Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

"Did the Virgin Mary have children after giving birth to Christ?"

"What does Ever-Virgin mean?"

THE GOOD SHEPHERD AUSTRALIAN ORTHODOX MISSION

http:// What does Ever-Virgin mean? Good Shepherd, Australian Orthodox Mission, Monash University


In another thread, I wrongly said that Lot was Abraham's uncle. Actually, Abraham is Lot's uncle. Lot is Abraham's nephew. I got it backwards! Sorry! My mistake.
Lot is called Abraham's "brother", when actually he is Abraham's "nephew". So brother can mean any close male relative. It doesn't have to mean literally brothers. So the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels can be cousins or other non literal brothers and sisters close relatives.

 

[Grandpa]

The new testament was written in Greek. If the author had meant cousin he would have used a different greek word. But he didn't, ever. Brother is always used and never cousin. Or nephew. Or uncle.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

The new testament was written in Greek. If the author had meant cousin he would have used a different greek word. But he didn't, ever. Brother is always used and never cousin. Or nephew. Or uncle.

Can you read? Brother doesn't always mean brother in the Bible. Don't you UNDERSTAND that FACT?

Lot is called Abraham's brother in the OT, and actually is Abraham's NEPHEW. So BROTHER can mean

NEPHEW.

How do you know if the author had meant cousin he would not have used the word brother? Are you

trying to dictate what acceptable words a NT author can or cannot use? Don't you know that the NT

authors were not literally minded like some people today unfortunately all. That is a FUNDAMENTALIST

FALSE PRESUPPOSITION OF LITERALISM in the BIBLE.

 

[Grandpa]

lol. I know what you are up against. It's a stronghold. Ask Jesus to take it down.

You're kind of trapped, aren't you? Caught in a snare. You can't use your reason to get out of it. You don't allow yourself to see the truth. You just put your hands over your ears and scream from the top of your lungs, this is my tradition and it is true because I have been told it is true.

This isn't the first time that tradition has been used to compel people to believe things that the bible doesn't teach.

 

[dscherck]

No she didn't have other children.

Mary: Ever Virgin | Catholic Answers

Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.

 

[dscherck]

lol. I know what you are up against. It's a stronghold. Ask Jesus to take it down.

You're kind of trapped, aren't you? Caught in a snare. You can't use your reason to get out of it. You don't allow yourself to see the truth. You just put your hands over your ears and scream from the top of your lungs, this is my tradition and it is true because I have been told it is true.

This isn't the first time that tradition has been used to compel people to believe things that the bible doesn't teach.

Actually, it's true because of a variety of reasons, Scripture of course supports the viewpoint, common sense, historical writings, an understanding of Jewish law at the time. Take your pick

 

[Grandpa]

And here come the Catholics, your half brothers. Same plight. Same stronghold. Same house of cards.

Jesus Himself plainly states in His Word that His physical brothers were not more important than His Spiritual brothers. Or do you think He meant Nephews? Or uncles... Cousins??

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Scott, do you ever study anything?

1. The word cousin is used by paul in col 4: 10


ἀνεψιός, -οῦ, ὁ, [for ἁ-νεπτ-ιός con-nepot-ius, cf. Lat. nepos, Germ. nichte, Eng. nephew, niece; Curtius § 342], a cousin: Col. 4:10. (Num. 36:11; Tob. 7:2.) [Cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 306; but esp. Bp. Lghtft. on Col. l. c.; also B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Sister’s Son.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (45). New York: Harper & Brothers.

2. The people were claiming that mary had children by calling them his sisters and brothers. Otherwise they would not have needed to say his brothers and sisters. If he was a lone brother, all they would have said "is not mary his mother etc etc. A cousin would have no bearing on the conversation. why would they even mention them? there would be no need to, It would be insignificant, unless they considered theses "brothers and sisters" children of Mary.

3. It all ignores the fact scripture makes it clear. Joseph did not "know" his wife until after the birth of her firstborn son. which can only mean one thing. He knew her after the birth of his son. why? Unless mary died giving birth, Or joseph died immediately after birth, giving them NO OPPORTUNITY to "KNOW" each other. Joseph knew his wife. So even if you do not believe Mary had other children. You can not say they never had sex, Because if the word of God is inspired By God. then God lied saying Joseph "knew hie wife" if they did not have sex.

The fact Joseph lived some time after the birth of Jesus, and mary lived with him would leave a large period of time which followed ther birth of Christ which is unaccounted 4. The only way in which mary and joseph would not have had sex, is if the scripture said, "And joseph did not know his wife until his death) only then would it fit! Because after Jospeh died, it would be impossible for them to have sexual relations.

