On Pope John Paul II Kissing An Islamic Koran

          Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) once kissed an Islamic Koran during a meeting with the Patriarch of Chaldean. This action no doubt resulted in controversy, as one has to wonder precisely what this man was thinking. After all, the Islamic religion rejects the gospel. It denies the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. So it is quite evident that Islam and biblical Christianity are incompatible with each other.

          Whatever the case, there is no wisdom in Christians (especially the supposed earthly head of the Christian church) bowing their heads and kissing the sacred texts of different religions. There is literally no excuse for such conduct, as such communicates endorsement. Christ made an exclusive truth claim (John 14:6). If other belief systems are acceptable to God, then Christ would be a liar and false messiah. That charge would be blasphemous to the utmost.

           If the pope is truly the Vicar of Christ on earth, then why would he display so much reverence for a religion that fundamentally contradicts his own? His action so clearly resembles that of an apostate (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 9-11). He also could have mislead those who are unlearned by his irresponsible act. Why then do Roman Catholics try so hard to defend this sort of behavior? The rightful thing to do would be to simply admit that the pope erred. Moreover, it is not as though we will ever see an imam kissing the Holy Bible.

          It seems that the pope these days will do anything to gain political influence. That appears to be the motivating factor behind the Vatican associating with Islam. The Roman Bishop definitely seems to be a figure who has charisma. Even today, millions flock to Rome just to behold him as he lectures. Faithful Roman Catholics bow before him and kiss the hand which wields the ring molded for his coronation. All of this is idolatry, pure idolatry.

The Charismatic Misuse And Abuse Of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Commentary:

This passage has been used by charismatic Christians to demonstrate that the miraculous gifts of prophecy and tongues will remain in the church until the Second Coming of Christ. Non-charismatics have used this verse to argue that tongues and prophecy ceased upon the completion of the canon of Scripture or the maturing of the early church. These interpretations turn on the meaning of "the perfect" (to teleion).

What both charismatics and non-charismatics can agree upon is that the gifts mentioned in this verse will be "done away with" (in the case of prophecy and knowledge) and will "cease" (in the case of tongues). They would also agree that the reason these gifts will not continue forever is that they are inadequate - imperfect in relation to the "perfect" that is coming. Finally, they would agree that the gifts were operative in Paul's time and that the time of their cessation was a future event for him. The difference in interpretation lies in whether the gifts mentioned have ceased prior to our time, or whether they are still operative for us, as they were for Paul, and their cessation lies yet in the future.

A careful reading of the text demonstrates that Paul may be drawing a distinction between tongues on the one hand and prophecy and knowledge on the other. The latter two gifts will be "done away" with (katargeo). Tongues are said to "cease" (pauo). The "perfect" will actively "do away" with the "partial." Katargeo is in the passive voice, indicating that the coming of the "perfect" is the cause of the "partial" passing away. Tongues, however, will cease of themselves. Pauo is in the Greek middle voice, which is defined as "an action taken by the subject upon him, her, or itself" (Friberg). Thus, tongues will "cease" of themselves - not as a direct result of "the perfect" coming. If this is the case, Paul is not speaking definitively about when tongues will cease - only that when "the perfect" comes, tongues will no longer be operative in the church. "The perfect" will do away with prophecy and knowledge; but tongues will have ceased at some point prior to that event.

Thus, even if we take "the perfect" to be the Second Coming, this verse does not teach that tongues will be active in the church at Christ's return.

As mentioned, "the perfect" is often taken by non-charismatics as being the completion of the canon This interpretation is possible, based on one of the meanings of teleion ("perfect, perfection, completion"). However, this interpretation seems foreign to the immediate context. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary notes:

It is difficult to prove the cessation of these gifts at the end of the first century A.D. by taking teleion to refer to a completion of the canon at that time, since that idea is completely extraneous to the context. While teleion can and does refer to something completed at some time in the future, the time of that future completion is not suggested in v. 10 as being close (EBC).

