Mary's other Children !?

[twinc]

Of course it has to do with caring for Mary, and that is precisely why the writer says that from that time the disciple took her as his own. But the fact of the commandment still stands for her “other children” if they existed, and it would have been their filial obligation to be her caretakers, not the disciple’s.
Just as a bit of an aside, in the sequence of words, why would Mary have been addressed first? Becaust in the view of the dying Jesus, gasping for one more breath, the degree of urgency for her to nurture the disciple was greater than the urgency for him to care for her!

even more than nurture but understand that now He had redeemed His and Her son,for the beloved disciple was beloved only because he was beloved son imho - btw Lazarus was the other beloved son imho - btw the writer does not say took her as his own but to his own for in strict Jewish circles unless they understood and accepted this mother son relationship it would be an unacceptable scandal imho - twinc

 

[twinc]

Julian0404:
ever tried when young to restrain your bigger older brother - come now be reasonable as regards some read most other Christians and as regards insane and restrain see Mk.3:21 - twinc

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

NASB Matt 1:25 “.but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.”

Jesus was the firstborn (thus the first child of Mary ).

Douay Rheims Bible Gen 9:7 “But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it.” And observant Jews like Joseph and Mary would be expected to do just that.

1. Firstborn is a biblical title of signifigance and is not in the bible to illustrate a 2nd/3rd baby … the word firstborn has to be taken in context with what it meant in the OT
   an only son can still have title of ‘firstborn’.
   Num 8:17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine
   Exodus13:2 “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn male for me. Every firstborn male offspring among the Israelites is mine…”KJV
   Num 3:12 God says “… And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine…KJV)
   Exodus 34:20: “…All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.”(KJV)

im sorry but I do not see how anyone could still argue the ‘firstborn’ angle knowing the above words are in the bible. it is so clear that the intent of author is not to convey that there was a 2nd, 3rd etc… it is to confirm that Jesus is a First born and as Num 8:17 he is of God Num 8:17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine
Jews at the time understood the signifigance of the title firstborn.

1. Matt 1:25 -** ‘till’ **is in the verse on purpose but not for the reason you say.
   the whole context of the verse is to illustrate the fullfillment of the prohecy that a virgin will bring forth a son.
   it is meant to bring home the point that joseph played no part in the conception of Jesus.

have you considered the implications of your interpretation to the context of the verse.
do you realise that it changes the point of the verse compoletely and essentially means the the whole aim of the author is to tell us that - hey they got to have sex after the birth.

1. in response to your quote of Gen 9:7 “But increase you and multiply… I direct you to what I said in my previous post,

…my opinion is that perpetual virginity has nothing to do with "EVIL sex’ but a parrallel with the holy of holies of the OT and only high priest/god allowed within.<<

once I learnt about this and learned that Joseph knew about the pregancy being of god, i thought it completely reasonable that there is no way a humble jewish man would contemplate the thought of going anyware near the womb.

and then theres the whole idea of a humble jewish man sleeping with a woman that was made pregnant by God… to me… i dont see it happening… particularly when you consider how devout these particular two people were.
nothing to do with evil sex - but all to do with divinity of god & the implications of this on the relationship of joseph & mary<<

their relationship is completely unique.

 

[twinc]

Actually, no. All this has been refuted. Since some appear not to have noticed the link to Randy Carson’s post which I provided, I will paste the content here:

QUOTE:

Let’s examine who James, Joses, Jude and Simon were, okay?

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
2. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

1. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

END QUOTE

Credit and gratitude to Randy Carson of course.

following on from another thread it should be noted here at 7 quoting Matthew at 27:55 that there were many women and he names just three but John names four at Jn.19:25 and one of them was clearly Mary’s sister - twinc

 

[twinc]

As was stated by the other poster, Mary, Our Blessed Mother did not have any other children except for Jesus. As to Mary’s sister (or sister-in-law?) - Mary wife of Clopas she was the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Joses). Mark 15:40;

 

[JP_Marat]

