Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus

[BreadOfLife]

first thanks for the reply, second, NO THOSE VERSE DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SALONE BEING JAMES MOTHER, TRY AGAIN.

I have read those incorrect commentaries, they ONLY ASUME THAT, that's conjecture on their part I hope you don't believe that.

so try again.

PICJAG.

Then YOU don't understand Scripture or Scriptural context.
Salome is mentioned in the verse I just showed you standing near the cross.

She is ALSO mention at the tomb of Jesus:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

 

[Renniks]

Assumption (Rev. 12:1)
Queen of Heaven (1 Kings 2:19-20, Rev. 12:1)

What does Solomon's mother have to do with anything? Nowhere does it say anything about Mary being queen of heaven.

 

[Renniks]

Perpetual virginity (Luke 1:34)

She was a virgin then. Nothing says she was a virgin I forever.

 

[Renniks]

Finally - NOBODY prays in Mary's name.

" Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death. Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit."

 

[101G]

Then YOU don't understand Scripture or Scriptural context.
Salome is mentioned in the verse I just showed you standing near the cross.

She is ALSO mention at the tomb of Jesus:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Thanks for the reply, but the context is clear, she is not James mother.

I see you cannot answer, so no need to futher conversation.

PICJAG.

 

[historyb]

You will not change any Catholic's mind, so why even go there?

Much more than Catholics believe the Blessed Mother remained virgin among which are Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, and most Liturgical Christians

 

[Paul Christensen]

I don't believe Jesus spent His last 40 days 'teaching'. As with Thomas, all that was needed was to hold out His hands as a testimony to who He was.

So what do you think Jesus was doing in the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension?

"After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).

I quote this verse just in case you missed it.

 

[Enoch111]

Much more than Catholics believe the Blessed Mother remained virgin among which are Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, and most Liturgical Christians

Do they all pray to her and call her Queen of Heaven?

And in this case they are simply following Catholic tradition, not Bible truth.

 

[Taken]

Matthew 1:25 (NIVUK)
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (NLT)
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

That's clear enough for me.

Jewish tradition/custom~
Was arranged marriages by the parents.
Once agreed;
It was Jewish Law Binding Contract.
The Couple:
Were Betrothed (engaged) to become Wed.
Were considered husband and wife.
Did not live together.
Rarely had Contact with one another.
Did not have sexual relation.
(That was a preparatory time for the female to be taught by her mother about Being a WIFE and the man; preparing a home, for him and his wife.
A betrothal Contract often lasted a year.)

Joseph and Mary were under Contract: Betrothed.

Then came the news To Mary of her supernatural pregnancy. Mary Knows she is Pregnant...Joseph doesn't.

Matt 1:

[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother B] Mary was espoused to Joseph,[/B] before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Wedding day:
Mary pregnant.
Mary "espoused/Married to Joseph"
Relationship changed from Betrothed (engaged) to Espoused (Married).

Joseph her husband, learns Mary is Pregnant , thinks to divorce her, before they have consummated the Marriage.

[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Take his WIFE where?
To the home he prepared for them, while they were Bethrothed.

[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

To where?
To the home he prepared during their Betrothal.

[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And? Straight away had Sex?
No.
They Waited until After Jesus Birth to consummate their Marriage with Sex.

[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

WHY did they WAIT until AFTER Jesus was Born?

[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,

Because to Fulfill prophecy:
1) a VIRGIN woman with a womb, a man had not entered Had to be Made Pregnant.
2) a VIRGIN woman had to Remain a VIRGIN, During her pregnancy.

[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Joseph...Did as the Angel told him...
Took his espoused Wedded wife To his home;
and

[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

And once Joseph "knew Mary" (had Sex) after Jesus' birth...Mary was No Longer a VIRGIN.

Mary and Joesph are both portrayed as Godly obedient People. There is NO indication they would have or did Ignore Gods Command To:
Be fruitful and multiply.

