Did Mary & Joseph have children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornAgainRN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JustaServant said:
Young man.
I spent twenty years in fundamentalism. At one point I stood in a pulpit and preached the same kind of drival that you are preaching here. Like you, I was young, full of zeal and had a lot of growing up to do. Right now you believe you have found “the truth”. Your world is divided between the “saved” and the “unsaved”. Your preacher is “opening your eyes” to the Bible and it feeds your ego. The music in your church is uplifting and your emotions are high. The other “born agains” tell you to beware of anything that contridicts what they tell you.
The last point alone should raise a red flag.
Right now you are captivated by the smoke and mirrors. You don’t see the underbelly of it, which would make you scream into the night.
Let me clue you in on a few facts:
  1. You are using the Bible as it was never intended to be used.
  2. You are declaring who is and who is not a “chrisitan”, the realm of which belongs to God alone.
  3. You are declaring false, teachings which have been in the Church for 2000 years. At 33, you are simply not qualified to state holy men who lived long before you to be wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox churches have been around a long time. What qualifies you to judge anybody or anything they taught? Wisdom listens and learns first. It never comes out of the gate before hearing a matter and considering every view. Before you are a teacher, you have to be a student. You have to have a teachable spirit.
Click to expand...
Great post!!
The OP is, sadly, so sure of his own opinions, that he refuses to listen.

For the record: I was raised in a Holiness (Free Methodist) church, & I never heard anyone try to claim that Mary & Joseph had other children than Jesus until a woman (I think Anglican) wrote a novel that claimed that they did, as a plot device. My mother–the church librarian–refused to have it in the library for folks to read because “It is places a higher value on the author’s imagination than on the plain teaching of Scripture, which proves that Jesus was the ONLY child of the Virgin Mary”.
In other words, BARN, you are:crying: rejecting the unanimous testimony of orthodox Christian teaching for the past two millenia, in order to pick a :slapfight:with Catholic Christians.
That’s not smart, it’s not polite, & it’s most definitely not Christian.

[SIGN1]
By the bye, this is Catholic Answers Forums. It is not the Neopagan Nudist Cannibal Forums of Upstate New York, where you can pretty much say anything you want, no matter how rudely you say it.
You may want to :hmmm::hmmm:think about that for a wee bit before you continue on.

[/SIGN1]

[SIGN1]

**Why yes, I *am ***a :)United Methodist.:coffeeread:
[/SIGN1]
 
Zooey said:
Great post!!
The OP is, sadly, so sure of his own opinions, that he refuses to listen.

For the record: I was raised in a Holiness (Free Methodist) church, & I never heard anyone try to claim that Mary & Joseph had other children than Jesus until a woman (I think Anglican) wrote a novel that claimed that they did, as a plot device. My mother–the church librarian–refused to have it in the library for folks to read because “It is places a higher value on the author’s imagination than on the plain teaching of Scripture, which proves that Jesus was the ONLY child of the Virgin Mary”.
In other words, BARN, you are:crying: rejecting the unanimous testimony of orthodox Christian teaching for the past two millenia, in order to pick a :slapfight:with Catholic Christians.
That’s not smart, it’s not polite, & it’s most definitely not Christian.

[SIGN1]
By the bye, this is Catholic Answers Forums. It is not the Neopagan Nudist Cannibal Forums of Upstate New York, where you can pretty much say anything you want, no matter how rudely you say it.
You may want to :hmmm::hmmm:think about that for a wee bit before you continue on.

[/SIGN1]

[SIGN1]

**Why yes, I *am ***a :)United Methodist.:coffeeread:
[/SIGN1]
Click to expand...
Thanks, Zooey. It’s great to have a non-Catholic defender on this subject.
 
Patavium said:
I also love how Protestants tell us we hold too literally the word Full of Grace for Mary, but they hold literal Until in a verse…
Click to expand...
… or that we hold John 6 too literally, or Acts 2:38 (“Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”), or 1 Peter 3:21 ("…baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.")
 
:rotfl::stretcher::bowdown::whacky: I wouldn’t having that link to that set of forums eigther!
 
BornAgainRN said:
I want to know what YOU think, & when you respond, please base your conclusion using Holy Scripture, NOT the beliefs of church leaders or the early church fathers.
Click to expand...
No, Mary did not have any other children.

I come to that conclusion because it is written, 1Tim3:15 " …the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe" This is the truth that has been handed down through the centuries.

2Thes2:15 “Stand firm, then brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Here again the Church teaches Mary only gave birth to Jesus and always has taught this.

John 16:13 “…When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth…” Since the Church was guided by the Spirit to put the Bible together as we know it, then the Spirit must be with the Church.
 
kaneata said:
No, Mary did not have any other children.

I come to that conclusion because it is written, 1Tim3:15 " …the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe" This is the truth that has been handed down through the centuries.

2Thes2:15 “Stand firm, then brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Here again the Church teaches Mary only gave birth to Jesus and always has taught this.