1. Firstborn is a biblical title of signifigance and is not in the bible to illustrate a 2nd/3rd baby … the word firstborn has to be taken in context with what it meant in the OT
   an only son can still have title of ‘firstborn’.
   Num 8:17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine
   Exodus13:2 “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn male for me. Every firstborn male offspring among the Israelites is mine…”KJV
   Num 3:12 God says “… And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine…KJV)
   Exodus 34:20: “…All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.”(KJV)

im sorry but I do not see how anyone could still argue the ‘firstborn’ angle knowing the above words are in the bible. it is so clear that the intent of author is not to convey that there was a 2nd, 3rd etc… it is to confirm that Jesus is a First born and as Num 8:17 he is of God Num 8:17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine
Jews at the time understood the signifigance of the title firstborn.

1. Matt 1:25 -** ‘till’ **is in the verse on purpose but not for the reason you say.
   the whole context of the verse is to illustrate the fullfillment of the prohecy that a virgin will bring forth a son.
   it is meant to bring home the point that joseph played no part in the conception of Jesus.

have you considered the implications of your interpretation to the context of the verse.
do you realise that it changes the point of the verse compoletely and essentially means the the whole aim of the author is to tell us that - hey they got to have sex after the birth.

1. in response to your quote of Gen 9:7 “But increase you and multiply… I direct you to what I said in my previous post,

their relationship is completely unique.

RESPONSE:

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.
2. Yes. Now you understand.
3. Hardly.

 

[TEPO]

RESPONSE:

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.
2. Yes. Now you understand.
3. Hardly.

WOW.

That is a bold statement coming from a lay member of the Catholic Church… Catholic teaching has always made it clear that Jesus was an only child.

Also, what then are we to think of the Assumption of Mary into heaven… And the Coronation of Mary “VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD” who reigns as Queen of Heaven?

Wouldn’t her alleged sons and daughters then have been considered Holy Princes and Princesses among us here on earth? Where are these Holy descendants of Mary? Were they also Assumed into heaven both body and soul since they are of Mary?

 

[TEPO]

Can you see how absurd this conversation has become. After all, if this subject were meant for discussion, then God would have inspired more about it into the Bible.

This conversation only continues to take away from the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and disgraces the concept of the Holy family, which only includes Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.

what’s ur point
from reading those verses do u accept that a firstborn is significant
or r u saying that an only child can’t be considered a firstborn.

1. Yes. Now you understand.

seriously?
R u saying that yes the goal of author is to say they got to have sex?
R u saying author is NOT trying to illustrate fullfillment of prophecy of virgin birth?

1. Hardly.

name another woman that gave birth to god made flesh.
Did u read the section about the tabernacle inthe OT and who was allowed in
ie Aaron and god only
do u realize Aaron was high priest
do u realize Jesus is high preist/god

how canu roll eyes at suggestion that Mary and jospeph had a some kind of unique role of any couple on earth

 

[JP_Marat]

panevino posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.

what’s ur point
from reading those verses do u accept that a firstborn is significant
or r u saying that an only child can’t be considered a firstborn.<<

RESPONSE:

I’m saying that a first born is the first born. There is no way to tell if there are more then that for certain, but the implication is strongly that there are more if that’s how the first is referred to. Simple.

Quote:
2. Yes. Now you understand.

seriously?
R u saying that yes the goal of author is to say they got to have sex?
R u saying author is NOT trying to illustrate fullfillment of prophecy of virgin birth? <<

RESPONSE:

If Jesus was the first born and he had brothers and sisters, the prosumption is that Mary and Joseph had sex. That’s the way it usually works.

There is no legitimate prophecy of a virgin birth (actually conception). Matthew was reading a translation (Septuagint) that had translated the Hebrew “almah”( young woman) as the Greek “parthanos” (virgin) Actually, "betulah’ is the Hebrew word for a strict virgin used 50 time in the OT meaning that. Whatever the case, “almah” was used, and virgin or not, she became pregnant in the usual manner. There is no claim that Immanuel was anything other than human. Moreover, this dealt with an 8th century BC event, not Jesus.

Quote:
3. Hardly.

name another woman that gave birth to god made flesh.<<

RESPONSE:

“another woman”? There hasn’t even been one.