There is NO indication...that the highly favored Mary was somehow cursed or made barron to not produce and multiply with her husband.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Let me explain to you WHY it's important - as ALL types and fulfillments in Scripture are important.

Speaking of an ARK, which is A VESSEL...
Doesn't matter WHAT the Vessel IS...
A Ship, a Box, A heart, A soul, A person, A Nation, A Tribe, A Cup, A Womb...

The Scriptural and Spiritual Understanding IS:
God has Dictated what a Vessel Is:

It is God who directs what HE desires be PUT in a Particular Vessel...And When and Why "the WHAT" IN a Vessel should Remain IN the Vessel, For How Long, and IF what is IN the Vessel should COME OUT and Why.

Once "what" was "in" A Vessel...comes Out of the "Vessel"... the Vessel becomes "insignificant" <---> and the "signifance" becomes the "What", that "Came Out", of the Vessel.

Ark - Vessel Ship; Noah entered with family...
Came Out...saved...
Ship now irrelevant...place unknown.

Ark - Vessel Box; Ten Commandments of God...
Came Out...told to the Hebrews, Tribes of Israel, the World...Saved many...
Box now irrelevant...place unknown...

Ark - Place of Enslaved Jews;
Came Out of Enslavement...Many Jews Saved.
Place now irrelevant...place remains...but NOT Enslaved Jews.

Ark - Womb of A Virgin Betrothed woman, named Mary.
Word of God, came forth out of Gods Mouth in Heaven, in a body Prepared of God, in the Bodily "Likeness" AS an earthly man, having, FLESH, blood, bones, (LIKE the body Earthly men have). Yet NOT an Earthly being from Dust, or from A Seed of Earthly people.

After 9 months...(the timeframe) "what" was IN the Womb "ARK"
Came Out of the Womb "Ark".
The Word of God, that Came Out "IS the Signifance".
The Ark "Womb" is no longer signifiant TO the World.
The WOMB of the woman, became "significant" to the woman's "husband", a godly man, who would know his wife, be fruitful and multiply.
The WOMB of the woman, died with the rest of the FLESH and blood of the woman, rotting away in her grave, Returning to dust, from whence her body came, fulfilling Scripture.
Her Body, her Womb...no longer Seen.

Ark - Vessel Heart. Natural of A natural man.
Holds the natural spirit, of a natural man.
BY the agreement with such a man with the Lord God, and By the Power of the Lord God...
The OLD Natural Heart, spirit, TRUTH is Cut Off aka; Circumcised...
A "new" Vessel-"ark", (Heart, sprit, truth); is Given the Individual, By the Power of God, who IS Christ.
And the Power of God/ Christ;
And the SEED of God/ Christ;
And the Spirit of TRUTH/Christ/God/Almighty
Dwell WITH "in" that man...Forever
No timeframe for "that" Ark- New Vessel, to become Emptied.

If you Follow Scriptural Doctrine, you should have Learned;
*)God did not plant His SEED in Mary's Womb.
*) God sent a Body (without His Christ reputation) to Mary's Womb.
*) Jesus exited Mary's Womb...The Son of God...not the SEED of God.
*) Jesus was Not Revealed "The Christ", until well after His Disciples learned of Him, being The Christ.(which the Disciples learned Jesus is the Christ...supernaturally from God...not FLESH and blood men)
*) After Jesus' Body Returned To Heaven with His Glorious Christ "Reputation"...
*) On the day of Pentecost ... per a Usual Jewish Lawful custom of OF Godly Jews gathering in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost;
Christ Believers were gathered together;
BY the named Specific were: Jesus' chosen Disciples, Mary and many other believers in Jesus the Christ...at which Time..."They" became Filled with the Holy Spirit; signifying;
Them receiving: their Circumcised "New Vessel/Ark/ Heart ... And SEED of God...
Which ...Births a persons NEW spirit..
And:
SEALS that person ONCE and Forever unto The Lord God Almighty.

