Posted on 09/03/2013 5:38:10 PM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
It is obvious that Mary had children after Jesus was born. As long as Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, why was it necessary that Mary have no previous children? I am not asking why it was necessary that Jesus be conceived by the Holy Spirit—I understand that. I guess my question is, Why would it matter that Mary had other children first, as long as Jesus was conceived by the Spirit?
Answer:
I agree with you that from what is said in Scripture, it appears to be "obvious that Mary had children after Jesus was born. " Take, for example, this passage:
2When the Sabbath came, he [Jesus] began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?".... (Mark 6:2-3, New International Version)
It has been argued (particularly by those who believe in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary) that the word translated "brother" (Greek "adelphos," as in "Philadelphia," "the city of brotherly love") might be taken as "cousin," but the context surely indicates that we are not talking about several households here, but one.
Incidentally, perhaps it should be noted in passing that although Jesus, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon were all of the same household and all had Mary as their mother, Mary's husband Joseph was the physical father of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, but not of Jesus, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35). Thus, technically speaking, Jesus and his "brothers" were "half-brothers," since they only shared the same mother, but it would certainly be understandable for those in Nazareth who personally knew of the family to regard the five sons as "brothers."
Consider, also, how this passage speaks of the birth of Jesus:
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him 'Immanuel' which means, 'God with us'." 24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matt. 1:22-25, NIV)
The words "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" certainly seem to suggest that after Mary gave birth to Jesus, Joseph did have union with her and that, having given birth to one Child, she gave birth to other children as well.
But let's get to the heart of your question: "Why was it necessary that Mary have no previous children?.... Why would it matter that Mary had other children first, as long as Jesus was conceived by the Spirit?
Here's the simple answer: It was necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Is. 7:14, NIV)
Speaking of the birth of Christ of a virgin, Matthew (as we have already seen) says this:
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel." (Matt. 1:22-23, NIV)
Although the exact meaning of the Hebrew word "'almah" in Isaiah 7:14 has been disputed (some—ignoring the context—take it as simply "young woman of marriageable age"), there is absolutely no dispute over the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos" in Matthew 1:23, which can have no other meaning than "virgin" (and Matthew 1:23 supplies us with an inspired interpretation of Isaiah 7:14).
Thus Scriptural prophecy found its fulfillment when our Savior was, in the familiar words of the Apostles' Creed, "conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary."
“The Baptist church was established by John Smyth in 1609. I’ll stick with the authentic interpretations from the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ.”
Translation:
1. If you can’t win on facts of language, context, etc., change to attacking the source.
2. Christ came to DIE for the souls of men, not to establish a church. In fact, His gathering includes all Christians of all time, united into His Body, His Bride, regardless of which local assembly they attend to worship - that is the Gathering He established.
3. Show us anything from before 100ad that demonstrates that Mary had no children after Jesus’ birth. If you don’t have it, it is made up out of whole cloth later in history to try to portray Mary as a virgin for all time. Heck, they go so far as to say Mary’s birth didn’t break her hymen. It is all bogus.
“Catholics don’t hate the act of marriage — who had the largest families when you were growing up?”
Amish, Mennonites, and many evangelicals.
Implied when it names them as brothers.
The Bible also goes to great length in presenting Jeses, The Father and The Holy Spirit as One. yet it never clearly uses the term Trinity. Yet we connect the dots on that one.
We also read in Scripture that he was not well recieved in his own hometown. Brothers would be part of that.
Furthermore, we know that Scripture puts a high values on the martital relations between a husband and wife. If Mary is as Holy as the Catholics claim, she would be having relations with Joseph. If she didn’t she was in sin.
I have no desire to prove the Catholics wrong ( which i believe this is all about )nor do i have any desire to prove them right.
If it could be proven that Mary had other children it would prove the Catholics wrong.
If it could be proven that she did not have other children, what would it prove? that she was a perpetual virgin?
I have no axe to grind on this one, but the scriptures are silent concerning other children.
