Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

Wow, that's a little bit of an ill-advised conclusion. Can you please show me the post where I said that I hated Calvin. This is the way it actually happened: You basically asserted that we can't just accept some of Calvin's work without accepting it all. That is ridiculous! If my recollection serves me right, Calvin also believed in pedo-baptism. Are you asking me as a Baptist to accept the baptism of infants? If it hadn't been for our Anabaptist forefathers who were willing to go beyond the incomplete Reformation efforts of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others, then there would probably be no Baptists to speak of today. The Anabaptists clung to that which was good in Reformation theology, while leaving the errors behind in favor of believer's baptism - a tenant of our Baptist faith.

Further, your argument demonstrates a logical fallacy: There can be no truth in an individual's body of work unless it is all true. Let me ask you, isn't a broken clock right twice a day? Don't get me wrong, I'm not asserting that Calvin was kin to a broken clock, I'm just saying that it is very possible that he could have been wrong about several things - yet those things he was wrong about (pedo-baptism, unconditional election, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.) don't negate the truthfulness of the things he was right about (justification by faith alone, perseverance of the saints, etc.).

Just to prove to you that I have no disdain for Calvin, I used his commentary on John 8 today to help in preparation for this Sunday's message on the woman caught in adultery. He had some pretty awesome things to say (some very strong things about the "Papists" of the Catholic church I might add. Interestingly, he said that prolonged arguments with the Papists were like weaving "Penelope's web" from Homer's Odyssey - in other words, he said that it was fruitless because they do not receive Christ by faith alone).

So there you have it - I'm not a Calvin-hater, but I certainly don't blindly accept everything that has his name attached to it (that would make me no better than the Catholics who blindly accept everything that Rome has to say as though it were infallable).

 

You are making up things as you go along (either you or Carson). You guys could right your own book. The trouble is that none of this stuff is verifiable. None of it is Scriptural. Mary did not get betrothed because of a custom; she got betrothed in order to get married. The traditional betrothal period was one year--two at the very most. You are making up fairy tales here to justify a perpetual virginity doctrine. How on earth do you justify the betrothal of Mary a 12 years old. Was she also pregnant with the Messiah at 12 years old?? Are we going to have to re-write the entire Bible just to include Carson's version of the birth of Christ??

Where do you guys conjure this stuff up from--
a 40 year old husband?
a 12 year old bride
a 12 year old that conceives (possibly)
Or is it a 12 year old betrothal period.
Just write your own Bible thanks; I already have mine (the KJV).
DHK

 

Carson Weber:

How can you accept trash like that. That book you quote is rooted in GNOSTICISM. It isn't scripture and was NOT accepted as scripture by the TRUE believers in the early CHURCH.

MARY was ALREADY espoused to JOSEPH when the angel came to MARY about Jesus. THIS means that your book contradicts the WORD of GOD (See MATTHEW 1:18). This is why we do NOT accept that book you quoted from. Shall we accept the book of Mormon, too?

 

Well I assuemed that a chatholic would have answered this because they would have the answer. So here is anyones chance if you know why do catholics belive perpetual virginity? See my previous question. Thanks in advance for anyone who can enlighten me. Music4Him

 

Let's play this out a bit.

Suppose as you say this book is rooted in Gnosticism,
1.)this book along with many, many others is being circulated within the developing Christian communities. (could we agree on this)

2.) Most people are illiterate. (agree or disagree?

3.) The "true believers" know scripture when they hear it. (note I said hear it. Agree or Disagree?)

4.) Their exists a need within this early Christian community to definitively state that some of these books circulating _The Didache, The shepherd of Hermas,etc. while very inspiring are not the Inspired Word of God. - Remember also that some of what was ultimately included did not originate from followers of Christ who actually were witnesses of Christ! (agree or Dis?)
5.) The teachers and shepherds of the Churches are who are responsible for guiding their newly developing flocks, and they have the most ready available access to the letters circulating between themselves and their counterparts. (agree or Dis.?)

What conclusions can then be made from these?

The fable that the cream just rose to the top and the books just seperated themselves without the agent of man, that is in the form of councils of these shepherds, is beyond the scope of reason. God used mankind in the form of a virgin to bring the physical Word of God and He used mankind to authoritatively deliver the written and spoken Word of God. It seems some will resort to any illogic in denying this as vain attempt to support their prideful agenda.

That it was the Catholic Church councils that declared these books as the canon of the Bible is a matter of religious and secular history. The fact is historical. And another historical fact is that NNE countered these claims for probably the first 2000 years!