Mary's WOMB, was used for a specific purpose. The purpose was fulfilled.
What WAS in her WOMB came forth, and IS what Is Signifiant...The WORD of God, which Remains and Shall Never Fade Away.
Her Womb, is no loner signifant. It is dead and rotting, returning to dust, with the rest of her earthly body, as Scripture teaches, what is out of the dust, returns to the dust.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

No need.
Just making a point that this was an occasion where Mary was the subject and Jesus was "also" there.

Actually, Mary and Jesus among others were guests at a Wedding.
Mary requested Jesus to Do something...
The something was the "subject"...empty wine Vessels.

 

[Illuminator]

Any way I thought the Catholic church at one time taught Jesus didn't even pass through the birth canal, because that would be too unholy. They add a lot of baggage to the virginal birth and Mary that just isn't in scripture.

The Church is simply saying (indeed, dogmatically declaring) that Mary was physically a virgin and that Jesus’ birth was a (physically) miraculous one. It has nothing to do with some silly supposed Catholic animus against sex or old celibate men against women. The entire reason is to reinforce and bolster the miraculous nature of the incarnation.

All “in partu” asserts is that Jesus’ birth was a supernatural miracle rather than a conventional childbirth. I don’t see what is objectionable about that (yet many balk at accepting this dogma). His conception was even more out of the ordinary. Conceived by the Holy Spirit? That’s not natural either. When He left this world it was supernatural (the ascension). If His conception was miraculous and His leaving the earth also was, what is so implausible about His birth being miraculous, too? It remains true that Mary carried Jesus in the usual fashion in her body for nine months. That is the natural part of the whole process.

Some things are difficult for us to understand. I struggled mightily with papal and conciliar infallibility. They were the most difficult things in the world for me to comprehend as a Protestant. I drove my new Catholic friends nuts over that, arguing for months (I had an ecumenical discussion group in my house), back in 1990. If one of them hadn’t suggested to me the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman, I might still be struggling with it today. That book revolutionized my life and made me a Catholic.

Newman took away my doubts and questionings in one fell swoop. What seemed so ridiculous and utterly absurd to me (indeed, “impossible” and contrary to common sense and fact) all of a sudden became glorious. I believe that could possibly happen also with those who question Mary’s “in partu” virginity: by reading something or other, or pondering further, but in any event, this issue has no practical effect on Catholics’ day-to-day walk as disciples of Jesus.

God doesn’t want any of His children to be in doubt about or struggle over His Church and what it teaches. He wants us to be joyful and not troubled; to be at peace. He will reward anyone who gives obedient assent to a thing that doesn’t make much sense to them.

It may be a cliche: but it remains true: God’s ways are far above ours, and we can expect not to fully understand many things that the Church or the Bible or Tradition tell us are true (above all when we go through suffering and the struggles of life). That’s where faith and trust in God come in.
Mary's "In Partu" Virginity: Reply to False Charges

 

[Renniks]

Do they all pray to her and call her Queen of Heaven?

And in this case they are simply following Catholic tradition, not Bible truth.

The Methodists surely don't.

 

[Renniks]

The Church is simply saying (indeed, dogmatically declaring) that Mary was physically a virgin and that Jesus’ birth was a (physically) miraculous one. It has nothing to do with some silly supposed Catholic animus against sex or old celibate men against women. The entire reason is to reinforce and bolster the miraculous nature of the incarnation.

All “in partu” asserts is that Jesus’ birth was a supernatural miracle rather than a conventional childbirth. I don’t see what is objectionable about that (yet many balk at accepting this dogma). His conception was even more out of the ordinary. Conceived by the Holy Spirit? That’s not natural either. When He left this world it was supernatural (the ascension). If His conception was miraculous and His leaving the earth also was, what is so implausible about His birth being miraculous, too? It remains true that Mary carried Jesus in the usual fashion in her body for nine months. That is the natural part of the whole process.

