Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Mary the mother of Jesus

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
T

thessalonian

Guest
This is not another "did Mary the mother of Jesus have other children" thread so I hope it won't get in to that discussion. I would really rather avoid that as the thread will go off on tangents. I will in no way claim in this thread that I am proving that she did not have other children. The claim has been made that the mary mentioned in Matt 27:56 is Mary, the mother of Jesus and therefore James nad joseph (joses in Mark's Gospel) are her offsping. I am simply asking if this is the case. I present my Biblical arguement below and ask anyone who will to refute it.


I start out with a list of relevant passages.

Matt.27
[56] among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.
[61] Mary Mag'dalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.

Matt.28
[1] Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag'dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Mark.16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[9] Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Mark.15
[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me,
[47] Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

John 19
[25]
So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.
[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
[28]

Luke 24
[10] Now it was Mary Mag'dalene and Jo-an'na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;


Okay, we have this Mary who is the mother of James in Mark 16 and Luke 24. We have "the other mary" and Mary the mother of Joses in Mark 15 and Matt 27, 28 respectively. Mary the mother of Joses and the other Mary are identified as being with Mary Magadalene when they watch where Jesus is laid. Mary the Mother of James is the Mary, with Mary Magadalen when they tell the apostles (luke 24) they have seen the Lord. Mark 15 has Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James the younger (less) looking on from afar. In Mark 15 there is a Mary, looking on from afar who is Mary, mother of James and Joses. Hmmmm.

Seems almost dead certain that "the other Mary", Mary the mother of Joses, and Mary the Mother of James and Joses, and Mary the mother of James the younger (less) are all the same Mary. Note that not once are any of these Mary's identified as Mary the Mother of Jesus and in John 19 it is clear that we have another Mary (Mary wife of Clopas) with the group who is not the mother of Jesus. Further Mary the mother of Jesus is not mentioned in the passages where the women looked on from afar. Probably because she stayed right with the body. Or perhaps seeing her son to distraught it is not surprizing that she might have been taken away by the others. Perhaps John, who's care she was entrusted to and who was not at the tomb with the other two Mary's.

One more point. In John 19 it indicates that John and Mary are near the cross and likely the other women, who are together, are a bit further off. This is consistent with the separation shown in the other two Gospels and again indicates that Mary, mother of James and Joses and Mary the wife of Clopas are the same woman.

Once again this is not about if Mary had other children. But do protestant writers blow it when they claim that the Mary in Matt 27 is Mary the mother of Jesus? Seems to me the do. I would contend that the reason they blow it is they are overzealous in trying to refute Catholicsm and so do not have an open mind with regard to what the scriptures actually tell us.


Blessings
 
No takers on this. Apparently you agree that the Mary at the cross who was the mother of James and Joseph was not Jesus mother. Thank you for your support.
 
the fact that Jesus gave Mary to John proves Mary had no other children. Thats the only fact we really need to mention when this comes up. :biggrin
 
hi Thess,

this was all a bit unclear till i read the accounts of the Crucifixion in Anne Catherine Emmerich's book: The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations. If you haven't read it, you should (although it is over 2000 pages in total). But all these family trees are spelled out. i believe there were actually more Mary's than we even realized: Mary the wife of Clopas was the mother of Mary the wife of Alphaes, i believe. Then there were three sisters: "silent Mary," Mary Magdalene and Martha. The Biblical account doesnt give us all the details. Even so, its clear from the Biblical account that the Virgin Mary had no other children besides Jesus.

God Bless :)
 
No surprise there I s'pose. A catholic reads a catholic book that gives a catholic answer which supports a catholic doctrine.
 
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." MATTHEW 12:50
 
+JMJ+

That is a good point threesixteen. Why would Jesus give His Mother to someon other then Her own children?
 
That there were MANY Marys durring the time of Jesus comes as NO surprise.

But, Thess, it seems as if your thread has gone the exact direction that you stated you hoped that it wouldn't.

Since this is the case, please consider what the Bible states about Mary and Joseph. It states that Joseph never 'slept' with Mary while whe was pregnant with Jesus. This is a perfect indication that he DID 'after' the birth of Christ.
 
