Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

Thank you ~Thess~ I acually do see the parallel in the scriptures above of Jesus being the ark. I still don't see Mary as being the ark herself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heres some background that I looked up.
1. (a)Mary came from the Levi line. Luke 3:23-38 traced all the way back to Adam. Wow!
(b)Obededom that is mentioned in 1 Sam. 6:10-12 and in 1 Cron. 15:25, (v.26) was from the Levi line. *source KJB*
Why Levi's line to bear the ark?
Some interesting info in the Smiths bible dicionary if you have one give it a look see, I looked at the word Levites.

[parallels]
Where David said in 1Sam 6:9 -How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

After taking into Luke 1:43 - Whence (Why) is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The answer to Davids question is....... Mary that is out of the house of Levi is bringing/bearing the ark to the city of David (Jerusalem).

I don't know if anyone else reads it this way? But thats just how I read it. Now would this mean that Mary could have other children? Yes...Would it make her any less a human if she gave birth to other children with Joseph after having her first born? No...... @rrrrrrrround and @rrrrrrrround we go. Is this topic trivial? Maybe, but very eye opening when looking at the all the other parallels of the OT & NT.

BTW, since I'm new here has the OT & NT parallels ever been dicussed on these boards? It might be a interesting topic?

Love in Christ!
Music4Him </font>[/QUOTE]Music4Him,

It looks like you might have missed my previous post answering your question about whether or not Jesus was the Ark. I will defer respoinding to what you have written here until you have read that. Go back a page or two and please take the time to give it adequate consideration.
And yes, I have brought up this and other parrellel's. Ray Berrian in particular has condemned me for using allegory (which it is apparent that he hates with a passion), putting his head in the sand and saying it's not there. Other's just tend to ignore me and other Catholics when we bring them up.

Blessings

 

In other words, he has stroked your ears and told you what you want to hear. You guys believe you can extract God by your intellect out of a book. You ignore culture and history. Sound exegesis is anything that confirms your pre-concieved notions of "truth" and allows you to retain your papal hat of individual infallibility.

Blessings

 

Thess, and for you sound exegesis is nothing more than a convenient source of persuasion when it fits into your a priori dogmas, but when it doesn't then it is to be discarded. It's amazing to me how Catholics will use sound exegesis when it comes to their stances on moral, ethical issues (abortion, birth control, etc.), but then they will set sound exegesis aside in favor of church tradition when exegesis would otherwise destroy their erroneous dogmas.

I'm proud that you would characterize the Bible-believing Baptists in this string as being tied to sound exegesis - that's one of the greatest compliments that a preacher of the Gospel could be given. I rather be known as a preacher of sound exegesis than a defender of godless dogmas.

Blessings.

 

Hi Todd,

It's good to see that you've come back to life.. you still haven't addressed my continued defense of the logic inherent within the event of the Annunciation on page 5 or my continued exhortation for you to provide a rebuttal on page 12.

You backed down and haven't risen to the occassion of providing a rebuttal.

I'm waiting for you to put your supposed Biblical expertise where your mouth is.

You cannot demonstrate from Scripture alone that Mary is not a perpetual virgin, and so rather than admit it, you engage in empty Anti-Catholic rhetoric. Words are useless, Todd, unless you can substantiate your claims, which you cannot do.

If you can, then do so.

Otherwise, your silence only bolsters the Biblical foundation of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

 

Carson,
I have demonstrated for you, and for the benefit of all others, that it is impossible for Mary to remain a perpetual virgin; that the brothers mentioned in Mat.13:55 and the sisters mentioned in verse 56 are the actual physical family of Jesus produced through a union of Mary and Joseph. That has not gone unrefuted yet.

Your only defence was a ridiculous book which you called Scripture: "The Protoevengelium of James." Let me summarize the main teachings of this book: (I did go to the website and read the whole thing.)

Doctrines gleaned from this book which Catholics say is Scripture:
1. Anna is the mother of Jesus, and therefore the grandmother of God.
2. The immaculate conception of Mary.
3. Mary being in the Temple from age 3 to 12
4. Mary being under the care of Joseph from 12 years old onward.
5. Joseph being a widower, already having children of his own, being about 40 years old takes a 12 year old into his care (for future wife). In our society today this is a criminal offence.
6. The age difference between John and Jesus would be at least four years (the Bible teaches 9 months).
7. The unusual cry and miraculous deliverance of Elizabeth and John when a mountain miraculously breaks open in order to hide Elizabeth and her son from Herod.
8. Herod’s command to kill all two years and younger goes forth. If there is four years difference between Mary and John according to this account, Why does Elizabeth flee with John? John would have been about five at the time when the Magi came to Jesus.
9. The unusual and fable-like account of Salome’s hand dropping off or melting like fire as she touched Mary.
10. Mary is said to be betrothed to Joseph only after she is six months pregnant, and after they have been punished by the Annas and the Temple priests. The first time betrothal is mentioned in the account is when the time of the birth is come. At the time of the birth, they are still not married, so Christ is actually born out of wedlock, illegitemately in the eyes of the public.

