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."
“It’s remarkable to watch you jump through hoops to avoid 2000 years of historical teaching based on theology.”
It’s remarkable to watch you ignore the inspired and authoritative Word of God and substitute mere tradition that didn’t exist during the time of the Apostles.
PS - I never did see the list you were going to post of the “traditions” Paul was referring to... I’d still love to see it.
Those italicized words are not mine.
The bible says she had other kids in a couple of places. This is just one of many many reasons Catholics hate the bible. The bible describes a completely different religion from the one concocted by Rome. Rome uses the same names but very surgically removes everything else said in the bible. Debate a Catholic, bring up the bible and just see what happens. You may end up cleaning green barf off of yourself.
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.
But no where does it say or even indicate that Mary had more sons and daughters, it is absent from the scriptures.
I definitely believe Mary had only one child.
LOL!!!
Satan’s best tactic that he used from the beginning and is STILL getting mileage out of, is to question the integrity of God and the veracity of His word.
The spiritual battle going on around us is not a power struggle. Satan has been defeated and must obey when Jesus commands.
It’s a TRUTH struggle. Satan used it effectively against Eve. Ineffectively against Jesus because Jesus KNEW Scripture and knew how to use it properly and effectively. His victory in countering Satan’s temptation in the wilderness was that He correctly quoted Scripture back at the enemy. There was no conversation with him, arguing what is meant.
Jesus spoke truth (Scripture) and vanquished Satan because the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Um, yes may have had a vow of virginity at that point as any other Godly woman should have prior to marriage. The Catholic view of Mary being a virgin after Jesus was born makes her a sinner. Not having sexual relations with her husband would have been a direct disobedience of what scripture teaches.
>>This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.<<
Man’s wisdom. No scriptural support.
>>It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.<<
Again, man’s wisdom. There is no mention of what happened to His blood brothers. We don’t know if they were even living any longer. It’s as legitimate to think that they had all perished prior to Jesus crucifixion as to believe that Joseph and Mary had no other children.
Amen Metmom...’TRUTH’ will always overcome the tactics of the enemy...but not if one doesn’t know it....and if you know His word..you know also the enemys tactics...which we are told not to be ignorant of.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Liberals and Progressives use this tactic often today...which more times then not creates confusion rather than clarity or truth. It tends to leave the door wide open to believe whatever one wants or designs in their thinking and imaginations....which creates further unreality.
Well, this could be an endless brouhaha.
Ultimately what’s driving this is the Roman Catholic insistence that they are able to prophesy new material on a par with the bible, coming up extrabiblically with an always-virgin Mary who has a special stellar status quite apart from her privilege to bear and raise the Son of God. Our evangelical brothers and cousins and whatnot dispute this to various degrees of vigor.
I’d ask EVERYBODY in this dispute... how is the Lord getting glorified here. The extent of Mary’s glory is clearly in debate. But how about the Lord’s?
I believe I do observe a strange lack of direct Lord glorification in observations about Mary, as though on the RC side her own plenteous magnificats could make up for paucity of theirs, and as though on the evangelical side insistence that she didn’t need to be sinless or perpetually virgin could stop there without further reflection on the Lord’s glory. The Lord deserves better.
“Whatever you do... do it to the glory of God” (this too).
I've recently gotten a facebook account and it just seems natural to look for the like button.
The keynote is God’s glory and love (intermingled, and if one has to win in a clash it is love because that is the predicate of a “God is” assertion of scripture). That orients quite a lot of spiritual questions very nicely and averts pointless hangups over minor points when major ones are at stake. Some people talk like God is frowning in a corner and throwing dice over which of these stinky sinners wins and which loses, when it’s more like He’s shaking the world every which way to get it to see that it needs to accept His love and grace in a more direct fashion.
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.”
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
No, it does not say a multitude of sons and daughters it says a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel, but it was,nt, it was finally called Jesus.
So if first born means many sons then a son must mean just one. I will take the latter.
But no where does it say or even indicate that Mary had more sons and daughters, it is absent from the scriptures.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you say she had more than one child you can not prove that by the scriptures.
Jesus could have a dozen brothers and sisters but that does not prove anything concerning Mary.
And i have to ask you, in spite of what some people would call evidence to the contrary why do you insist that Mary had a bunch of kids?
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The word used in Mark 6:3 is adelphos for brother and adelphé for sisters. Now the Greek word for cousin is Anepsios which was NOT used in Mark 6:3. Does anyone doubt that Mark would have known whether they were Jesus brothers or cousins and wouldn’t he have use the correct word for cousins if they were cousins? He used the word for brothers NOT cousins.
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
And what advanced degrees do you have in either Greek or Aramaic CB?
So you believe that Mary disobeyed scripture as it relates to relations between husband and wife?
Still dragging from thread to thread ey? Trying to highjack this thread? I don’t believe anyone is interested in that childish, nonsensical interruption. Bye.
Y’all said you are proud of your beliefs, now you change your story. Fair enough. But you failed to provide any evidence that you have even a small clue as to the greek language, other than your renowed cut-n-paste ability.
As for your theology, what I find amusing is you and your gang cannot agree on Easter, on Sunday worhsip, on the Sacraments - but y’all appear certain that the Catholic Church is wrong. Quite amusing, in a sophomoric kinda way.
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.