Imag, Mutz,

After a week of noone responding it is no surprize that it is going in another direction. Are you guys going to answer the OP or not? Just some hand waving so far. I am simply asking protestants to call their "theologians" on the carpet who misuse scriptures to prove their theologies. I am not asking you to say Mary did not have other children. Simply showing that it is very unlikely that the Mary, who is mother of James and Joses in Matt 27 is most likely, according to Ockham's razor that so many protestants like to apply, Mary, Jesus mother. Now that has implications on whom the James and Joses are in Matt 13 but that is not in the scope of this thread either.

So anyone at all can you be honest instead of just accepting your protestant sholar's and theologians who are don't one heck of a horse carp job of determing who these people are, hook line and sinker.

Blessings
 
Threesixteen and FSW,

Let's keep this thread focused and see if we can get someone to admit the gross error that Protestants make in using this passage in Matt 27 as PROOF that Mary had other children. Very sad that they simply listen to their scholars who almost certainly have it wrong.
 
No surprise there I s'pose. A catholic reads a catholic book that gives a catholic answer which supports a catholic doctrine.

Wait, you are telling me catholics read ??? Well, I learn something every day. :lol:
 
thessalonian said:
Imag, Mutz,

So anyone at all can you be honest instead of just accepting your protestant sholar's and theologians who are don't one heck of a horse carp job of determing who these people are, hook line and sinker.

Blessings

Sorry I missed this one Thess

That's strange. When did I ever make reference to a protestant scholar or theologian? Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as my memory serves me I have NEVER used any material written by a scholar or theologian nor quoted any scholar or theologian to support anything I have written. The only material I have referred to is scripture and a document written on the Gospel by a friend (with my collaboration). By the way you should read it - you may just learn something. I am happy to email any time.

BTW - had a bit of a giggle about your 'horse carp'. Must be one big fish - or something that dirties the water substantially.
 
mutzrein said:
No surprise there I s'pose. A catholic reads a catholic book that gives a catholic answer which supports a catholic doctrine.

Yes, we call that the Bible.
 
ttg said:
mutzrein said:
No surprise there I s'pose. A catholic reads a catholic book that gives a catholic answer which supports a catholic doctrine.

Yes, we call that the Bible.

Well I was actually referring to Anne Catherine Emmerich's book: The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations.

As I have said elsewhere, it is the Spirit that leads us into all truth, not someone's interpretation of scripture.
 
Henry said:
No surprise there I s'pose. A catholic reads a catholic book that gives a catholic answer which supports a catholic doctrine.

Wait, you are telling me catholics read ??? Well, I learn something every day. :lol:

Ah, good old sarcasm meant in the spirit of fun and friendship from Henry. Or not. :-?
 
mutzrein said:
thessalonian said:
Imag, Mutz,

So anyone at all can you be honest instead of just accepting your protestant sholar's and theologians who are don't one heck of a horse carp job of determing who these people are, hook line and sinker.

Blessings

Sorry I missed this one Thess

That's strange. When did I ever make reference to a protestant scholar or theologian? Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as my memory serves me I have NEVER used any material written by a scholar or theologian nor quoted any scholar or theologian to support anything I have written. The only material I have referred to is scripture and a document written on the Gospel by a friend (with my collaboration). By the way you should read it - you may just learn something. I am happy to email any time.

BTW - had a bit of a giggle about your 'horse carp'. Must be one big fish - or something that dirties the water substantially.

The point is no protestant (yes you are) will address the OP and agree or disagree with me that those who say Matt 27 identifies children of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, are right or wrong. You have done an admirable job of posting one more time on this thread, avoiding the issue at hand.
 
thessalonian said:
mutzrein said:
thessalonian said:
Imag, Mutz,

So anyone at all can you be honest instead of just accepting your protestant sholar's and theologians who are don't one heck of a horse carp job of determing who these people are, hook line and sinker.

Blessings

Sorry I missed this one Thess

That's strange. When did I ever make reference to a protestant scholar or theologian? Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as my memory serves me I have NEVER used any material written by a scholar or theologian nor quoted any scholar or theologian to support anything I have written. The only material I have referred to is scripture and a document written on the Gospel by a friend (with my collaboration). By the way you should read it - you may just learn something. I am happy to email any time.

