her husband would have joined her eldest son in his travels, and is occasionally mentioned as doing so.

No doubt she lived out the rest of her life faithfully serving the Apostles in Jerusalem, and being cared for, principally by John in whose care she was placed, but doubtless with the aid of the others also.

However few of Jesus brothers and sisters got much of a mention in ave divine glory because of his total obediencescripture either, James being the exception. We are not even told how many became his followers. Nor is there any record of the life of faithful Joseph after Jesus baptism, who did such a good job of raising Jesus and grooming him for his future role.

Mary was nothing more than just another faithful worshipper of Jehovah.

I am glad to see that you are not one of those idiots who believe that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to God's son without the introduction of male semen into her uterus, and that she was just another mother of a normal human being, to whom God gave divine glory, because of his total obedience.

No the contrary, that is what scripture prophesied for him , and what happened.

However he was not God's son, simply the product of a spot of genetic engineering in Mary's womb.

She was indeed a virgin at Jesus birth, and there was indeed no human intervention in the conception.

If you don't believe God's word, why do you pretend to discuss it?

Or do you not believe God to be capable of such a simple, for him, feat?

I admit I don't often reply to you because your understanding of scripture is always decidedly off beam.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 8:31:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

James, the younger of Mary"s three biological sons, was sired by a man named Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas, and as James was already a young man when Jesus began his ministry, Mary must have married Cleophas when Jesus was a young boy.

Cleophas=Alpheaus, was also the father of the Simeon and Jude, who were members of the family of Mary, but were not born of the same womb as their half brother Jesus.

Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas was called the twin because he held such a striking resemblance to one with whom he shared a common father. Judas (Hebrew) is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for "TWIN",and Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas is also called Thomas=Tau"ma, the Aramiac for "TWIN". Thomas Didymus Jude, the half brother of Jesus is the son of the carpenter Alpheaus/Cleophas the s

You know everything about theecond Husband Of Mary the mother of Jesus.

In "The Acts of Thomas, sometime called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, Judas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban."

There are other instances in the New Testament, where an individual has three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic, Perhaps Cleophas (" The GREEK for "Of a Renown Father") and Alphaeus ("The ARAMAIC for "Of a Renown father), are one and the same as Joseph "HEBREW" the son of Alexander Helios, "A FATHER OF RENOWN?" Perhaps this is why Jude the son of the carpenter and half brother of Jesus, was called, "THE TWIN."

The religious authorities of those days who had access to all the bills of divorce which were filed away in the temple in Jerusalem, were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery. It was then that the hypocritical priests thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.

Bringing forward his mother, who was among the crowd who were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?" They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He to who she was legally married at that time.

Jesus then turned the tables on them by saying, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone."

Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, Perhaps he may have written, "As ye judge, so shall ye be judged." Most men in those days who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, "Is there no one left to condemn you?" No one Lord she answered. "Well then," said Jesus, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but don"t sin again," and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, James, Simeon, and Jude, and the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, "Mary the wife of Cleophas," into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Although we know near to nothing about Joseph the half brother to Jesus, there is more that a greater probability that he was Joseph from Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own FAMILY TOMB THAT HAD NEVER BEEN USED, suggesting that His Father, Joseph the son of Jacob, who was the first husband of Mary, was still alive. It seems strange that in a book which is so condensed, one would bother to add the trivia, that the tomb in which Jesus was laid, was the FAMILY tomb of Joseph which had never been used, when saying, He was buried in a tomb close by, would have sufficed.

Acts 1: 14; reveals that after the ascension of Jesus, the apostle would frequently gather to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, he ran straight to the house where he knew the believers would be gathered in prayer for his safety, straight to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed "MARK."

young John who was surnamed "MARK" which name means "Hammer, or The Hammerer," has been identified with young John the beloved disciple who was entrusted with the care of Mary the mother of Jesus who had surnamed him "Son of Thunder."

After the departure of Jesus, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, took his half sister Mary and young John who was surnamed "MARK" up into the land of Pamphilia, where in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John, can still be visited to this day.

You know everything about the visible things of this world but nothing about the invisible creation or our Creator who is invisible to His creation.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:43:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 8:31:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story). Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

The story doesn't stack up. That's probably why it was later asserted that Mary was also taken up into heaven to join Jesus. With no body and no grave, the church fathers had plausible deniability. They had to cover up the embarrassment in some way.

