Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Could you address the rest of Carsons post? He made some really good points I'd like to see debunked if possible....

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Personally I doudt that unto, until, till, to or any of the other common translatsions of what the Greek word is were what Matthew wrote. There is not usually a one to one correspondence of words from one language to another, especially Hebrew or Greek to English, that captures all the meaning. The problem of translations is a much greater one in Protestantism where you simply loose meaning from the Bible in the translatoin. In Catholicism this is not as much of a problem because Oral Tradition can take up the slack. By the way Music, I am still wondering how you can reject the parrellel between Mary and the AOC based on "How is it that the ________ should come to me.". How can the ______ come to me.

Was it:
a) A storm
b) a dog
c) Jesus
d) Mary

That came to Elizabeth.

Was it:
a) A storm
b) a dog
c) the Ark of the Covenant

That could not come to David and so went to obemedon for 3 months.

Was it:
a) A storm
b) A dog
c) Jesus
d) Mary

That stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months.

Was it:

a) A storm
b) A dog
c) A cat
d) The Ark that stayed

with Obemedon for 3 months.

By the 2 Sam 5, Luke 1 Parrellel who is parrelled with the AOC? Remember I don't deny that a parrellel exists between Jesus and the AOC.

Surely you can pick up on this parrellel without using your Protestant Bible commentary to tell you what to believe, hey Music4. I love it when you guys use Bible commentaries (while saying you use scripture alone) and then tell us Catholics that we shouldn't listen to our Church.

Blessings

 

"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? "

Could you produce a verse that explicitly says we are saved by "faith alone". I did a bible search on the phrase and did find one verse that uses it but it won't help you to much. 273 times, the NT writers spoke of faith and not once (oops, there is the one I mentioned) did they choose to put it together with the word alone (Hummmmm wonder why?) so that Martin Luther wouldn't go off half cocked and bring a large chunck of Christianity in to his errors. You see too can play at these silly games you guys "think" you have the upper hand on.

Blessings Music

 

What about that "By grace are ye saved, thru faith", bit. "not of works", because what would we do, why we would "boast".

But, now that has little to do with biblical proof of Mary's perpetual virginity, correct ? There are plenty of salvation threads here, why drag that conversation into here ?

Anyways, back to the discussion at hand.

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Could you address the rest of Carsons post? He made some really good points I'd like to see debunked if possible.... </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Adam,
Where have you been for the last 19 pages? I've seen lots of debunking, refuting and debating. No one can give me sound proof in the 66 books of the KJV that there "isn't other kids" either.

Music4Him

 

Personally I doudt that unto, until, till, to or any of the other common translatsions of what the Greek word is were what Matthew wrote. There is not usually a one to one correspondence of words from one language to another, especially Hebrew or Greek to English, that captures all the meaning. The problem of translations is a much greater one in Protestantism where you simply loose meaning from the Bible in the translatoin. In Catholicism this is not as much of a problem because Oral Tradition can take up the slack. By the way Music, I am still wondering how you can reject the parrellel between Mary and the AOC based on "How is it that the ________ should come to me.". How can the ______ come to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q. David asked how would the ark come to him?

A. Mary
Mary brought/carried/brought fourth the ark.
She was the ark bearer as was Obededom for David the king.
Mary was of the tribe of Levi. So was Obededom.

I I guess I just see the parellels differently than you, but you told me on page 17 that it was allowed in the Catholic mindset, but now its not?
[QB]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the 2 Sam 5, Luke 1 Parrellel who is parrelled with the AOC? Remember I don't deny that a parrellel exists between Jesus and the AOC.

Surely you can pick up on this parrellel without using your Protestant Bible commentary to tell you what to believe, hey Music4. I love it when you guys use Bible commentaries (while saying you use scripture alone) and then tell us Catholics that we shouldn't listen to our Church.

Blessings [/QUOTE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What commentary did I use? You told me where I could find it, I read it, and laid it out to understand it.
Mary was very important cause she could have said....I don't do virgin births. But praise God she said be it unto me according to thy word. For that she is called blessed among women. I have no problem with that, but it was Jesus who came and gave the ultimate price.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 10:8-10
8
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music4Him

 

Carson said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just did a search on google only using "Jerome and Helvidius" guess what? To my suprize its all over the net. Why can't you use scripture from the 66 books instead of commentarys?

