Did Mary Have Other Children?
- Thread starter Starman3000m
- Start date
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
I'm not above the occasional spelling errors (typo's) but his text had some of the "ignorant" errors that I often see on here. Eg. Where for We're, there for their & they're, then for than, etc.
The guy who wrote it is chubby so I just made an observation. :shrug:
Oh so you're really a stalker? Or is it that you couldn't handle a face to face with me? Go ahead; hide behind that keyboard if it makes you feel manly.
"Working the room like a snake oil salesman"??? Please tell me how I "worked" it would you? I mean really give us YOUR impression of what I did that Sunday.
A "Pastor without a church, a flock, or wife" you say? Let's see: My "church" consists of a gathering of people 6 times a week. Does yours?
My "flock" easily out numbers yours and, ok, you got me on this one: I don't have a wife.
So then; it sounds like you need a trip to the devils confessional too...
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Let's, again, see if it is Scriptural:
Mary's Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
Did God ASSUME Joseph there too? How about Moses or Abraham? They were all major players. No; therefore it's an assumption on YOUR part, not the Bible's. If the Bible implies it, ok; but if you do,
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Another assumption of yours. The Bible nowhere SAYS or implies that.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
The Ark was a wooden box. Are you saying that Mary was too? Did God stick the 10 Commandments, Aaron's staff & the jar of manna in her? Another assumption of yours.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
All believers are caught up to the throne room of God...WHEN THEY DIE. Mary was too...when she died. So, another assumption of yours.
Matt. 27:52-53 - When Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary's assumption into heaven.
Nor does anything in Scripture imply or state that Mary was taken up to Heaven bodily. The Bible clearly states that only 3 people were taken up into Heaven alive: Enoch, Elijah & Jesus. Nothing in Scripture says or implies that this event had anything to do with Mary, therefore, you guessed it; Another assumption.
1 Thess. 4:17 - We shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Yes we will...at the end of the world. Not relevant to Mary though, because she would have to be alive at the end of time and we ALL know that can't happen. Guess what? Assumption, yours.
Rev. 12:1 - We see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
Sounds correct to the untrained Bible reader but that's not even close to what it means. (You're easily misled aren't you)? The woman is the Jewish (Messianic) people; The lineage where Jesus came from. Besides, why would God need to snatch Mary up and hide her for 1260 days AFTER she had Jesus? There's no way it could have been Mary. Assumption
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary's bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary's bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
Not one of the 12 (nor Paul) ever said anything about Mary being taken to Heaven alive. Assumption, yours.
And, btw, God had no mother...blasphemy, yours.
Did Jesus have another mother?
No, the siblings had another mother; as in, Joseph was likely married before. Those men and women would have been referred to as Jesus' siblings (although, peronally, I think cousins is more likely). In any case, the Bible categorically does NOT say that they are Mary's children, so the extra-biblical interpretation is yours.
Like you, it's neither here nor there to me what you all choose to believe. I just don't appreciate the likes of SM and IS suggesting that what we believe is something heretical. Now, while I still have some respect for IS, I have learned there is no point in a conversation. SM is a whole different animal. He has so thoroughly breeched any form of common courtesy that I won't be bothered at all. He's the proverbial clanging cymbals.
Uh...one, I think this is so totally uncalled for! IS is actually very pleasant in person, and this is an attack that, IMO, is worse than even the stuff SM has said.
You are better at defending the faith than this; don't stoop to this level.
We don't know why he is single, either. Would you feel pretty crummy if you found out that he lost his wife, perhaps? My dh lost his first wife to cancer, so you never know about this stuff.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Thanks Libby; It's no wonder why I love you soo much!Uh...one, I think this is so totally uncalled for! IS is actually very pleasant in person, and this is an attack that, IMO, is worse than even the stuff SM has said.
You are better at defending the faith than this; don't stoop to this level.
We don't know why he is single, either. Would you feel pretty crummy if you found out that he lost his wife, perhaps? My dh lost his first wife to cancer, so you never know about this stuff.
Onel mistakes genuine friendliness (which is seriously missing in todays world) for "selling snake oil". Now when are you going to come back and have lunch & some good conversation at RR? 
Thanks Libby; It's no wonder why I love you soo much!
Well, IS, I think you'd have to change your happy hour for me to get over there again. My days are just so swamped! I'm most always in town from about 2-4 as my children are at a youth group. Generally, I do my shopping then. 1p.m. just doesn't give me enough time to get home from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
howdy, regroup the kids and get back out to RR.
StoneThrower
New Member
That’s not Biblical, to let someone go to Hell and just mind your own business. The Bible says we are to judge, although no one can ever know for sure the conditions of another’s heart, by their fruits you shall know them. If someone is very religious you don’t turn a blind eye to them. Look at the Pharisees John called them a brood of vipers and Christ called them whitewashed tombs. They were devote but their devotion was missplaced.
