How many other children did Mary have?

[razeontherock]

But to many Protestant she must be cheapen and the new Ark must be cheapen because it only matters what they think not what is thought through Christian history and the historic Churches.

You have two disjointed ideas here, with no logical connection between them.
Right now I'm not even debating the veracity of either, just that the one doesn't follow from the other.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Let me know if it's a position you want to argue against, or not.

No I am not interested in chasing your tail with you with your own words, I would rather with someone out of the scriptures.

And that is not you.

 

[Whisper of Hope]

After all the smoke clears from all the "smoke" that was blown in the thread it is pretty clear.. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but got married. according to God's Word, a husband and wife have an OBLIGATION to have sex with one another. Additionally, the Bible bares record that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Laying aside all Mary worship, and laying aside all justification for the over-exaltation of Mary as a "virginity goddess", one must conclude the obvious - Mary was a wonderful woman chosen by God to carry Jesus. Afterwards, she, as the wife of Joseph bore more children. Bareness in marriage was considered to be a curse in the Bible. Mary bore more children. How many more? No one knows. Why? Because it really doesn't matter. All we know is that Jesus is the son of God through Mary, and he has step-siblings. Mary is not to be over-exalted as some kind of eternal virgin.

Good post. Well said.

I agree

Me too.

 

[Whisper of Hope]

No I am not interested in chasing your tail with you with your own words, I would rather with someone out of the scriptures.

And that is not you.

 

[Montalban]

No I am not interested in chasing your tail with you with your own words, I would rather with someone out of the scriptures.

And that is not you.

If you can make up your mind if this is an important issue, that you need to argue against, or not, let me know.

You're not alone here. Several Protestants claiming to support sola scriptura offer equally confused posts - not sure whether they want to argue against RC/EO here on this issue or not.

 

[Montalban]

I extend the same invitation to you, too.

Protestants say they're not against traditions that aren't anti-Bible. But they argue here against this tradition.

They also claim it doesn't matter, as it's an issue that has no bearing on salvation. But they still argue here against it.

 

[Fireinfolding]

If you can make up your mind if this is an important issue, that you need to argue against, or not, let me know.

You're not alone here. Several Protestants claiming to support sola scriptura offer equally confused posts - not sure whether they want to argue against RC/EO here on this issue or not.

You leeched onto my post in agreement with another, but I'll let you know by leeching onto one of your posts if I care (at all) to chase your tail with you again.

 

[Montalban]

You leeched onto my post in agreement with another, but I'll let you know by leeching onto one of your posts if I care (at all) to chase your tail with you again.

I'm just reminding you that it would help if you take a position!

 

[razeontherock]

I'm just reminding you that it would help if you take a position!

Well since this is the Mary sub-forum, and this is a Mary thread, I think it's about time somebody asked the obvious question: in what way(s) does it help to take a position on Mary's perpetual virginity?

Serious question. For all the different ideas on the subject, this part has never made any sense to me, and most discussion just distracts from this point, which seems like it should be central. Thank you for bringing it back into focus ...

 

[Montalban]

Well since this is the Mary sub-forum, and this is a Mary thread, I think it's about time somebody asked the obvious question: in what way(s) does it help to take a position on Mary's perpetual virginity?

For a start, it's 'the truth'.

Serious question. For all the different ideas on the subject, this part has never made any sense to me, and most discussion just distracts from this point, which seems like it should be central. Thank you for bringing it back into focus ...

It is also suggested that by not having any other kids it is a step in proving the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Kristos]

After all the smoke clears from all the "smoke" that was blown in the thread it is pretty clear.. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but got married. according to God's Word, a husband and wife have an OBLIGATION to have sex with one another. Additionally, the Bible bares record that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Laying aside all Mary worship, and laying aside all justification for the over-exaltation of Mary as a "virginity goddess", one must conclude the obvious - Mary was a wonderful woman chosen by God to carry Jesus. Afterwards, she, as the wife of Joseph bore more children. Bareness in marriage was considered to be a curse in the Bible. Mary bore more children. How many more? No one knows. Why? Because it really doesn't matter. All we know is that Jesus is the son of God through Mary, and he has step-siblings. Mary is not to be over-exalted as some kind of eternal virgin.

I'm sorry but your conclusions are unsubstantiated and are ironically, based on a tradition that bear little resemblance to that of the apostles.

Drop the strawman of "virginity goddess" and the hyperbole of "over-exalation" and you are basically left with a poor interpretation of scripture that is out of context. You misunderstand the scriptures, you misunderstand marriage, you misunderstand who we are as human beings and our vocation in life. Should I be surprised that all this misunderstanding leads to twisted conclusions? I suppose not.

