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."
Prove those Greek words to be wrong and not the ones used in the Greek text used for our current translations.
Actually, all this stuff about Mary IS about what Scripture does not say.
Still not answering eh? What expertise in greek do you have? Any?
So you believe that Mary disobeyed scripture as it relates to relations between husband and wife?
I did not ask them why.
Don’t play Catholic and attack the messenger. Address the subject and prove it wrong. If you can’t do that it stands.
Now what does that have to do with this subject? I know couples who live together without getting married too. Neither have anything to do with Mary disobeying scripture.
The bible says she had other kids in a couple of places.
would you mind giving the scripture that says it?
Always adding to their story, even centuries later, and yet still unfinished
Catholic Questions Answered
The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.
Sure...Your religion has a source for everything...I’m sure this guy fits right in there with the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals...
What expertise in greek do you have? Any?
Good grief, they must not have Luke in their Bibles!
You are probably correct...It's a relief to know that God has numerous brothers and sisters as well...If he's too busy, we can go to another one...
Now what does that have to do with this subject?
So you believe that Mary disobeyed scripture as it relates to relations between husband and wife?
If there wasn't any consummation, there wasn't any marriage...
The verse is primarily about Jesus, not Mary.
It is to be able to identify the Messiah. The only requirement for Mary was that she was a virgin until after the birth of the Messiah.
After that, the prophecy was fulfilled and her continuing virginity is irrelevant to anything else Jesus did.
No...And I doubt that it ever happened...
For that matter, it wouldn't please God...Where would ever get that idea???
You are looking at this through the eyes of man, not through the eyes of the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
Cause the Bible said He had brothers, and named them, and mentioned his sisters, although it did not name them.
IMO, anyone trying to teach something that contradicts the clear, unambiguous teaching of Scripture has got a huge burden of proof to meet.
The Greek uses *adelphoi* meaning brothers, it goes on to name them and the NT in other places refers to those brothers of Jesus.
There's already the weight of Scriptural support FOR His having brothers.
If a single person wants to dedicate their life to God, people accept it, right?
Well the same thing is true of several saints and their spouses, so why can’t that be accepted too?
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.