If a person rejects the truth of Gods word that is cause for concern.
If a person is not obedient to Christ commands, it’s pretty obvious they are not of Him. He who loves me keeps my commands, there are no excepts, except its ok to be idolatrous, except its ok to venerate a man and call Him father, except to worship relics and enter into some kind of Gnostic superstitious faith.
Think about the ankle bone of a nun was paraded all around the world and people flocked to see it, as if this poor woman’s bone was going to be like touching Jesus robe, just because she was considered a saint.
In order for a Roman Catholic to be saved they would need to be totally ignorant as to what the church teaches, or a very bad catholic that doesn’t believe a lick of it but stays for some other reason, and in that case they would love that reason more than the Lord as they would be in a rebellious disobedient state, by going against the commands of Christ.
I think what happens is you get some very devote people in the church that dont realize they are caught up in a false religion, of which there is a Jesus and a God, but its one of the churches making, it dosent exsist which makes it an idol and that stands at odds with the God of the Bible.
You cant have a Lord that you dont obey!
StoneThrower
New Member
Libby, your being offend is totally natural if you believe what your taught, but that isn't his intent, the intent is to get you to look more closely at his claims even if you resent them and him, you have to at least look at his arguments. The fact that we are fallen men that can fall into sin in here very easily, is not an excuse, just an honest admission and its easy for it to turn into bashing even though that was never the intent.
Sure he could have impure motives, but I think if you look at the most of the post, they are based on concern. Perhaps you can help us out, whats it going to take for you to take a critical and historical look at the church?
Nothing good has ever come from the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church. If anything the formation of the RCC is just a progressive decline, in power corruption, and control. Thats how indulgences came into play, was just to make a buck to build St Peters cathedral. There wasn't any sources to steel from at that time, so blackmail became the next best way. Was Tetzel admonished by the church, no he was a poster boy and encouraged.
Think about it, No one in the RCC had the courage to say hey bud your over the line, and I will not have you mentally abuse these poor people that don't know any better. It was condoned because a man had a building project and wanted to make a name for himself at the cost of mental anguish to others.
Abuse of another human being made in the image of God.
All you need to do is look at the history prior to the church and you can see it going to hell in a hand basket after 300AD, and by the 6th century with Gregory The Great the church started departing from the truth, problem is it never came back but continued in paganism. Salvation by Baptism, Works of love, (working off your sin), Communion was to wash away post baptismal sin, purgatory, prior to that it was only an opinion! Communion for the dead, Chants.
If the love and concern is missing I will appologize, for myself and others, but like I said what's it going to take for you to look at this stuff yourself, rather than just singing the party line of the church?
I have no beef with you ST. You have not offended me (heck, I wouldn't exactly say that I'm "offended" by the others) and I'm am happy to have a dialogue with many here. I do believe that some are here out of genuine concern, others are here out of curiosity, others just like a lively conversation. Sadly, there are some who come here to perpetuate lies about something they haven't bothered to understand.
Catholicism is not rooted in paganism. There are good, solid Biblical foundations for RCC theology, and I've said over and over that I get that you (collective) may not agree with them, but don't tell me that the Biblical evidence isn't there. There is reason in RCC theology, as well.
Don't mistake me for a youngster who is jumping on some bandwagon without thought. I have studied the RCC doctrines and the reasons for them. I know enough history to know that what-is-now-called the Roman Catholic Church is the same church founded by Christ. I thoroughly believe all that the RCC teaches and will never be swayed.
If you want to pick a doctrine and learn the Biblical evidence for it, as well as what nature and reason can tell us, then I will be happy to aid your understanding. If you just want to try to tell me how wrong I am then we'll just agree to disagree here.
PsyOps
Pixelated
There is absolutely no biblical reference or fact to support this. You’re completely making this up. The bible categorically does not say Jesus had siblings through a different mother. You can’t disclaim that, because the bible doesn’t implicitly spell out who these “brethren” were, it isn’t so; then claim that these “brethren” were from another mother; something that has absolutely no mention in the bible whatsoever. At least the claim that these “brethren” have an inferred truth to them rather than a completely fabricated ‘truth’. And here is how this is proven:
This mentions Jesus’ mother and brothers. IF these brothers were from a different mother wouldn’t they be with their OTHER mother; and wouldn’t this be mentioned? But they aren’t. They are mentioned in reference to Jesus’ mother.
Again, you can't demand from us - that believe Mary is the mother of these brothers - this be absolutely spelled-out truth; why your claim has no mention to it whatsoever; inferred or otherwise.