If you want to say "it's unclear" or "silent" on the matter, I'm fine with that, but don't try to assert your erroneous conclusions as fact.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Well since this is the Mary sub-forum, and this is a Mary thread, I think it's about time somebody asked the obvious question: in what way(s) does it help to take a position on Mary's perpetual virginity?

Serious question. For all the different ideas on the subject, this part has never made any sense to me, and most discussion just distracts from this point, which seems like it should be central. Thank you for bringing it back into focus ...

Raze,
For me, part of Mary's virginity is related to how we, as Christians, handle human passions. As Paul writes to the Corinthians, "All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify."

If you've ever read the Screwtape Letters, Screwtape writes, "There are things for humans to do all day long without His minding in the least -- sleeping, washing, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working. Everything has to be twisted before it's any use to us. We fight under cruel disadvantages. Nothing is naturally on our side..."

I'm married with three kids, so yes, sex with my wife is lawful per Paul. However, I constantly struggle with my unlawful passions of the flesh (and not just sex, but gluttony, sloth and the other "deadly sins". I'd love to lay around in bed when we have to get the kids up for school. I'd definitely prefer taking my paycheck to get myself a new BMW rather than driving my 7 yr old Focus or the 13 yr old minivan. But this is part of my asceticism, sacrificing my selfishness to my wifes and kids needs.

So Mary's denial of one of God's greatest gifts to humanity is important as it gives me an example to follow in my own life, even though my life isn't as restrictive.

I hope that gives some perspective on it.

Brian

 

[Erose]

Well since this is the Mary sub-forum, and this is a Mary thread, I think it's about time somebody asked the obvious question: in what way(s) does it help to take a position on Mary's perpetual virginity?

Serious question. For all the different ideas on the subject, this part has never made any sense to me, and most discussion just distracts from this point, which seems like it should be central. Thank you for bringing it back into focus ...

Raze,

I would say that Mary's perpetual virginity is tied into two doctrines of faith.

1) Jesus' Incarnation: Mary's perpetual virginity is a witness to Jesus' miraculous birth and His divinity. If let us say that I tell you that my wife conceived and gave birth to our first child while a virgin, and after this she had 4 or 5 other children, then that position would be impossible to prove one way or another. What evidence do you have. Quite honestly the only people that knew of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth are Mary and Joseph. There was no other witness at all to this miracle. So the only sign of this miracle is Mary's perpetual virginity.

Think about it just for a second. If Mary is the only true sign of this miracle to the early Church, then there was something about Mary that influenced people to believe her statement.

2) If Jesus' is the new Adam, who is the new Eve? Remember it required by Adam and Eve to transgress for mankind to fall into the influence of sin right? From Adam came Eve came sin. From Mary (new Eve) came Jesus (new Adam) came righteousness. Early on Mary was equated to Eve and was referred to as the true Eve. Hebrews says that through one man's disobedience sin entered the World and through one man's obedience righteousness. Can this also be true of Mary and Eve? It was through Eve's disobedience that Adam was disobedient, but it is through Mary's obedience (Let it be done according to God's will) that Jesus was able become man and was able to be obedient so that we can be saved. Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the mother of the Church and all those who are saved through her Son. As we can call the Father in heaven, "Daddy" through our relationship with Christ, we can also call Mary, "Momma" through that same relationship.

So to answer your question. Yes Mary has other children and they are you, me and all Christians baptized into the Body of Christ.

Another point to be made is put yourself into Joseph's shoes for just one second. Joseph as just been told by Gabriel that his wife was giving birth to the Son of God. In his eyes Mary just became holy ground. In Mary was growing God the Son. In Mary was growing the most holy of holies and Mary was the holy ground chosen. Would you in Joseph's shoes look upon Mary in a way that a husband and a wife normally look at each other sexually? Could you possibly have a normal marital relationship with the only person in salvation history hailed by an Archangel with the title of "Full of Grace" or "Highest Favored One"?

I believe that Joseph knew who Mary's true spouse is and he wasn't going to violate that relationship. He was just too righteous and God-fearing for that.

 

[Standing Up]

Raze,

I would say that Mary's perpetual virginity is tied into two doctrines of faith.

1) Jesus' Incarnation: Mary's perpetual virginity is a witness to Jesus' miraculous birth and His divinity. If let us say that I tell you that my wife conceived and gave birth to our first child while a virgin, and after this she had 4 or 5 other children, then that position would be impossible to prove one way or another. What evidence do you have. Quite honestly the only people that knew of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth are Mary and Joseph. There was no other witness at all to this miracle. So the only sign of this miracle is Mary's perpetual virginity.