Did u read the section about the tabernacle inthe OT and who was allowed in
ie Aaron and god only
do u realize Aaron was high priest
do u realize Jesus is high preist/god<<

RESPONSE:

That would be impossible. Priests had to be of Aaronic descent. It is claimed that Jesus was of Davidic descent. Of coure, if Joesph wasn’t his biological father, he wasn’t of the seed or the loins of David. Genealogy was always from the male parent, not the female parent.

"how can u roll eyes at suggestion that Mary and jospeph had a some kind of unique role of any couple on earth "

RESPONSE:

Perhaps because they didn’t.

 

[MariaG]

Randy Carson has posted a succinct yet ironclad analysis of the relevant Scripture passages proving that these brothers were not Blessed Mary’s biological children. It can be found here.

Never ceases to amaze me. Whether a link is provided or the actual text to Randy’s well done scriptural analysis, people just ignore it and continue to believe what they wish contrary to scripture. Or say it is not necessary for their salvation, so not important and then in other threads bring out the same arguments about Mary’s “other children” that were already shown to be children of a Mary, but not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Stopped reading after 2nd page though, when almost every poster just ignored your post and/or did not read the link

 

[Danno2281]

panevino posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.

what’s ur point
from reading those verses do u accept that a firstborn is significant
or r u saying that an only child can’t be considered a firstborn.<<

The Hebrews who translated the Septuagint understood the prophecy as being, as it says, of great magnitude, “as deep as the abyss or as high as the heavens.” Since a young woman getting pregnant hardly fills the bill, they understood the young woman to be a virgin, else the prophecy is about a normal child being named “God with us,” not at all remarkable, hardly worthy even of mention, and certainly not the specific indication that God said He would give. Unless the young woman in question be a virgin, the text makes no sense at all.

 

[JP_Marat]

WOW.

That is a bold statement coming from a lay member of the Catholic Church… Catholic teaching has always made it clear that Jesus was an only child.

Also, what then are we to think of the Assumption of Mary into heaven… And the Coronation of Mary “VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD” who reigns as Queen of Heaven?

Wouldn’t her alleged sons and daughters then have been considered Holy Princes and Princesses among us here on earth? Where are these Holy descendants of Mary? Were they also Assumed into heaven both body and soul since they are of Mary?

RESPONSE:

(1) But the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, and “Antiquities” by the Jewish historian, Josephus make it clear that Jesus was not an only child.

(2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven first appeared as 4th and 5th century spurious writing. It later became a pious legend, and only recently an 'infallible " truth, all completely without evidence.

(3) One of her children became the first bishop of the Catholic Church, a second might have succeeded him. Why would they be treated like royalty?

“After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.” Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 11

 

[Danno2281]

RESPONSE:

(1) But the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, and “Antiquities” by the Jewish historian, Josephus make it clear that Jesus was not an only child.

(2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven first appeared as 4th and 5th century spurious writing. It later became a pious legend, and only recently an 'infallible " truth, all completely without evidence.

(3) One of her children became the first bishop of the Catholic Church, a second might have succeeded him. Why would they be treated like royalty?

“After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.” Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 11

Hogwash. Obviously the NT makes it clear that Mary gave birth to none other than Jesus, or have you not read anything other than your own posts? Josephus, is, at best, a poor witnwess, possibly hostile to Christian beliefs.
James, one of His kinsmen, became Bishop of Jerusalem, not the first bishop. There were 11 “first bishops”, priests made such by the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
“You will not permit Your holy one to undergo corruption.” The uncorrupted bodies of ovder 200 Catholic saints exist today, probably most notably that of St Bernadette. Why would you think that she, whom all nations would call blessed, the new Ark lof the Covenant,would have been subject to corruption?"
Just a gentle caution - one does not endear oneself to the Son by denigrating His mother.

 

[TEPO]

(3) One of her children became the first bishop of the Catholic Church, a second might have succeeded him. Why would they be treated like royalty?

James the Less (Bishop of Jerusalem) was son of St. Alphaeus, and Mary. The other Mary…

 

[TEPO]

(1) But the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, and “Antiquities” by the Jewish historian, Josephus make it clear that Jesus was not an only child.