This, I think is Carson's point. We were dependent on the early councils of the Catholic Church -just to authoritatively define scripture. And it is was this same authority; these Shepherds of the church with the teaching of the apostles "still ringing in their ears", that promoted and accepted the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity.

On the point of why Catholics hold this teaching so dearly: My take is that we look at Mary as the NT fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant, the God- carrier. Remember how any no one was allowed to touch it? Death was the consequence for even accidentally touching it!
Mary was the God-carrier of the NT, the body is a temple of the Spirit. In the case of Mary this was a pure and spotless temple, and as the place that housed God it would remain pure and spotless. Of course this was all done by the grace of God. And so done as an honor for God. I'm sure some Protestant will try to twist this, but it really derives from the fact that God dwelt here and this place by the grace of God, could not and would not be defiled.

[ February 13, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Stephen III ]

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Let me give it a shot. Yes there are answers for this in Catholic theology.This post will not do them justice as books have been written on the matter. Why do we believe it? Because it is time tested and true. It has been the dogma of the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth for 2000 years. Only Johnny come lately Protestants and a man named Helvecius and perhaps Tertullian denied it in the early Church. A host of other Church fathers spoke or alluded to it. Did Mary HAVE to remain a virgin? No. It is fitting that she did however. Further, as I said before, I do believe that Joseph would have been in awe over the whole thing. Imagine, your wife just bore the Son of God. But there is a deeper reason in Catholic theology that I am sure you never considered and probably will not get unless you become Catholic. You see Mary has been seens from the earliest of days as a type of the Church. There is much evidence for this that I simply don't have time to go in to at this moment. Part of it lies in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament which is a type of Mary. Have you ever compared 2 Sam 6 to Luke 1. There are some striking parrellel's that I am sure you cannot explain with your protestant theology so you will likely explain them away as I have had countless Protestants do. First both incidents happened in Judah. So what you say. If there were not more I would agree. But there is. First of all David says of the Ark, "how is it that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (in 2 Sam 6) In Luke 1 Elizabeth says "how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?". Coinciedence? Perhaps if that was all that went on. John leaps before Mary in Elizabeth's womb. David leaps before the Ark in 2 Sam 6. Mary stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. The ark stays with Obemedon for three months. Coincidence? No, I think I would call it a Godincidence.

What is the significance of all of this. The ark being a type of Mary, there is much that happens with the Ark that parrellels what happened with Mary and how God intervened in her life. The Ark was made per GOD's specifications. It proceeded the Jews in battle and in to the Holy land. They had great reverence for it. They even bowed and prayed through it to God in Joshua 7. Now any Protestant would say they were worshipping it in that chapter but God knew there hearts and they were worshipping him while showing great honor to the AOC. As for perpetual virginity, the Ark was never to be touched. If anyone did they would die, as Uzzah did in 2 Sam 6. This speaks of the purity and "virginity" of Christ's Church. There is so much more I could say but we will see how you handle this.

Blessings

 

"There is no possible reason that the context of Mat.13:55 would demand or warrant any other definition of adelphos than that of "brother." The entire passage is speaking of the immediate family of Joseph and Mary. To take a secondary or minor meaning of a word and force it into a passage where the primary meaning would make perfect senes is to grave injustice to the Scripture. It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth." It is "wresting the Scriptures to one's own damnation," as Peter states it. When the primary meaning of the word fits, use it.
DHK "


I find this statement to be very funny if not arrogant. Matt 13:55 claims Jesus to be the Son of Joseph. There is nothing in the verse that says he is a stepson. OF COURSE other verses lead us to the conclusion that he is not. John has presented another verse that leads us to the conclusion that James and Joseph are not Jesus next of kin but DHK says that is bad hermenutics. The context has been explained to DHK over and over again. He just refuses to consider himself fallible on the subject. Do they have a Graemlin for head in the sand.

 

Thank you ~Thess~ Just what I wanted scripture that I understand. That was very interesting and I do now understand the Catholic's veiw of the subject of perpetual virginity.

BTW, Please don't take this the wrong way and I hope you all have good humor, but when you said the part about "if I became Catholic" I liked to hit the floor. LOL Have you seen my profile? Where would I fit it in the denomination box? LOL But I can say that I can find something good about all denominations beliefs (as long as they belive in Jesus and trust Him for their salvation according to the gosple).

~Php 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Music4Him

 

John did no such thing. All that John did is show that there is a possible place in the Bible where adelphos can be translated cousin. Even then he didn't do a very a good job.

