Carson, what were you attempting to prove with your post - that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, well duh! I think that just happens to be an intrical part of the Gospel. Can you please explain to me how Lk. 1:26ff affects Mary's virginity beyond Christ's conception and birth - I'd really love to hear that explanation.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?
- Thread starter tamborine lady
- Start date
Justified Saint
New Member
Todd, if you want to understand the Catholic doctrine of salvation then check out Robert Sungenis tome: "Not by Faith Alone". If there is a Protestant equivalent please let me know! Sproul's book "Faith Alone" comes to mind but it looks like a children's pop-up book in comparision to Sungenis!
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Todd,
You asked, "[W]hat were you attempting to prove with your post"
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her response is a complete non sequitur! Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger never gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Todd, please, send me back to my league.
You asked, "[W]hat were you attempting to prove with your post"
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her response is a complete non sequitur! Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger never gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Todd, please, send me back to my league.
GraceSaves
New Member
I don't want to move away from Carson's post (it needs to be replied to), but this just occurred to me...
Where are the descendants of Mary? Why would not some group of people be making the claim that they are children of Mary, and thus related to the humanity of Jesus Christ? Why has no group made this claim throughout the ages? Why not a single page of history that mentions a continued lineage from Joseph and Mary?
Where are the descendants of Mary? Why would not some group of people be making the claim that they are children of Mary, and thus related to the humanity of Jesus Christ? Why has no group made this claim throughout the ages? Why not a single page of history that mentions a continued lineage from Joseph and Mary?
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Todd,
It has been 35 minutes since I made my last post, and I need my sleep. We'll pick this up later.
God bless you.
It has been 35 minutes since I made my last post, and I need my sleep. We'll pick this up later.
God bless you.
“Ahem!!!” - Stepping up to microphone.
Tap. Tap.
“Is this thing on?”
--------------------------------------------------
Carson - why are you ducking the issues I raised?
What about what the scriptures I quoted in my posts plainly say?
You are too eager to avoid everything I posted and start a new dialogue with Todd...
I wonder why that is?
Oh, never mind. I know why.
Go ahead Todd - I think I must have hurt Carson's feelings when I wrote that the Catholic Encyclopedia is more authoritative than the opinions of a Catholic seminary student.
Honestly Carson, I did NOT write that to wound your feelings. I was merely pointing out that my argument was directed at the Catholic Position as given in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which, by the way,
you completely avoided answering.
Tap. Tap.
“Is this thing on?”
--------------------------------------------------
Carson - why are you ducking the issues I raised?
What about what the scriptures I quoted in my posts plainly say?
You are too eager to avoid everything I posted and start a new dialogue with Todd...
I wonder why that is?
Oh, never mind. I know why.
Go ahead Todd - I think I must have hurt Carson's feelings when I wrote that the Catholic Encyclopedia is more authoritative than the opinions of a Catholic seminary student.
Honestly Carson, I did NOT write that to wound your feelings. I was merely pointing out that my argument was directed at the Catholic Position as given in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which, by the way,
you completely avoided answering.
Wow, where to begin - your exegesis is laughable and your hermeneutics are horrible. Caution: It may be quite painful to see your arguments ripped apart with the truth.
Consider yourself sent back to the Minors - please don't come back up to the Majors until you've got some real exegesis.
Immediately you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the Greek language. Your PC Greek program may not tell you this, but there is no such thing as a "past present participle." It's either past or it's present, but it can't be both. The correct parsing would have been present active imperative (but I'm sure you knew that, right?).
What a ridiculous statement. Couldn't there have been just a wee little chance that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus and that she enjoyed a beautiful, conjugal relationship with Joseph after that? While I will concede that some of the early church fathers (such as Cyprian) held your interpretation of Mary's statement, you act as if it was the consensus of the church - that is bogus. But even if it was, what difference would it really make. This is your foundational problem: You find one passage that affirms Mary's virginity, and then you look to church history to affirm her "perpetual virginity." What's wrong, couldn't find anything in the Bible to back you up? And of course her statement would have made perfect sense even if she didn't retain her virginity throughout her lifetime. When Christ was conceived, she had known no man - she wouldn't have had to remained a virgin forever for her statement to make sense. The verse says absolutely nothing of her virginity beyond the birth of Christ! It doesn't get much plainer than that!