You havent convinced me, and you never will…

(2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven first appeared as 4th and 5th century spurious writing. It later became a pious legend, and only recently an 'infallible " truth, all completely without evidence.

I’m sorry, but I cannot continue any rational conversation with you as you are plainly not in line with the Catholic Body. You are openly protesting an infallible Truth. I will pray for you, in hopes that you drift back to the Church that you came from.

(3) One of her children became the first bishop of the Catholic Church, a second might have succeeded him. Why would they be treated like royalty?

St. James the Less (Bishop of Jerusalem) was the son of St. Alphaeus and Mary… The -other- mary.

 

[panevino]

panevino posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat

1. However used, “first born” means first born. It looks like all your examples are the first sons born.

what’s ur point
from reading those verses do u accept that a firstborn is significant
or r u saying that an only child can’t be considered a firstborn.<<

but it is not that simple. Agreed in modern contxt 1stborn implies that there is certainly more. But u can’t ignore the significance of the title firstborn had in the OT, particularly when there is the following verses.

col1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
heb12: 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
ex12: 2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, [both] of man and of beast:** it [is] mine**.

It’s clearly a significant title applicable to an only son, that needed to be applied to Jesus to clarify his significance. This is the impulse for the author to apply the title to Jesus.

1. Yes. Now you understand.

seriously?
R u saying that yes the goal of author is to say they got to have sex?
R u saying author is NOT trying to illustrate fullfillment of prophecy of virgin birth? <<

RESPONSE:

If Jesus was the first born and he had brothers and sisters, the prosumption is that Mary and Joseph had sex. That’s the way it usually works.

There is no legitimate prophecy of a virgin birth (actually conception). Matthew was reading a translation (Septuagint) that had translated the Hebrew “almah”( young woman) as the Greek “parthanos” (virgin) Actually, "betulah’ is the Hebrew word for a strict virgin used 50 time in the OT meaning that. Whatever the case, “almah” was used, and virgin or not, she became pregnant in the usual manner. There is no claim that Immanuel was anything other than human. Moreover, this dealt with an 8th century BC event, not Jesus.

I assume from above u accept the deutrocanon given u accept matthews reference to the Septuagint?

In response to above-- okay? Ignoring the OT prophecy and fact that “young woman/maiden” in a religious context suggest a virgin even by today’s standards … U deny the author in mat 1:25 is trying to highlight the fullfillment of the prophecy
u say that the author is actually trying to highlight that they got to have sex after the birth. My question to u is …why? What is the relevance of trying to get this message across at this point in the book of Matthew or the bible. And don’t refer me to be fruitfully and multiply… Give me something more … I’m not being sarcastic I’m interested in ur interpretation of what author is saying and why.
mat1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Quote:
3. Hardly.

name another woman that gave birth to god made flesh.<<

RESPONSE:

“another woman”? There hasn’t even been one.

Did u read the section about the tabernacle inthe OT and who was allowed in
ie Aaron and god only
do u realize Aaron was high priest
do u realize Jesus is high preist/god<<

RESPONSE:

That would be impossible. Priests had to be of Aaronic descent. It is claimed that Jesus was of Davidic descent. Of coure, if Joesph wasn’t his biological father, he wasn’t of the seed or the loins of David. Genealogy was always from the male parent, not the female parent.

"how can u roll eyes at suggestion that Mary and jospeph had a some kind of unique role of any couple on earth "

RESPONSE:

Perhaps because they didn’t.

Mary is cousin of Elisabeth( Luke 1:36) who was a daughter of Aaron. Luke 1:5

oh yeah there is also
heb3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

 

[ALLGIRLS]

It’s obvious, to me anyway, from reading this thread that JP Marat is a “CINO”-Catholic In Name Only–for that matter, A Christian In Name Only, because not only is he denying Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the actual virgin birth itself-claiming it’s a mistranslation of Isaiah. He’s apparently smarter than not only that big sex hating prude St. Jerome, but all the bible scholars and translators and Church Fathers for the last 2000 years. Must be hard to carry such a heavy intellectual burden Arguing with him is a waste of time.

In Christ

Ellen