Let's set the record straight. The KJV was translated by 54 highly qualified scholars who knew what they were doing. They knew the meanings of words. I'll do the research for you:

The word adelphos in the KJV occurs 346 times in the Greek. ALL 346 times it is translate brother(s) without exception.

The word adelpothays occurs but twice and is translated once brethren, and once brotherhood.

The word adelpays occurs 24 times and all 24 times is translated sister(s)

In no case are these words translated "cousin." I wonder why!
The translation of "cousin" did not even enter into the translator's mind. It is an obscure translation, if even a legitimate meaning of the word at all.
DHK

 

Absolutely not. In the society at that time, people were highly educatied. When Alexander the Great conquered the region he demanded that the Greek language become the universal language of the Kingdom. Notice that the Bible is written in Koine (common) Greek even though the empire is under Roman rule. It was mandatory under Alexander's rule that everyone learn Greek. Even the slaves knew Greek. This was not an illiterate society. The reason that Paul stood on the stairway and spoke to the Jews in their own language (Hebrew) was to gain their attention and show to them that he was a Jew. Notice that the capain of the guard did not understand him. But Greek he did understand, even though he was a Roman. It was universal. Everyone not only understood it, but could read and write--better than their own Roman language.

Of course they did. They heard straight from the Apostle's mouths who taught them. Do you think that the Apostles didn't know what was Scripture and what was not. Second Peter clearly reveals to us that Peter knew which writings were Scripture.
Would you have us to believe that the Apostles were dummies not knowing what they were dummies. Look up 2Tim.2:2. Paul taught Timothy. Timothy taught faithful men who would in turn teach other faithful men. The Scriptures would thus be preserved. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. The early believers had every to do with it.

The need was met by the Apostles, and those whom the Apostles taught. Many of the church fathers went of into heresy. 1John 2:19 confirms this.

Acts 14:21-28 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
24 And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia.
25,And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia:
26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
28 And there they abode long time with the disciples.

Are you acquainted with the teachings of these teachers and shephers that Paul appointed in each of the churches that he established on his missionary churches?

The conclusion is that these believers faithfully kept the words and copies of the letters that Paul had given them. They did have their own scribes.

Yes God used mankind in bringing the Word of God into this world. God also used a virgin to bring the Son of God into this world. What on earth this has to do with the perpetual virginity of Mary man will never know, and what it has to do with the family of Jesus man will never know. Who is the one that is being illogical here??

This is not a matter of historical and secular history. It is a matter of Catholic assumption. I have already explained this matter to you above. The Apostles were not stupid! They didn't need the Catholic Church's approval to know which books were inspired. They were the ones that were inspired by the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church. How arrogant the Catholic Church is!!

Carson's point is completely out of line, and is plain ridiculous. Any fool can see that the book he used is completely contrary to Scripture and presents a fable and not history. The early church would be able to see right through that. If the Catholic Church is so naive and simple that it cannot, then I feel sorry for it. They don't seem to have a good working knowledge of the Bible and don't know what is Scripture and what is not in the first place. Get your head out of the church fathers and more into the Bible, and you will have far less problems.

That is pure allegorization. When you fall into that trap you can make black, white; and white, black. You can make the Bible say anything you want to. That is why Brother Ed denies that a thousand years in Revelation 20 doesn't mean a thousand years even though a thousand years is mentioned at least three times in two verses. Allegorize it. Deny it. Do whatever you want with it. Be like the J.W.'s. Allegorize the resurrection. Say that Christ only rose "in Spirit." That his resurrection was not a bodily resurrection--will you do that too?
DHK

 

Christ emptied himself in order to take on the form of a servant. Mary didn't need to be improved inorder to carry the infant. She was righteous as was Moses, as were the men who built the ark of the covenant, as were the men who stood before the ark in the HOLY OF HOLIES.

There is no need for "protestants" to "twist" a thing. There really is no need...

 

DHK,

You have a flare for going off in tangents and distorting what people said to fit the arguement you want to make. This isn't about the KJV so I will defer answering it's viability as an adequate source of scripture to another thread. But where did John or I or anyone else say that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus HAD to be cousins. I have not identified them as such. Secondly do you believe abraham and lot were brothers in the literal from the same mother sense?

From the KJV

Genesis 14:14-16
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained [servants], born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued [them] unto Dan.
And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which [is] on the left hand of Damascus.
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again HIS BROTHER Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

I understand the Adelphos is the word used here. But Lot is not his brother in the sense that we think of it quite clearly.

