Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

It could cast doubt on whether Jesus was truly born of a virgin. This may have not be a problem for your faith today, yet it may have caused issues for the Jewish people- you know those that God came to save first and foremost.

Remember that nothing about Mary is ordinary- including her marriage. She isn't raising just another prophet or another child, she's raising God in the flesh!

I can imagine how Joseph would have felt- here is Mary, set apart by God, blessed by God, and she even gave birth to the Christ child- the Messiah that was prophesied. I wouldn't be overly surprised if their marriage was not one of great love and mutual affection, but not sexual intercourse.

Either way though- remember that none of this over the last nine pages changes either Catholic or Baptist soteriology.

 

Actually many verses have been given, but some, in their efforts to hold a certain opinion have taken a very unnatural and forced reading of the text. The verses are clear and they are in contradiction to the RCC teaching on this matter. In addition, I already brought up Matt 1:25 which no Catholic has been willing to deal with, for obvious reasons. It plainly teaches that Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Christ.

In addition, the perpetual virginity of Mary would be in direct violation of the biblical teaching on marriage that is found in 1 Cor 7 where a wife and husband are not to abstain from sexual relations in marriage except for a limited time and by mutual consent. If Mary was a perpetual virgin, then she is a sinner by virtue of her disobedience to that command of Scripture.

So the Catholic position creates a contradiction. For Mary to be a perpetual virgin, Mary had to be a sinner.

 

Haven't looked to see if it raised a stir but I have to apologize for my remark last night "you couldn't exegete your way out of a wet paper bag.". Can't remember if it was in response to tamb or music4. It was haughty and unproductive.


Blessings

 

Tamb,

We have already shown with you Matt 13:55 verse that there are problems with languages that make the Bible in English more than a bit complete. You have said that you have read the whole thread so you have read the explanation to this one and still you deny. You have said the Holy Spirit has told you that Matt 13:55 names Jesus brothers and sisters. Yet it is obvious that it does not as I have shown above. Now perhaps you should stop trusting that Holy Spirit of "your own understanding" prov 3:5.

Blessings

 

No. I don't believe we know the wherabouts of all the tombs of all the apostles, or all of the early saints. Going back farther into history God has chosen to conceal these things to us for the very reason that the RCC does today--veneration of that which God does not want.

Man is prone at the best of times to worship idols. When Gideon conguered his enemies he set up an ephod, and the nation of Israel began to worship that ephod, inspite of the great victory that Jehovah had given to Gideon.

It is said that if all the relics of the cross that Jesus was crucified on, and that now are "worshiped" as relics of the actual cross by the RCC, there would be enough wood in the world to build a house. Christ was crucified on a cross, not a house.

There is good reason why we cannot find her burial place today. I believe God wants it that way.
DHK

 

No problem ~Thess~ I understand. Acually I wasn't too sure who it was directed to?

I can understand the situation that this topic has presented. I see alot of post trying to prove whos right and whos wrong. I'm just looking at the facts in the KJV and Hebrew Bible and sharing what I find in the scripture.

Here latly I've been learning if I want to disprove something I must try to prove it first. Make sure it holds water. Thinking outside the "doctrine" box that says "we have always (done it) or (belived it) this way. Then asking God to reveal the truth and the knowledge to understand it, also by searching the scriptures and asking others questions.


Music4Him

 

Your right I did ignore it. But I will tell you why, and if you clear up my understanding or misunderstaning then I will be willing to take it up again.
I don't quite understand why it is an important issue to you. As far as I understand the question you want addressed is: "Did Mary know or understand that she was pregnant just by the words that the angel spoke to her?" My answer would be: Why would it matter, seeing that she found out just a few days later by a prophetic greeting by her cousin Elizabeth, who inasmuch told her that she was pregnant. Certainly the angels words were in the future, but Elizabeth's words were in the present, indicating that she was pregnant. The time difference was just a few days. So why is this question important? Please give me the importance or relevancy of your question.
DHK

 

Music4Him

I appreciate your humble spirit Music4. One comment:

"Then asking God to reveal the truth and the knowledge to understand it, also by searching the scriptures and asking others questions. "

Take a look at Jer 3:15 then seek out who the real shepherds are.