Man, are you listening to yourself. You are making absolutely no sense at all. Her statement makes perfect sense when you consider the fact that she was BETROTHED, not married. An Israelite woman could have easily been subject to stoning for having sexual relations outside of marriage. And though betrothal was seen as being very close to marriage in those days, the one thing that it certainly did not include was sex. Based on the fact that Mary was betrothed, and not married, her statement not only makes sense, but to interpret it as I have is to keep the text within it's context, and not some attempt to accomidate errant Catholic dogma. By the way, no one throughout this string ever even cared to mentioned when the perpetual virginity of Mary was officially recognized as Catholic dogma - do you think they're all embarressed, or do they even know?
And so from what you're saying, we're to assume that Luke 2 teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary - that is nonsense. Have you even taken hermeneutics yet? If you had, then you would no that the argument from silence is the weakest hermeneutic of all. Just because Luke didn't mention Christ's siblings doesn't mean that they weren't there - please don't try and pass over such lame arguments on me. Remember, Luke was writing about Jesus, not his brothers - one would not even expect his brothers to be mentioned - that's just silly.
Again, your hermeneutics are found lacking much to be desired. While the fact that the definite article is used really proves nothing, I'll concede that maybe it did mean that the people thought there was something different about Jesus. Yet, to argue that it was that He was Mary's only son is ridiculous. Couldn't there be a slight chance that they referred to Jesus with the definite article because He was the only One of Mary's children who claimed to be God and because He went about doing many signs and wonders. If these are the best arguments you have, you're wasting your time. All you're doing is taking a few elementary nuances of the language and attempting to twist them into the dogma of perpetual virginity.
Please - notwithstanding the customs of the day, how many younger brothers had older brothers who claimed to be the Messiah? Give me a break! Of course they questioned the claims of their brother, even if He was their older brother. I dare say that you would have done the same thing. Your assertions are not grounded in real biblical exegesis!
My, my - how conveniently you left out the part about John being the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Would you have wanted your mother entrusted to the care of those who may not have even believed that you were the Messiah? I know that at least James became a believer following Christ's death and resurrection, but you are surely not asserting that all His brothers and sisters were sympathetic with His mission following His death. Aside from all that though, Christ's entrusting His mother to the care of John proves nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity - you are sincerely grasping at straws.
Consider yourself sent back to the Minors - please don't come back up to the Majors until you've got some real exegesis.
Good response, Todd (the long one). A couple of points in addition:
1. Tradition (that nice RC word...
) has it that Jesus was at least twelve when Mary had His first sibling. If Jesus was at or about 33 at the time of His crucifixion, that would make the next oldest (presuming it was a boy) only 21 or so. Of course, then, Jesus would have entrusted his mother to someone else!
2. Although his brothers later believed in the identity of Jesus, we can see from Mark 3:21, that initially they thought He was out of His mind! Why entrust their mother to one of them?
3. When, in Matthew 12:46, Jesus is told that His mother and brothers are outside wanting to speak to him, there is no doubt that this is Mary they are talking about and some other males. The designation of 'mother' is clearly biological at that point and there is absolutely no reason to distinguish between that biological connection and a similar biological connection when the term 'brothers' is used immediately following. If this is the same incident as in Mark, then it is quite clear that this is family come to retrieve Him from what they at that time perceived as His folly.
1. Tradition (that nice RC word...
) has it that Jesus was at least twelve when Mary had His first sibling. If Jesus was at or about 33 at the time of His crucifixion, that would make the next oldest (presuming it was a boy) only 21 or so. Of course, then, Jesus would have entrusted his mother to someone else!2. Although his brothers later believed in the identity of Jesus, we can see from Mark 3:21, that initially they thought He was out of His mind! Why entrust their mother to one of them?
