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."
Obviously your use of words fails the test of basic reason, the OPC denies the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They beliebe in Calvinist predestination, they are schismatic offshoots of protestant heretics. That you think they are somehow not says volumes. Are you one of the maybe 30,000 members of this fragment of heresy?
I took Latin. Loads of fun. Helped me understand English grammar better.
Did nothing to help me understand Aramaic.
Do you actually read the Latin Vulgate to help you to better understand the Aramaic in which the gospel of Matthew was written?
FReegards!
No man can EVER have the exact same DNA as his mother.
Understanding the difference between XX and XY is high school biology and does not require a degree in micro....
Thanks for the ping.
Mat 1:25 et non cognoscebat eam DONEC (Until, up until the time wen, until, etc) peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum
See, you even fail in Latin.
You are being gracious and kind.
If you’re that tired, you really ought to go to bed.
It’s not good to stay up past your bedtime.
Again with name calling, you could be the Chris Mathews of Rome. As soon as one disagrees with your view you simply accuse them of being racist or heretic.
Perhaps you heard of the reformation? It was in all the papers. People died for the Gospel as summarized by the five solas. You are free to follow the Christ of the scriptures or the Christ of Rome, but you should at least ask yourself which is the true gospel - one of meritorious works of individuals aided by indulgences and prayers to the dead or the gospel of grace received by faith in the substitutionary atonement of Christ alone. I will stand with Paul and not be ashamed of the gospel, I shall echo Paul, if any even an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you,(that is the one from the scriptures) let him be accursed.
Since he's not mentioned in any of the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, we can conclude that the first pope skipped out on the crucifixion, too.
*snicker*
“The problem is that if Mary and Joseph had other children, then Roman Catholic doctrine is in error. And NYer and other Roman Catholic FReepers cannot even consider that possibility. They won’t even consider what you’ve said. They’ve got their pope to think for them, and you’re not their pope.”
Words escape me on how to reply to such nonsense.
However, I will propose this question to those who will not consider that the early Church fathers/Christians all believed that the Mother of Jesus did not have other biological children, and they held Mary in highest esteem. Why in the 16th century certain Christians decided that they knew better about the history of the Mother of our Lord than those who knew her puzzles me.
The Catholic church and the Orthodox churches believe in Holy Scriptures AND Sacred Tradition. Christianity with it’s scholars and saints existed for 16 centuries prior to the Reformation.
So you’re saying that Jesus’ parents never consummated their marriage. Nice. You’re saying that marital sex is bad. Nice.
Ah, I was waiting for that stupid image. As if taking personal responsibility for one’s doctrine was a bad thing ...
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.