Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

There is a very clear implication. The "until" marks a point in time at which something changes. How much more clear can it be?? If you tell your wife or husband as the case may be that you are going to be at work until 5:00, what do you mean? That after 5:00, something is going to change.

That is the plain and normal reading of the text. There is no legitimate way around it.

Which he would be if he were affirming perpetual virginity. He is indicating that the normal marital relationship was not normal until after Christ was born.

 

Larry, I have to run to work, I'll have to address your post in more detail when I get home.

A quick note though, you obviously didn't read my post. "Unitl" has two different meanings and one meaning does not imply a change in action but a continutation.

 

Let's state it a bit more accurately.
The focus of the verse is that there were no sexual relations, up until the time Mary brought forth the Messiah, even though Mary was bringing forth Jesus in her womb.
That clears things up a bit more. It also defines the purpose of the word "until."
Again, please realize the culture, the desire, the purpose of every young Jewish woman in that time in Israel. Do not confine yourself to western culture. Remeber Hannah pleading year after year for a son. Remember Rebekkah, in an outburst of anger to Isaac "Give children or I die!" The greatest desire of a woman was to bear children; to have a family and to raise children for her husband. That also was the desire of Mary. She didn't marry Joseph with the intention of staying barren, or going without any sexual intercourse. That is totally against nature, and against the entire culture of the nation, and even the world. It is natural that a mother have children. Because Mary's natural life was interrupted by giving birth to the Messiah, does not mean that she didn't continue to give birth to other children, by resuming her marital life with Joseph. The RCC church would have us believe that because Mary gave birth to Jesus, then Mary would have to be tied to a bed the rest of her life so that she would not be able to have a normal life with her husband. There was nothing unusual about Mary. She was a normal woman, living a normal life, and gave birth to children just as other mothers did.
This is the teaching behind Mat.1:25 and accounted for in Mat.13:55
DHK

 

Ok heres something else in Matthew 1:25..........
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
If she had only one child why does the scripture say "firstborn"? Wouldn't we be smart enough to figure that out? This implies to me there must of been more children after he knew her.

Music4Him

 

Round and round we go. Firstborn sons have special importance in the Jewish tradition. They are called firstborn whether or not any other children come later.

 

As GraceSaves explains, to be firstborn in the Jewish understanding does not exclude an only child. A "firstborn" lamb does not mean the mother of the lamb will produce other offspring.

Romans 8 tells us in what sense Jesus Christ is the firstborn and who his brethren are:

Mary’s other children are Jesus Christ’s brethren who do the will of the Father.

 

LOL Well howdy, just sharing what I see....
That was two things in one short scripture to prove the possibility of more children.
Now I know that John 3:16 says....for God so loved the world that he gave his only beggotten son.........
and in
Matt 1:25 where its talking about Mary it says firstborn. in the greek it says first-born(now the hebrew it does mention birthright but someone said that Matt was written in Greek So just trying to stick to the right context.

BTW, does the word "only" in John 3:16 mean something different in that context?

Music4Him

 

You will have a very hard time substantiating that with "heos" which is what you will have to use since that is the word Matthew used.

 

Perhaps this web site can help out with the discusion.

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html

God Bless

John

 

This was a very interesting, and self-condemning quote from this article: In pointing out this discrepancy, Catholic apologists point out that Svendsen’s thesis can only be sustained by ignoring certain evidence that runs contrary to it. The Catholic position was never better stated.

This who article starts with a logical flaw about possibility vs. actuality. He says that this fellow must prove that none of the other case can possibly mean something. That is not the point at all. That is totally fallacious argumentation. The point is not "what can or might it mean?" The point is "what does it mean?" The heos in Matt 1:25 clearly indicates a cesssation of a condition. This is testified to by the context of Matthew, by the passages that testify of Mary's other children (that is refutable only by ignoring the evidence), and by teh biblical commands regarding the state of Mary.

He talks about context. The context is to prove the virgin birth of Christ. There is no poitn of saying "until the birth" if she was a perpetual virgin. Matthew wrote in hte middle of the first century. There was no reason at all to say what he said unless he was saying that she was a virgin and then later had normal marital relations.

On the point of firstborn, some of you quickly jumped to the point of supremacy, which is right. But what point does "firstborn" have if you are the only born? It is a tautology, a useless repetition. When God calls Chris the firstborn in Col 1 (and others) is is with reference to the universe. Yet Matthew says "her (mary's) firstborn." What does that have reference to? If he was an only child, it means nothing. It's only reason for being there is to show that there were more than one and he was the first. It shows again that some are not quite to the level of thinking through the issues with clarity and vitally needed critical thinking skills. There are some far too willing to accept what is spoon fed to them without reasoning through the Scriptures.