God bless Music4

 

Thessalonian, This question has been asked (I believe by you) many times. And yet I have never seen an answer by you. Why don't you answer it for us--clearly.
DHK

 

Yes ~Thess~ the Lord has gave us "pastors" (rulers and shepherds) thank you!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jer.3:14-17 (KJV)
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
15
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
16
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
17
At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ps 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Praise the Lord!~
Music4Him

 

children of the Lord refers to the Isrealites. you know, kindof like the Apostles were Jewish...

 

Thessalonian, This question has been asked (I believe by you) many times. And yet I have never seen an answer by you. Why don't you answer it for us--clearly.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

You know my answer to the verse. It has to do with Jesus telling Peter "SHEPHERD MY SHEEP".

Blessings

 

No, actually I didn't, or at least don't remember reading it. Most of the commentaries I read say that the word pastors in that verse, in the context of the chapter refer to the civil leaders and magistrates of the nations. Read further and you will see how the context immediately begins to speak of princes, etc.
I believe you have taken a verse way out of its context to try to justify one of your doctrines. It just doesn't fit.
DHK

 

Your right I did ignore it. But I will tell you why, and if you clear up my understanding or misunderstaning then I will be willing to take it up again.
I don't quite understand why it is an important issue to you. As far as I understand the question you want addressed is: "Did Mary know or understand that she was pregnant just by the words that the angel spoke to her?" My answer would be: Why would it matter, seeing that she found out just a few days later by a prophetic greeting by her cousin Elizabeth, who inasmuch told her that she was pregnant. Certainly the angels words were in the future, but Elizabeth's words were in the present, indicating that she was pregnant. The time difference was just a few days. So why is this question important? Please give me the importance or relevancy of your question.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

It has been stated over and over and over again by Carson why we are pointing this out. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Should I say that one more time? I've never seen such stalling.

Mary responded "HOW CAN THIS BE?" when the angel said "YOU WILL CONCEIVE!" A woman who is bethrothed and expecting children would not be alarmed or confused when told, most especially by a messenger of God, that she would conceive a child. It might be surprising, but as Carson said, its not the why, but the HOW that Mary is surprised by. HOW WILL I CONCEIVE, is what she is asking. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, if she is going to have marital intercourse, at this point in the conversation (being told that she WILL conceive), why does she ask HOW she will conceive?

 

No, actually I didn't, or at least don't remember reading it. Most of the commentaries I read say that the word pastors in that verse, in the context of the chapter refer to the civil leaders and magistrates of the nations. Read further and you will see how the context immediately begins to speak of princes, etc.
I believe you have taken a verse way out of its context to try to justify one of your doctrines. It just doesn't fit.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Cival magistrates were called pastors? Actually I see no contradiction in this since for the Jews, the religious leaders were also cival leaders (except durning the time of Sauls reign when the people asked for a king) so what is your point.
Your speaking of Jer 3:15? All the Catholic Bibles I know of say shepherds rather than pastors. I can see why Protestants would use the word Pastors rather than shepherds. Then they can separate it from the "do you love me...." stuff that Jesus says to Peter after the ressurection. Of course being a shepherd is the main function of the word a pastor.

Protestant commentaries just won't get you there any more than books on astrology will tell you truths about the physics of the stars, sorry. You can believe it doesn't fit all you want just like you can believe that if you walk in front of a truck you won't get hurt. But your not believing it won't change the facts. It fits like a glove.

