Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

Larry,

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Please indicate where the word "immediately" or any variation with the same meaning appears here? Because it is right after this statement that we see:

But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

I see nothing that says the conception will take place right then or even shortly there after. We don't get the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to her until after Mary asks her question.

Amazing, cause that's exactly what you just did by saying Mary knew (before she asked the question) that her conception would be immediate. It's not in the text; you "are forced to read something into the text that isn't there." Thanks for the quote; it served me well.

 

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
If Joseph knew, I am sure that Mary knew also. The child was already in the womb of Mary at this point. It is obvious then that the birth would be very close to immediate, depending on your point of view.
DHK

 

DHK,

This is silly. If Joseph knew (and as you said, Mary knew), then Mary would not have asked the question, because she would have already known. The only way to take these two separate accounts is that they happened about the same time, and that the two were not together but received individual visits from the angel.

Furthermore, the angel tells Joseph that she has already conceived (see your Scripture reference), but the angel to Mary said you "will" conceive. Therefore, Joseph's visitation occurs after Mary's. Therefore, Mary was not expecting, at the time of her visit, to conceive a child via the Holy Spirit. Hence, any mention of a conception, if she was planning to have marital intercourse with Joseph, would sound like a perfectly natural thing, and something not expected and again, without any hint of immediacy until after she asks her question.

 

Context, GS, come on ... This is not that difficult. The context shows an immediate conception is expected and when you read the whole chapter that is what you see. Mary gets the promise and goes to Elizabeth's house and it has already happened. The text shows that it was immediate.

And you still haven't dealt with the actual text of Matt 1:25. You keep ignoring the SCriptures to defend a doctrine that is unneeded and uselss anyway. Why?? Why not abandon such things and adhere to the text of Scripture?

 

1. The reason that Joseph was going to "put her away," or divorce her, was that she was pregnant.

2. She was pregnant enough that Joseph was able to tell that she was pregnant.

3. Therefore an angel appeared to Joseph reassuring him that the "child" or that which was in Mary was not the child of another man, but that which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and therefore there was no need of putting away his betrothed wife. This was not an act of fornincation, which he had previously assumed.

4. Mary was puzzled as to what was happening because she knew that she had not "known" any man. She had not had any intercourse.

5. The angel reassured her that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

6. Very soon after these events transpired, Mary went up to see her cousin Elizabeth, who she also heard was with child. When she approached Elizabeth, the child of Elizabeth leapt in her womb, and Elizabeth burst out in praise saying about Mary: "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb," referring to Jesus.

Now what was your question about the evidence of Mary showing no signs of being pregnant?
DHK

 

Context, GS, come on ... This is not that difficult. The context shows an immediate conception is expected and when you read the whole chapter that is what you see. Mary gets the promise and goes to Elizabeth's house and it has already happened. The text shows that it was immediate.</font>[/QUOTE]Tell me, Larry. Do you believe that the angel said the things he said? And did Mary say the things she said? Or are these gereralizations?

Because if they are really what they said, then we are following a dialogue here between Mary and the angel. Mary cannot see in advance what the angel is going to tell her. The angel says "you will conceive," and Mary says, "How can this be?" because she honestly does not know. She did not have the "context" you speak of because it had not happened yet; it was happening as they spoke. If Mary was expecting to have intercourse with Joseph, the statement brought to her by the angel, at that moment in time, would not have been puzzling, because she would have assumed, "Ah, Joseph and I will soon conceive a very special child!"

Even if it was soon, how do you know their marriage wasn't days away, or even the next day, or even the same day? It doesn't say, so according to your logic, if the conception was to happen "soon," and Mary understood it to be "soon," that still wouldn't discount her assuming Joseph, her espoused, to be the father.

 

I agree. However, as we will see, you assume that these events (the two visitations) occurred at the same time or very close together. This assumption is extra-Biblical. We don't know if Mary ran and told Joseph right away. Even if she did, perhaps Joseph did not believe her and the angel appeared to him (not because he saw the bulge in her belly) because she told him and he had doubts and the angel was providing divine reassurance.

Assumed. Perhaps she told him, but he simply didn't want to cause scandal. Perhaps he was lacking in faith at that time.

Perhaps.

If you are referring to her puzzling question to the angel, you are false, because the angel speaks of a future (even if in 10 seconds) conception. The angel is not speaking of a conception that has already occured, and she and Joseph have not had talks about this because Joseph's visitation comes AFTER the conception. You are mixing what cannot be mixed. Joseph's visitation occurs AFTER Mary's.

Actually, it says the Holy Spirit WILL come upon you. Why are you changing the future tense to a past tense, DHK?

Yes, at this point, she was pregnant, and we know this because Scripture says so. Unfortunately, Scripture spoke of a coming conception during the Annunciation, not a past or even at-this-moment present.

I asked no question of this kind. I have made it clear that you refer to a past conception when the angel of the Lord speaks of a future conception. You also seem to think that Joseph's angellic visitation preceeded Mary's, which it did not.

