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."
She’s not God.
It only says that Jesus is the only begotten of the FATHER.
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.
It is most likely that James was much older than Jesus because he is said to have been a pharisee in other writings.
That would explain why he was excepted by the Jews as head of the Church.
Jesus waited to a certain age, nearly 30 before he began preaching, if James had of been younger then he would hardly have had time to become a pharisee before the death of Jesus, and afterwards why would he even want to be one?
I don,t know the age required to preach, much less becoming the head of the Church, but i would bet there was one.
She’s not God.
It only says that Jesus is the only begotten of the FATHER.
Here's an explanation that is reasonable. From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Mariology:
Psalm 69:8-9 (English Standard Version)
"I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me." (also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)
Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:
John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)
John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)
John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)
In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.
These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”. This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.
By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.
The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)
Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects verse 8 and "my mother's sons" to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)
John 7:3-9 :
So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.
Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)
They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).
So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.
A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.
Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.
Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (the prophesy of the giving of gall to the Messiah fulfilled in all the gospels at the cross in the same context that Jesus gives His mother to John and not his physical half-brothers - Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.
So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.
It is a man-made tradition.
.
The fact that all manuscripts render that as “Firstborn” is ample evidence that she had many sons.
It would have been “only begotten” otherwise.
” The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons”
Oh my what pretzels of logic you have to weave to rationalize a doctrine that arose hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
Mary was not married to the Holy Spirit. She had one husband, Joseph. He saved her until after the birth of Messiah. There is no Biblical reason or evidence that they did not have sex the rest of their married life as God commands couples to do.
Really.
>> “Name them” <<
.
James, Joseph, Simon, and Juda.
>> “I am guessing, based on your Roman Catholic reply that you really do not know much...” <<
.
A given in this case.
“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. “
This is really an amazing argument that reveals there is no actual evidence in Scripture to support the “cousin theory.”
1. God inspired the NT in GREEK, not Aramaic.
2. God used the Greek word for brothers and sisters and not the Greek word for cousins. He could have. Greek has such a word. He did not. Greek is precise. The Greek text says brother and sisters.
3. To argue that God’s inspired choice of words is inaccurate in such a factually important part of Jesus’ family is an extremely low view of the inspiration of Scripture.
4. To replace the facts of which words God inspired with conjecture to prove a doctrine that doesn’t exist in Scripture is a weak argument at best that is simply speculation.
It’s remarkable to watch you jump through hoops to avoid 2000 years of historical teaching based on theology. It’s like the teen son who shuns his father’s wisdom, proclaiming him to be out of touch with contemporary society.
Of course it would. You were the one who said that.
Those italicized words are not mine.
You can rationalize all you want, just like everyone does who for some reason demands that Jesus had been an only child, but Scripture lists His brothers by name and refers to *all His sisters, implying three or more.
Looks like Jesus was the oldest of a big family. Four brothers, named by name, and *all* His sisters referred to, at least three. So He would have been the oldest of eight children, at least.
Actually, all this stuff about Mary IS about what Scripture does not say.
The Catholic church is making all kinds of unverifiable claims about Mary and Joseph and His family, not only based on what is not said, but in contradiction of what IS said.
ravenwolf, over here for an excellent point raised by e-s
Post 166
e-s “The fact that all manuscripts render that as “Firstborn” is ample evidence that she had many sons.
It would have been “only begotten” otherwise.”
“It’s remarkable to watch you jump through hoops to avoid 2000 years of historical teaching based on theology.”
“Theology” that ignores the inspired Word of God is bad theology.
If Mary had two spouses, she would have been an adulterer.
What's remarkable is watching the hoops Roman Catholics jump through to avoid the clear, plain reading of the Scripture they claim their church wrote.
BTW, still waiting for direct answers to direct questions asked in posts 126 and 129.
It has not escaped by attention that they have not been answered.
“It’s remarkable to watch you jump through hoops to avoid 2000 years of historical teaching based on theology.”
Please list a reference from 13 AD that demonstrates this doctrine was taught...
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.