Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

Wow, DHK, and to think that you might have actually addressed the issue about immediacy. I guess you'll be ignoring that.

And no, it's not a non sequitor. She asks about other examples of such marriage practices, but this was no ordinary marriage (unless you call giving birth to God normal). I am not saying this as justification, but at the same time, that previous marriage practices of this type are also not necessary and should not be used as "proof" that Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse.

Umm, ditto? You're relying on the tradition of your "protestant forefathers" who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And, contrary to popular anti-Catholic belief, there is Scriptural understanding of why:

Ezekiel 44:2 - Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Mary's womb is the gate by which the Lord entered the world, and no man shall enter in the same way.

 

Tamb,

You apparently didnt read my post. You blatantly represented those in Matt 13 as Jesus brothers born of Mary when they are clearly not. You aparently are saying the Holy Spirit has the interprutatoin wrong also as you claim
that is who guides your eisegesis.

If our minds were changed they would have to be changed to the confusion and contradiction of Protestantism when all you really have to trust is yourself. Problem is God says "trust not your own understanding".
Prov 3:5

Blessings

 

LOL so like... did Mary say no waaaaaaaaaay Yosef....

Matt. 1:18-25 18 Now the birth of Yeshua the Messiah was like this; because when his mother, Miryam, had been engaged to Yosef, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Ruach HaKodesh. 19 Yosef, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. 20 But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Yosef, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Miryam, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Ruach HaKodesh. 21 She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins." 22 Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, And shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanu'el;" Which is, being interpreted, "God with us." 24 Yosef arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to himself; 25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Yeshua.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How can anyone get the above scripture wrong? Why would the writer "Matthew" write this unless he asked or there was other proof? (ie) other brothers and sisters.

Music4Him

 

There is no Mary in Ezekiel. Your allegorization of this Scripture is so far off that you do great injustice to the Scriptures.

DHK

 

Music4Him,

"Well........here is Matthew 13:55 written in Hebrew, because I heard someone bring up the hebrew text? (from crosswalk hebrew bible study tools )"

Um, Matt was written in Greek. The problem is the Greek. Adelophos is the word you need to look up. It can mean "from the womb" but it also can apply to cousins.

By the way do see my post about Matt 13:55 up above. It is quite clear that those identified as brothers in that verse are simply not brothers in the sense of sons of Mary and Joseph for James and Joseph(Joses) are clearly the children of another Mary. Of course you will deny it.

Now none of this proves that Mary did not have other children but I simply don't see anywhere that anyone is identifed as "son of Mary" other than Jesus. But what it does prove is you guys can't exegete your way out of a wet paper bag.

Blessings

 

Music4Him,

Let's not move on to other verses yet. Let's see if we can pin you down. Do you admit that James and Joseph in Matt 13:55 are not Jesus literal brothers per my post up above.

Blessings

 

music4him, the word until[the greek renders heos hou] in Matthew 1:25 implies niether a cessation nor a continuation of the action. The context suggests neither since Matthew seems to be more concerned about the fact that there were no sexual relations between Joseph and Mary concerning the bringing forth of Jesus and the world "until" is used simply for that purpose, no implication is made about what happened afterwards. For a lively, recent discussion visit the link I provided a few pages back.

 

God could have used any Godly Jewish woman of the descent of David living at that time to bring forth the Messiah. There were other virgins than just Mary. She was not the only Godly person at that time. She was one person whom God chose to do one task in history in that place in time. God did not change her nature (it was stll a sinful nature). God did not over-rule the natural course of the events of her life (she went on to live a normal life with marital relations with her husband Joseph, and had children by him). Again God did not intervene in the natural course of the events of her live, as her life came to a close, for just like all others, she died. Her body remains dead and buried to this day. Someday she will also not only be raised from the dead, but raised to face the judgement seat of Christ as every sinner will.
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," and that includes Mary.
We all shall stand before the judgement seat of Christ, and that also includes Mary.
Mary is not God, or a god. She was a person chosen for a purpose that God had for her at that time in history; and yet still a sinner; sill a mother of other children; a wife of a husband; a member of the human race who endured an ordinary birth, and died an ordinary death.
DHK

 

Thess~
Ok so say your right on Matt 13. Now tell me about Matt. Ch. 1:25 why was that information written? That should have been priviate info how would Matthew have found out? Why was it mentioned and is it mentioned in your greek text that way?
BTW, I'm sorry I have no greek bible here.

music4Him

 

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.

