Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

[Ray Berrian]

Carson Weber,

You said, 'Hey, Harley4Him, could you give me a oneliner as to what calvin said, with a yes or no?

Does it really matter?'

Ray is saying, Does not your church erroneously teach in the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary?"
I respect that Jesus was virgin born and I am very, very sure that Jesus loves His mother deeply. I am thankful for her bringing Jesus to full term so He became Savior and especially my Savior.

But we do not teach a 'hocuspocus' theology that attempts to keep Mary forever a virgin; the Bible teaches that Joseph was not fatherless. One of the other brethren before this post jotted down more than one Scriptural verse to show that Jesus indeed did have half brothers and sisters. The neverending virginity of Mary would not make her more saved nor it would not make the people of God more saved than we are right now. There is no benefit in confusing Christians by perpetuating error.

Hocuspocus is a Latin phrase meaning 'to cloak in deception.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Catholics will believe what they want to believe. Even if Mary herself appeared and testified she had other children by Joseph AFTER
Jesus, they will still go by what their church taught and tell her she was wrong.

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by Todd:

No one individual is the sole arbiter of truth - couldn't it have been possible for Calvin to have been (dare I say) wrong about perpetual virginity while still getting the substitutionary atonement and the blood sacrifice of Christ right? Your argument holds no water. Do you have to be right about everything in order for someone to believe anything you say? Of course not.

Of course you don't have to be right about everything. But, when I encounter someone who gets the totally obvious stuff really really wrong, I tend to doubt their judgement on ideas that require some subtelty of thought and clarity of mind. I suppose you are the opposite, believing that whoever is clearly wrong on the easy stuff must be clearly right on the hard stuff. That's a very interesting application of the law of average you have there.

The argument does hold water. As they would say on Law and Order, "It goes to the credibility of the witness, your honor."

 

[Todd]

Wow, this is amazing - one simple little Sunday School question posted by Lady has Harley quoting sitcoms, Thess "quoting" a lexicon (I'd like to know which one), and all the Catholics dodging the Scriptures. I think PinoyBaptist said it best: Even if Mary herself descended and told all the RC's that she was not a virgin, they would refute her with their dogmas and catechisms without even a thought to God's Word.

Oh, and Thess, you may want to check this out...Abraham and Lot were not cousins, Lot was Abraham's nephew...hello! Further, I think it is amazing that you will run to the Septuigant to justify your Greek, while at the same time turning a blind eye to all the other NT Scripture that has been listed. The clear understanding of the verses is that Jesus had half-brothers and sisters - you would have no problem interpreting the verses that way were it not for all those pesky dogmas. I really feel for you guys - it must get really tough having to defend all those dogmas in the light of clear biblical exegesis.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't notice any of our Catholic friends telling us in what year the perpetual virginity of Mary was established as dogma with the RCC. Could it be because they are ashamed to admit it? We don't want to know what some ivory tower Catholic historian had to say about the false doctrine - what year was it actually accepted as dogma? I think that will give Lady more than enough evidence to make a correct decision.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi pinoybaptist,

You will believe what you want to believe. Even if Jesus himself appeared and testified that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, you would still go by what you believe to be true and tell him he was wrong.

Do you see the logical import of your statement? It has no factual basis; it's just an emotative response.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Todd,

Since your post above is saturated with triumphalistic overtones, how about a one on one with me? We'll go with Scripture alone - no Apostolic Tradition.

You start. And please, make the material your own; avoid cut & pastes.

 

[Todd]

And Carson, just like the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary is nothing more than an extra-biblical doctrine that has been established in order to make a stronger case for the deification of Mary - to the RC's she's already a god anyway (co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix). The wickedness is astounding.

 

[Todd]

Carson, anytime - just name the topic, but I'm warning you, you're way out of your league my boy.

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by Todd:
Wow, this is amazing - one simple little Sunday School question posted by Lady has Harley quoting sitcoms

Not!

So you think Calvin was a liar? Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[Carson Weber]

to the RC's she's already a god anyway (co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix)

Do you mind if I point out everytime you bear false witness?

