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 SpiritI 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 (someignoring the contexttake 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."
So they clearly had sex after the birth of Jesus.
The schismatic and heretical OPC in all of it’s minute glory argues against 2,000 years of history. Too funny.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
Ah. Latin. I guess you win the argument. An “appeal to authority” fallacy, in both language and logic. Sad.
Indeed, I think your use of Latin as your sole argument against the original post is telling. Appealing to a dead language to defend your dead doctrine. Using a language that’s incomprehensible to most FReepers to defend a doctrine that’s incomprehensible.
Mary and Joseph enjoyed marital sex. Period.
Or are you saying that she practiced the rhythm method? Or that they were never “one”? Sheesh.
“Indeed, I think your use of Latin as your sole argument against the original post is telling”
ROTFLMAO!
And the English translation says what?
“Appealing to a dead language to defend your dead doctrine.”
Psst, Latin doesn’t change - neither does the truth. When you get that point, you will be close to understanding what I was saying by posting Scripture.
I am guessing, based on your Roman Catholic reply that you really do not know much about the OPC and her history. I could be incorrect, but I am skeptical that you have even heard the name J. Gresham Machen.
So you think Scripture (posted in both Latin and English) is sad? An appeal to the authority of Holy Writ is sad? How very odd.
A schismatic splinter off an heretical sect, I know of him and the tiny number of followers left in that odd back eddy of heresy.
didn't you read the article?
Or, try reading the Bible.
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Hyperbole aside, what is the nature of the error serious enough to elicit the charge of heresy for which you accuse the OPC.
If He did, He would have been a SHE.
For your attempt at trying to sound intellectual, you do realize, don't you, that women have an XX and men have XY?
That answers your question, as much as it deserves.
Heretic!!!!
LOL!!!
They deny all of the basic Sacraments of the Church, they deny the Apostolic Succession, the Holy Eucharist and they themselves are a breakaway from an heretical schismatic sect.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine.
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Scripture is clear in calling her *mother of Jesus* not *mother of God*.
“Scripture is clear in calling her *mother of Jesus* not *mother of God*.”
Is there any doubt that Mary was Mother to Jesus? Or that Jesus is God?
And that gets to the heart of why Catholics will defend to the death ANYTHING the church teaches. If they admit that the church is wrong in even one area, then it opens up the possibility that it could be wrong in other areas.
At that point, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
They CAN'T admit error because they believe that their salvation is dependent on that organization. Bring down the organization and their only hope for salvation (so they would think) vanishes in a puff of smoke.
That's the problem with putting your faith in anything but Jesus. He is the ROCK and cannot be moved.
Mary and Joseph enjoyed marital sex. Period.
Or are you saying that she practiced the rhythm method? Or that they were never one? Sheesh.
For any other couple, getting married under such false pretenses would be grounds for an annulment; if a couple married without the intent of being a husband and wife and giving the other their due as a married couple.
But in this case, no. They're a couple of heroes for doing what anyone else would be condemned for.
Catholics don't know if they're coming or going. They have some pretty weird ideas about marriage and sex, depending......
Hmm.. I thought DNA was a string of double helixes that formed codons which formed genes which make up chromosomes, and that XX and XY was a reference to chromosomes? But hey, you're the microbiologist, so I'll defer to your genius.
they deny the Apostolic Succession,
They hold to apostolic succession of elders.
the Holy Eucharist
They celebrate the Lord's supper as a means of grace received by faith
and they themselves are a breakaway from an heretical schismatic sect.
That is nothing more than an intellectually embarrassing ad hominem.
It is obvious that you are passionate about your Roman faith, but your apologetic lacks coherence and is a patently false cavil.
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.