Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus

[101G]

No. Scripture doesn't say that.

it do, so no need to further this conversation. when scripture is clear as day, why argue with the blind.

good day.

PICJAG.

 

[Pearl]

Not so.
Read post #27

Joseph was not Jesus' father so if he had sons from a previous relationship they would be only step brothers. And WHY would God choose a widower with other children to be the husband of this very godly young girl that he chose to be the earthly mother of his only son. The journey to Jerusalem was just two people - a man and his pregnant betrothed. No mention of other children tagging along on the journey - which they would have to in order to be counted in the census - or taking shelter in the stable.

 

[Stan B]

it do, so no need to further this conversation. when scripture is clear as day, why argue with the blind.

good day.

PICJAG.

I agree! Waste of time discussing this with someone who has rejected truth in favour of blindness.

 

[101G]

to all, I have a question, concering James Brother John.
Matthew 10:1 "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 10:2 "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Matthew 10:3 "Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Matthew 10:4 "Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

is there any where else in the bible that clearly states that this John here is Zebedee son.

PICJAG.

 

[Stan B]

Joseph was not Jesus' father so if he had sons from a previous relationship they would be only step brothers. And WHY would God choose a widower with other children to be the husband of this very godly young girl that he chose to be the earthly mother of his only son.

My thoughts exactly!!

 

[Pearl]

I agree! Waste of time discussing this with someone who has rejected truth in favour of blindness.

Most Catholics I've come across do that. I pray for their eyes be opened to the truth so that they can see how they are being deceived. Most of them won't even ask God to enlighten them and just accept what they have been force fed with over the years.

A few years ago I had tea with Helen Shapiro who came to our church to talk about how as a Jew she eventually came to see the truth. She told me she won't go into Catholic churches for that very reason - that they are blind to the truth. And she called it a cult.

Manna Music | Helen Shapiro

 

[Stan B]

Matthew 10:2 "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Matthew 10:3 "Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Matthew 10:4 "Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

is there any where else in the bible that clearly states that this John here is Zebedee son.

PICJAG.

" James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “Sons of Thunder” Mark 3:17

 

[Paul Christensen]

Those verses didn't say they were Mary's children. You are (incorrectly) inferring that.

Oh? I just used 5th Grade English Comprehension. If I had given that verse to my elementary school children they would have instantly told me that they were Mary's children. But then the children wouldn't be reading something into the text that isn't there.

Also, do you mean to tell me that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? They were a married couple who did everything a couple in their marriage bed would do! Anyone who doesn't believe that would be living in cloud cuckoo land!

 

[Paul Christensen]

first thanks the the reply, second I agree. giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, as you said we must hold fast to what the scriptures states. if our Lord had any brothers and sisters by the same birth mother or not, for the language used, one thing for sure she's no perpetual virgin.

but as said, all this conjecture about Joseph having children before marrying Mary, is just that, conjecture. as with the term "brother" it can be used as blood kindred near and far. and many time used symbolically also. but context of scripture usually point to the truth. I have read many books and articles on this subject, many are pro, and some are con as to who the Lord's brother James is. both had good arguments to support their positions, but both agree that there was no concrete answer. and just because one is identified with someone else at a given time and place do not necessary mean that they are Family, or relative to each other or not.
but as you said, go with what the scriptures says, and if any proof stated other wise then scriptures will support it … or not.

but until now I going with what the scriptures ststes, if I understand wrong, then the scriptures will correct me.

PICJAG

From vague memory from what I read somewhere, some Catholic theologian came up with the doctrine that although Mary and Joseph were truly married and shared the marriage bed with all the bells and whistles, and had more children between them, after Joseph died, God somehow by a miracle, restored Mary's virginity so she could become the perpetual virgin.

It suggests that when a logical answer is given, a "new revelation" from God suddenly appears purporting a miracle that makes the logical answer obsolete. All the pope has to do is to sit in the chair of Peter and announce the new revelation as a new doctrine of the church, and this is accepted as extra Biblical truth.

But then the pope is not the only one who comes up with this sort of thing. There is a branch of the Charismatic movement that comes up with "new" extra-Biblical revelations that become that faction's Charismatic doctrine.

Joseph Smith got his "revelations" from a set of golden plates given to him by an angel, and he had to put his face into his hat to peer into his version of a crystal ball to translate them.

Harold Hill got his "Think and Grow Rich" teaching from an imaginary committee of great minds, which became real to him and dictated the teaching to him.

Norman Vincent Peale was heavily into the occult, and his "Power of Positive Thinking" was dictated to him by an occult entity.

Carl Rogers got authorisation from his dearly departed wife to have a relationship with another woman and "be happy", from consulting a Ouija board.

In my opinion all these "revelations" originate from the same source.

 

[Taken]

There are other alternatives -= see post #27

However the claim in the OP is that Mary had other children after Jesus. That is what has to be proved - not that she didn't. And no proof has been given, only claims based on (IMO) misreading of scripture.

Ok, thanks.

If a claim pertains to a Scriptural Topic, what would you say is the proof positive "Source" for evidence To verify that claim?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Mungo]

Joseph was not Jesus' father so if he had sons from a previous relationship they would be only step brothers. And WHY would God choose a widower with other children to be the husband of this very godly young girl that he chose to be the earthly mother of his only son. The journey to Jerusalem was just two people - a man and his pregnant betrothed. No mention of other children tagging along on the journey - which they would have to in order to be counted in the census - or taking shelter in the stable.