James, the younger of Mary"s three biological sons, was sired by a man named Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas, and as James was already a young man when Jesus began his ministry, Mary must have married Cleophas when Jesus was a young boy.

Cleophas=Alpheaus, was also the father of the Simeon and Jude, who were members of the family of Mary, but were not born of the same womb as their half brother Jesus.

Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas was called the twin because he held such a striking resemblance to one with whom he shared a common father. Judas (Hebrew) is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for "TWIN",and Jude the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas is also called Thomas=Tau"ma, the Aramiac for "TWIN". Thomas Didymus Jude, the half brother of Jesus is the son of the carpenter Alpheaus/Cleophas the s

You know everything about theecond Husband Of Mary the mother of Jesus.

In "The Acts of Thomas, sometime called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, Judas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban."

There are other instances in the New Testament, where an individual has three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic, Perhaps Cleophas (" The GREEK for "Of a Renown Father") and Alphaeus ("The ARAMAIC for "Of a Renown father), are one and the same as Joseph "HEBREW" the son of Alexander Helios, "A FATHER OF RENOWN?" Perhaps this is why Jude the son of the carpenter and half brother of Jesus, was called, "THE TWIN."

The religious authorities of those days who had access to all the bills of divorce which were filed away in the temple in Jerusalem, were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery. It was then that the hypocritical priests thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.

Bringing forward his mother, who was among the crowd who were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?" They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He to who she was legally married at that time.

Jesus then turned the tables on them by saying, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone."

Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, Perhaps he may have written, "As ye judge, so shall ye be judged." Most men in those days who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, "Is there no one left to condemn you?" No one Lord she answered. "Well then," said Jesus, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but don"t sin again," and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, James, Simeon, and Jude, and the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, "Mary the wife of Cleophas," into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Although we know near to nothing about Joseph the half brother to Jesus, there is more that a greater probability that he was Joseph from Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own FAMILY TOMB THAT HAD NEVER BEEN USED, suggesting that His Father, Joseph the son of Jacob, who was the first husband of Mary, was still alive. It seems strange that in a book which is so condensed, one would bother to add the trivia, that the tomb in which Jesus was laid, was the FAMILY tomb of Joseph which had never been used, when saying, He was buried in a tomb close by, would have sufficed.

Acts 1: 14; reveals that after the ascension of Jesus, the apostle would frequently gather to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, he ran straight to the house where he knew the believers would be gathered in prayer for his safety, straight to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed "MARK."

young John who was surnamed "MARK" which name means "Hammer, or The Hammerer," has been identified with young John the beloved disciple who was entrusted with the care of Mary the mother of Jesus who had surnamed him "Son of Thunder."

After the departure of Jesus, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, took his half sister Mary and young John who was surnamed "MARK" up into the land of Pamphilia, where in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John, can still be visited to this day.

You know everything about the visible things of this world but nothing about the invisible creation or our Creator who is invisible to His creation.

You were not too invisible in your video nor were you very coherent. The world He created is very real that is how we are able to study it. Jesus was very real and has 2 billion followers. Your delusions are not real to us but they are very real to you. That is why you are not successful at making them real to others even though you believe they are real to you.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:07:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:43:11 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/20/2015 8:31:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death

You know everything about the visible things of this world but nothing about the invisible creation or our Creator who is invisible to His creation.

You were not too invisible in your video nor were you very coherent. The world He created is very real that is how we are able to study it. Jesus was very real and has 2 billion followers. Your delusions are not real to us but they are very real to you. That is why you are not successful at making them real to others even though you believe they are real to you.

It's impossible for any of God's people to see my created invisible existence called the Word of God. The image you see will be killed soon but the Word of God will continue on to the next age, which I like to call Paradise.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 1:46:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/19/2015 1:33:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

To whom did Jesus entrust the protection of his mother? John. Which Gospel is the most theologically indepth? John. The Gospel of John would have been radically influenced by John knowing Mary.

Don't be ridiculous. John was written after 90AD and the author wasn't the apostle. In fact, it is widely accepted that there were multiple authors for the Johannine works. You are simply going on tradition which has been repudiated as unreliable.

