Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You asked, "Demonstrate to me through Scripture that Joseph was a widower."

You got it.


"And when she was twelve years old, there was a council of the priests, saying: Behold Mary is become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her ? lest she pollute the sanctuary of the Lord. And they said unto the high priest: Thou standest over the altar of the Lord. Enter in and pray concerning her: And whatsoever the Lord shall reveal to thee, that let us do. And the high priest took the vestment with the twelve bells and went in unto the Holy of Holies and prayed concerning her. And lo, an angel of tile Lord appeared saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias~ go forth and assemble them that are widowers of the people, and let them bring every man a rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went forth over all the country round about Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all men ran thereto. And Joseph cast down his adze and ran to meet them, and when they were gathered together they went to the high priest and took their rods with them. And he took the rods of them all and went into the temple and prayed. And when he had finished the prayer he took the rods and went forth and gave them back to them: and there was no sign upon them. But Joseph received the last rod: and 1o, a dove came forth of the rod and flew upon the bead of Joseph. And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself. And Joseph refused, saying: I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a : lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel. And the priest said unto Joseph: Year the Lord thy God, and remember what things God did unto Dathan and Abiram and Korah, how the earth clave and they were swallowed up because of their gainsaying. And now fear thou, Joseph, lest it be so in thine house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her to keep her for himself. And Joseph said unto Mary: Lo, I have received thee out of the temple of the Lord: and now do I leave thee in my house, and I go away to build my buildings and I will come again unto thee. The Lord shall watch over thee" (Protoevangelium of James, Chs. 8-9).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

You asked, "Demonstrate to me through Scripture that Joseph was a widower."

You got it.
(Protoevangelium of James, Chs. 8-9).

No Carson, through SCRIPTURE, not through fables or story-book traditonal tales.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

No Carson, through SCRIPTURE, not through fables or story-book traditonal tales.
DHK

But, that is Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
No Carson, through SCRIPTURE, not through fables or story-book traditonal tales.
DHK

But, that is Scripture.

Hindu Scripture maybe? Not Christian, that is for sure.

 

[Carson Weber]

But, that is Scripture. Hindu Scripture maybe? Not Christian, that is for sure.

So, I show you proof that Joseph was a widower from Scripture and you back out by simply saying "This isn't Scripture?" Are you Luther's protege? Simply reject what doesn't fit into your traditions of men?

Prove that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
But, that is Scripture. Hindu Scripture maybe? Not Christian, that is for sure.

So, I show you proof that Joseph was a widower from Scripture and you back out by simply saying "This isn't Scripture?" Are you Luther's protege? Simply reject what doesn't fit into your traditions of men?

Prove that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture.

I don't have to prove anything of the sort to you Carson. If you want to start another thread on the Canon of Scripture that is up to you. That is not what this thread is about. In the SCRIPTURE (the 66 Books of the Bible) there is no proof that Joseph, nor any of the others that I mentioned were widowers. If so, give evidence--from the Bible--the accepted Scriptures of Christians everywhere. Use the KJV that we have today. This is not a debate on canonicity. I am not interested in your fables.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

DHK:

Here's the problem. Carson's notion that Joseph was a widow, and can support it via extracanonical texts, does NOT contradict canonical scripture. Hence, his assertion must be at least given consideration.

 

[DHK]

Carson asks for reason why not to accept extra-Biblical works.
I give you one example from Irenaeus.

But at times he gives expression to very strange opinions. He is, for example, quite
peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten years. But though, on these and some other points, the judgment of Irenaeus is clearly at fault, his work contains a vast deal of sound and valuable exposition of Scripture, in opposition to the fanciful systems of interpretation which prevailed in his day.

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Introduction by Master Christian Library Publishers)

 

[DHK]

Read Carson's quote carefully. The whole post is laughable. It contradicts the entire Scriptural account of the betrothal, marriage and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, then married, and then Christ was born.
Carson's account says that Joseph was not married to Mary until Mary was 12 years old--a clear contradiction.
The Bible says that when Jesus was 12 years old He was in the temple disputing with the doctors or Rabbis. If Jesus was 12, Mary would be wife for a little over 12, maybe 13 years.
Carson's account still has Joseph marrying Mary at the age of 12. The whole account is spurious, full of contradictions and lies.
DHK

 

[music4Him]

Well I'm not sure how to word this question to the catholics in this discussion properly but here goes.
The way that ya'll speak of Mary and the virginity issue its like saying that it was not right or proper? Why would Mary have been denied the right to enjoy the intiment(sp?) part of her marriage with Joseph? Why would she have to stay a virgin after the birth? Why would it be so wrong? Just wondering cause I just don't see it mentioned in the OT or the NT of the 66 books of the bible.

Music4Him

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I don't have to prove [that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture] to you Carson. If you want to start another thread on the Canon of Scripture that is up to you."

Yes, you do have to prove that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture because that is your premise in denying its validity. Otherwise, you are simply begging the question; that is, your premise that this text isn't Scripture has yet to be demonstrated.

In the SCRIPTURE (the 66 Books of the Bible) there is no proof that Joseph, nor any of the others that I mentioned were widowers. If so, give evidence--from the Bible--the accepted Scriptures of Christians everywhere.