3. When, in Matthew 12:46, Jesus is told that His mother and brothers are outside wanting to speak to him, there is no doubt that this is Mary they are talking about and some other males. The designation of 'mother' is clearly biological at that point and there is absolutely no reason to distinguish between that biological connection and a similar biological connection when the term 'brothers' is used immediately following. If this is the same incident as in Mark, then it is quite clear that this is family come to retrieve Him from what they at that time perceived as His folly.
GraceSaves
New Member
But Mary stayed with John FROM THAT POINT ON. Why didn't his brothers, when they got older, come and take care of their mother?Originally posted by Helen:
1. Tradition (that nice RC word...
Oh, and Carson is not a seminary student, as he stated in another thread. I'm not sure where that random comment keeps coming from.
GraceSaves
New Member
Carson responded to this, and you fell silent on the issue. Any reason why you are not willing to concede that you used terminology incorrectly?
GraceSaves
New Member
Call me crazy, but I just went through all four pages and did not see you quote anything but some Scriptural passages about Jesus' brethren, which was in fact addressed by Catholics on the board. There was no quotation of the Catholic Encyclopedia ON THIS THREAD.
So I hardly think anyone avoided answering anything.
GraceSaves
New Member
Matthew 27:56 - Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
Mark 15:40 - There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:47 - And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
It does not seem so clear to me that James and Joses mentioned in the Scripture you quote are not the James and Joses of the other Mary.
GraceSaves wrote:
Carson - Thanks for straightening us out on this???
GraceSaves wrote:
GraceSaves wrote:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." Mark 6:3
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19
I think its more than a bit illogical to believe that the good folks in that small town were so confused that they thought the four brothers and at least two sisters of Jesus were from the family of another Mary.
No way Catholics would believe "the other Mary theory" unless your church insisted you believe it...
[ February 09, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: rbrent ]
That “random comment” comes from Carson’s Profile which contains the following information.
Perhaps Seminary Student is incorrect and he is just a Graduate Student...
Carson - Thanks for straightening us out on this???
GraceSaves wrote:
You’re right about my thread mixup GraceSaves. I was posting to several different threads - my reference to Carson and quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia did deal with another thread where my Good Catholic Friends DID generally AVOID answering my posts with scriptural proof for the Catholic position.
GraceSaves wrote:
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." Mark 6:3
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19
I think its more than a bit illogical to believe that the good folks in that small town were so confused that they thought the four brothers and at least two sisters of Jesus were from the family of another Mary.
No way Catholics would believe "the other Mary theory" unless your church insisted you believe it...
[ February 09, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: rbrent ]
Ray Berrian
New Member
Grace Saves,
You said, 'Why has no group made this claim throughout the ages? Why not a single page of history that mentions a continued lineage from Joseph and Mary?'
Answer: The books of the Bible are not a history of family lineage. The only importance of Mary is that she was the virgin mother of Jesus and that she brought about our Lord's birth. She is not part of the salvific {salvation}plan of redemption through Christ. Does your Catholic Bible say, "For God so loved the world that He {God} gave His only begotten Son and Mother, that whosoever believes in them shall not perish, but have everlasting life?" [John 3:16]
The Israelite nation began with Abraham and continues to our day and will also enclose the period of the reign of Christ on the earth. Note the geneology in Matthew chapter one. In verse sixteen it is Jacob who begat Joseph {the step father of Jesus} or as stated in the verse, 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.' So Jesus was born of the lineage of Joseph, who Catholics often refer to as 'the holy family.'
Mary is absolutely superfluous to any part of our redemption through Christ. Roman Catholicism detracts from great glory as to what Jesus has done and is doing for us in matters of salvation and everlasting life.
I say to God be the glory and not to the innocent, virgin who gladly gave birth to her and our Savior. If Mary could have expedited her own salvation she would not have said in Luke 1:46-47, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.' The mother of our Lord looked for her hope of eternal life via her first born son.
You said, 'Why has no group made this claim throughout the ages? Why not a single page of history that mentions a continued lineage from Joseph and Mary?'