The Catholic teaching does not require the "brothers" to be cousins. It does not require them to be Joseph's children from a previous marriage. It only says that they are not Mary's children and you have not proven that they are not. So we are at an impass. Sorry. But since I do believe in sacred tradition and can see that the early Church Fathers, almost unamiously believed this doctrine I will put it in our column.


Blessings

 

Thessalonian,
For all your huffing and puffing,
Adelphos is a Greek word and appies to the New Testament only. Your Genesis passage shows your ignorance of the topic being discussed.
DHK

 

The Septuigant was good enough for Jesus and his Apostles and it is good enough for me.

 

seeing see not; and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand.
Matthew 13:14-15 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

A good description for you, seeing how many times I have "proved" it to you. But here goes again for the umpteenth time. :sigh:

Matthew 13:55-56 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?

Are you yet without understanding Thessalonian?
1. This is the carpenter's son--Jesus.
2. The carpenter is Joseph.
3. Jesus's mother is called Mary; she is present.
4. His brethren (Jesus--the son of Mary and Joseph) are present also.
5. The sons of Mary are listed: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas.
6. This is a great leap of faith for you isnt't it? They are the brothers of Jesus, the sons of Joseph and Mary, to whom she was married to.
7. All of his sisters were present there also.

Now Thessalonian look at the concluding question, which they ask in astonishment. Seeing they see his humble family, the family of a poor carpenter, they ask:

Whence then hath this man all these things?

This question would have no revelance at all if Jesus was not the son of Joseph (in their minds), and the brothers not the sons of the union of Joseph and Mary. The whole passage speaks of the immediate family of Jesus. To read anything else into is to do injustice to the Scripture. You have no right to say that Joseph was 40 or 100 years. or that Joses was the name of his cat, and James was the name of his dog, or anything else that you want to insert. Read the passage as it is meant to be read.
DHK

 

Perhaps we are ignorant of our own ignorance DHK. You made the claim above:

"The word adelphos in the KJV occurs 346 times in the Greek. ALL 346 times it is translate brother(s) without exception."

Pretty impressive claim. But I did a search from the NT (KJV) on brother and only come up with 109 occurances. So where are you coming up with the other 237 from the NT?

 

The Septuigant was good enough for Jesus and his Apostles and it is good enough for me. </font>[/QUOTE]This is only an assumption, and not proveable. Jesus was intelligent enough (are you forgetting He was God) to translate straight from the original Hebrew in his mind as He spoke--and that He probably did. It is probable that he did not use an inferior translation.
DHK

 

seeing see not; and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand.
Matthew 13:14-15 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

A good description for you, seeing how many times I have "proved" it to you. But here goes again for the umpteenth time. :sigh:

Matthew 13:55-56 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?

Are you yet without understanding Thessalonian?
1. This is the carpenter's son--Jesus.
2. The carpenter is Joseph.
3. Jesus's mother is called Mary; she is present.
4. His brethren (Jesus--the son of Mary and Joseph) are present also.
5. The sons of Mary are listed: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas.
6. This is a great leap of faith for you isnt't it? They are the brothers of Jesus, the sons of Joseph and Mary, to whom she was married to.
7. All of his sisters were present there also.

Now Thessalonian look at the concluding question, which they ask in astonishment. Seeing they see his humble family, the family of a poor carpenter, they ask:

Whence then hath this man all these things?

This question would have no revelance at all if Jesus was not the son of Joseph (in their minds), and the brothers not the sons of the union of Joseph and Mary. The whole passage speaks of the immediate family of Jesus. To read anything else into is to do injustice to the Scripture. You have no right to say that Joseph was 40 or 100 years. or that Joses was the name of his cat, and James was the name of his dog, or anything else that you want to insert. Read the passage as it is meant to be read.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Round and round we go. Nice eisegesis DHK. Sounds good but like Peter says the unstable will twist to their own destructin and some people will even be fooled by it.

 

DHK,

Do answer my post above about how you came up with 346 occurances of Adelphos in the NT?

 

I take my information, not from a computer program, but from a book: J.B. Smith's Greek-English Concordance To the New Testament. He has every reference listed, and the totals of every book that the reference is used in. Adding up the book totals it seems that he may have made a mistake. My computer program would also verify your number of 109. What Smith does do, however, is give the translation of every reference. He groups the according to translation. There is no other translation for the word except for "brother." The mistake was an honest one, not meant to deceive anyone. The fact still stands. The only translation of the word is "brother."
DHK