You have no defence Carson.
There is nothing in the Bible to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary, and a whole lot to demonstrate that the doctrine is not Biblical.

 

Then how could Calvin have possibly believed it?

 

Calvin believed in a lot of "heresy." He also murdered Baptists for not believing in infant baptism. His religion was a state-religion.
DHK

 

Calvin believed in a lot of "heresy." He also murdered Baptists for not believing in infant baptism. His religion was a state-religion.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Is that why so many baptist churches put his name on their door? Calvin Bapist Church (do a websearch). Is that why so many baptists say I am an x point calvinist?

Oh, that was herman Calvin I suppose.

 

"I'm proud that you would characterize the Bible-believing Baptists in this string as being tied to sound exegesis - that's one of the greatest compliments that a preacher of the Gospel could be given. I rather be known as a preacher of sound exegesis than a defender of godless dogmas."

Perhaps you better read my post again.

 

Carson, again I responded to your original arguments, and you discredited my responses as being false, though they were grounded in the sound exegesis and interpretation of the Word. If you want to talk about not responding to something, no Catholic on this string has been able to respond to the exegetical evidence provided first by me, then by DHK that the Greek term adelphos must be interpreted as brother(s) as it does some 346 times in the KJV - perhaps as I said earlier in this string you know more about the translation of God's Word than the KJV translators. As DHK clearly pointed out, one can not argue the Septuigant to substantiate the translation of adelphos as "cousins" or anything else - the OT was not written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew. While the Sept. can often be a good interpretative guide for us, it is by no means infallible when it translates the Hebrew. Yet, where Greek is the original language of the Bible (the NT) adelphos is ALWAYS interpreted as brother(s). If you are not going to accept the translation of adelphos as "brother(s)" when it makes reference to the family of Christ, then why stop there - be consistent and question its translation everywhere else in the NT. I'll tell you why you won't do that though - because you are trying to defend a priori dogmas that are not found in the Word of God with regard to Mary! It's just that simple.

For further exegetical evidence, how about Mt. 1:25: "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." The word for "till" in this verse is heos (a preposition with genitive) and in this verse it is translated as "till" or "until" in EVERY major English translation. The Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary says that the word's meaning could be "to, until, as far as, to the point of." If this is the meaning of the preposition, then clearly the meaning of this verse is that Joseph did not have sexual relations until Christ was born, but then he pursued those relations with Mary after the birth of Christ - there is nothing in the text that even smacks of perpetual virginity. Does it get any clearer than that? Even in our modern English, "until" always denotes a change in the current pattern of events. For example, if I say that I posted on this string until I got too tired to do so, then clearly I am saying that after I grew too tired to post, I then ceased to post - "until" denotes a change in the course of current events. For Joseph to have forsaken a conjugal relationship with his wife would have been against the very Law that his legal Son, Christ, had come to fulfill (cf. Gen. 2:24, 1 Cor. 7:5)! It would have been nothing short of sin for Mary to have married Joseph if she had already taken a vow of virginity, as all the Catholics on this post have asserted that she did. The Bible clearly states that marriage is not the place for those who have taken such a vow (Gen. 2:24, 1 Cor. 7:5)! Thus, Mary would have been found guilty of sin for marrying Joseph having already taken a vow of virginity. To understand the word "until" in Matt. 1:25 as referring only to the time before the birth of Christ is ridiculous - a forced reading of the text, as stated by the greatest of the Southern Baptist Greek scholars, A.T. Robertson - "Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus...the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here." This excerpt was taken from his 6 volume set Word Pictures of the New Testament , a classic set that is recognized as the premier verse-by-verse exposition of Scripture by many in NT circles.

I realize some would oppose all this by asking, "Why then didn't Joseph have sex with his wife while she was pregnant?" First, this is not even a question that demands an answer in order to discredit the perpetual virginity of Mary as a heretical doctrine - the clear meaning of heos in the first part of the verse already blows that doctrine out of the water regardless of how we answer this question. But, for some possibilities, here are a few to chew on:

1. It could very well be that Joseph was following some OT laws regarding sexual intercourse by abstaining from sex with his wife during her pregnancy. (I'm not stating this for fact, I'm just saying that there is a lot of Levitcal law pertaining to sex that I don't know). I have found nowhere in the Bible where it speaks of a man having intercourse with a pregnant woman (though it may be there).
2. It could be that since Mary was already pretty far along in her pregnancy (since Joseph could clearly see that she was pregnant), that Mary and Joseph decided to dedicate the rest of the time until her delivery as a time of prayer and fasting by mutual consent (1 Cor. 7:5), knowing that Christ was to bear the sins of the world upon His shoulders.
3. It could be that Joseph didn't want to have sexual relations with his wife because that which was conceived in her was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Though Jesus would be his child legally, biologically He was not. For this reason, Joseph could've very well been prompted by the Spirit not to have sex with his wife until it would be possible for him to have his own biological children with Mary (since by the way procreation is to be key in sexual intercourse - Gen. 1:28).

