Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

I'm back!!!

Calling all RCC people!!

Why do we have to keep showing you this?? Can't you read?? Don't you understand what the scriptures say??

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

The carpenters son is JESUS!!!

His mothers name is MARY!!

His brothers, MARYS' other children, are James, and Joses, and Simon and Judus!!

He also had sisters!!

And again, James is the Lords BROTHER!!

This is so simple that even a little child could understand it!!

I stand in awe that some of you will not accept the truth when it is right in front of you.

My prayer for the unbelievers is that the scales will fall from your eyes, and you can see the truth!

God Bless all who will receive it!

G'Day,

Tam,

Tamb,

Let me detail this as I am not sure that anyone has yet. There is a problem with your verse Mt. 13:55, identifying other children of Mary. One that you might not catch with your proof texting method of Bible interprutation that limits what the Holy Spirit can do for you. Try the bird's eye veiw.

First of all if you were Jewish I think you would be saying "Hey Tamb, can't you see that Jesus was born by Joseph." But that's kind of a side issue.

However the problem with your verse is this. In Matt 25 James and Joseph are identified as sons of another Mary.

Matthew 27:56
Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.


Mark 6:3 and Mark 15:40 also should be looked at.

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Mark 15:40
There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.

Joses is a form of Joseph. So it seems likely that this is a parrellel verse to the one in Mat 27. The Mary that is spoken of in both verses is not identified as the Mother of Jesus (and would have been) and the Matt 27 verse makes it clear that she is not the mother of Jesus. There is little doudt in my mind that at least those who you identify as immediate brothers of Jesus are not.

It has been explained before that there was no word for cousin in the original texts and so the word brother or brethern (Adelphos in Greek, the Holy Spirit is also limited by Bible alone in English translations. ) was used to identify more distant relationship. This word is used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham who were not immediate brothers. Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Tam,

You wrote, "Now can you see why Martin Luther wanted to break away from the RCC?"

Martin Luther defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary until his death.

And now you know why King James wanted the bible translated into english so ALL the people could read it!

Are you rewriting history? Or, are you demonstrating how little history you have read?

In the preface to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, the translators acknowledged that translating the Bible into the common language was no new invention, but had been the common practice for centuries before the Reformation:

"To have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.

Contrary to the modern myth, translating the Bible into vernacular languages was not a Protestant innovation. For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions of the Bible appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, there were more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the permission of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.

Why do we have to keep showing you this?? Can't you read?? Don't you understand what the scriptures say?? 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

Tam, the Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

The question is, can't you read in these Semitic and Hellenistic languages? Don't you understand the grammatical devices and literary forms of these languages?

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where brothers and sisters of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives.

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint or LXX was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth in Alexandria and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has.

Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible.

This is so simple that even a little child could understand it!

Yes, it is.. for one confined within their little KJV box without a greater understanding of the autographs and manuscripts of the Scriptures, which were not written in English, nor with a 21st c. American cultural mindset, but within the framework of a First Century Palestinian point-of-view in languages that you are not schooled in.

To conclude that whenever you see "brother", "brothers", or "sisters" in your KJV Bible, then it is speaking of other children of Mary, you are engaging in a facile reading of the Bible, which pays no attention to the language and customs in which the Bible was authored.

It is essentially an act of nullifying the Word of God.. not allowing it to be what it is and changing its possible meanings into what you want for it to mean according to your human tradition.

When we read the Bible, we must become Semites in mind and heart.

My prayer for the unbelievers is that the scales will fall from your eyes, and you can see the truth!

I pray that same along with you for unbelievers. May all unbelievers come to the knowledge and obedience of Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord.

 

[Justified Saint]

Zwingli makes an interesting observation about Luther's attempts to translate the Bible into the vernacular for the "first time"

"You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in Biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors ."

 

[Todd]

As I have found in all my discussions with staunch Catholics, the discourse usually leads nowhere. Catholics always want to discuss (or debate) some particular doctrine, and then when you tear their dogmas apart with biblical evidence and sound exegesis, they always start quoting those early church fathers who agreed with their errant positions and say that they will only be casting their pearls before swine if the continue to debate the topic. I am not implying that the Catholics on this string have made that later statement about pearls before swine, but I think this string will show that they have consistently argued around sound exegesis by referring to SOME of the early church fathers. Carson, for instance (in his first long post), sought to substantiate the dogma of perpetual virginity by consistently using faulty hermeneutics, including placing far too much emphasis upon the use of the definite article, forming arguments based upon things that the Scriptures are silent on, etc. I think anyone who reads the Bible and will be honest before God will readily admit that Mary's perpetual virginity is not substantiated in the Bible - it is only a position that can be read into the Scriptures (much like macroevolutionary views of creation - see the post "Creationism - Why it is valid").