Face it Scott. Romanism and the "virgin" aspect of mary is worshiping the pagan queen of heaven, not the mother of Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Actually, it's true because of a variety of reasons, Scripture of course supports the viewpoint, common sense, historical writings, an understanding of Jewish law at the time. Take your pick

take our pick? and do what? worship the queen of heaven? No thanks. Isreal was destroyed because they dabbled in pagan ritual and belief.

Scripture does not support the theory. period!

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

take our pick? and do what? worship the queen of heaven? No thanks. Isreal was destroyed because they dabbled in pagan ritual and belief.

Scripture does not support the theory. period!

Find a true Christian that believes that.
Find one from 100 to 200 AD please. Document their teaching in writing. Show if from the first 300 years of the Church. If it's not there, how can it be true?
Scripture does not support your theory that Mary and Joseph had children together. Which Scripture says "the children and Mary and Joseph". How can you believe there are children of Mary and Joseph when Scripture does not say that? YOU ARE ADDING THINGS TO THE BIBLE THAT ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE. And that's HERESY.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

lol. I know what you are up against. It's a stronghold. Ask Jesus to take it down.

You're kind of trapped, aren't you? Caught in a snare. You can't use your reason to get out of it. You don't allow yourself to see the truth. You just put your hands over your ears and scream from the top of your lungs, this is my tradition and it is true because I have been told it is true.

This isn't the first time that tradition has been used to compel people to believe things that the bible doesn't teach.

Aren't you trying to compel others to believe things that the Bible does not teach? Yes! You are!

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Scott, do you ever study anything?

1. The word cousin is used by paul in col 4: 10


ἀνεψιός, -οῦ, ὁ, [for ἁ-νεπτ-ιός con-nepot-ius, cf. Lat. nepos, Germ. nichte, Eng. nephew, niece; Curtius § 342], a cousin: Col. 4:10. (Num. 36:11; Tob. 7:2.) [Cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 306; but esp. Bp. Lghtft. on Col. l. c.; also B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Sister’s Son.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (45). New York: Harper & Brothers.

2. The people were claiming that mary had children by calling them his sisters and brothers. Otherwise they would not have needed to say his brothers and sisters. If he was a lone brother, all they would have said "is not mary his mother etc etc. A cousin would have no bearing on the conversation. why would they even mention them? there would be no need to, It would be insignificant, unless they considered theses "brothers and sisters" children of Mary.

3. It all ignores the fact scripture makes it clear. Joseph did not "know" his wife until after the birth of her firstborn son. which can only mean one thing. He knew her after the birth of his son. why? Unless mary died giving birth, Or joseph died immediately after birth, giving them NO OPPORTUNITY to "KNOW" each other. Joseph knew his wife. So even if you do not believe Mary had other children. You can not say they never had sex, Because if the word of God is inspired By God. then God lied saying Joseph "knew hie wife" if they did not have sex.

The fact Joseph lived some time after the birth of Jesus, and mary lived with him would leave a large period of time which followed ther birth of Christ which is unaccounted 4. The only way in which mary and joseph would not have had sex, is if the scripture said, "And joseph did not know his wife until his death) only then would it fit! Because after Jospeh died, it would be impossible for them to have sexual relations.

Face it Scott. Romanism and the "virgin" aspect of mary is worshiping the pagan queen of heaven, not the mother of Christ.

It's not Romanism. Romanism is false.
Protestantism is false, too. It's Protestant to believe Mary had children with Joseph, when the words "the children of Mary and Joseph" do not appear in the New Testament. Believing things the Bible DOES NOT SAY is heresy.

 

[dscherck]

And here come the Catholics, your half brothers. Same plight. Same stronghold. Same house of cards.

Jesus Himself plainly states in His Word that His physical brothers were not more important than His Spiritual brothers. Or do you think He meant Nephews? Or uncles... Cousins??

More than likely step-brothers. Joseph was an old widower according to some early histories. It does also explain why he's not heard from following the incident in the temple.

 

[dscherck]

take our pick? and do what? worship the queen of heaven? No thanks. Isreal was destroyed because they dabbled in pagan ritual and belief.

Scripture does not support the theory. period!

Your interpretation of Scripture doesn't support it. That however doesn't mean Scripture itself doesn't support it. I've supplied links supporting our point of view with both Scripture, historical teachings, and discussion of the relevant Jewish laws at the time.