You have just borne false witness.

Catholics do not believe Mary is a god.

 

[Carson Weber]

Carson, anytime - just name the topic, but I'm warning you, you're way out of your league my boy.

Like I said, saturated with triumphalism.

Remember, God resists the proud.

The topic is the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm waiting.

 

[Todd]

Catholic dogma does not call Mary a god, but their dogmas leave no other choice. If Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, then she must be equal with Christ, making her in essence some sort of god.

 

[Todd]

I don't mind discussing perpetual virginity, but I think the biblical references and sufficient treatments of those references have been pretty well exhausted. Why not grace by faith alone?

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by Todd:
I don't mind discussing perpetual virginity

Then why are you so bothered by the fact that you harden you heart in opposition to the clear teachings of John Calvin?

 

[Carson Weber]

If Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, then she must be equal with Christ, making her in essence some sort of god.

First, Mary is not co-mediatrix. She is the mediatrix of all graces.

1. All graces come through Jesus.
2. Mary gave birth to Jesus.
3. All graces come to us through Mary because Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Second, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

The doctrine of Mary Coredemptrix does not mean that Mary is a god nor does it logically result in her being a god. It means that she cooperated with the work of the Redemption, which was wholly accomplished by Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Jesus decided to associate the free collaboration of a human being in his work. To then conclude that Mary is a god is an illogical attack upon something you do not understand.

I don't mind discussing perpetual virginity

Then let's go. Show me that she's not a virgin.

 

[Todd]

Can't say that I blame you for not wanting to discuss sola fide - I wouldn't want to have to defend a Catholic view of salvation either.

As I said, I will discuss perpetual virginity, but do me a favor - look back through this string and read my posts and if there is any specific biblical text you want to toss about, I'm game. I simply don't want to rehash everything that's already been so clearly stated.

 

[Todd]

Harley, why are you so hung up on Calvin? You seem to treat him with the same veneration that the Catholics give to Mary - that's what the personal problem seems to be.

 

[Carson Weber]

Can't say that I blame you for not wanting to discuss sola fide - I wouldn't want to have to defend a Catholic view of salvation either.

Todd, cut out the prideful assumptions. I would gladly debate you with regard to sola fide, because - believe it or not - it's a Catholic doctrine! But, you wouldn't know that, because you don't have a clue about Catholic dogma. Quit taking tangents and step up to the plate.

As I said, I will discuss perpetual virginity, but do me a favor - look back through this string and read my posts and if there is any specific biblical text you want to toss about, I'm game.

So, you don't want to start.

Okay, I'll start with the Annunciation, Luke 1:26ff.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Gabriel addresses her, "Rejoice, kecharitomene [past present participle]"

Mary was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I know not man?"

Okay, Todd, Mary knows exactly how she's going to conceive considering the fact that she's betrothed to Joseph. Yet, she responds with an expression of "How can this be?"

How can it be, Todd?

 

[Carson Weber]

Harley, why are you so hung up on Calvin? You seem to treat him with the same veneration that the Catholics give to Mary - that's what the personal problem seems to be.

Considering the fact that Calvin is the co-author of Sola Scriptura and died a believer in Mary's perpetual virginity, there remains a bit of a paradox involved, donchathink?

 

[Justified Saint]

Still a Virgin

Discerning Christians should check out some of the arguments above defending the perpetual virginity of Mary against modern Protestant apologetics from the likes of Eric Svendsen. The whole exchange illustrates one obvious thing, that is that Protestants are abandoning the age old assaults against the perpetual virginity with Bible verses about Jesus' "brothers" as they have been ably refuted by Catholic apologists and are insteading clinging to novel theories about sematic obsolescence of a particular meaning of the Greek construction "heos hou" in the time period of the writing of Matthew's gospel(see Matthew 1:25). Whatever happened to the plain sense of scriptures that Protestants are always talking about?

Pay particular attention to Paul Owen's observations, Dr. Owen of course being a Protestant. Novel and illogical theories like Svendsen's clearly collapse under the weight of Biblical scholarship.