Think about it just for a second. If Mary is the only true sign of this miracle to the early Church, then there was something about Mary that influenced people to believe her statement.

It was prophesied in Isaiah. Not everyone believes what God says.

2) If Jesus' is the new Adam, who is the new Eve? Remember it required by Adam and Eve to transgress for mankind to fall into the influence of sin right? From Adam came Eve came sin. From Mary (new Eve) came Jesus (new Adam) came righteousness. Early on Mary was equated to Eve and was referred to as the true Eve. Hebrews says that through one man's disobedience sin entered the World and through one man's obedience righteousness. Can this also be true of Mary and Eve? It was through Eve's disobedience that Adam was disobedient, but it is through Mary's obedience (Let it be done according to God's will) that Jesus was able become man and was able to be obedient so that we can be saved. Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the mother of the Church and all those who are saved through her Son. As we can call the Father in heaven, "Daddy" through our relationship with Christ, we can also call Mary, "Momma" through that same relationship.

So to answer your question. Yes Mary has other children and they are you, me and all Christians baptized into the Body of Christ.

Another point to be made is put yourself into Joseph's shoes for just one second. Joseph as just been told by Gabriel that his wife was giving birth to the Son of God. In his eyes Mary just became holy ground. In Mary was growing God the Son. In Mary was growing the most holy of holies and Mary was the holy ground chosen. Would you in Joseph's shoes look upon Mary in a way that a husband and a wife normally look at each other sexually? Could you possibly have a normal marital relationship with the only person in salvation history hailed by an Archangel with the title of "Full of Grace" or "Highest Favored One"?

I believe that Joseph knew who Mary's true spouse is and he wasn't going to violate that relationship. He was just too righteous and God-fearing for that.

In his eyes, he was fixin' to "put her away". Again, not everyone believes what God says.

 

[Erose]

It was prophesied in Isaiah. Not everyone believes what God says.

It falls in that category "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?" A sign is meant to be seen, experienced and/or witness to. What benefit is a sign that well is not seen or have evidence there of?

In his eyes, he was fixin' to "put her away". Again, not everyone believes what God says.

Yeah, until the Angel Gabriel made a visit to put him in the loop. Evidently he didn't believe the sign either and needed someone to provide a witness.

 

[Standing Up]

It falls in that category "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?" A sign is meant to be seen, experienced and/or witness to. What benefit is a sign that well is not seen or have evidence there of?

Well, we know Matthew used Isaiah's prophecy to prove the virgin birth. He didn't use Mary's life thereafter.

Yeah, until the Angel Gabriel made a visit to put him in the loop. Evidently he didn't believe the sign either and needed someone to provide a witness.

It is an interesting sequence. The whole life of Christ Jesus was not believed. His brothers didn't believe Him. The disciples were scattered. But that too was prophesied. It's not until after the resurrection many believed.

For us, we can believe too because it is written.

 

[Montalban]

StandingUp's rebuttal (#334) is illogical.

Whilst it might be said in Isaiah that Jesus was born of a virgin it then actually had to happen.

Theres prophecies about Jesus coming to save us - but that doesn't mean that we leave it at that. Jesus had to appear before us to be here to save us.

The actual event had to be proof; the prophecy just pointed ahead to that happening

 

[razeontherock]

For a start, it's 'the truth'.

I fail to see how taking a position on this matter benefits.

It is also suggested that by not having any other kids it is a step in proving the divinity of Jesus.

I accept the Divinity of Jesus anyway.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm sorry but your conclusions are unsubstantiated and are ironically, based on a tradition that bear little resemblance to that of the apostles.

How can we tie tradition of EV to the Apostles?

Drop the strawman of "virginity goddess" and the hyperbole of "over-exaltation"

Why? In what way does it not fit? How do we know the whole idea isn't just a carry-over from other religious ideas?

I think these are the things people would like to see.

 

[Montalban]

I fail to see how taking a position on this matter benefits.

I believe my church. What it teaches me. It's logical for me to believe it because they gave me the bible.

They are witness to the truth of the bible.

They also teach that Mary was Ever-Virgin.

If I started to doubt one of their teachings then I could equally doubt all or any of their teachings.

Including that the Bible is true.

I accept the Divinity of Jesus anyway.

Kids believe in God too, without knowing all that God is. One can get a fuller understanding.