Did Mary Have Other Children?

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Unknown | Matt Slick

[OLD REGGIE]

Remember

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

etc, etc, etc. Strangely I found the exact wording at this site: Cronos was plagiarized AGAIN!

Some would even say this as close to Mary Worship you can get. Tch Tch

[OLD REGGIE]

Remember

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

Again, John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - 25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. this proves that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins yet referred to as "brothers"

Save your time. Go to the "Mary Worship" site this was lifted from.

[Natural Law]

"And you know this? How?"

The Holy and Apostolic Traditions of the Church, through the Holy Spirit guided Magisterium has affirmed this and that out weighs any and all skepticism or petty objections. Catholics, like many Protestants are not blinded on this issue by the lens of Scriptural Exclusivity that constitutes the modern fringe Protestant doctrines devolved from Sola Scriptura. We see the entire spectrum of the Revealed Word and rejoice in Her blessedness.

The Protestant demands that we cover our eyes with the dark filter of their heresies and agree to see only what they see as a condition for agreement are fruitless. They are akin to discussing sunsets and flower gardens with the color blind. I don't expect you to see until you open your eyes and embrace the same traditions that brought you the Bible. Flailing at Catholics with your white cane and damning us for our sight is simply pathetic.

[iowamark]

What is your point? That, because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Gospels, we should disregard them?

We have copies of the New Testament from the second, third, fourth centuries. There is no reason to believe that they are substantially changed from the first century originals.

[OLD REGGIE]

"And you know this? How?"

The Holy and Apostolic Traditions of the Church, through the Holy Spirit guided Magisterium has affirmed this and that out weighs any and all skepticism or petty objections. Catholics, like many Protestants are not blinded on this issue by the lens of Scriptural Exclusivity that constitutes the modern fringe Protestant doctrines devolved from Sola Scriptura. We see the entire spectrum of the Revealed Word and rejoice in Her blessedness.

Oh I see. A totally man made "Holy Spirit guided Magisterium" is your proof?

Make it up as you go. Ok!

[OLD REGGIE]

What is your point? That, because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Gospels, we should disregard them?

We have copies of the New Testament from the second, third, fourth centuries. There is no reason to believe that they are substantially changed from the first century originals.

Not one of them which is identical. You have no more idea than I what the exact wording was.

[Natural Law]

"Oh I see. A totally man made "Holy Spirit guided Magisterium" is your proof?"

Whether or not Unitarians or you actually believe in a Holy Spirit or not, you mock and deny the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit has acted through men at your own peril. It is the unforgivable sin.

[Natural Law]

"You have no more idea than I what the exact wording was."

That admission of Scriptural cluelessness was both unexpected and refreshing. Absent a teaching authority you are pretty much doomed to fumbling along blindly, lashing out at others until your day of reckoning.

[visually_augmented]

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

****************************************

As you mention Boop, it does say the word “UNITL”. The obvious assumption from this text is that after the birth of Christ, this prohibition was lifted. At least that is the interpretation that most reasonable people would assume.

If I were to make a statement to a classroom that you cannot eat until three o’clock, everyone in the room would understand that to mean that they can eat after three o’clock.

Obvious.

[Salvation]

I disagree. She carried the New Covenant in her womb. Indeed she was the Ark of the New Covenant.

How do you know that no one ever died, by the way?

[daniel1212]

It is concomitant with that, but i meant that in and of itself, one can believe in it and be saved, esp. a new convert. But to continue to defend it, in the light of the lack of Scriptural warrant and weight against, does indicate thinking of souls above that which is written in Scripture, which is able to make one wise unto salvation.

[boop]

That’s what I thought. Making Mary an “eternal virgin” would have made Joseph one, too. Not many guys would want to stay married in that situation. Even a holy guy.

[Mach9]

If you’re arguing that the RC Church DIDN’T act as sole custodian of BOTH testaments, you’d better check it out, unless you mean that what became the Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity shared some of the original texts for about 1000 years.

But if you’re arguing that the “Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God,” meaning that the Jews either shared or exclusively maintained BOTH testaments, you’ve greatly expanded what Paul said. For one thing, my bible says the Jews “WERE ENTRUSTED . . .” which, it’s fair to say, most Christians believe. The Jews, after all, have never laid claim to protecting the integrity of the New Testament. Secondly, Paul had no way of knowing that the Jewish religion would continue on its own path, without Christ, without the New Testament. He, the apostles, and nearly all their first followers were Jews who accepted Christ as the fulfillment of the (Jewish) Covenant. They had no intention of establishing a *new* religion. Christ, in their eyes, was the Perfection of Judaism, the Embodiment of the original Covenant, not the founder of new religion.

[Cronos]

And the Unitarian faith

unitarianism -- where no one's idea of God is better than another's...

[Cronos]

[Cronos]

Nice... the Unitarians keep la-di-dahing

[Cronos]

"Biblical Unitarian" -- Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?

and it's all sola scriptura that there's no trinity in your opinion?

[Cronos]

I seldom agree with the Presbyterians but they have the right opinion in talking about your cult

" The problem with non-denominational churches is that there's nothing to stop the congregation from deciding to become Mormon or Unitarian, etc. "

--> The OPC equates you guys to Mormons. Congratulations!!

[Cronos]

For your posts, what everyone does to the "biblical unitarian" is Spam Filter is set to ignore all posts from a known Spammer.

Do go and sing kumbaya, nothing or whatever...

[Cronos]

You have no more idea than I what the exact wording was.

iowamark -- and remember this is anti-"sola scriptura" yet arguing on the basis of ss -- talk of contradictory!!