Other non-charismatics take teleion to be the maturity of the church, which more or less coincides with the completion of the canon. This interpretation is contextually more plausible (1 Corinthians 12 - 14 centers on church conduct), and thematically appealing:

There is much to commend this view, including the natural accord it enjoys with the illustration of growth and maturity which Paul used in the following verses (BKC).

However, I find this view somewhat strained lexically. While teleion can mean "a state of maturity" when speaking of a person, there are no other NT examples of it carrying this meaning when used of a collective group or abstract noun (which must be inferred as "church" in this interpretation). An additional problem with this interpretation is the fact that Paul says in verse 12 that "at that time" (i.e., when "the perfect" comes), he will "know fully." It does not seem reasonable to understand Paul to be saying that he expected to live to see the maturity of the church and then to "know fully." Rather, it seems more likely that Paul here is referring to a time of spiritual completion - either when he dies and goes to be with Christ, or at the resurrection following Christ's Second Coming.

Indeed, many evangelical commentators understand "the perfect" to mean either the Second Coming or the perfection of the human soul that occurs when the Christian is united with Christ in death:

On the other hand, in a number of contexts the related words telos ("end," "termination;" "last part") and teleo ("bring to an end") are used in relation to the second coming of Christ. This is true in both non-Pauline writing (cf. James 5:11; Rev 20:5, 7; 21:6; 22:13) and 1 Corinthians 1:8; 15:24. Since in the contexts of the Second Coming these related words are used and since Paul himself used telos in talking about the Second Coming elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, it seems more normal to understand teleion in v. 10 to mean that "perfection" is to come about at the Second Coming, or, if before, when the Christian dies and is taken to be with the Lord (2Cor 5:1-10) (EBC).

"But it seems that the perfect thing Paul has in mind must be the eternal state - "face to face" in verse 12 can best be explained as being with God in the new heavens and new earth. It is only in glory that we will know as we are known (John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p. 389).

But in heaven, faith will be swallowed up in actual sight, and hope in enjoyment. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But there, love will be made perfect. There we shall perfectly love God. And there we shall perfectly love one another. Blessed state! how much surpassing the best below! (Henry).

On the whole, it is probably best to take to teleion to mean the Second Coming (though the maturity of the church is possible as well). The gift of tongues will cease at some point prior to Christ's return, while this sublime event will do away with knowledge and prophecy. These two gifts need not be taken to be miraculous manifestations, but rather the gift of knowledge that allows the believers to grasp and retain the meaning of God's revelation and the gift of prophecy that allows teachers and pastors to powerfully and truthfully proclaim God's Word. Indeed, the view that knowledge and prophecy would lead to new revelations would contradict the counsel of Scripture in countless other places. Spiritual gifts - whether spectacular or mundane - are always focused on God's revelation, now complete in the pages of our Bibles.

Grammatical Analysis:

PAUSONTAI (PAUW) (3973)

• mid[dle voice] stop (oneself), cease (BAGD)
• to cease, leave off (Thayer)
• They shall cease (pausontai). Future middle indicative of pauô, to make
• cease. They shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves (RWP).

TELEION (TELEIOS) (5046)

• having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect; subst[tantive] to teleion what is perfect Ro 12:2; perh[aps] 1 Cor 13:10 (BAGD)
• brought to its end, finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect ... to teleion, substantively, that which is perfect... the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven 1 Cor xiii. 10 (Thayer).

Other Views Considered (Charismatics):

Objection: In order to understand this statement we need to examine its context. Paul said that prophecies will cease, tongues will be stilled, knowledge will pass away, and perfection will come (verses 8-10). Paul was speaking of a time yet future both to his original readers and to us. When the kingdom of our Lord is ushered in, perfection will come and there will be no further need of Spirit-given knowledge, prophecy, and tongues. They will disappear because they will be longer needed. But these operations of the Spirit are still needed today.