Answer: The books of the Bible are not a history of family lineage. The only importance of Mary is that she was the virgin mother of Jesus and that she brought about our Lord's birth. She is not part of the salvific {salvation}plan of redemption through Christ. Does your Catholic Bible say, "For God so loved the world that He {God} gave His only begotten Son and Mother, that whosoever believes in them shall not perish, but have everlasting life?" [John 3:16]
The Israelite nation began with Abraham and continues to our day and will also enclose the period of the reign of Christ on the earth. Note the geneology in Matthew chapter one. In verse sixteen it is Jacob who begat Joseph {the step father of Jesus} or as stated in the verse, 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.' So Jesus was born of the lineage of Joseph, who Catholics often refer to as 'the holy family.'
Mary is absolutely superfluous to any part of our redemption through Christ. Roman Catholicism detracts from great glory as to what Jesus has done and is doing for us in matters of salvation and everlasting life.
I say to God be the glory and not to the innocent, virgin who gladly gave birth to her and our Savior. If Mary could have expedited her own salvation she would not have said in Luke 1:46-47, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.' The mother of our Lord looked for her hope of eternal life via her first born son.
Four pages and no one has brought up Matt 1:25. You might get away with redefining adelphos, though it is an extremely tenous argument that involves a rejection of sound hermenetuics. It, in fact, is a conclusion of necessity rather than one of exegesis. To argue that Luke 1 teaches that Mary had made a vow of virginity borders on delusional. There is absolutely nothing in that text to lead us to that conclusion. The natural reading of the text leads us to conclude that the angel promised an immediate conception and Mary was asking how. She knew the facts of life.
However, Matt 1:25 is clear: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
The clear teaching of this verse is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Christ. Then Mary was no longer a virgin.
This is but another area, relatively minor in the big scheme of theology, but another area nonetheless where the RCC disregard for the text of Scripture has to lead to this position about perpetual virginity. There is no reason to be a perpetual virgin. There is no basis for it whatsoever, as well as the Immaculate Conception (while we are on teh subject of Mary). It is a thing dreamed up by the RCC.
We need to get back to the text because in the text is everything we need to be furnished for every good work. We don't need these extra, man-made doctrines.
However, Matt 1:25 is clear: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
The clear teaching of this verse is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Christ. Then Mary was no longer a virgin.
This is but another area, relatively minor in the big scheme of theology, but another area nonetheless where the RCC disregard for the text of Scripture has to lead to this position about perpetual virginity. There is no reason to be a perpetual virgin. There is no basis for it whatsoever, as well as the Immaculate Conception (while we are on teh subject of Mary). It is a thing dreamed up by the RCC.
We need to get back to the text because in the text is everything we need to be furnished for every good work. We don't need these extra, man-made doctrines.
GraceSaves
New Member
Who said anything about confusion? I do not believe they were confused nor did I insinuate that. They knew who they were looking at, and they were identified as "brothers/brethren of Jesus," not the children of Mary or Joseph.
We have James and Joses more than once attributed to one of the other five Mary's in the Bible, and we have James calling himself a "brother of the Lord." We know that this Mary (and vicariously, her two sons) followed Jesus around (Luke 8:2-3) and helped out, not to mention that she was at the crucifixion and resurrection. This family (Mary, James, Joses) was obviously VERY CLOSE to Jesus and devout followers. It would make perfect sense for them to be called his brothers. It's even less confusing when they don't list his mother by name, as to confuse Jesus being the son of the other Mary.
Or maybe it just makes sense.
GraceSaves
New Member
Not quite "delusional," Larry.
Mary was told that she WILL conceive a son. Mary was bethrothed. That means, in the near future (assuming a vow of virginity is out), she would eventually have intercourse with her husband and bear children.
Let me state again. The angel said you WILL conceive. That's totally normal for a future wife to hear. But instead, she is troubled, and asks how she will conceive, because she knows not a man. But if she was planning to "know" a man in the future, being told you WILL conceive is not at all shocking or troubling.
Mary was confusion was that she did not know how she would conceive this child, which makes no sense if she was planning to have marital intercourse.
Mary was not planning to have marital intercourse until she was married. The angel indcicated that her that her conception would be immediate. You still are forced to read something into the text that isn't there, while ignoring the text that is there.