In the grand scheme of things I think many of these doctrinal discussions can be reduced to applied theology - this is what I mean (and I am a Pastor, so I should know something about applied theology). How many Catholics do you know who are personal soul-winners? How many Catholics do you know who have a zeal for spirit-filled, expository preaching? How many Catholics do you know actually sense that there is a need for them to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? How many Catholics do you know who will rejoice when they hear that you are trying to reach others for Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit in your everyday life?

Let me share one experience, then I'm through. My church took a mission trip to New Hampshire this past summer - we did some door to door evangelism and some servanthood evangelism projects (free car washs, handing out bottled water, etc.). Time and again, the coldest receptions we received from those of the Lebanon, NH area were from those who were Catholic. And by the way, the predominant religion of that area is Catholicism. Better than half of those who claim any religion at all in that area are Catholic, yet I have never experienced such biblical illiteracy or lack of concern in all my life. I can't tell you the number of times (probably at least 20-25) that myself and my visitation partner would walk up to a door, introduce ourselves, and then immediately hear, "I'm Catholic," which was then usually proceeded by a slam.

This is my point - New England is predominantly Catholic, and (by no coincidence I argue) it is this nation's liberal stronghold, and evangelism has gone the way of all flesh for the churches of that area. The South is predominantly Protestant, and it is the nation's conservative, moral stronghold and scores of churchs are baptizing hundreds of people a year (in the SBC alone!). What do you think the difference is? I can tell you my friends - the difference is genuine regeneration, the Lordship of Christ, and adherrance to exegetically sound Christian doctrine. Every staunch Catholic I meet is always more concerned about defending Catholic dogma than they are about reaching the lost for Christ. In fact, I wonder how often the Catholics who are posting on this string actually participate in any intentional confrontal soul-winning opportunities.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to dodge the issues by getting into personalities, nor am I saying that Protestants are perfect - that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying though is that our doctrine drives our lives, and that is why evangelical Protestant churches (who continue to preach and teach the Word of God) are experiencing expenential growth, while the Catholic church in the US is experiencing great decline. This string could go on for days and days (as I'm sure it will), but let's cut to the chase and look at the bottom line. When you compare the applied theologies of evangelical Protestant churches with that of the RCC in America, the disparities are striking. It's time for Catholics to set aside their godless dogmas (those that contradict the Bible), trust Christ by faith alone, and return to the Word of God.

 

[tamborine lady]

Folks, I have read all the posts. I know what everyone has posted.

I know what the scripture says.

None of your much speaking will sway me from the truth.

I know that the RCC folks HAVE to have her as a perpetual virgin, because other wise, some of their other practices would fall apart.

But thats O.K. I knew it would not change minds to post this. But it does show the error to those who are willing to think for themselves. No amount of extra books can change what the word says.

Tam,

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

What you posted is in total agreement with what I said. And yet you post it like it's in disagreement.

It is impossible, based on the Scriptural layout, that Joseph "saw" that Mary was pregnant, that is, that she was showing physically the signs. Jesus would only be 1-2 months in the womb when Mary went to Elizabeth's, and Joseph no doubt saw the angel before she left.

"Blessed is the fruit of thy womb," Elizabeth said. She knew that Mary was pregnant. Mary also knew as indicated in her Magnificat. Elizabeth was in her 6th month when the angel first appeared to Mary. Mary went "with haste" immediately after that event to Elizabeth. She stayed there for three months until John was born. By the time that the narrative picks up with the angel appearing to Joseph, Mary is at least three months pregnant. Many women, if not most, are beginning to show by that time. That is the very reason why Joseph wanted to put her away. He saw that she was pregnant. He could see the evidence. I don't understand where the confusion is here.

She knew she was pregnant three months before this time. We know this by the witness of Elizabeth.
We know she was showing herself pregnant by the witness of Joseph in wanting to divorce her.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I have no idea what you are even arguing. I never have stated doubt that Mary knew she was pregnant when she went to Elizabeth. I said that she would not be showing visible signs to Joseph so early. There are other ways a woman can tell if she is pregnant than by physical appearance, you know.