There is no indication in Scripture that tongues would cease at the end of the first century. Tongues are to be a part of the life of the church in every generation until Christ returns to set up His perfect kingdom. Paul's perception was that spiritual gifts would be operational until that day (1 Corinthians 1:7, 8) (from The Assemblies of God website).

Response: It must be admitted that this view is possible; however, it requires that we understand Paul's distinction between tongues "ceasing" of their own accord (middle voice) and prophecy/knowledge to be "done away" with directly by the coming of "the perfect" (passive voice) to be mere stylist variations and not related to the overall meaning of the text. Given Paul's careful use of language throughout this epistle, as well as in his other letters, a stylistic nuance seems unlikely.

If, as seems probable, Paul is teaching that tongues will cease of their own accord before the Second Coming, this interpretation must be rejected - at least with regard to tongues.

While there is no direct statement in the Bible that tongues will cease following the Apostolic age, there is substantial evidence that tongues did, in fact, cease. We may note that tongues are only mentioned in the earliest NT books. Paul wrote at least 12 epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter, James, Jude, and John do not mention tongues. There is no evidence from the sub-Apostolic fathers that tongues existed in the church after the first century (see Cleon Rogers, "The Gift of Tongues in the Post-Apostolic Church," Bibliotheca Sacra, 122, p. 134). An interesting sect known as the Montanists seem to have practiced something like speaking in tongues in the second century, but this group was considered heretical by other Christians because of its insistence that its leaders were receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit which added to - and even supplanted - the recorded teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

The Montanist movement was defeated almost incidentally as a result of measures the church took against Gnosticism and Marcionism, especially by the definition of the canon of Scripture, which closed the door to Montanus' new revelations (Heresies, p. 68).

While isolated groups on the fringes of mainstream Christianity have, from time to time, practiced something akin to speaking in tongues, this spiritual gift has not been normative for Christians since the Apostolic age - at least, not prior to the modern Pentecostal movement in late 1800's. Thus, the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that tongues have not ceased, a burden that would seem heavy indeed, based on the historical record.

Copyright © 2001-2005 by Robert Hommel. For an Answer Ministries (http://www.forananswer.org). All rights reserved.

Biblical Illiteracy Within The Roman Catholic Church

"There was a far more extensive and continuous use of Scripture in the public services of the early Church than there is among us. Usually speaking, our people only hear the Gospel and Epistle read in the Mass, with the psalms and the little chapter (scarcely more than a verse or two), usually from the Epistle, at vespers and compline on Sundays or great feasts. In the primitive Church it was very different."

Tom Arnold and William Edward Addis, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing Some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, p. 509

Analyzing The Spiritual But Not Religious Movement

          There is a trend within Christianity where a distinction is made between religion and spirituality. In other words, adherents of this movement have pitted the two words against each other or treated them like distinct concepts. Organized religion altogether has been condemned by these people as being legalism, which gets in the way of people growing in their relationship with the God. The phrase "spiritual but not religious," albeit of uncertain origin, has been used as a label for this contemporary movement relating to self-identity.

          While it is true that Jesus Christ vehemently denounced the outward ceremonial righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, it is a huge mistake to oppose being religious due to having a facile understanding on the nature of faith. True faith involves obeying God on His own terms. He joyfully communes with members of His church through the sharing of and living out the gospel. Additionally, the offices of elder and deacon are structurally set up for regulating the moral principles and worship habits of God's people.

          Therefore, Christianity is, in a very real sense, religious according to the purpose and design which God has mandated to maintain His church's spiritual vitality. James, the brother of Jesus, firmly acknowledges the contrast between dead religion rooted in hypocrisy and the worship that pleases our Creator (James 1:21-27). How we view religion should be determined by the context in which that word is used. Religion and spirituality are actually synonymous. If God had a problem with "religion" in and of itself, then why did He give the Jews the Mosaic Law?