BTW - had a bit of a giggle about your 'horse carp'. Must be one big fish - or something that dirties the water substantially.

The point is no protestant (yes you are) will address the OP and agree or disagree with me that those who say Matt 27 identifies children of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, are right or wrong. You have done an admirable job of posting one more time on this thread, avoiding the issue at hand.

Thanks Thess

There are many things that I agree AND disagree with other Protestants AND Catholics on. Therefore the issue for me is not the denomination but what the denomination says. Take the trinity for example, which I oppose. I do so not on the basis of the denomination but on the basis of the doctrine and therefore I am at odds with both protestants and catholics on this. As far as Mary is concerned, I have not even looked at Matt 27 with a view to agreeing or disagreeing with you. Of course i disagree with the notion that Mary remained a virgin all her life but as I have said, this particular passage is not one that I have even looked at, let alone considered in the light that you are speaking of.

But I will say this - if I recall correctly you have also posted on a thread that has avoided the OP. Perhaps the pot should not call the kettle black.
 
thess,

this one is SO EASY to prove Catholics are right. Protestants claim James was the brother of Jesus. But neither of the Apostles named James had Joseph for a father.

Matt 10:2 "And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother
10:3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus"

The James that Protestants believe is a brother of Jesus must be one of these James, because of: Gal 1:18 "Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord."

Gal 1:19 shows that the James known to be Jesus' brother is an Apostle. So, thus, it must be either James the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alphaes. lol. God knew Protestants would claim this silly idea, so He put this stumbling block. Neither of these James has Joseph for a father, and therefore are not the actual brothers of Jesus. However, James the son of Alphaeus was a second cousin to Jesus, according to the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. Peace.

:)
 
mutzrein said:
thessalonian said:
mutzrein said:
thessalonian said:
Imag, Mutz,

So anyone at all can you be honest instead of just accepting your protestant sholar's and theologians who are don't one heck of a horse carp job of determing who these people are, hook line and sinker.

Blessings

Sorry I missed this one Thess

That's strange. When did I ever make reference to a protestant scholar or theologian? Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as my memory serves me I have NEVER used any material written by a scholar or theologian nor quoted any scholar or theologian to support anything I have written. The only material I have referred to is scripture and a document written on the Gospel by a friend (with my collaboration). By the way you should read it - you may just learn something. I am happy to email any time.

BTW - had a bit of a giggle about your 'horse carp'. Must be one big fish - or something that dirties the water substantially.

The point is no protestant (yes you are) will address the OP and agree or disagree with me that those who say Matt 27 identifies children of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, are right or wrong. You have done an admirable job of posting one more time on this thread, avoiding the issue at hand.

Thanks Thess

There are many things that I agree AND disagree with other Protestants AND Catholics on. Therefore the issue for me is not the denomination but what the denomination says. Take the trinity for example, which I oppose. I do so not on the basis of the denomination but on the basis of the doctrine and therefore I am at odds with both protestants and catholics on this. As far as Mary is concerned, I have not even looked at Matt 27 with a view to agreeing or disagreeing with you. Of course i disagree with the notion that Mary remained a virgin all her life but as I have said, this particular passage is not one that I have even looked at, let alone considered in the light that you are speaking of.

But I will say this - if I recall correctly you have also posted on a thread that has avoided the OP. Perhaps the pot should not call the kettle black.

I never avoid OP's. Sometimes I get in to the side discussions that always arise. On this thread I have goaded Protestants and they refuse the challenge. But this one is about avoiding the question of Matt 27. No one will address it. It is also about abuse of scripture to prove points. Lewis for days hummed and hawed about this question after posting an article written by a Protestant scholar on the matter. He could not defend it. Neither will anyone else it seems. Protestants claim to hold scripture in high regard. Why will they not smote someone who abuses it by false arguements, regardless of whether they think the doctrine (ie. Mary had other children) is true or not? A bad arguement for good theology is still a bad arguement and can do damage to another persons ability to reason the theology through correctly.
 
Is noone going to answer? Is it scripture abuse to use a wrong arguement (obviously so in scripture) to support a position even if you believe that position to be true? Do you people have true reverance for the word of God or not?
 
Back
Top