 

DHK,

I'd like to add this, in regards to your "Mary being visibly pregnant." It's an impossibility.

After this time his wife Elizabeth conceived, and she went into seclusion for five months, saying, "So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others."

Elizabeth went into seclusion for five months.
Then Mary, who was carrying Jesus, visited her, and stayed for three months.
THEN, Elizabeth gave birth after that.

That's eight months total time after Mary leave's, so assuming a normal pregnancy, Elizabeth had her child a month after Mary left.

That puts Jesus at only being about one to two months old in the womb at the time that Mary went to visit Elizabeth. She would have hardly been showing when Joseph had his visitation.

 

According to Edward Reese’s Chronological Bible:
1. Luke1:1-20: the announcement of the birth of John to Zecharias.
2. Luke 1:24 Elizabeth conceived, and hid herself five months.
3. Luke 1:26,27 In the 6th month the angel Gabriel appears to Mary betrothed to Joseph.
4. Luke 1:30-33 The angel’s message to Mary:
Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jeus.
5. Luke 1: 34 Mary’ astonishment: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
6. Luke 1:35-37 The angel’s answer: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; Elizabeth thy cousin is in her 6th month
7. Luke 1:38 Mary’s submission: “be it according to thy word.”
8. Luke: 1:39,40 Mary goes in haste to visit Elizabeth.
9. Luke 1:41-45 Elizabeth’s song to Mary in which she refers to fruit already in the womb of Mary.
10. Luke 1:46—55 Mary’s Magnificat: “The mighty hath done to me great things, a possible reference to her pregnancy.
11. Luke 1:56 Mary’s stay was three months.
12. Luke 1:57-66 The birth and naming of John
13: Luke 1:67-80 The prophecy of Zecharias

14. Mat.1:18 Mary is found with child of the Holy Ghost.
15: Mat. 1:19 Joseph sees that she is pregnant and thinks about divorcing her.
16. Mat. 1:20,21 An angel appears to Joseph reassuring him that that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and in verse 21: she shall bring forth as son (shortly), in the fulfillment of prophecy,
17. Mat.1:24 Joseph did as he was commanded and took Mary as his wife.

18. Luke 2:1-3 The decree went out that all should be taxed.
19 Luke 2: 4-5 Joseph and Mary went out of the city of Nazareth and came to Bethlehem
20. Luke 2:6,7 Mary gave birth to Jesus, and laid him in a manger for there was no room in the inn.

21. Mat. 1:25 And Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

Hi Todd,

I will put your words in bold. I will also be ignoring your side comments, which you include for rhetorical effect without appeal to reason and which lack the Christian charity our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exhorts us to emply in the Word.

"Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15)

Examples in your initial response above include:

your exegesis is laughable and your hermeneutics are horrible

Your PC Greek program

Immediately you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the Greek language.

I apologize for the slip-up. I was typing too fast for my own eyes to edit. I meant to say that kecharitomene is a perfect past participle. That is, it is indicative of an action that has been fully completed in the past.

I encourage you to refrain from haughty and disdainfully proud conclusions and to keep the discussion on a level befitting a Christian pastor.

Couldn't there have been just a wee little chance that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus and that she enjoyed a beautiful, conjugal relationship with Joseph after that?

From the Scriptures alone, there is a chance that this happened. There is also a very good chance that this did not happen. That is my thesis, and it is what I am here to defend: that Mary's Perpetual Virginity is not denied by the Scriptures and that it is a real possibility.

History, my brother, is not an exact science. It entails probabilities. And, I intend to successfully demonstrate that it is probable - from Scripture alone - that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

You find one passage that affirms Mary's virginity, and then you look to church history to affirm her "perpetual virginity."

Again, I'm not here to discuss Apostolic Tradition, which you do not accept. This thread is not about discussing the sources of divine revelation; it's about whether or not Scripture demands that Mary not be a Perpetual Virgin.

of course her statement would have made perfect sense even if she didn't retain her virginity throughout her lifetime.

No, it is not of course. In due course, Mary's statement is a bit enigmatic. If Mary is betrothed to a Man with whom she is planning on having conjugal relations and start a family, then Gabriel's assertion that her future child is going to be the King of Israel does not account for her response.

Mary's response is one of "How?" Mary knows where babies come from. Mary knows she is going to have babies with her bethrothed in the near future. Mary's response is a non sequitur if she had not taken a vow of virginity.

This is pure logic applied to Scripture's historical-literal sense.

The verse says absolutely nothing of her virginity beyond the birth of Christ!

I don't claim that the passage explicitly speaks of Mary's subsequent virginity, and neither is this necessary. I claim that it implicitly affirms that Mary took a vow of virginity, and that is a logical conclusion.

Man, are you listening to yourself. You are making absolutely no sense at all.

It makes sense if you have a clear mind. Perhaps if you would lay down your Anti-Catholic prejudice and step outside of your assumptions and look at the text from a distanced perspective, you will see the rationale for my exegesis.

Grant is able to understand this. It's clear as a whistle.

And though betrothal was seen as being very close to marriage in those days, the one thing that it certainly did not include was sex.