Last edited:
Not once have I demanded that you believe what I believe. In fact, I would agree that the NT evidence of Jesus being an only child is sketchy. However, that is also when I use OT passages (with which you will disagree, I am sure) as well as reason, to conclude that Mary would be a perpetual virgin. It may not have been necessary, but it was fitting. Just as Jesus' Baptism may not have been necessary, but it was appropriate and fitting. I do not claim that because you do not follow the RCC Jesus that you are following some other Jesus and that you are profoundly stupid or deceitful in your faith. Neither have you accused me to these things. You do not, however,accept that there is more than one way to interpret a passage.
I am not part of a step family in any way, although it is quite common nowadays. If my child was, let's say...at a homecoming game. I am somewhere nearby with my step children (let's pretend their dad is Navy and on duty somewhere). Coach says, "I need to speak to your mom. She's over there with your brothers. Can you get them and bring them over here?"
I seriously don't think the coach would say "step brothers". Sure I can see why you think they are Jesus' half siblings. Great, I am happy for you. I think the idea that Mary had other children diminishes the spectacular event of being the mother of God the Son. From a practical standpoint, her attentions would be divided and I think it would cause discord in the family. Not because of Jesus, but because of the imperfect nature of the siblings.
Oops, dh just came in so I'm going to tend to him. Catch you later.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I never said you demanded me to believe what you believe. I’m saying you are demanding absolute evidence of something I believe – despite the fact there is overwhelming inferred evidence – while you provide absolute no evidence – inferred or otherwise – of what you believe. I’m simply pointing out how this comes across as obviously hypocritical. And now that I have confronted you on this in the way I have you come out and say what you claim to believe is ‘sketchy’. Are you simply offering a rhetorical argument or do you really believe what you’re saying?
Actually I do believe there are several ways to interpret certain passages in the bible. This discussion is evident of that. But if you are going to claim something, at least provide the passages to back it up. You have yet to do this. I’m not some deep biblical expert, but I recall nothing anywhere that talks about Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ve found nothing that counters that she consummated her marriage with Joseph and the fact that she had other children after Jesus. If these ‘brothers’ mentioned in Matthew were not Mary’s, why would they be mention of the context of Mary’s presence rather than their actual mother? Again, you can speculate these brothers are step-brothers, but there is nothing to support that. There is plenty to support they are brother of Jesus as mentioned multiple times in the bible.
I’m not sure how you conclude Mary having other children diminishes her role at all. She was still only human and married to Joseph. Another point to consider… In those days divorce was unheard of. The only time divorce was allowed was for adultery. And in that case the adulterer would be stoned to death. Now, being you claim Joseph had children from another woman, that would mean he would have had to divorce Mary for adultery and Mary would have been stoned to death. We know this didn’t happen. There were special rules and laws for a man to enter into another marriage after a divorce. There is no mention anywhere in the bible of Joseph and Mary divorcing. In fact, it's speculated that Joseph died while still married to Mary, before Jesus started His ministry.
But this passage is, in my opinion, pivotal in showing that Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus:
How can you read this and conclude Mary remained a virgin for life? Just as you claim believing Mary wasn't a consumate virgin diminishes "the spectacular event of being the mother of God the Son", I think believing otherwise alters the written word and diminishes its intent.
The passage you cite uses the word "until" to show what had/had not happened up "until" that point, but is not necessarily and indicator of what came after. Other Scriptures using "until" have been provided here before. Have you not seen them? If not, I suppose I can go back and post them again. Additionally, I never said Joseph was divorced, I speculate that he was widowed; pretty common in that day and age. It really doesn't matter, but I do agree that a man in Joseph's position would certainly not be a divorced man.
If you think I intended to challenge your beliefs by asking for absolute evidence, then I mis-communicated that. I do not believe everything is absolutely clear, which is why I believe in Tradition and the Infallibility of the pope on matters of faith and morals.
Some OT prophesy that infers perpetual virginity.
Church Fathers understood Ezekiel 44:2 to be a typology of the perpetual virginity of Mary: “And the LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut." The gate of the womb of Mary (the God bearer) was left sacred. For another to enter it would not be proper.
- Psalm 67: "the mountain of God is a fertile mountain, a bedewed mountain, a fertile mountain; why gaze you with envy, O ye bedewed mountains? for this is the mountain in which God hath deigned to dwell." Mary, according to the exposition of the Church, is the"mountain fertile, and bedewed by the Spirit” a prophecy of the virgin birth.