          Us placing our trust in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ alone in no way nullifies our calling to serve God in the manner that He expects us to. God does not only enjoy fellowship with us on an individualized basis, but also with us as a collective body. Spirituality cannot be found within ourselves, as is proposed in Eastern religions. We are fallen creatures. We are not deities. God Himself is the ultimate solution to our problems.

How Christ’s Incarnation Differs From The Hindu Idea Of Avatar

Jesus Christ’s life, death, and miraculous resurrection are events rooted in history. Whereas the lives of the Hindu holy men are enveloped in mythology.

As an Eastern mystical religion, Hinduism does not emphasize chronology. And modern-day Hindus show little interest in the “historical” Krishna the way contemporary Christians inquire about the historicity of Jesus.

Scholar and Krishna devotee Mataji Devi Vanamali explains:

“Hinduism is not a historical religion. If somebody were to prove conclusively that Krishna, Rama, and the various gods of the Hindu pantheon never existed, most Hindus would not mind in the least, and the religion would continue to flourish as it has done for so many centuries. However, to the devotees of Krishna, he is as real as any of their friends or relatives or children, depending on how they regard him—as friend, relation, child, or lover. This being so, most Indians have not bothered to verify his existence.”1

Thus a major difference between Jesus Christ and the Hindu holy men (including Krishna) relates to history and the question of historical verification.

1. Vanamali, The Complete Life of Krishna: Based on the Earliest Oral Traditions and Sacred Scriptures (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2012), xiii-xiv.

Kenneth Samples, cited by Ken Temple

How Were Gentiles Saved In The Old Testament?

           The Mosaic Covenant was instituted for the Jewish people to serve as a code to guide behavior and a system of forgiveness. It foreshadowed the greater atonement of Jesus Christ that actually perfects those who believe on Him for salvation. The weakness of the Old Covenant is manifested by it requiring repeated animal sacrifices. While the Old Testament is mainly centered upon Israel, it does speak of the Gentile cultures which surrounded that nation. We are told that God held non-Jewish people accountable for sins such as idolatry and sexual immorality (2 Kings 22:17; Romans 1:18-32), with the reason being that they violated the law written on their hearts by God. This leaves us with an interesting question. How could the Gentiles be reconciled to a holy God before Christ came to die for their sins?

           The Law that was given to Israel by God through the Prophet Moses exemplified its uniqueness as a nation before the pagan cultures (Deuteronomy 4:5-9; Isaiah 42:5-7). The Law even contained clauses regarding the proper treatment of outsiders, thereby demonstrating God's care for those who were not Jewish. He provides equally for both the Jew and Gentile (Deuteronomy 10:16-21). The nations are in view through the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The Apostle Paul further elaborated on this truth as he was given new revelation from God (Ephesians 3:1-13). Non-Jewish believers were considered as members of His kingdom in the same manner as a believing Jew.

           Paul's revelation was groundbreaking in the context of early Christianity. He emphasized that God's grace extended beyond the boundaries of ethnicity and tradition, uniting Jewish and non-Jewish believers alike under a single divine promise. Through this new understanding, he sought to break down the barriers that had long divided people. Paul fostered a spirit of inclusivity within the early church. This message of unity and equality was revolutionary, affirming that faith in Christ was the sole prerequisite for full membership in God's kingdom. Cultural or religious background was ireelevant.

           Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament by converting to Judaism. They were saved by placing their trust in the God of Israel and identifying themselves with His people. False gods were forsaken for the worship of Yahweh. One noteworthy example of conversion is that of Rahab (Joshua 2). Another example of conversion is Ruth. She exhibited faith in God and entered into His covenant, which consisted of trusting in the promise of a future redeemer as foretold by the Holy Scriptures. The coming of a Messiah was believed by the patriarchs and the Jews in general. Converts partook in the Passover (Exodus 12:46-50). God has never been beyond the reach of individuals who truthfully seek after Him (Acts 17:26-27).