Blessings

 

When Zecharias asked the angel: How can this be?, it was a question of unbelief. Therefore the Lord gave him a sign, and he was struck dumb until John was born.
But with Mary, it was a question of amamzement and of understanding. She was still a virgin. How would this be possible? She knew that she had not had intercourse with any man, though she was betrothed to a man. She was asking for understanding, and the angel gave it to her. The Holy Ghost would overshadow and that which she would conceive would be called the son of God."
Mary acknowledged that she understood what was happening by saying: so be it according to thy word.

Since conception normally comes through marital intercourse, it is only natural for her to ask the question: which in plain English is, how shall this be since I have not yet had any sexual intercourse (with my husband yet to be). "I know not a man," does not refer to another man other than Joseph obviously. So she infers that she has not had relations with Joseph yet, not that she won't ever have relations with him.
DHK

 

DHK,

Your answer is not a logical response. I am fully aware that she had not had intercourse when the angel greeted her. The point is, the angel's opening comment was one of a future occurance (and has been stated, on the opening lines alone, preceeding Mary's question, how soon it would occur was at that point unknown). If Mary was truly expecting to have children with Joseph, the how is irrelevant.

In Zecharias' case, his wife was barren. It was logical for him to ask HOW she could conceive. In Mary's case, she was betrothed, and according to you, planning to have children. Elizabeth, without God's intervention, could NEVER have children. Mary COULD. They are not analogous.

If Mary was told she would have kids, the response would not be like Zecharias'. It would be a normal expectation that yes, she WOULD conceive a child in the future because they would have marital intercourse that would result in such.

 

Mary is the mother of many many children. She is the mother to all who Jesus Christ calls His brother and sister.

 

It is evident that Mary was planning to have children. She was betrothed, planning to be married, and follow the normal course of events that every Jewish woman would do. She was not barren as Elizabeth was. It was like a curse among woman to be barren. Their heart's desire was to have children, to raise up seed for their husband's name. Every woman in Israel had this desire. It is without a doubt that Mary was planning to have children.
She answered "seeing that I know not a man." That is obvious, for she was chaste, faithful, devout woman, who was still betrothed--not yet married. Her question was one of understanding.
Here was this woman planning to live the normal life of any Jewish woman, get married and have children when all of a sudden her life is interrupted by the intervention of an angel and his announcement that she is to be the mother of the Messiah. She asks how is this possible. I have never known a man.
We may think that she is naive. But remember, all that they knew at that time was that the Messiah would come through the line of David. The thought of Isaiah 7:14 may not have even occurred to her at this point. How is this possible. I haven't known any man, not even my husband; I am still a virgin. It was a question of understand, which was then explained by the angel. She accepted the explanation.

There is no evidence anywhere that the intervention in her life by the birth of the Messiah, would not preclude her going back to continue her normal course of events--that is, having normal relations with Joseph her husband and having other children. In fact the Scriptures back this up very clearly.

Joseph knew her not UNTIL Christ was born. This is a direct implication that he did know her after Christ was born.

Contrarty to the round-about explanation of Carson, Mat.13:55 definitely points to the children of Mary and not the cousins of Jesus. There is nothing in the text to warrant the word "adelphos" being translated cousins, except one's own pre-conceieved ideas. The natural reading of the text indicates that they were indeed his brothers and sisters.
DHK

 

DHK, my post in full from a few pages back

"In Matthew 1:25, the focus of the verse is that there were no sexual relations even though Mary was bringing forth Jesus in her womb. This is what "until" serves as. There isn't enough in the context to suggest if any sexual relations took place afterwards since "until" has two different meanings, that being either a continuation or a cessation of the action. Matthew 1:25 then becomes quite irrelevant in trying to establish either view."

So again, no there is no direct implication or implication at all that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus. That is not the point Matthew is trying to make, the point is that there were no sexual relations involved in the bringing forth of Jesus, this is what "until" signifies. By the context it is impossible to know what interpretation of "until" should be used(in fact the only way to interpret until is usually by the context and the nature of the sentence) and this is the case in Matthew 1:25. Ultimately, Matthew is not concerned at all with what happened afterwards in this passage.