John 16:13 “…When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth…” Since the Church was guided by the Spirit to put the Bible together as we know it, then the Spirit must be with the Church.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
snarflemike said:
Regarding Jesus staying behind in the temple, my wife has commented that siblings being the way they are, 5 minutes after they left on their return journey the “brothers and sisters” would have been tugging at Joseph and Mary’s robes “telling on” Jesus. “Mommy, Daddy, Jesus is HIDING!”
Click to expand...
http://foolstown.com/sm/yaya.gifhttp://foolstown.com/sm/ura1.gifhttp://foolstown.com/sm/hb.gif

http://foolstown.com/sm/shy.gif http://foolstown.com/sm/frfr.gif
 
Zooey said:
Great post!!
The OP is, sadly, so sure of his own opinions, that he refuses to listen.
Click to expand...
Thanks Zooey.
He’s still lurking as he was on last night.

Steve, I read some of your stuff on CARM. My heavens dude, the hate in those posts makes me fear for your soul. CARM is a cesspool of people who claim to be christian, but seem only to be able to post vile lies and distortions. I would mistake it for a parody site if I didn’t know better. For your own mental and spiritual health, run from that place.
I say to you again Steve, wisdom listens and learns first.
Wisdom never comes out of the gate before hearing a matter and considering every view.
Before you are a teacher, you have to be a student.
You have to have a teachable spirit.
 
JustaServant said:
Steve, I read some of your stuff on CARM. My heavens dude, the hate in those posts makes me fear for your soul. CARM is a cesspool of people who claim to be christian, but seem only to be able to post vile lies and distortions. I would mistake it for a parody site if I didn’t know better. For your own mental and spiritual health, run from that place.
Click to expand...
They threw me off long ago, but I would have run away of my own accord if they hadn’t. I found it so singularly venomous that it turned my stomach.
Not a place to spend any time. Its :(sad to think of all the good that could have been done if they would have used their site to spread the love of God, instead of poison.
 
I used to post there but decided it was a waste of time. The moderation there is some of the worst I’ve ever seen, allowing incredible lack of charity. I now maintain a permanent boycott of it. No point in doing anything at all that might in any way support 'em.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/3.gifI can only imagine what some of those people’s efforts at evangelism must be like. If you’re that nasty, how in the name of God do you expect to win souls?

None of it looks like what St. Peter describes in 1st Peter.

8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
10] For “He that would love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking guile;
11] let him turn away from evil and do right;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.”
13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.
 
Church_Militant said:
I used to post there but decided it was a waste of time. The moderation there is some of the worst I’ve ever seen, allowing incredible lack of charity. I now maintain a permanent boycott of it. No point in doing anything at all that might in any way support 'em.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/3.gifI can only imagine what some of those people’s efforts at evangelism must be like. If you’re that nasty, how in the name of God do you expect to win souls?

None of it looks like what St. Peter describes in 1st Peter.

8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
10] For “He that would love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking guile;
11] let him turn away from evil and do right;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.”
13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.
Click to expand...
Amen!!
 
Oh, I didn’t realize BornAgain had been suspended. Disregard comment.
 
I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If “I” is Christ, and we take the rest literally, “my brothers” could merely be “my relatives”, but “my mother’s sons” would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as “mother”?

Any other thoughts?
 
TomFromMD said:
I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If “I” is Christ, and we take the rest literally, “my brothers” could merely be “my relatives”, but “my mother’s sons” would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as “mother”?

Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...
Remember the Psalm is primarily a Psalm of David, that is it deals with the life of David and his emotions. God then uses this to show us his Son. Literally this Psalm says that David’s brothers rejected him and were estranged from him.

The betrayals on a superficial level have to do with betraying King David, but on a deeper level have to do with betraying the real King par excellence, King Jesus.
 
TomFromMD said:
I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If “I” is Christ, and we take the rest literally, “my brothers” could merely be “my relatives”, but “my mother’s sons” would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as “mother”?

Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...
I had something in one of the posts. You’ll find it if you search each page of the thread for my username.

Essentially, every prophesy has 2 meanings: one meaning is a current one to the time in which it was written. The other is a spiritual (not literal in most cases), future meaning.

David wrote the psalm about a time when he was on the lam. It was either early in his life during one of the times when Saul was trying to kill him or it was later when war forced him out of Jerusalem (e.g. when Absalom attempted his coup).

It may have been that David’s actual relatives would have nothing to do with him at the time because they feared for their lives or wanted greater position in his absence.

The future, spiritual meaning, however, does not require blood relatives. The Apostles (who were as close as brothers for years) fulfilled it adequately when they abandoned Jesus in the garden. Alternately, the Jews fulfilled it adequately when they demanded His crucifixion.
 
TomFromMD said:
I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If “I” is Christ, and we take the rest literally, “my brothers” could merely be “my relatives”, but “my mother’s sons” would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as “mother”?

Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...
I gave it a try in post #244
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9394871&postcount=244
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top