Some things are difficult for us to understand. I struggled mightily with papal and conciliar infallibility. They were the most difficult things in the world for me to comprehend as a Protestant. I drove my new Catholic friends nuts over that, arguing for months (I had an ecumenical discussion group in my house), back in 1990. If one of them hadn’t suggested to me the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman, I might still be struggling with it today. That book revolutionized my life and made me a Catholic.

Newman took away my doubts and questionings in one fell swoop. What seemed so ridiculous and utterly absurd to me (indeed, “impossible” and contrary to common sense and fact) all of a sudden became glorious. I believe that could possibly happen also with those who question Mary’s “in partu” virginity: by reading something or other, or pondering further, but in any event, this issue has no practical effect on Catholics’ day-to-day walk as disciples of Jesus.

God doesn’t want any of His children to be in doubt about or struggle over His Church and what it teaches. He wants us to be joyful and not troubled; to be at peace. He will reward anyone who gives obedient assent to a thing that doesn’t make much sense to them.

It may be a cliche: but it remains true: God’s ways are far above ours, and we can expect not to fully understand many things that the Church or the Bible or Tradition tell us are true (above all when we go through suffering and the struggles of life). That’s where faith and trust in God come in.
Mary's "In Partu" Virginity: Reply to False Charges

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Nothing to suggest it was not a normal childbirth. Nothing to suggest Mary didn't have labor pains like every other woman who gives birth.

Tradition, tradition! A whole lot of things in Catholicism are just tradition and not truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What does Solomon's mother have to do with anything? Nowhere does it say anything about Mary being queen of heaven.

The Davidic Kingdom is modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 With God giving Eliakim the Keys of the House of Israel - and Jesus appointing Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was not the Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

1 Kings 2:19-20 tells us: So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.
“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother.
Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is fitting that His mother should enjoy the same role that other Davidic Queen mothers enjoyed, that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

 

[BreadOfLife]

She was a virgin then. Nothing says she was a virgin I forever.

Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very revealing about her intention to remain a virgin:

Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.
This, coupled with the absolute SILENCE in Scripture of her having ANY other children supports the idea of her perpetual virginity.

Finally - as the Ark of the New Covenant, she is the fulfillment of the Old Ark - which was NOT to be touched by man.
NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more perfect and glorious than their OT types.

 

[BreadOfLife]

" Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US SINNERS now, and at the hour of death. Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit."

Sooooo, where is this prayer in MARY'S name??
If I ask YOU to pray for me - am I praying in YOUR name - or am I asking YOU to pray for me in CHRIST'S name?

Note the text above in RED.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for the reply, but the context is clear, she is not James mother.

I see you cannot answer, so no need to futher conversation.

PICJAG.

No need for further conversation because YOU are completely unable to use simply deductive reasoning.

Standing ner the cross, there are THREE Marys and ONE Salome.
NOT that difficult to figure out . . .

 

[Renniks]

The Davidic Kingdom is modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 With God giving Eliakim the Keys of the House of Israel - and Jesus appointing Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was not the Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

1 Kings 2:19-20 tells us: So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.
“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother.
Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is fitting that His mother should enjoy the same role that other Davidic Queen mothers enjoyed, that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

Boy, that's some serious scripture bending gymnastics.

 

[Renniks]

Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very revealing about her intention to remain a virgin:

Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.
This, coupled with the absolute SILENCE in Scripture of her having ANY other children supports the idea of her perpetual virginity.

Finally - as the Ark of the New Covenant, she is the fulfillment of the Old Ark - which was NOT to be touched by man.
NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more perfect and glorious than their OT types.

Lol, seriously? Clear evidence? Zero evidence is what you mean. If I say I do not know my girlfriend sexually, that means I do not know her currently in that way... It says nothing about my future intentions when she is my wife.
Nevermind the fact that the evidence is that Jesus did have siblings, at best, you are creating a doctrine from nothing, from a negative. It's like someone saying scripture doesn't say abortion is wrong, therefore it must be right.