1 Peter 3:15 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

• Discussion:

          -A High Christology is foundational in Christian theology, affirming that Jesus Christ is not merely a teacher or prophet, but truly divine and worthy of worship. 1 Peter 3:15 is a piece of evidence showing that the authors of the New Testament held to exactly that kind of view concerning the nature of Jesus. The text in question is cited here as follows:

          "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (emphasis added)

          1 Peter 3:13-14 is an allusion to Isaiah 8. Peter makes that connection to encourage people of faith to live out their convictions, even in the midst of persecution. He echoes the language of Isaiah 8:13 as he makes his point:

          “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread." (emphasis added)

          Peter substitutes the Old Testament title "the Lord of hosts" with "Christ the Lord," thereby proving that he believed Jesus Christ to be God in the flesh. Both are given the same degree of reverence. We are to honor Christ as the Holy One. As far as textual differences are concerned, the New English Translation says that:

          "tc Most later mss (P M) have θεόν (theon, “God”) instead of Χριστόν (Christon; “Christ”) here. But Χριστόν is widely supported by excellent and early witnesses (P א A B C Ψ 33 1739 al latt sy co), and as a less common idiom better explains the rise of the other reading."

           This less common idiom of referring to Christ directly may have seemed unusual to some scribes, possibly leading to the alteration in later manuscripts.

Is Mary The New Eve?

        Mary is referred to as the New Eve in the Roman Catholic Church. This title is a devotional one, which compares Mary to the biblical figure Eve. It is based on the idea that Mary's faith was the key to salvation, essentially reversing the disobedience that led to humanity's fall through Eve's actions. This source expounds on the Marian title as follows:

        "Eve, the wife of Adam, became the "mother of all the living," as we read in Genesis, chapter 3, verse 20. Because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God, sin and death entered the world, and all of Eve's children are born in original sin. Through the obedience of Mary, the handmaid of the Lord, Jesus Christ entered the world as man to reverse the disobedience of Adam and Eve. For this reason, Christ is considered the "New Adam." Christ, the Son of Mary, offers a new life of grace to all who believe in Him. All who accept Christ's invitation become His brothers and sisters, and become the spiritual children of Mary, the New Eve."

        Scripture places the blame for sin entering into this world on Adam rather than Eve (Romans 5:12-21). The reason for this is that he received firsthand knowledge from God and still disobeyed. Paul develops a typological parallel between Christ and Adam: the former brought life upon mankind, whereas the latter brought about death (1 Corinthians 15:45-47). Therefore, any notion of Mary being the New Eve collapses because the responsibility for the fall is attributed exclusively to Adam, even though the woman had indeed sinned. The Apostle Paul does not extend this parallel to Eve.

        Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr made parallels between Eve and Mary. Irenaeus wrote the following in his Against Heresies, Book V:

        "For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death."

        The articulated parallel does not amount to the full theological developments within Roman Catholicism. It is not about Mary being a mediator of grace or an intercessor of sorts. Simply put, parallels are established between the fall and redemption with Jesus Christ being the central figure of preeminence as the new Adam.

        Mary is like Eve in that she is a woman and that she gives birth to the promised seed. However, any idea of there being a salvific parallel between Mary and Eve goes beyond what is taught in Scripture. The authors of the New Testament nowhere apply a concept of divine motherhood to Mary over the church. Mary is blessed in that she found favor with God, but she is not greater in holiness and grace than any other believer in Jesus Christ. Mary is not the mother of a new humanity any more than was her own mother.

        The only woman mentioned in the New Testament and given the title of "mother" in a spiritual sense is Sarah (1 Peter 3:6). However, even that status is due to the fact of her being a good moral example rather than anything relating to saintly intercession.

Was Jesus Christ Married?