Oh BTW, the scripture on Moses Deut. 34:6 it also uses the word "unto" instead of "until".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW,
~Thess~ said: "Surely you can pick up on this parrellel without using your Protestant Bible commentary to tell you what to believe, hey Music4. I love it when you guys use Bible commentaries (while saying you use scripture alone) and then tell us Catholics that we shouldn't listen to our Church."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did I use a Bible commentary? Are you saying that we cannot use commentarys out of the bible (which all I really did was read the scripture), because I don't have commentarys in my bible. But people who will remain nameless can use all kinds of stuff out of any old book pertaining to scripture "or not", but thats suppost to be ok as long as it suits their needs and can send others off on bunny trials? Why?

~Colossians 2:8~


Music4Him

 

Carson said:
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heres some questions........
I was told that this was written in the greek now you are saying it was hebrew words to greek? Yes or No?

Matthew is the gosple written by a Jew to Jews about a Jew. So what language would he write it in? Hebrew or Greek?

Music4Him

 

Logic?? Let's look at what is presented by you.
1. Mary's response is NOT non sequitor, as we shall see.
2. "In her mind sex is imminent. That is relative, depending on what you mean by imminent. She wasn't waiting ten years down to consummate a marriage and have children. Neither was she expecting to live as long as Methuselah. But your point is well made and accepted she was expecting to have sex and rear up a family with Joseph.
3. If your how refers to the message of the angel, then the angel later explained how the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and she would conceive and bring forth the Son of God. But that in no way stops Mary from having a family later on. You might construe it as a small interruption in the normal course of affairs in her life.
4. She is betrothed to Joseph at this time, and her betrothal is so strong that she is considered as wife, though she legally isn't. I am relieved to hear you say that. Scripture doesn't contradict itself. In that fairy-tale book that you called Scripture (Protoevengelium of James) Joseph is still betrothed to Mary at the time of the birth of Christ, and thus Christ is born out of wedlock according to public appearance! They were only married sometime after the birth of Christ (according to your "Scripture").
But, indeed, according to the Biblical account she was betrothed when the angel appeared. She was expecting to soon be married. We don't know exactly when. And soon after their marriage would be consummated they would raise up a family for the Lord.
Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Messiah, did evoke the response: "How can this be seeing I know not a man?" What else would you expect her to say if you were in her shoes? She was betrothed not married. Her betrothal could yet last another year (most lasted one to two years). She was a virgin, but betrothed or engaged. She had not known any man. Neither would she know Joseph or any man for the Messiah to be conceived. Therefore (for her understanding) she asks: "How can this be?? Seing I know not a man? It was a question born out of amazement and wonderment, not unbelief like Zecharias's was.

It doesn't matter whose it is, it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway.

Sorry Carson. I have not seen it. Adelphos means brother. Every time, well over 100 times (including the plural form its over 300 times) it is always translated brother or brethren. There is another word for cousin. The Holy Spirit chose not to use that word, though it is used three other times in the Bible. I wonder why he didn't use it in Mat.13:55? Maybe because He meant for us to understand that they were his brothers.

If this is your foundational argument, then your ship just sunk, and you ought to say good-bye to the perpetual virginity of Mary heresy. As stated before, the Septuagint is a translation and only a translation: just like the RSV, ASV, KJV, NSV, etc. They are all translations, and none of them are inspired. Only the originals are inspired. God inspired the originals, and only those manuscripts that are preserved in the original manuscripts have any bearing on this discussion. In other words the definition of the New Testament word of adelphos does not come from the English word brother found in the Old Testament Hebrew and then translated into a Greek version. What you have done is gone from English to Hebrew to Greek to English again. Either go from the Hebrew Old testament straight into English or the Greek New Testamen straight into English. The Scriptures were inspired in Hebrew in the OT, and in Greek in the NT. We confine ourselves to those--not to Syriac, Egyptian, Latin, Punjabi, Pharsi, Cree, Spanish, etc. Greek and Hebrew; that is all.

Thus adelphos in the New Testament is always translated brother (over 300 times), the Septuagint notwithstanding. And your arguments just get weaker and more insignificant by the minute.

This argument will not be "assimilated" and you don't seem to comprehend it. Mat.13:55,56 shows demonstrably that the brothers and sisters mentioned are the actual brothers and sisters of Christ. They can be no other. I have presented this evidence time and time again and it still has gone unrefuted. If God wanted to make it clear that they were cousins then he would have used the word for cousins, but he didn't; he used the word for brothers instead. Doesn't that tell you something?

Let's see if your example really holds water or not. And what translation uses the word "until?"