No one here is disputing the nature of First-Century Jewish Betrothal customs. In addition to what you have written, a bill of divorce was necessary to exit a betrothal. Sex is imminent. If Mary's sexual relationship with another man with whom she is betrothed is imminent, then she need not ask how she will conceived: Sex is on the way.

By the way, no one throughout this string ever even cared to mentioned when the perpetual virginity of Mary was officially recognized as Catholic dogma - do you think they're all embarressed, or do they even know?

Why would I be embarrassed about the date of the proclamation of a dogma? The Dogma of the Hypostatic Union wasn't proclaimed until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Are you embarrassed about that? The Dogma of Christ's divinity wasn't proclaimed until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Are you embarrassed about that? The very table of contents of the New Testament to which you adhere didn't appear until the end of the fourth century. Are you embarrassed about that?

The Lateran Synod of 649 under Pope Martin I. stressed the threefold character of Mary's virginity. Pope St. Siricius affirmed her perpetual virginity in 392, and the Fifth General Council in 552 gave Mary the title of honor: "perpetual virgin" [aeipartheos].

Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Epiphanius, Basil [the Great], John Damascene, and Peter Chrysologus were champions of this de fide doctrine.

My, my - how conveniently you left out the part about John being the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Would you have wanted your mother entrusted to the care of those who may not have even believed that you were the Messiah?

Are you denying the omniscience of the God-Man? You follow this question with, "I know that at least James became a believer following Christ's death and resurrection," which drains your argumentative question above from any import. Even if this was a consideration of Jesus, Jesus would only had to give his Mother to James, he whom you know ... became a believer.

entrusting His mother to the care of John proves nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity

Yes, it does. It proves a likelihood. It shows that it is very likely that Mary did not have any other children.

 

As the editor of the Bible admits- its only speculation at best.

 

Hi Helen,

Tradition (that nice RC word)

Tradition (Greek: paradosis) is a Biblical word, which we are exhorted to adhere to as followers of Jesus Christ.

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

[Tradition] has it that Jesus was at least twelve when Mary had His first sibling.

Where is this attested to in the Early Church's history? Or, are you making this up on your own?

If Jesus was at or about 33 at the time of His crucifixion, that would make the next oldest (presuming it was a boy) only 21 or so. Of course, then, Jesus would have entrusted his mother to someone else!

In First Century Palestine, a Jewish boy automatically became a Bar Mitzvah (a son of the commandment) upon reaching the age of 13 years. At that point, the Jewish boy was considered an adult.

I encourage you to discard a 21st c. American cultural mindset - which has relegated adulthood to somewhere in the late twenties - and to approach the Bible on its own terms.

When, in Matthew 12:46, Jesus is told that His mother and brothers are outside wanting to speak to him, there is no doubt that this is Mary they are talking about and some other males. The designation of 'mother' is clearly biological at that point and there is absolutely no reason to distinguish between that biological connection and a similar biological connection when the term 'brothers' is used immediately following. If this is the same incident as in Mark, then it is quite clear that this is family come to retrieve Him from what they at that time perceived as His folly.

No one here is arguing that Jesus' adelphos aren't his kinsmen, and an Epiphanian response would easily see these as Jesus' half-brothers, if you consider the testimony of the Protoevangelium of James (circa 120 A.D.).

 

Hi Carson,

That makes alot of sense. I'm not sure if Pastor Larry and Todd are just choosing to not understand, or what. But if they disagree so much, where is the scholarship that shows it, scripturally/historically/factually without resorting to prideful declarations or personal attacks?


....And I'm a Baptist...

 

DHK,

What you posted is in total agreement with what I said. And yet you post it like it's in disagreement.

It is impossible, based on the Scriptural layout, that Joseph "saw" that Mary was pregnant, that is, that she was showing physically the signs. Jesus would only be 1-2 months in the womb when Mary went to Elizabeth's, and Joseph no doubt saw the angel before she left.

 

I can't speak for Todd, but for myself, I have chosen to understand, I have resorted to scholarship, and more importantly, I have committed myself to the text. That is why I reject this notion of perpetual virginity.

 

"Blessed is the fruit of thy womb," Elizabeth said. She knew that Mary was pregnant. Mary also knew as indicated in her Magnificat. Elizabeth was in her 6th month when the angel first appeared to Mary. Mary went "with haste" immediately after that event to Elizabeth. She stayed there for three months until John was born. By the time that the narrative picks up with the angel appearing to Joseph, Mary is at least three months pregnant. Many women, if not most, are beginning to show by that time. That is the very reason why Joseph wanted to put her away. He saw that she was pregnant. He could see the evidence. I don't understand where the confusion is here.

She knew she was pregnant three months before this time. We know this by the witness of Elizabeth.
We know she was showing herself pregnant by the witness of Joseph in wanting to divorce her.
DHK

 

"Tam lady" has clearly only been reading posts by our resident anti-catholics. Very little has been done to give a proper rebuttal to the Catholic stance. If this were a debate in my HS forensics class, the Catholics would win