"The canonical Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) preclude any option of understanding Jesus as married. He operates as an unmarried teacher with a band of devoted disciples. He is not the head of a household, but builds a household of faith — the church. At the crucifixion, he assigns John responsibility for caring for Mary, his mother. There is no mention of any wife, and certainly no mention of children."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/historical-propaganda/

Catholic Apologists And The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria rebutted my comments relating to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He appeals to church tradition, makes false claims about Jewish culture, and tries really hard to wiggle around texts which mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "The New Testament was originally passed on in Tradition. This is what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:18-21)."

          Those teachings have been written down for us in epistles. Further, the Great Commission is about the preaching of the gospel, also identified in Scripture. For a more in-depth examination of claims regarding "Sacred Tradition," see this article:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/09/roman-catholic-apologists-and-circular.html

          "The original Scriptures were not written in English. Nor were they written in modern Greek. They were written in ancient Greek and Latin. And they were written by Catholics who were simply writing down Catholic Doctrine. The same Doctrine which Jesus Christ passed down."

          The original New Testament was not composed in Latin, but Koine Greek. The Vulgate was a translation of the original manuscripts, and textually deficient. Moreover, it is not as though the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars who know this type of Greek would affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. They will merely say that it is possible that she was.

          "You're reading the New Testament in modern English 2000 years removed from the ancient Jewish culture which gave birth to the Christian faith."

           Biblical translations convey with a remarkable degree of accuracy what the authors of such texts intended to say, so wholesale dismissals of them are unjustified.

          The following excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia is also helpful here:

          "In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin. "The world was created to produce life; He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18; Giṭ. iv. 5 = 'Eduy. i. 13). "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. i. 28) is taken as a command; marriage with a view to that end is a duty incumbent upon every male adult (according to some the duty devolves also upon woman; Yeb. vi. 8; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xv.; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 13)...Abstention from marital intercourse on the part of the husband exceeding a legitimate limit, which varies with the different occupations, may be taken by the wife as ground for a divorce (Ket. v. 6, 7). A single man who is past twenty may be compelled by the court to marry (Shulḥan 'Aruk, l.c. i. 3)."

          "[in response to Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4] Only if you follow the traditions of men which Protestants believe. However, Tradition and Scripture tell us that Jesus was an only child. Therefore, any use of the word "adelphoi" must be in the general sense that we use the word "brother" today. As in good friend, cousin, church companion, and many other senses."

          Nowhere does the New Testament state that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Never do we see the Angel Gabriel or some other messenger sent by God to tell Joseph that he was not to consummate his marriage. The basis for Mary's perpetual virginity is uninspired legends and unreasonable assumptions.

          Adelphoi does not always refer to physical brothers, but the New Testament uses the Greek word in just that way. The context of Matthew 13 and Mark 6 demands that we understand His brothers and sisters to mean blood relatives. For instance, the phrase "a prophet is not without honor except in his own household" implies the presence of close family members, such as biological siblings. They lived with Him and were part of His immediate family. British Methodist theologian and scholar Adam Clarke said the following when commenting on Matthew 13:55:

          "Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?"

          If a person wants to argue that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are from a previous marriage, then why were they were nowhere mentioned during the escape to and return from Egypt (Matthew 2)? The context only presents Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus. Why were the relatives not mentioned when Joseph traveled with Mary to Bethlehem for the census (Luke 2)?

          "And the writer knew that Catholics would understand the true meaning of the word. And if they didn't, they have an infallible Teacher to correct them."

          The point being stressed here is that the New Testament uses language in such a precise fashion that the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is rendered unlikely. Why would the Holy Spirit move people to write in a way that contradicts our common sense? If the inspired writers of the New Testament actually believed this dogma, then why did they not forthrightly proclaim it as truth?

          "[In response to Matthew 1:24-25] The entire idea presented there is "knew her not". This is a perfect example of you treating ancient Jewish speech patterns the same as modern English. But you assume too much. heos hou, or "until", was used differently by Jews than by modern English speakers. So, let's look at the Scripture. Matthew "knew her not until". To, English speakers, that means that Matthew did not know her until a certain point in time and then he did. But to an ancient Jew, that isn't the case. Let me give you an example (2 Samuel 6:23)."