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (KJV)

2 Samuel 6:23 Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. (WEB)

2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (ASV)

2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. (DBY)

Is that enough? Neither the King James, nor most other translations use the prepostion "until." The meaning of the verse if we may so paraphrase it, is: "Right up til the day that Michal died, she had neither sex nor children."
--There is no need for me to paraphrase it all.
A better way for you to understand the verse is just to insert another word for "child"
She had no fun to the day of her death.
She had no money to the day of her death.
She had no friends to the day of her death.
She had no memory to the day of her death.
She had no health to the day of her death.

In all cases it does not mean that she gained those things afterward.
To conclude, after spending so much time on this verse you decided to give. It is really a lame excuse for a defence of your doctrine. Let's see what else you have here.

Context means everything doesn't it? No one knew the location of the grave until that day (the day of Moses), and no one would no it from that day forward, as Moses told them, because God buried Moses Himself. Your conclusion in this case is non sequitor. God had given the answer before you had even spoken.

For every example you give, Carson, there is a meaning to the verse. You tend to take your verses or examples out of context.

Matthew 1:25 and did not know her till she brought forth her son--the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. (YLT)

Matthew 1:25 and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. (DBY)

Matthew 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. (WEB)

Matthew 1:25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. (ASV)

It seems that most translations disagree with yours Carson. I can still go on and give others if you like.

There is no controversy there. They were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus' birth.

That just shows you how wrong many of those church fathers were on some things, and why they cannot be trusted. If you want me to give a rant on Origen just ask.
--Now this theory is just plain laughable and unproveable. Sure, you have your gospel of James, totally unreliable and unscriptural, denying not only the Bible, but history itself. Other than fairy-tale type sources than that, you have no evidence whatsoever that Mary ever took a vow of virginity. Give Scriptural evidence for that from the KJV. Mary was betrothed; planning to marry Joseph (also a virgin), rear a family, when suddenly divine intervention came into her life. After about a year there would be nothing for normal marital relations to continue, as God intended them to.
Get your head out of those tomes written by fallible and sinful men, and study the Word of God instead.
DHK

 

You mean by ignoring the study of the Bible and depending on Oral Tradition, you can make up whatever doctrine you want to. You can find the most imaginable ways possible to mankind to defend an utterly unbiblical doctrine such as the perpetual virginity of Mary. Using Tradition, anything becomes possible: the sky becomes green, and the grass becomes blue. It was Origen that promoted the Greek method of philosophization and allegorization into the Bible. And he so developed a highly sturctured form of Arianism. The Catholics love him for this.

Instead of complaining that a word like until can't really be defined, why don't you use some resource material and try to work at it a bit:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

Matthew 1:25 kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun (TR)

From Thayer’s, “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,” 4th ed., 1901,

‘ews a particle marking a limit, or,
a conjunction that signifies:
in Mat 1:25—with the gen. of the neut. rel. pron. ou or otou it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when);
ews ou followed by the indicative (Mat.1:25)

In other words, the preposition "until or til" in Mat.1:25 acts as a conjunction, meaning that it points to a time when (an event happens). It is also followed by the indicative.
If it is acting as a conjunction it means that two events are being referred to: the one before the conjuncion, and the one after (the Birth before, and the births after).
DHK

 

Music4

You never use Bible commentaries or listen to external sources on the Bible? Not even Pastors preaching? You've never heard anyone else's opinion on the Bible? A plane dropped one off over the deserted island you were living on?

"I have no problem with that, but it was Jesus who came and gave the ultimate price. "

Amen to that. Nothing I have posted says othewise. Where have I said otherwise? But it brings glory to God when we recognize what he has done for her as well as the many others in scripture who he has exalted for his purposes. This is a very Biblical concept and one I thought you would understand. Just look at Moses. God had people destroyed who would not follow Moses. In not following him they were not following him.

"God has done great things for" her you know.

Hebrews 6:12
so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.


It is as if Protestants have to ignore the lives of anyone who has passed on because somehow that is taking away from their faith in Jesus, rather than recognize what God has done in their lives. We don't claim Mary did or does anything apart from God.

Blessings

 

DHK,

"Instead of complaining that a word like until can't really be defined,"

DHK, your so good at twisting what people say it (I did not say this at all) is no wonder you have such trouble with the Bible. believe.

Blessings

 

By the way Music3 with regard to your romans quote can you tell me where you see in the Bible that Word of God = Scripture? First of all note that the WOG in your romans quote is "preached" i.e. spoken, not written neccessarily. Now be assured that I believe that scripture is the word of God. But my point is this. The Mormons for instance have the scriptures, yet they have a false understanding of them. Therefore, do they have the WOG. They see a verse in Corinthians as justifying baptizing the dead and I have seen no adequate refutatoin from a purely scriptural basis for this. So perhaps if you can show me where WOG = Scripture rather than the formula of 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2 by which the WOG is transmitted we will be getting somewhere.