And it just makes sense that Jesus being the only begotten son of God why would it not also apply to his mother.
**I have no axe to grind on this one, but the scriptures are silent concerning other children.**
Actually, they speak quite clearly. Reading the responses of several other posts will show that. (I’m off to a meeting or I would do so....)
Actually, they speak quite clearly. Reading the responses of several other posts will show that. (I’m off to a meeting or I would do so....)
Except where the Bible NAMES them.
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
So maybe you can tell me. Why is it so important that Mary not have had other children and by Joseph, at that?
Why is it so important that Jesus not have had brothers and sisters?
Actually, they speak quite clearly. Reading the responses of several other posts will show that. (I’m off to a meeting or I would do so....)
If some one shows me where there is proof that this happened i will have to admit that i am wrong, but the proof will have to be in plain words.
So, why do some automatically assume “cousin” and not “brother”?
Also if these were literally brothers of Jesus they would also be brothers to each other but Joseph is not mentioned as the father.
As previously posted at #23 - As for "brothers" plural, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother." The writers of the New Testament were brought up using 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.
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 used adelphos, even for true cousins.
So why is it so important to you that Mary not have had other children, or that she be perpetually virgin?
Brothers means brothers.
Let's go to "The Book". In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.
In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.
As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his brother through Mary, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
No. The question makes perfect sense for any woman who has not had sex. It shows that even Mary knew that sex was how babies are made.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?"
She would ask because the betrothal period was considered legitimately married even if they had not consummated the marriage.
She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity.
NO. She became pregnant with Jesus BEFORE the consummation.
Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.
Further baloney. Her valid question of how this was to happen without having had sex is no indicator in the least of what she planned to do or not do after the marriage.
Scripture gives no reason WHY Jesus did what He did. All we know is what He did. Everything else is pure, unsubstantiated speculation.
As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his brother through Mary, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
If indeed Jesus had no brothers to pass on His responsibility, then it would have made more sense for Him to pass it on to the next of kin, a cousin. But since Scripture is silent about why Jesus did what He did, everything speculated on about *why* is unsubstantiated.
No. The question makes perfect sense for any woman who has not had sex. It shows that even Mary knew that sex was how babies are made.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?"
She would ask because the betrothal period was considered legitimately married even if they had not consummated the marriage.
She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity.
NO. She became pregnant with Jesus BEFORE the consummation.
Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.
Further baloney. Her valid question of how this was to happen without having had sex is no indicator in the least of what she planned to do or not do after the marriage.
In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.
Scripture gives no reason WHY Jesus did what He did. All we know is what He did. Everything else is pure, unsubstantiated speculation.
As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his brother through Mary, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
If indeed Jesus had no brothers to pass on His responsibility, then it would have made more sense for Him to pass it on to the next of kin, a cousin. But since Scripture is silent about why Jesus did what He did, everything speculated on about *why* is unsubstantiated.
Except where the Bible NAMES them.
Also is there a scripture that shows Joesph as their father?
i have not found one but even if it was found it would not prove that they were the children of Mary.
I do not know of any fool proof evidence in either direction.
Also Jesus being the only begotten son of God why would it not make sense if he was the only begotten son of his mother also?
It matters not if Jesus had brothers to me, i am just saying it like i sees it, and it is mostly assumptions because if there were absolute proof in either direction some one would have posted it by now.
Forty years ago for some reason or an other i believed that Joesph was a widower with children, and although i still lean in that direction some one pointed out to me that some of these brothers had a father that was named other than Joesph.
Very good.
Let's go back to "The Book". Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.
So, why did St. Joseph then "take [Mary] his wife" according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.
Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.
No. All it means is that God did not beget any other children.
It has no bearing on Mary.
It has no bearing on Mary.
Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the *spouse* of the Holy Spirit. However, she IS recorded as being the spouse of Joseph, being already betrothed to him.
Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed toJoseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Certainly not, but since she had not had sex with anyone else, and Joseph knew that, she was not an adulterer so he obeyed God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.