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."
No less than FIVE separate verses of Scripture identify James’s father (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15, and Acts 1:13) as, not Joseph, but Alphaeus. (And no, Alphaeus wasn’t Mary’s second husband.) In addition, Acts 1:13 identifies Judas as the son of James!
I figured Joesph was up in years and had children by a first wife that had died.
But after later reading the scripture you mentioned it does appear that some of them were cousins.
I would have no problem with Mary having other children than Jesus if it was a fact but i see no fact at all and there is much against that idea.
But many people are not really concerned about if Mary had other children or not, but they don,t believe in the idea of perpetual virginity so they will go to any length to try and prove that Mary had other children.
Any Scripture to back that up?
Or is it mere speculation?
Joseph was a teenager himself when he and Mary consummated their marriage...
Yes it is...The entire conversation was about Mary having more children after she bore Jesus...
Isn't that pitiful...They think that you can not become a Christian by trusting in Jesus to be your Savior...
And it's pathetic that they don't even know if they are going to end up in heaven...I mean, get this; they even admit that they are not indwelt with the Spirit of God...How can they know anything???
All they are doing is repeating what some guy in a robe tells them...They have no communication with God within them...He ain't there...They admit it...
You can't 'join' the Body of Christ...God puts you into it as he sees fit...
Matthew 1:19-25 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 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.
It puts to rest the myth that Joseph only married her, knowing what was going on, to protect her or provide for her.
He didn't know until an angel of the Lord told him otherwise.
Get over it Betty...You been following the thread??? There is no Mother of God, except in Paganism...There is no Mother of God in Christianity...
While I know Mary was a virgin at conception can you explain why that need was there???
Mary could have been a thrice married woman with 14 kids prior to the birth of Jesus and it still would have been Jesus...
Get off the high horse...The rocking is making you dizzy...
So true...Obviously there are ulterior motives in play when someone has to pervert such clear, plain scripture...
-he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.-
It's settled...No need to give it a second thought...
So show us contrary evidence.
>> No different than my acknowledging and accepting Rome’s authority.<<
That makes no sense at all. Rome has nothing to back up many of it’s beliefs. The assumption of Mary comes to mind.
>> You embrace heretics with axes to grind, I stick with the Universal Church.<<
If you think Thayer’s, Strong’s, et el are heretics then you need to back up those contentions by showing the refuting evidence of the words used and the translations. Making baseless statements with nothing to back those statements up won’t give you any credibility. What’s up with that?
All you have to do is show where Christ or the apostles instituted those celebrations. It should be easy for you right?
Maybe you missed my previous post on that. Here it is again.
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.
And it could mean “woman” too.
“How very sad that you took your wife out of the true church into one of the very many partially true organizations.”
Not my wife. Go back and read.
But I would absolutely prefer anyone come to saving faith in Christ alone, than to stay anywhere the Gospel of Grace is not preached.
Maybe you missed my previous post on that. Here it is again.
But others will get into Greek to prove just the opposite.
and some will get into Greek to supposedly prove every thing the Bible says is wrong.
So Although most every language is Greek to me i will take the Bible for what it says, and if an issue arises i will believe what makes the most sense to me.
I do not deny that Jesus had brothers, no argument there, but were they Marys sons?
And i do not believe this would be an issue if it could be proved that they were her sons, and there is a lot of room for doubt on this issue.
My question is what word does the Greek use for Brethren here. just curious is all.
Then how were all those children conceived?
>> “Where does Gods word declare that Mary had four sons and also daughters?” <<
.
Mark 6:2-3
I’m not so sure you understand. The point is that Mark, if they had been cousins, would have used a different word then what he did. It reads:
Mark 6:3 is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
That verse in particular was addressing the children of Mary. It could not have meant “brethren” or “brothers” as it would apply to members of a church or some other group. It would make no sense in that regard.
The word used in the verse you referenced is also adelphois but when taken in context would best be translated brethren as it is in most Bibles.
Again, in Mark 6:3 they were specifically addressing the children of Mary.
>> “No less than FIVE separate verses of Scripture identify James’s father (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15, and Acts 1:13) as, not Joseph, but Alphaeus. (And no, Alphaeus wasn’t Mary’s second husband.) In addition, Acts 1:13 identifies Judas as the son of James!” <<
.
Grossly disingenuous!
There were many “James” (Yakov) in that time, and also many “Judas.” Paul himself identifies James the bishop in Jerusalem as the brother of Yeshua.
I’m not so sure you understand.
Just for instance, a professor giving an explanation to a word spoken or written by a grade school drop out may do nothing except confuse the issue.
There is no scripture that i know of even hints at the brothers of Jesus being the sons of Mary, that is only an assumption which i have nothing against but i happen to believe other wise.
I suppose there is no more to be said on the issue then. You have your mind made up no matter what the original text says.
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.