 

[GraceSaves]

Actually, Todd, all that you DID do was avoid the issue by telling a personal story and talking about anything but the virginity of Mary, as if people had not responded to you or you did not feel what we said was worthy of a response.

Thanks, though. You, Larry, and DHK, and Tamborine Lady have all affirmed that there is no significant non-Catholic response to this query, at least one that is a bona fide sola scriptura (whew, that's a lot of Latin) argument.

Thanks!

 

[Justified Saint]

Excellent attempt at misdirection there Todd, we almost thought you were going to engage in Carson's discussions for a second.

Of course the Protestant South has historically been the most racist and bigoted part of the country, but no matter. Most people however don't put as much weight as you do on such broad and silly generalizations and caricatures based on geography and social trends.

That aside, it is the Catholic Church that has pioneered and advanced the American cause just as much and surely more than the Protestants. It was the Catholic nuns that founded tens of thousands of hospitals and schools across the country and truly brought Christ's command of love and charity to the poor. That is what applying the gospel is all about. In the meantime the Protestant South was vigoursly defending the institution of slavery from approaching extinction.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
I have no idea what you are even arguing. I never have stated doubt that Mary knew she was pregnant when she went to Elizabeth. I said that she would not be showing visible signs to Joseph so early. There are other ways a woman can tell if she is pregnant than by physical appearance, you know.

I entered the discussion at this point:

posted February 09, 2004 03:06 PM by GraceSaves:
Larry,

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Please indicate where the word "immediately" or any variation with the same meaning appears here? Because it is right after this statement that we see:

But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

I see nothing that says the conception will take place right then or even shortly there after. We don't get the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to her until after Mary asks her question.

What I have attempted to show here, is that "immediately," or "with haste" Mary went to her cousin Elizabeth, who then told her "blessed is the fruit of thy womb," directly referring to that which was conceived in her.
"Immediately" is relative. What do you mean by it?
She was going to be a mother immediately--in less than 9 months as opposed to ten years; whereas another mother may say: "No not immediately I, am only in my first trimester, you know."
Immediately is a relative term.
Nevertheless, the text indicates that Mary was to be the mother of Jesus in a very short time.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Indeed, and she was a mother in a very short time. And we know this from reading the Gospel account. However, based on the opening line of the angel, up to the point that Mary asked "How can this be," the immediacy of the conception had not been stated or implied. Things are only clarified AFTER Mary asks the question. And since we are concerned with Mary's questioning response, what is said after it is not of concern, because her response is only based on what is said by the angel BEFORE she asks the question.

Get it?

 

[DHK]

Given the time frame of John's birth, and Mary's visit and stay, Mary's conception would have had to be somewhat immediate after the announcement of the angel. Elizabeth was already in her 6th month. Mary went with haste, right after the announcement to her. Elizabeth spoke of the "fruit of her womb," which in and of itself speaks of an immediate conception. Now, keep in mind Elizabeth is in her sixth month. Mary stays another three months, until John is born. After that Mary is found with child by the Holy Ghost.
But after the initial announcement of the angel it would appear that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit almost immediately simply by the time frame indicated both by John's birth and the announcemet of Elizabeth.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Apparently you didn't get it.

Luke 1:28-33

This dialogue with the angel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary is all that I am interested in to show my point. After this, Mary asks "how can this be."

Using only these things in the above verses, spoken by the angel, show to me the "immediacy" that Mary would have understood, because this is the only information she had yes received when she asked, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

Your task, should you accept it, is to show the so-called "immediacy" in the angel's words in the above stated verses.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Todd,

I appreciate the fact that you posted once again, but you didn't provide a response. Rather, you changed the subject and went off on an Anti-Catholic tirade.

Really, I would appreciate a response.

You asked, How many Catholics do you know who are personal soul-winners? How many Catholics do you know who have a zeal for spirit-filled, expository preaching? How many Catholics do you know actually sense that there is a need for them to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? How many Catholics do you know who will rejoice when they hear that you are trying to reach others for Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit in your everyday life?"

More than I can count. My roommate Robert (who was an Independant Conservative Baptist for the first 25 years of his life), my professor and employer (a former PCA Protestant seminary professor), my Haitian friend Louis, my Kansas friend Ann, my former housemate Kevin (he's as evangelistic as they come, watch out!), my friends Tomas (he's Polish) and Brian (from D.C.) who are now novitiates for the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal in the Bronx, Tony from Trinidad, and I can go on and on.... All of the above are Catholics.. and I've only gotten started.