           The Greek New Testament contains instances in which the word "until" denotes a change in circumstances as well as a figurative sense meaning an indefinite point. Therefore, the Jews would have been familiar with both usages. There is nothing giving the word until in Matthew 1:25 a meaning other than a change in situation or status, except prior theological commitments. 2 Samuel 6:23 (which was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek) is a case in which until means an unspecified point in time or never again, but it does have the temporal sense in other texts such as Matthew 17:9 and 24:39.

          "Even that doesn't show a change of status after the wedding day, if read in the culture of the ancient Jews."

           Relations between marital partners is seen as normal in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:22-24). According to Jewish law, one could not be considered married without consummation. Celibacy was never the norm, except among certain sects such as the Essenes. Judaism in general placed a special emphasis on marriage and childbearing, as did most of the ancient world. That is why men married females who were even decades younger than themselves, something which we today would consider abhorrent. The underlying reason for that was fertility, which decreases with age. As far as a biblical theology of marriage is concerned, sexual relations are a part of God's design for it. It is a measure that brings about sanctity and honor (Hebrews 13:4).

          "[In response to Matthew 1:18] Again, since Catholics have always knows that they never came together sexually, then we know that there must be an alternate meaning. That meaning must be "before they came together in one household."

          Matthew 1 speaks of being betrothed, but not yet having slept together. The details provided by the gospel narratives strongly indicate normal marital relations between Mary and Joseph. Merely stating that an idea should be accepted as true because that is how it has always been is an instance of begging the question. Since there is not enough evidence to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, Catholic teaching on this matter can most certainly be trashed, even centuries worth of it.

          "[In response to Psalm 69:8-9] Lol! Really? That is a prophet saying that he has alienated himself from the entire nation of Israel. Have you ever heard that Israel killed the prophets. Come on."

          Psalm 69 is obviously messianic in nature, although not every detail is pertinent to Jesus Christ. Psalm 69:8 was quoted in John 7:3-5. Psalm 69:9 was quoted in John 2:17. Psalm 69:21 was quoted in Matthew 27:34. Psalm 69:25 was quoted in Matthew 23:38. Reading the context of Psalm 69 gives us the imagery of one being alienated. That is exactly what has been reported in the gospel accounts regarding Christ. The text is a problem for the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity because it refers to "my brothers" and "my mother's sons."

          "[Responding to Luke 2:7] Read about Jewish culture. It would do you a world of good. Ok, let's see. OT Jews were polygamous. Let's say that Jew#1 had two wives. One of them had the Firstborn son and that's all. The other had the rest of the children. All boys. The Firstborn would receive double the inheritance of the other boys. That's all. It doesn't mean that wife #1 had any more children. Jesus was Mary's first and only son."

           There is no way of knowing whether most Jews in ancient times were polygamous, much less if Joseph himself was. It is questionable if he could even have afforded to have multiple wives. Even if any of these points are true, they are tangential to the core issue.

          "[Responding to the question of how marriage consummation would defile Mary] One of the main reasons is that we know that Joseph was a righteous man. In Scripture, righteous men do not have sexual relations with other men's wives. Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit had brought about the birth of Christ. And that means that Mary had become the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph would not dare come to know her physically."

          Scripture never affirms or even hints at the idea that the Holy Spirit "married" Mary or she became His spiritual wife. The Holy Spirit is not like a Roman or Greek god who has sexual relations with a human being and a god-man is born. The Holy Spirit is not physical, but immaterial. Mary was simply "overshadowed" by Him. His divine power created the physical body of Jesus Christ in her womb.

          "[In Response to John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, and Galatians 1:18-19] In all those passages, the context shows that they were either some other relative or close friends, but in context with the Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ, we know that they were not the children of Mary."

          There is simply no valid reason to dogmatically assert that the siblings of Jesus were cousins or from some previous marriage. Those theories are bereft of a truthful foundation.