Yet it is just an opinion of some scholars. I believe those who lived closest to John - particularly Irenaeus.

However, even if you were right, how does that answer the points I made above?

I've shown how Mary influenced the creation of he most theologically in depth gospel. As for Paul, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Paul was converting a pagan world to Christianity. His focus was probably teaching the basics to the people. How he viewed Mary is pure speculation on your part.

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Roman emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century AD built a temple dedicated to the Roman goddess Venus in order to bury the cave in which Jesus had been buried.[5][6] The first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, ordered in about 325/326 that the temple be replaced by a church.[7]

Fakery centuries after the events. Do you even read your own links? Lol.

I see no fakery. Hadiran obviously knew that Christians would go there to worship so he built a pagan temple on the site. If anything this supports my point. Constantine gave the site back to the Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Church of the Nativity is a basilica located in Bethlehem, Palestine. The church was originally commissioned in 327 AD by Constantine and his mother Helena over the site that is still traditionally considered to be located over the cave that marks the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank you for proving my point. There is no evidence of a legitimate grave (or birthplace - a cave?) for either Mary or Jesus. It's all Christian fabrication many centuries later.

On the contrary. If you actually look at history you'll find that after the Edict of Milan, Helena travelled to the "Holy Land" to find out the locations of the places that the Christians venerated. The Christians in the area knew the places, but they were an underground sect that was officially illegal - so you wouldn't find a lot written about it now would you?

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Luke noted her title as Kecharitomene - complete fullness of Grace.

Decades later. Yes, very convincing. Not. My point is that Mary was unknown until the arrival of the gospel stories. Why had Paul never heard of her? Why wasn't she immediately venerated? She gave birth to the son of God supposedly (!) and yet she was a nobody for decades. Is that credible?

You are once again leaping to conclusions. The fact that she is in the gospels is clear evidence that there was early understanding of her unique role in salvation history. To use the word Kecharitomene is to make her unique in all of mankind. This word was never used to describe any other human. No author would do this if there was not already great reverence and comprehension of her role in Christianity.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. ... For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.
http://www.piercedhearts.org...

I don't accept religious sites as a source of reliable historical information.

LOL. That is the weakest rebuttal ever especially considering that the quotes were all footnoted. You are disgracing the atheists on the site with a pretty pathetic ad hominem.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 11:07:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:43:11 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/20/2015 8:31:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death

You know everything about the visible things of this world but nothing about the invisible creation or our Creator who is invisible to His creation.

You were not too invisible in your video nor were you very coherent. The world He created is very real that is how we are able to study it. Jesus was very real and has 2 billion followers. Your delusions are not real to us but they are very real to you. That is why you are not successful at making them real to others even though you believe they are real to you.

It's impossible for any of God's people to see my created invisible existence called the Word of God. The image you see will be killed soon but the Word of God will continue on to the next age, which I like to call Paradise.

If you are indulging in alcohol and drugs in the quantities your posts indicate you may well be, you are killing yourself!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:47:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 11:19:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 11:07:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:43:11 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/20/2015 8:31:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:19:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death

You know everything about the visible things of this world but nothing about the invisible creation or our Creator who is invisible to His creation.

You were not too invisible in your video nor were you very coherent. The world He created is very real that is how we are able to study it. Jesus was very real and has 2 billion followers. Your delusions are not real to us but they are very real to you. That is why you are not successful at making them real to others even though you believe they are real to you.

It's impossible for any of God's people to see my created invisible existence called the Word of God. The image you see will be killed soon but the Word of God will continue on to the next age, which I like to call Paradise.

If you are indulging in alcohol and drugs in the quantities your posts indicate you may well be, you are killing yourself!

You would make a very poor psychiatrist.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:20:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 11:18:21 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/20/2015 1:46:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/19/2015 1:33:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:25:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
When Jesus died his mother Mary was still alive. There is no record of her death in the gospels. Yet Paul never once mentions Mary. Here was the mother of Jesus the god-man and yet Paul makes no attempt to visit her and get a first-hand account of his life from her. Instead he relies on 'revelation' from a spirit. Paul treks all over the Middle-East and the Mediterranean but he can't spare a quick trip over to talk to her in Judea? Is that credible or is it entirely unbelievable?