 

[dscherck]

Scott, do you ever study anything?

1. The word cousin is used by paul in col 4: 10


ἀνεψιός, -οῦ, ὁ, [for ἁ-νεπτ-ιός con-nepot-ius, cf. Lat. nepos, Germ. nichte, Eng. nephew, niece; Curtius § 342], a cousin: Col. 4:10. (Num. 36:11; Tob. 7:2.) [Cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 306; but esp. Bp. Lghtft. on Col. l. c.; also B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Sister’s Son.]*

Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (45). New York: Harper & Brothers.

2. The people were claiming that mary had children by calling them his sisters and brothers. Otherwise they would not have needed to say his brothers and sisters. If he was a lone brother, all they would have said "is not mary his mother etc etc. A cousin would have no bearing on the conversation. why would they even mention them? there would be no need to, It would be insignificant, unless they considered theses "brothers and sisters" children of Mary.

3. It all ignores the fact scripture makes it clear. Joseph did not "know" his wife until after the birth of her firstborn son. which can only mean one thing. He knew her after the birth of his son. why? Unless mary died giving birth, Or joseph died immediately after birth, giving them NO OPPORTUNITY to "KNOW" each other. Joseph knew his wife. So even if you do not believe Mary had other children. You can not say they never had sex, Because if the word of God is inspired By God. then God lied saying Joseph "knew hie wife" if they did not have sex.

The fact Joseph lived some time after the birth of Jesus, and mary lived with him would leave a large period of time which followed ther birth of Christ which is unaccounted 4. The only way in which mary and joseph would not have had sex, is if the scripture said, "And joseph did not know his wife until his death) only then would it fit! Because after Jospeh died, it would be impossible for them to have sexual relations.

Face it Scott. Romanism and the "virgin" aspect of mary is worshiping the pagan queen of heaven, not the mother of Christ.

All the phrase "he knew her not until" means is that up until that point in time, Mary was a virgin. It makes no implication of what followed afterwards.
Again, I've supplied some good links discussing the issue with support from historical teachings, Scripture, and relevant Jewish law in the time.

 

[dscherck]

It's not Romanism. Romanism is false.
Protestantism is false, too. It's Protestant to believe Mary had children with Joseph, when the words "the children of Mary and Joseph" do not appear in the New Testament. Believing things the Bible DOES NOT SAY is heresy.

Well, while I do disagree with my dear brother Scott regarding the Roman Church, that said, he does have one major point. Name one instance in Scripture where these "brothers" are referred to as sons of Mary. You'll note that Jesus is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

 

[SantoSubito]

Here we go again....

 

[dscherck]

Here we go again....

Yeah. But still, maybe someone who just lurks will realize that we Catholics/Orthodox do have some good reasons for what we believe.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It's not Romanism. Romanism is false.
Protestantism is false, too. It's Protestant to believe Mary had children with Joseph, when the words "the children of Mary and Joseph" do not appear in the New Testament. Believing things the Bible DOES NOT SAY is heresy.

Um Scott. Eastern orthodoxy is eastern romanism. They come from the same mold and same background. Whether you believe the west (catholosism) erred and turned away or not is not even valid.

second, It does not have to say the "children of mary or anyone else" the fact that they said jesus had brothers and sisters, and mary was his mother is all that is needed. Why speak of Jesus cousins? they would have no bearing on the conversation. Why did they not mentions marys sisters or brothers? or even josephs?? because they were not talking about aunts and uncles. so why would they mention their children? it makes no sense.

plus. Scripture said they had sex. unless God lied. and there are some many years after the birth of Christ which God did not talk about. or Joseph died when mary gave birth. non of which is true.

 

[dscherck]

Um Scott. Eastern orthodoxy is eastern romanism. They come from the same mold and same background. Whether you believe the west (catholosism) erred and turned away or not is not even valid.

second, It does not have to say the "children of mary or anyone else" the fact that they said jesus had brothers and sisters, and mary was his mother is all that is needed. Why speak of Jesus cousins? they would have no bearing on the conversation. Why did they not mentions marys sisters or brothers? or even josephs?? because they were not talking about aunts and uncles. so why would they mention their children? it makes no sense.

plus. Scripture said they had sex. unless God lied. and there are some many years after the birth of Christ which God did not talk about. or Joseph died when mary gave birth. non of which is true.

Again, you're reading into Scripture your own interpretation. No where does Scripture say they had sex, and no where are these "brothers" referred to as sons of Mary.