As stated, I only offer these as possible reasons why Joseph didn't consummate the relationship with Mary until after the birth of Christ. But, as stated, this question doens't require an answer for the false doctrine of perpetual virginity to come crumbling down under the weight of sound exegesis. The examples listed here are exegetical problems that simply can't be satisfactoraly refuted by those who espouse perpetual virginity.

 

So then you reject the use of contraception?

 

So then you reject the use of contraception? </font>[/QUOTE]Grace? What does contaception have to do with the perpetual virginity of Mary issue to biblicly proving she had children?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, Has anyone else noticed, when someone provides sound proof that Joseph and Mary had children. Others try to change the subject or pull something out of a certian word in the greek, or another book that is not written in the 66 books of the bible?

Heres the scripture verses that stands out in this discussion.
(1.) Matt.1:25 that prove 3 things....1.Joseph didn't consumate the marriage "UNTIL" + 2.Marys firstborn son (must of been more kiddo's than one because Matthew wrote this book years after)= 3.No perpetual virginty.

(2.)Matt.13:55-56 & Mark 6:3 Even when the word brothers (adelphos) was disputed (but not proven to be no other than brother), the word sisters (adelphe) was not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have even tried parallels so don't say I have not tried to understand both sides of this topic. But the more I read this thread and the bible.......facts are facts and with just those scriptures above give proof to facts.

Heres the other scripures others have posted. John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Gal.1:19
Matt.12:46-50
Luke 2:7
John 7:3-7

Music4Him

James 1:5 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

 

Music,

It was clear that was not the focus of that post...

 

What was the focus? Wow, I thought the subject was ...."did Mary and Joseph have other children"? How do you get off to quoting & asking Todd if he rejects contraeption in his page 18 post? How is that question proving or disproving children born to Mary and Joseph?


Music4Him

 

It can't be done. You cannot come up with the perpetual virginity from scripture. You have to claim extra-biblical revelation. And you have to say that people who rely on scripture alone are wrong for doing so. Then, you have to claim that rejection of the dogma leaves you out of the true church of Christ, and that only thru this orginization can you enjoy the fullness of salvation.

2.5 years since I first logged on, and the perpetual virginity myth is still arrogantly defended, and still not proven. From scripture.

In Christ, alone.

Curtis

 

Bro. Curtis wrote:

Pope Curtis has spoken ex-carthedra

God Bless

John

 

I guess you told me, eh ?

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Mary had other children.

 

ROTFLOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've only been here a week ~Bro. Curtis~ I've been looking for that virginity scripture out of the 66 books of the bible too? Nobody can produce it? Hummmm???????????? Wonder why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like I said earlier (posted February 15, 2004 09:02 AM)
I see a pattern developing here when sound scripture is given someone tries to change the subject or throw in things that have no bearing on the topic? Wonder why?

Hop...-*-... hop...-*-... hop...-*-...-*-...tring to put some of those get off the track bunny trails in there?


Music4Him

 

Hi Todd,

You wrote, "I responded to your original arguments, and you discredited my responses as being false".

That is the aim of a rebuttal.

they were grounded in the sound exegesis and interpretation of the Word.

I have shown you how - in logic - Mary's response to Gabriel is a non sequitur since in her mind, sex is imminent, and the how has already been presented to her. She is betrothed to Joseph, and her betrothal is so strong that it would take a bill of divorce to be separated from him. If she is planning on having sex with Joseph and raising a family, then Gabriel's announcement that her future son will be the King of Israel should not evoke the response of "How can this be, for I know not man?"

This interpretation is not my own, nor is it novel. It was used by St. Jerome against Helvidius in the fourth century.

no Catholic on this string has been able to respond to the exegetical evidence ... that the Greek term adelphos must be interpreted as brother

You are incorrect. I have shown how this premise is false on page 6 of this thread, and, as of yet, you have not responded to it:

"one can not argue the Septuigant to substantiate the translation of adelphos as "cousins" or anything else - the OT was not written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew."

The fact that the Old Testament was originally authored in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek is the foundation of the argument for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins. This demonstrates that adelphos was used for cousins as well as full blood brothers equally among Jews well before the time of Jesus.

This is the argument that you have not assimilated nor responded to. And how can you when it successfully demonstrates that adelphos cannot be equated with full blood brothers? There is no response that you can provide, even if you wanted to provide one.

To understand the word "until" in Matt. 1:25 as referring only to the time before the birth of Christ is ridiculous - a forced reading of the text

Alright Todd!! Now you're actually providing arguments.. and responding for once... way to go!

You are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written.

In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses.

The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea.. nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25.

Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

It would have been nothing short of sin for Mary to have married Joseph if she had already taken a vow of virginity

You need to substantiate this claim.

If you are familiar with the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius (circa 380 AD), you know that Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary.

Jerome, who had translated the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) from original manuscripts that are no longer extant into Vulgar Latin, cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute (even among Luther and Calvin) and was unheard of until more recent times.

 

Carson,
The word is "unto" not "until" in 2 Sam.6:23.
Now had Matthew written "unto" instead of "until" in Matt 1:25 would it be a whole new ball game?
Since hebrew and greek seem to be your languages?

Music4Him