Blessings

 

The interesting thing about the Mormons is that they have to disavow the inerrancy of the Bible in order to hold in esteem their book of mormon.

 

Thess~ said:
__________________________________________________
You never use Bible commentaries or listen to external sources on the Bible? Not even Pastors preaching? You've never heard anyone else's opinion on the Bible? A plane dropped one off over the deserted island you were living on?
__________________________________________________

Thess~
FYI, it was the first time I researched the possibility of Mary & Joseph's other children.
BTW, Do you see me saying my Preacher or this Preist or the Pope said this or that? As for commentaries.....well I did use Smiths "Bible" dictionary. But it didn't tell me anything the the Word of God couldn't tell me. Like I said if I want to prove something I will try to disprove it first. Because belive it or not some men lie, but God lies not! Numbers 23:19. I won't take what the Preacher in my church says as gospel until I read it for my self. I take notes and then I check it out. James 1:5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~But in all honesty where does this have any bearing on the topic: Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like I said ...-*-...-*-....BUNNY TRAILS..... to get off the subject.

Prove that Mary and Joseph had no children. There is more eveidence pointing to other children. Prove perpetual virginity there is evidence to prove other wise.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Music4Him

 

Actually the ones I knew did not. They just disagreed with my interprutation.

 

"Prove that Mary and Joseph had no children. There is more eveidence pointing to other children. Prove perpetual virginity there is evidence to prove other wise.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

You have simply not proven that Mary and Joseph had other children. I have not claimed to prove they did not from the Bible. Only that the question is not answered by the Bible. Further you say that the Smith's Bible dictionary didn't tell you anything you couldn't get from the Bible. Yet I see nothing in the English translation that tells what the Hebrew and Aaramic language specifically states. To the extent that Smith's is wrong in these areas it corrupts your thinking on the Bible. Once again there is not a one to one correspondence of words between languages. And inevitably the depth of the scriptures will get lost in the translatoins.

Blessings

 

20 pages later Thes says "you simply have not proven Mary and Jospeh had other children."
Thessalonian if we could prove to you that the moon was was spherical in shape and revolved arond the earth would you accept our proof. The evidence is there. The proof is there. It is as clear as night and day. We go over it time and time again. But unbelief is stil unbelief. There exists to this day a flat earth society. You might as well join them too. They deny evidence that the earth is round. You do the same thing when evidence is presented to you that Mary had other children by a union with Joseph. The evidence is clear. Your unbelief is astoundingly clear also.
DHK

 

This is your exact quote:

In other words, we cannot trust what Matthew wrote; the Greek words "unto," "until" etc. are irrelevant, and their translations are meaningless without Oral Tradition (which you mentioned later in the same post). You put Oral Tradition as having greater authority than the Scriptures. You said straight out that these prepositions I DOUBT ...THAT THIS IS WHAT MATTHEW WROTE Like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden putting doubt in Eve's mind, and then plainly denying God's Word, you have come to the place where you have plainly denied God's Word, saying it can't be translated.
DHK

 

"In other words, we cannot trust what Matthew wrote; the Greek words "unto," "until" etc. are irrelevant, and their translations are meaningless without Oral Tradition (which you mentioned later in the same post). You put Oral Tradition as having greater authority than the Scriptures. You said straight out that these prepositions I DOUBT ...THAT THIS IS WHAT MATTHEW WROTE Like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden putting doubt in Eve's mind, and then plainly denying God's Word, you have come to the place where you have plainly denied God's Word, saying it can't be translated."

DHK,

You have a flair for twisting and exagerating that speaks to 1 Peter 3:16 quite well. First of all Matt did not write unto and until. He wrote words in greek that are imperfectly or should I say incompletely translated in to English. I did not say that Oral Tradition was over scripture and do not believe that it is. I did not say that translations are meaningless even without Oral Tradition. If you think there is a one to one correspondence of words from Hebrew and Greek to English and that fallible men can translate infallibly, capturing all the meaning by all means go for it because I have no real desire to cast pearls. I do not believe that because a word does not capture the full meaning that that makes the Bible errant. It just takes a little more explaining from the Oral side.

As for your arguements being "astoundingly" clear, I have way to much experience discussing issues with Mormons and JW's to know that you cannot make a blind man see except by the power of God. I will continue to pray that he will open your eyes. We have gone round and round about the translations and you simply have not proven what you think you have except in the grandios recesses of your mind where you believe that you are a legendary bible exegete of the likes of Martin Luther.

Blessings