Devotion to Mary 2

Also, by DHK:

You won't haul much water with that theory. Hardly anyone who calls Mary "Mother of God" would believe she had other children. In fact, you cannot prove by the Bible that Mary did or did not have children because the Bible never says that Mary had children. It names Jesus' brothers and even tells us He had sisters but nowhere does it say they were children of Mary. They may have been, or they may have been chilren of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or they may have been cousins. Tradition has it that Mary was a perpetual virgin and it wasn't until long after the Reformation that there arose any consensus in the Protestant community concerning her having other children.

 

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Wanna answer His question?

 

Matthew 13:55-57 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. You take offense to these truths too??

 

We don’t base our beliefs on tradition, but on the Word of God. Mary had other children. She was not a perpetual virgin according to the unscriptural myth of the RCC. In they want to believe unbiblical tradition and deny the Word of God that is up to them, but that is not what the Bible teaches. Here is what the Bible teaches.
First to destroy the premise that these “brothers” were children by Joseph of an earlier children, we go to Matthew.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--The implication of the grammar of this verse is that Joseph was intimate with Mary after Jesus was born. She was a virgin up until Jesus was born, and then through Joseph had other children. I would be more blunt in explaining the meaning of these words to you but the board does not allow me to. The archaic language of the Old English “knew her not” is very clear.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
--“His brethren” refer back to the antecedent of Jesus. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, the only way that he could have had brothers was through Mary. Notice that they are never referred to as “the sons of Joseph.” That would rule out your premise right away, as genealogies are always listed according to the father. Jesus’ brothers are always listed either in relation to Jesus or in relation to Mary, never in relation to Joseph. The reason? They were the half-brothers of Jesus. Jesus was born of Mary, but not of Joseph.

Matthew 13:54-56 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--The subject is Jesus immediate family, where he came from, who is mother is, who his father is, who his brothers and sisters are. There is no way this can be taken as cousins or an extended family. Examine carefully the context.
--Jesus brothers (or specifically half-brothers) are James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Jude). He has sisters as well. All of these come from a union between Mary and Joseph as is indicated from Mat.1:25. Are they mentioned elsewhere?

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
--Paul saw the brother of the Lord called James. The same James is the writer of the Epistle of James.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
--Jude does not refer to himself as an apostle, but rather as the brother of James, which he was. He was the brother of James, the brother of Jesus.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus did not commit the care of Mary to Mary’s sons, but rather to John instead. The reason is that Jude and James and the other brothers did not become saved until after the resurrection of Christ. Christ would not commit the care of his mother to an unsaved person even if that unsaved person was his own half-brother. He knew that John, the “beloved disciple” of Jesus would take good care of Mary.

The case for Mary having children is a shut and closed case according to Scripture. To deny it is to deny Scripture. They only reason one would even try to deny it is to accommodate the RCC in their various doctrines that surround Mariolatry.

 

Matthew 1:24-25 does nothing to dispel the idea that the "brothers" were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. It contains no implications whatsoever concerning this matter. However, this passage has often been cited to prove that Joseph and Mary were intimate after the birth of Jesus. "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." The problem with this is you think the word "till (or until)" means the termination of a condition. It does not always mean that. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 we read, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." According to your interpretation of the word "till", this would mean Jesus will no longer reign after He has put all enemies under His feet. In the Bible the word "till (until)" measures a point in time and does not necessarily connote the end of a condition.

As for all the references to brothers, scripture nowhere refers to these people as sons of Mary. You can infer they are sons of Mary by use of the word brothers, but it's not necessarily so. My brother in law has a half brother with whom he shares a father but with different mothers. He always refers to this person as his brother. The Greek word for brother, adelphos, is broad enough to encompass other relationships. See, e.g., Genesis 13:8 and 14:16 where Abraham and Lot are called brothers. Like I said, you can't prove this point either way by reference to scripture.

Your reference to John 19:26-27, where Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John, is actually the strongest evidence that Mary had no other children. If she did have other children, it would not have been something Jesus could have done. Even if He could have done this because He was the firstborn, or for whatever reason, it would have been a huge insult to the younger "brothers". The idea that they were unbelievers and therefore somehow unfit for care of Mary is also preposterous. Forty days later they were in the upper room with Mary and the apostles. We can safely assume that by that time they had become believers. The man on the cross was the son of God, the second person of the Trinity. He knew exactly what these men were going to do and when they were going to do it. So suggesting that Jesus entrusted Mary to John because the "brothers" were unbelievers is pure hogwash, wishful thinking by those who somehow find it necessary to debunk the doctrine of the pertual virginity of Mary.