 

Carson, first of all you won nothing, and I'm sure if you were to send this string to my congregation they would see that. The only thing you won was the blue ribbon for sloppy exegesis and dogma-centered hermeneutics.

Further, the reason I didn't respond is because it is of no use. Staunch Catholics will not listen to sound exegesis - never have, never will. You have proved yourself to be no different. For instance, I keep hearing Catholics in this string cast in doubt the meaning of adelphos as "brother," but do you know how the word is translated in the King James: 346 times translated "brother, brethren" in the NT, 0 (count em) 0 times translated "cousin" or anything even close to that in the NT. I'm sure you'll probably assault the KJV and its translators when you read that, and rightfully so since I'm sure your understanding of the Greek language is much better than theirs was.

Also, I have not launched any tirade against the RCC - I have simply refuted one of her godless dogmas. You say that I like to play on the emotions with my posts, but it seems that you want to portray me as some big Catholic-hater so that you can sway any who may be reading this string into thinking that there is no real substance to my replies. That's what I call talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Wow, that's terrific...do us all a favor and send them to New England because it was obvious to me that there was no evangelical Catholic church in the entire state of New Hampshire (believed me - we searched for even one and found none). In fact, my buddy who is a Southern Baptist church planter there consistently hears from the Catholics of that region, "I don't want any part of that Gospel stuff - I told you, I'm Catholic." To be fair, I can't blame staunch Catholics for not being very evangelistic. With the way that purgatory has been relegated to nothing more than a "heavenly holding tank" within Catholic theology, why is there any real urgency to reach the lost for Christ...what's so bad about a brief detour in purgatory before heaven? (Purgatory...another godless Catholic dogma found NOWHERE in the Scriptures). All someone must do is make sure they stay away from those pesky mortal sins and everything will be OK, right? I found it interesting that you said nothing of your own involvment in consistent confrontational evangelism or the fact that any area in the world that is predominately Catholic is evangelistically dead. That's why the Protestant Hispanic ministry here in Morristown is booming - the majority of the Hispanics who are coming to Morristown have NEVER heard the Gospel in their RC churches. I had the chance to lead one of those young Hispanic men to Christ about 4 months ago - his family was Catholic, and they were pretty faithful to the RCC, yet he had not a clue what the Gospel was all about. As a Pastor (someone who actually participates in the ministry of the local church), I encounter this much more often than I should have to.

You make my point exactly - staunch Catholics are more concerned about winning a "dogma debate" (which you certainly didn't) than they are about reaching the world for Christ. But, that too is to be expected since they have fallen prey to the vain philosophies and traditions (there's that word again) of men - philosophies and traditions that Paul warned against (Col. 2:8). I thought it was interesting that in your earlier reply to Lady's disdain for the word "tradition" that you left out Col. 2:8. Pretty convenient.

As I said, I could continue to pick apart your faulty theology and exegesis (as I did in my reply to your first post in our discourse), but what's the use? Even if I expose everyone of your remaining arguments (could there be any left?) as completely false (which I have done thus far), you still would not denounce the false dogmas. And why? Because the god of this age has blinded your eyes and those of the RCC(cf. 2 Cor. 4:4) to the exegetically sound truth of Scripture. I have discovered this in my ministry - no one can be argued to Christ! I have backed atheists into dead-ends. I have torn apart the debased theologies of some cultists. I have even exposed the falsehood of those within Catholic circles on several occasions (including this one). Yet, the only One who can save a lost soul is the Holy Spirit of God (John 3:5). I say this with all sincerety - I can't expect you to accept the plain exegesis of Scripture if you aren't even a child of God. Anyone who believes that we must work in conjuction with some "infusion of grace" in order to earn our salvation (a salvation which can be lost and regained according to your dogmas) is in clear violation of God's Word - "For it is by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, AND THIS NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT BY WORKS , LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Eph. 2:8-9). And violation to the Word of God on this most pivotal point of soteriology can only mean one thing - those who believe Catholic soteriology are lost. A Christ that doesn't have the power to save you without your ongoing "cooperation," and then doesn't have the power to keep you after He has established His covenant with you is no Christ at all, but sounds much more like the Antichrist of 1 John 2:18 (you may also want to read 1 John 2:19 about the perseverance of the saints - those who already received the fullness of the Holy Spirit according to 2:27 - another use of the perfect tense you like so well).