-Christ’s Mother would come from the clan of David: "a staff shall spring forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall come up from his root; and the Spirit of God will rest upon him." (Isaiah. 11, 1, 2; 53, 2). The Church understands the Virgin Mary to be that "staff." "A staff did Isaiah call Thee: from it did a beauteous blossom -- Christ [our] God come forth unto us." The expression: "the root of Jesse," coming from the Hebrew for: a stump, a log, gives rise to the thought of the humbled state of David's descendants at the time when that staff -- the Virgin Mary-- was springing forth from it. St. Paul relates this prophecy to Jesus Christ (Rom. 15:12)
- (Song of Solomon) "The garden is enclosed -- O My sister, My bride, -- the fountainhead is sealed, -- the fountainhead of the garden and the well-spring of living water." "Thy garden is enclosed, O Virgin Mother, and Thy fountainhead is sealed by the Spirit of God, thus did the most-wise one sing in his songs." The word "sealed," according to St. John of Damascus, is a type of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. And the Church teaches: "The choir of prophets did truly call Thee the sealed fountainhead and the locked door, describing for us the manifest signs of Thy virginity, O All-Hymned One, which Thou didst preserve even after having given birth."
Both Jewish and Christian traditions agree that this song is a beautiful picture of the ideal Israel. It tells us of the characteristics of the covenant between the Lord and Israel as a marriage. Mary is the that personification. Like R1 has said over and over, Israel or Mary, it doesn't need to be either/or, it is and/both. Mary is what Israel was meant to be.
Mary is blessed among all women. She receives greater privileges than any woman created, and that includes Eve, who had the privilege of being born without a fallen nature.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Not in the context of negating something.
You are keying in on the wrong word/s.
If you were to say: “He cannot not go home until his work is done.” You can infer that when his work is done he is going to go home, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he did. It just means he is allowed to; not that he is.
If you say: “He did not go home until his work was done.” There is no inference here. The words “did not” means that eventually he did; but not until the other thing happened first.
This is the case in the passage from Matthew 1.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Libby, you have some very interesting thoughts there, especially in the way certain passages are interpreted. My understanding differs from yours in that Jesus had, at least, a brother named James. I doubt that he would be a half-brother in the sense of being born to a different woman than Mary as in being a child from a previous marriage, and I doubt that polygamy was the case. One thought worth considering for all of us is how important the physical lineage and relationships really are. The immortal spirit is the most important identity, existence, and level upon which we have relationships. In that sense, we who love the Lord are all brothers and sisters. In short, this whole discussion becomes wasted energy over a trivial and very temporary condition. Who are Jesus' brothers and sisters in Eternity? We who have been adopted into the Royal Family by means of believing in Him.
Mary is indeed a sacred and wonderful Lady, blessed among women and burdened with the experiences associated with her Divine Conception and her Holy Son. I hope to sit with her awhile someday and ask a lot of questions. What was Jesus like as a very little boy, somewhere between 3 and 6 years of age? Did she have to tell Him not to eat the sawdust on the floor of His dad's shop? Keep him away from the sharp chisels?
Her sweet faithfulness, unwavering throughout the 33 years her son trod this earth, is exemplary to mothers everywhere. Her courage, standing there and watching His suffering on the cross - indeed, the strength to have her eyes and ears feed the horror of that time to her, are amazing indeed. This is a Godly woman, chosen and planned for her amazing role by the Creator Himself.
We Protestants don't spend a lot of time and energy on Mary, nor do we spend a lot of time on Joseph or James or the other siblings. That is a shame; it seems like we can't get past the other tasks and topics. She should be a point on which we can agree, at least in the basics, with our Catholic brothers and sisters.
We should not be separated by doctrine, but united in our love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. How many churches did Christ intend when He went home to His Father? As best as I can tell, the Body of Christ, the Church, is intended to be ONE. It is not to be a legalistic and fragmented bunch of people with partial knowledge, but a Body of Believers. The divisions began when we began to meddle with the truth. I wish we could turn the clock back to Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, when the faithful were gathered with one accord.
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
I don’t consider these discussions wasted energy. They exercise the mind. They force us to dig in and rehash what we thought we knew. Even you admitted we don’t spend enough time learning more about Mary, Joseph, James, and other siblings. As much as I might disagree with Libby and others on certain things, I appreciate how she challenges to get into the bible on a far deeper level than I ever have in the past. These opportunities are never a waste of energy.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
I agree and apologize.
PsyOps
Pixelated
You don't have to apologize. I was just giving you my opinion. Actually it would have been a lot more fun if you would've disagreed
Zguy28
New Member
There is only one way to interpret a passage.
The only way is by interpreting what the author meant. Not what the reader wants it to mean, and not any other meanings. If you went back and could speak to Isaiah and asked him if the staff was a reference to the Messiah's mother and does it have anything to do with the beliefs currently associated with The RCC Marion doctrines, you honestly believe he would say YES?
Did the apostles teach that Mary was the staff either in the NT or through oral tradition (I throw that in for your sake)?