It is inconceivable that so weak a doctrine is still supported. It cannot be legitimately supported by teh biblical text. It can be supported only by drastic redefinition of the biblical text. And you guys have driven your stake on a ridiculous doctrine with no merit theologically. It simply doesn't matter. You go to great lengths to ignore the text to believe in a doctrine with no relevance. Why? To support a church that has mislead millions for centuries? Why not just stick with the text?

 

~JFS~
Thanks for posting the website.

I got a question....in the artical at the website you posted Another Scholar's Opinion on Heõs Hou where it says [Q]The point is simply that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary from the time that Joseph took her as his wife until the day Jesus was born—hence making it impossible for Joseph to be the father of Jesus. The time period after Jesus’ birth is simply irrelevant and beyond the scope of Matthew’s interest.[/Q] Why? or Why not?
Heres the link where I found the artical
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors10.html </pre>[/QUOTE]Music4Him

 

What I am trying to say about Matt.1:25 is why did Matthew even mention those two things if its not of importance?
Thanks
Music4Him

 

Pastor Larry:

I realize I am repeating myself here, but once again I will say:

Romans 8 tells us in what sense Jesus Christ is the firstborn and who his brethren are:

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren ;" Romans 8:29

Mary’s other children are Jesus Christ’s brethren who do the will of the Father. They are all who Jesus Christ calls His brother and sister.

 

Kathryn,
The entire chapter is speaking of a physical birth, unlike John 3:1-6, where the text speaks of a spiritual birth. Matthew is not speaking of a spiritual birth or of spiritual children. He clearly is speaking of the physical birth of Christ, and the physical family of Mary. There is no possible way that you can spiritualize this passage.
DHK

 

Matthew 1:25 needs to be understood in light of Matthew 1:24.

Read it in context:

When Joseph awoke, he did as the angle of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named Him Jesus.

Look at the bolded portion. This means they were married (at this point). He took her into his home. This is a historical fact that Matthew is addressing. That means that, under normal circumstances, they could have marital relations. But they did not, because she had already conceived (although few people knew this) by the Holy Spirit. The purpose, therefore, of Matthew 1:25 is to state simply that he had no relations with Mary after he took her into his home FOR THE PRECISE REASON THAT WE MAY KNOW SHE DELIVERED JESUS AS A VIRGIN.

It IS a turning point in their marriage, because Jesus was born, and after this period, Matthew's concern has ended, because he has established that she was a virgin up until the birth of Jesus. He is not concerned beyond that point because he is only making one point: Jesus was born of a virgin.

Verse 25 in light of 24 makes total sense and is not dependant on sexual relationships after Jesus' birth, as Matthew would have no interest in the Gospel narrative to discuss other children by her (had she had them). It's there solely for the point of backing up the virgin birth.

 

He is not concerned beyond that point.
Even if that point is conceded, the question then to be asked is: Why are you concerned? Mary's life still goes on, whether Matthew is "concerned" or not, and you have no justification to read into the verse your pet doctrine of perpetual virginity. Even if Matthew's account were to stop right there, it would have no bearing on the rest of Mary's life of bringing other children into this world as any normal mother would. You would still be reading into the Scripture a doctrine that is not there. You still can provide no Scriptural evidence for your doctrine, even with your explanation above.
DHK

 

DHK,

My authority is the Church. Your authority is you. You interpret these passages in the light of your Protestant forefathers. I do not. You will read into it that Mary had other children. But even in the 16th century, the greatest reformation scholars still saw it plainly there: Mary was always a virgin.

Mary's perpetual virginity only points to the glory of her Son. THAT is why it is important to me. It is a living testimony of Him being God incarnate.

I can see, though, that you have no argument. You simply questioned my concern instead of my argument in my last post. Kind of like you questioned my concern on the immediacy issue without actually responding to it.

Neither of those points has yet been logically disputed. You and Larry simply come in declaring we are wrong and holding on to vain traditions...that you simply can't prove wrong from the material.

By the way, I appreciate you stating that the belief is not anti-Biblical, but merely extra-Biblical (and only then in the fullness of understanding of it). That's a good start.

 

Holy Scripture shows that Mary has a role as the mother of all of her son’s brethren. Jesus Christ is her firstborn and He would be the “firstborn among many brethren” Romans 8:29 You can accuse me of spiritualizing the gospel all you want DHK. The spiritual is real.

 

Matthew 13:55-56 {{*note verse 56*}} Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Well how do we exsplain the word sisters in the Greek it says "sisters"..... does it mean His real half blood sisters? or not?

Music4Him

 

Eve is the mother of all living. That doesn't mean she didn't have other children besides Cain and Abel.
DHK