So you think you've won - my friend (and I say this in love) the only thing you've "won" is an eternity in hell (not purgatory) if you never trust Christ by faith alone - your works (and even your keen intellect) can't save you. It is my honest prayer that you will trust Christ as your Savior by faith alone. To that end, I will be concluding my posting on this string with you, but if you would like to stay in touch through e-mail, I would be more than delighted to do so. I think you can access my e-mail from this site, but if you can't, than just post on here that you'd like me to get in touch with you and I would be happy to do so. Thank you for engaging with me on this topic for the last couple of nights as I know it has taken some of your time just as it has taken some of mine.

 

Your 28th post and you are already sending people to hell Todd, that has got to be a new record.

The Catholics can't handle your "sound exegesis" so they are all going to repent now and be saved from their evil traditions of men.

Sorry, I can't help it. I am starting to sound like James White now or something.

 

Sorry Justified, just trying to speak the truth in love. Isn't that what Christians have been commanded to do?

 

DHK,

Thanks again for ignoring the immediacy topic.

Todd,

So that's how you win? It's not be replying to the arguments; its saying "You guys don't ever listen, so I'm just going to stop, and since I was right to begin with, you lose and I win."

I must say, that is amazing. You're so good that you don't even have to reply! It's just assumed by all that you are right!

At least the others on here who disagree engage in the aforementioned exegesis and scholarship instead of declaring victory by virtue of showing up.

 

Perhaps. But did you ever wonder where her tomb is? Wouldn't you think that somewhere in 'Tradition'/Church History/Writings of the early church Fathers there would be some mention of where she died, where she was buried? Isn't is possible that, as it was for Moses, Mary's body was taken into heaven so that her body would not see corruption?

 

Yet you fail to speak much truth at all, not to mention the lack of love. The lack of charity and decent scholarship by Baptists around here this last week is shameful.

 

Tamborine Lady,

I'm not bothered a bit except that I've not heard any solid rebuttals to the Catholic position.

As Scripture records, and a good example...if someone is a widow until they die, are they NOT a widow after death? No, it's understood that they will continue to remain a window after death. And it was understood in early Christianity that Mary remained a virgin all her life, even after the event of the birth. Even if you reject the writings that speak of Mary taking a vow of virginity (and they certainly are not inspired writings), you fail to grasp that so early in the Church such things were talked about, so it was clearly on their minds.

As for the Ez. verse...why am I grabbing at straws? How about an explanation?

 

In the Old Testament, we have many types and shadows of things to come as Paul stated in the New Testament. These things foretold of Christ and His work. Countless times, the Old Testament tells of the importance of the first born, but not the "only born", for that is the purpose of God--- to keep reproducing. And indeed, there always seemed to be more kids after the firstborn, and the same with Christ.

I can understand the importance of Mary being a virgin for Christ's birth to:

1) Have the seed of the Holy Spirit to start a new race (as opposed to that of Adam's)
2) To bypass Jehoiachin's curse
3) To fulfill the 'type' of being firstborn.

But once Christ was born, what does having kids afterwards have anything to do with the price of tea in China? As a matter of fact, I would think God would want Mary to follow in the command, "Be fruitful and multiply" as any woman before her was supposed to do.

Therefore, there should not be a problem with being naturally begotten sons of Mary any more than later on, anyone can become a begotten son of God.

 

Its amazing how people absolutely refuse to do anything but focus on the words of a Bible translated more than twice from the original manuscripts as absolute proof that their speculation is infallable.

It's increadible!