As for using the word of God rather than tradition, the reformers who invented the idea of sola scriptura also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Martin Luther:

John Calvin:

Ulrich Zwingli:

John Wesley:

Like I said, the idea of Mary having other children didn't catch on until well after the Reformation.

 

So where does scripture say Joseph was previously married? You are willing to refute a reasonable thought based on the idea that scripture no where specifically mentions Mary had other children but then you are willing to accept another argument (Joseph was previously married) which is based on the same thing. You choose to believe the latter so that you can support your worship of Mary.

As far as 1 Cor 15:25 it requires a reading beyond that verse to gain context.


1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

"Till" most certainly signifies the end of something as is indicated in v.24. What happens in v.24 after the "end' comes?


So your "till" argument is debunked as is your false assertion that Joseph had children form another marriage and Mary was a perpetual virgin which is absurd from the start. Add to that the worship of Mary could not be more non Baptist.

 

The Protoevangelium of James, which some date to the early 2nd century, mentions that Joseph was a widower and had older children from that previous marriage. Sure, it's not canonical, but it's very early--earlier that anything, canonical or otherwise, that asserts Mary herself had any children other than Jesus.

 

An earlier lie is still a lie.

 

First of all I don't worship Mary.

Second, your addition of "context" to 1 Corinthians 15:25 does nothing to change the fact that "until" marks a point in time, not necessarily the end. I see why you would want to obfuscate the matter but it won't work. Psalm 48:14 does the same thing.

Should we assume by this that God will no longer guide us after death?

Third, I think I will go by the undisputed and unchallenged teachings of the church for the first 1600 years of its existence. As I pointed out above, even the reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was only when the new Protestant churches were looking for a way to put distance between themselves and Catholics that they began to speculate that Mary had other children.

Fourth, I don't worship Mary.

 

Did you even read the text? It specifically says "then comes the end". You cannot get anymore end than that.

You mean the church that believed in purgatory and found it a crime to have the common man have scripture of their own. Your assigning of motivation of Protestant churches is not credible and mere speculation on your part. But you do sound like a Catholic although you claim to be Baptist. hmmm

And yest Catholics worship Mary along with every other "saint" they pray to.

 

Zenas said:

I hope you can answer your own question. My God will certainly God me. However if the context means "guide me through this life" then, no, he has no need of guiding me after this life.

Context determines the meaning of a word. When you take words out of context as we have seen you do on many occasions, then they have no meaning. RevMitchell has shown this already. But you ignore his posts, or are unable to refute them.

Here is another thing you might want to consider.
My daughter was not born until (till) my son was born. If I remove the negative the statement does not make sense. The word "until" used with a negative always connotes something following. "He knew her NOT til..." Something was coming after. You can't refute that statement. You have to deny Scripture in order to do it.

 

Unchallenged? We challenge you but you still don't see the light of your error as did they 1600 years ago. Did the Angel say in the dream "Joseph do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife......EXCEPT SHE MUST STAY A VIRGIN!"?!? That's no dream......that's a NIGHTMARE!!!

 

Unchallenged for 1600 years, not now. Do you really think the church could get it wrong for the first 1600 years of its existence? Or do agree with the Mormans that the gates of Hell really did prevail against the church very early and brought on a state of apostasy?

 

If Mary had remained a virgin, then she and Joseph would have been going against God's principles on marriage, it seems to me. Avoiding intimate relations for the duration of a marriage (outside of physical problems) would seem to go against teachings on marriage in the Bible.

 

The Catholic Church has been teaching various heresies from its inception. The Reformers (as their name implies) were Catholics trying to reform the RCC from within. It didn't work, thus they protested and became protestants. (That is a very simplistic definition, I know). But that is the origin of how the names came about. The truth is that the "Reformers" like Calvin and Luther were Catholics. Even after coming out of the RCC they still carried some Catholic baggage with them.

So to answer your question, The heresies of the RCC have been challenged for far more than 1600 years, have been denounced for far more than 1600 years, and have been condemned ever since their origin. The Bible is our final rule on all doctrine. And Mariolatry, including the perpetual virginity of Mary, is wrong.

 

So, did the Holy Spirit go to sleep on the job for 1500 years?

 

Your understanding of Church is where your incorrect on this "Peter was not the first Pope". The Church (Greek: called out) is made up of people who have put their personal trust in Jesus and are born again"new birth see John chapter 3". God has always had a remnant despite ongoing apostasy.......the gates of Hell have not prevailed. The Pharisees has the same issue as Catholics.....making up traditions and strange views and passing it on from generation to generation.

 

A strawman. It is not the Catholic church got it right for 1600 years or you agree with he Mormons. Poor logic to be sure. Nice job playing a Baptist though.