Let me share one experience, then I'm through.

What? No response? This was easier than I thought it was going to be.

I win.

Which church are you a pastor of Todd? Can I mail a copy of this correspondence to your congregation to show them that a Catholic can not only hold his ground against a Baptist pastor but can win a debate using the Bible alone?

 

[Born Again Catholic]

7 pages of responses and not one Bible verse that says "mary had other children", it is ironic in order to believe that Mary had other children the posters here have to abandon the heretical belief in sola scriptura and rely on their own personal opinion.

 

[GraceSaves]

Born Again Catholic,

Yeah, didn't you know? Being a "brother of Jesus" means that you're a child of Mary.

Oh wait...it doesn't say that in Scripture? My bad. Oh, what's that, the other Mary had children named James and Joses? And Scripture even mentions this more than once?

No, let us discount this foolishness. There is no possible humanly logical way that James and Joses described as the "brothers of Jesus" could be the children of the other Mary. No, you see, they HAVE to be the children of Mary, from her womb. It's "clear" in Scripture that they came from her womb!

...No, it doesn't SAY that they are her children, but that's what it "means." Now, stop following your extra-Biblical traditions and start believing....the other...extra-Biblical....traditions.

 

[music4Him]

Tam,

Thanks for this topic if anything people are looking in the scriptures.

Its even got me to looking too.
Well........here is Matthew 13:55 written in Hebrew, because I heard someone bring up the hebrew text? (from crosswalk hebrew bible study tools

)
~Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Miryam, and his brothers, Ya`akov, Yosi, Shim`on, and Yehudah?~
Now that still says brothers.

BTW, I just can't imagine anyone marring someone and not consumating and procreating? Question: Can someone tell me where else this practice was taught in the bible?

music4Him

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by music4Him:
Tam,

Thanks for this topic if anything people are looking in the scriptures.

Its even got me to looking too.
Well........here is Matthew 13:55 written in Hebrew, because I heard someone bring up the hebrew text? (from crosswalk hebrew bible study tools

)
~Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Miryam, and his brothers, Ya`akov, Yosi, Shim`on, and Yehudah?~
Now that still says brothers.

music4him,

Welcome to the discussion. I think you missed something here, though, because it was Carson who aptly stated that in fact the word "brothers" was used in the Hebrew because there would be no other word for cousin. This is not a new revelation.

Originally posted by music4Him:
BTW, I just can't imagine anyone marring someone and not consumating and procreating? Question: Can someone tell me where else this practice was taught in the bible?

Can you show me another married couple in the Bible where the wife bore her Creator?

 

[Harley4Him]

Why do so many hard-core Calvinists think that John Calvin was such a dunderheaded moron on this issue? He was brilliant. Do you dare promote your understanding above his?

 

[Justified Saint]

Consider the following observations by Mr. David Palm whose entire article can be found at: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Now it might seem clinched by other verses in St. Matthew's gospel (esp. Matt 13:55) that there were other blood siblings of Jesus. But on further scrutiny it isn't so clear. Comparison of Matt 13:55 with Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25 suggests that Simon and Jude, at least, are sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas. Combine this with other more subtle details, such as the Blessed Virgin's otherwise strange response to the angel's annunciation in Luke 1:34, the implausibility of Jesus being bossed about by younger "siblings" (John 7:3) and Jesus' giving of his mother to John (rather than to blood siblings) at his death (John 19:26-7).

In the broader ancient Jewish tradition, it was lawful and commendable for a man to abstain from relations with his wife if he was to dedicate himself to the study of the Torah. Also, according to ancient Jewish tradition, the priests abstained from relations with their wives for seven days prior to their service in the Temple (Babylonian Talmud, Tract Yomah, Chpt. 1). The rabbis taught in the midrashim and the Talmud that Moses, because he saw God face to face on a regular basis, also abstained entirely from further relations with his wife.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Originally posted by music4Him:
BTW, I just can't imagine anyone marring someone and not consumating and procreating? Question: Can someone tell me where else this practice was taught in the bible?

Can you show me another married couple in the Bible where the wife bore her Creator? [/QUOTE]
non sequitor.
You answer has nothing to do with the question being asked. The birth of other children to Mary has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ. The only reason you answer that way is because of a pre-conceived theology that demands you to answer that way. Neither nature nor the Bible demands or necessitates such an answer.
DHK