The 66 books that you consider canonical were not accepted by Christians everywhere. That, my friend, is a fable.

As late as A.D. 324, the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon . . . Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name" (History of the Church 3:3:1, 3:25:3, A.D. 324).

And as for your Old Testament, Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelley confirms, in Early Christian Doctrine, (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 53-4..

"[The Old Testament] always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. . . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas . . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary."

You, my friend, need to prove that the Protoevangelium of James is not Scripture, and to do so, you need to resort to:

1. Apostolic Tradition
2. The Teaching Authority of the Bishops of the Early Church

However, if you are to accept these two essentials for determining what Scripture is to begin with, then you must - to be consistent - accept the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as well.

Instead, you are left in an illogical situation. You implicitly lean upon Apostolic Tradition and Magisterial authority in knowing what is Scripture and what isn't Scripture and yet you chop your legs out from underneath yourself by explicitly attacking these two fundamentals to even knowing what Scripture is to begin with - as you attack the Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

This is why intrinsically, Protestantism is an illogical proposition. It is shot through with holes.

It rejects what it cannot do without.

Use the KJV that we have today.

The KJV didn't exist until 1611.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I don't have to prove [that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture] to you Carson. If you want to start another thread on the Canon of Scripture that is up to you."

Yes, you do have to prove that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture because that is your premise in denying its validity. Otherwise, you are simply begging the question; that is, your premise that this text isn't Scripture has yet to be demonstrated.

You apparently didn't read my last post Carson. It demonstrated beyond any doubt that the protoevangelium of James is completely spurious. All that needed to be proved is that it goes entirely contrary to the Biblical inspired record, is full of contradictions and lies. The Bible does not contradict itself. Entering that book as proof of your position simply makes you look foolish.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

All that needed to be proved is that it goes entirely contrary to the Biblical inspired record, is full of contradictions and lies.

What Biblical inspired record? You see, DHK, without Apostolic Tradition and the Authoritative Magisterium, you are without a Bible. You might as well pick out any one of the number of Gospels available at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. It was put together by criteria and an authority that you now reject.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
All that needed to be proved is that it goes entirely contrary to the Biblical inspired record, is full of contradictions and lies.

What Biblical inspired record? You see, DHK, without Apostolic Tradition and the Authoritative Magisterium, you are without a Bible. You might as well pick out any one of the number of Gospels available at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. It was put together by criteria and an authority that you now reject.

Carson the record of the birth of Christ is well attested not only in the Gospel records of both Luke and Matthew, but in history books, encyclopedias, and in so many different sources. The very basic facts of the history of the birth of Christ are denied by this spurious book, that your defence of it is pitiable.
Think of this. If we were to believe this book then:

1. Jesus would be born out of wedlock
2. The magi would come and present their gifts and either Joseph would not be there or Mary and Joseph would be living common-law.
3. The same would hold true for the shepherds that came to visit the Christ child.
4. When they registered at the inn, did they present themselves as man and wife, and lie about it, and just say that they were living common law and needed a place to shack up for the night.

Your book sure has a lot of respect for Mary doesn't it?
What a disgrace!
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. It was put together by criteria and an authority that you now reject.

Sorry to disappoint you.

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by 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.

This a baptist board Todd. Why are you so bothered by Calvin. I happen to believe he was a great thinker. What is the source of your hatred of Calvin?

 

[tamborine lady]

Carson said:

What Biblical inspired record? You see, DHK, without Apostolic Tradition and the Authoritative Magisterium, you are without a Bible. You might as well pick out any one of the number of Gospels available at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. It was put together by criteria and an authority that you now reject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First you say we are without a bible, then you say it was put together by an authority that we now reject. If I'm not mistaken, you are saying the scripture we use was put together by catholics, and now it's not any good because we accepted it??

Tam,

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carson Weber:
The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. It was put together by criteria and an authority that you now reject.

Sorry to disappoint you.

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, I scanned the article but didn't see any dates about when the canon was fixed and pretty well agreed upon by all Christians. Did I just miss the date?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Harley4Him:
DHK, I scanned the article but didn't see any dates about when the canon was fixed and pretty well agreed upon by all Christians. Did I just miss the date?

The Bible is a living book. It does not need the Catholic Church as its custodians, nor has it ever had the Catholic Church as its custodians. Here is the principle succinctly stated:

The same principle is given in the New Testament. The apostle writes: "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us . Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."—1 John 4:6. So any writing or statement claiming to be of equal authority with scripture must be in complete harmony with apostolic teaching. By applying this principle in testing claims to authority, believers have been able to discern the counterfeit and preserve intact the canon of holy scripture.

The apostles knew which books were inspired, and which were not. They passed that knowledge on to the early believers. The early believers did not have to waith until the fourth century to find out what the canon of Scripture was.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
Carson's account still has Joseph marrying Mary at the age of 12. The whole account is spurious, full of contradictions and lies.
DHK

I'm not sure where the biblical contradiction is. The custom of the time would have dictated that Mary would have been about 12 or 13 when she was betrothed/married. Sounds odd today, but, in the day when an old man was 40, a 12yo wife was normal.