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."
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.
You didn’t believe the Holy Spirit through Mark. I doubt you would believe anyone else. This is the last I will communicate with you on this.
You didn’t believe the Holy Spirit through Mark. I doubt you would believe anyone else.
All you have to do is show where Christ or the apostles instituted those celebrations. It should be easy for you right?No, really I do not. I am not that fringe that claims that Sunday Worship is wrong, that calls Easter celebrations pagan or wants a world that does not celebrate the Birth of Our Savior. You and that tiny fringe group that agrees with you on these silly issues (but disagrees with you and everyone else on almost everything) can enjoy your odd beliefs - but do not expect me to defend two aens of mainstream Christianity against such idiocies - as there is no argument that will convince those who have rejected the Christian Church, only when they open their hearts to the Truth will they abandon their apostacy. Until then, vale`
This is the last I will communicate with you on this.ROTFLMAO!@!!!!!@!!@@
Yeah, didn’t think you could.
There ya go! Now you’re back in your element! Back to the kindergarten picture posts.
It’s take me a long time to realize just how fringe some here really are. Follow the path their arguments lead and you quickly find yourself in alien territory.
I am no longer able to engage them without rancor so I am merely lurking for the most part now.
It has been my direct experience that the (vast?) majority of protestants lack the intellectual depth to engage in any kind of legitimate theological discussion. I have reached the point where I will state the truth to them once or twice at the very most and then be done with it.
When people pretend changing the subject and substituting their personal opinion or obvious fantasy for historical fact they're not interested in theological discussion. They have no intention of giving up worship of their own Most High and Holy Self< /b> for obedience to Jesus Christ and bearing a cross to follow Him.
That's why they even play, "I'm Ok, You're Ok", with others who are openly anti-Christ and anti-Christian just as long as the openly anti-Christ folks help spread lies and slanders about The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded.
For most such folks claiming to be Christian is no different than claiming to be a patriotic American, something they do just as long as it doesn't cost them anything and does help them go along to get along.
If you've decided to believe she is ever virgin, immaculately conceived, dispensitrix of all graces, able to hear prayers, intercessor to Jesus, Queen of the saints...yadda yadda yadda, you've already rejected the bible.
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[d] And he called His name Jesus.
The Catholic church turns this into Joseph being a grandfatherly old man with one foot in the grave who took her in to protect her ever virginness.
If you’ve decided to believe she is ever virgin, immaculately conceived, dispensitrix of all graces, able to hear prayers, intercessor to Jesus, Queen of the saints...yadda yadda yadda,
The Catholic church turns this into Joseph being a grandfatherly old man with one foot in the grave who took her in to protect her ever virginness.
You noticed that, too, eh?
He was engaged to Mary, that tells me the generation he was in, but the RCC bumps him up one generation.
He was engaged to Mary, that tells me the generation he was in, but the RCC bumps him up one generation.
if some one wants to prove the Catholic,s wrong there is enough scripture to do that in plain words.
We do not have to add to and twist scripture and ignore other scripture to prove them wrong.
Exodus 20:8
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Tithing?
Not even mentioned during the setting up of the early church or after.
2
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
I do not see how any one could read rev 17 even with out the help of any one else and not see the roman church as the great harlot, if that is true that makes all of the other denominations the daughters of the great harlot.
So being it is absurd for people to be arguing over trifles that can no way be proven, maybe just satans way of keeping our minds off of the real issues.
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.