You are grasping at straws.
Let me summarise. In post #27 I suggested there are three arguments put forth against Mary remaining a virgin:
1. The "until" dispute - Mt 1:25
2. The "brothers" (and "sisters") - e.g. Mt 13:56
3. The "first born" argument"

For 1 the word until (heos in greek) does not imply the action concerned changed after the "until point". It is wrong to infer that it did.

For 2 the word brother (adephos in greek) does not necessarily mean they had the same mother. There are several alternatives. It is wrong to assume that there is only one possibility.

For 3 the "first born" has a special meaning in the Jewish culture and does not mean "only born".

 

[Taken]

No it isn't There is not a single verse in scripture that says Mary had other children.

Point is: there are children whom Mary was identified as their Mother.

A husband and wife are supposed to be fruitful and multiply...as God directed<- that would require the husband and wife to engage in sex.

We know Joseph and Mary had been Married over 10 years when They went to the Passover, and Jesus lingered behind...

So as Mary was highly favored of God, and was so obedient (even SINLESS, according to Catholic teaching)...wouldn't it have been a sin for Mary to not be fruitful and at least TRY to multiply, and have children with her lawful husband?

 

[Mungo]

Ok, thanks.

If a claim pertains to a Scriptural Topic, what would you say is the proof positive "Source" for evidence To verify that claim?

Glory to God,
Taken

The only proof positive concerning these brothers is if the scripture said that they were children of Mary. here is no such proof positive.

The other aspect which seems to be ignored are the reasons why Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Mary remained a virgin. That is a big topic in itself.

From a Catholic (and Orthodox) perspective there are positive reasons for Mary remaining a virgin. Therefore there must be other explanations for these "brothers" - and there are.

 

[Mungo]

From vague memory from what I read somewhere, some Catholic theologian came up with the doctrine that although Mary and Joseph were truly married and shared the marriage bed with all the bells and whistles, and had more children between them, after Joseph died, God somehow by a miracle, restored Mary's virginity so she could become the perpetual virgin.

What a load of rubbish. You have a very strange memory.

 

[Mungo]

Most Catholics I've come across do that. I pray for their eyes be opened to the truth so that they can see how they are being deceived. Most of them won't even ask God to enlighten them and just accept what they have been force fed with over the years.

A few years ago I had tea with Helen Shapiro who came to our church to talk about how as a Jew she eventually came to see the truth. She told me she won't go into Catholic churches for that very reason - that they are blind to the truth. And she called it a cult.

Manna Music | Helen Shapiro

More Catholic bashing.

Can't you just discuss the topic?

 

[Mungo]

Oh? I just used 5th Grade English Comprehension. If I had given that verse to my elementary school children they would have instantly told me that they were Mary's children. But then the children wouldn't be reading something into the text that isn't there.

Also, do you mean to tell me that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? They were a married couple who did everything a couple in their marriage bed would do! Anyone who doesn't believe that would be living in cloud cuckoo land!

More suppositions again.

I thought Protestants were sola scriptura. But when they can't find support for their theories in scripture they fall back on suppositions, vague memories of what someone perhaps said, or anecdotes about a Catholic they once met.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Since it was in a form of a question rather than an accusation as not in a format of a question lobbied at him directly, I don't see it that way.

Only God knows for sure the intentions of the heart of the poster on either side in the progress of the discussion in this thread.

We can judge the issue, but when it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth, it is hard not to be seen as proving that the other is wrong, without offending the brother in error who still refuses to see it that way no matter how well He helps walk thru the scripture in rightly dividing the word of truth.

I got convicted - that I was not commenting consistently with the kindness fruit of the Spirit, seeing that it was the kindness of God that first led me to repentance.

 

[Taken]

For 1 the word until (heos in greek) does not imply the action concerned changed after the "until point". It is wrong to infer that it did.

Wrong to "infer"? Hogwash.
Trust the plain facts.

Perhaps it is wrong for you to not consider the context, that a timeframe for Joseph to know his wife was limited Before Jesus' birth, and no limited presented for Joseph to know his wife...After Jesus was born.

Heos (till) does define a "limit" and the "release" of the "limit" per the context of the timeframe.

Matt 1:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Joesph did not know (have sex) with His wife (Mary) for a limited timeframe.
Joseph knew his wife Mary...when the timeframe passed...PLAINLY revealed, was after she birthed Jesus.

 

[Taken]

The only proof positive concerning these brothers is if the scripture said that they were children of Mary. here is no such proof positive.

The other aspect which seems to be ignored are the reasons why Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Mary remained a virgin. That is a big topic in itself.

From a Catholic (and Orthodox) perspective there are positive reasons for Mary remaining a virgin. Therefore there must be other explanations for these "brothers" - and there are.

My question is in Post # 130

My question asked you nothing about Catholics, Mary, brothers or anything you posted in your reply.

Could you simply answer the question?

 

[Taken]

There are other alternatives -= see post #27

However the claim in the OP is that Mary had other children after Jesus. That is what has to be proved - not that she didn't. And no proof has been given, only claims based on (IMO) misreading of scripture.

Ok so you say there is no proof Mary had other children after Jesus.

WHO are these children's mother and father?
--->
Matt. 13:
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?