To whom did Jesus entrust the protection of his mother? John. Which Gospel is the most theologically indepth? John. The Gospel of John would have been radically influenced by John knowing Mary.

Don't be ridiculous. John was written after 90AD and the author wasn't the apostle. In fact, it is widely accepted that there were multiple authors for the Johannine works. You are simply going on tradition which has been repudiated as unreliable.

Yet it is just an opinion of some scholars. I believe those who lived closest to John - particularly Irenaeus.

It's a concensus opinion. Enough said.

However, even if you were right, how does that answer the points I made above?

I've shown how Mary influenced the creation of he most theologically in depth gospel.

You've shown nothing. All you have is assertions. John, the son of Zebedee, died long before the gospel of John was written. Also, there is evidence of a "Gnostic" version of the fourth gisoel which was altered by later authors to be more compliant with the synoptic gospels.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

As for Paul, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Paul was converting a pagan world to Christianity. His focus was probably teaching the basics to the people. How he viewed Mary is pure speculation on your part.

The basics? The basics? Have you actually read Paul? He single-handedly invented Christianity by synthesizing Jewish scripture with Greek philosophy and pagan beliefs.

He doesn't mention Mary for a single reason. His Jesus was not a human being. If he had been, then surely Paul would have given us some details about his Earthly life such as that he was born of a virgin, a miracle of miracles! But nothing, not even a passing mention. This is not mere absence of evidence. How could you be "converting a pagan world to Christianity" and ignore his miraculous birth and the mother who God chose to deliver him? It defies belief.

Who looked after her after the execution of her son? Surely as the mother of God, she would have been venerated by the early Christian communities. Yet there is not a shred of evidence of this happening. (Neither was the tomb of Jesus venerated or any locations associated with his alleged death, but that is another story).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Roman emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century AD built a temple dedicated to the Roman goddess Venus in order to bury the cave in which Jesus had been buried.[5][6] The first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, ordered in about 325/326 that the temple be replaced by a church.[7]

Fakery centuries after the events. Do you even read your own links? Lol.

I see no fakery. Hadiran obviously knew that Christians would go there to worship so he built a pagan temple on the site. If anything this supports my point. Constantine gave the site back to the Christians.

Your source is the liar of all liars, Eusebius, the big 'E'. The man who wrote a book chapter titled:

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"

That's how much contempt he had for the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Church of the Nativity is a basilica located in Bethlehem, Palestine. The church was originally commissioned in 327 AD by Constantine and his mother Helena over the site that is still traditionally considered to be located over the cave that marks the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank you for proving my point. There is no evidence of a legitimate grave (or birthplace - a cave?) for either Mary or Jesus. It's all Christian fabrication many centuries later.

On the contrary. If you actually look at history you'll find that after the Edict of Milan, Helena travelled to the "Holy Land" to find out the locations of the places that the Christians venerated. The Christians in the area knew the places, but they were an underground sect that was officially illegal - so you wouldn't find a lot written about it now would you?

How convenient. Lol.

Even if Mary died shortly after her famous son, you would expect some immediate signs of veneration in the historical record. Yet there is nothing until centuries later.

Luke noted her title as Kecharitomene - complete fullness of Grace.

Decades later. Yes, very convincing. Not. My point is that Mary was unknown until the arrival of the gospel stories. Why had Paul never heard of her? Why wasn't she immediately venerated? She gave birth to the son of God supposedly (!) and yet she was a nobody for decades. Is that credible?

You are once again leaping to conclusions. The fact that she is in the gospels is clear evidence that there was early understanding of her unique role in salvation history. To use the word Kecharitomene is to make her unique in all of mankind. This word was never used to describe any other human. No author would do this if there was not already great reverence and comprehension of her role in Christianity.

And yet Paul, much closer to the events being a contemporary of the alleged Jesus, never heard of her. She was so venerated by the early Christian communities which Paul ministered to that she was completely invisible. How very strange!

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. ... For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief.
http://www.piercedhearts.org...

I don't accept religious sites as a source of reliable historical information.

LOL. That is the weakest rebuttal ever especially considering that the quotes were all footnoted. You are disgracing the atheists on the site with a pretty pathetic ad hominem.

I don't think you know what an ad hom is. But carry on. Lol.