Did Mary Have Other Children?

[Radiant1]

The NT was written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew.

Yep. Hebrews who spoke Aramaic who wrote in Greek which was later translated into English. What a mess, and what better reason for the God-given authority that was present at the time to interpret it.

As I said before, Calvin didn't take a stand on the perpetual virginity of Mary, at least as far as I can tell (some Protestant scholars say he supported the doctrine but I can't find any direct quotes from him). I'm sure if he could have refuted it he would have, reformer that he was. He either supported the doctrine or left it alone, which considering his sola scriptura stance was probably wise.

EDIT: I read the link. I'm disappointed. You usually post good stuff. Not so this time. "If he had brothers, they would have been proud of it." Really?

Do you mean to tell me if your brother was the Son of God you wouldn't be proud of Him? In addition, if someone claimed your mother a virgin don't you think you would come forward and correct them? I know I would; however, we have no evidence anywhere whatsoever that James et al came forward to correct what they would have known to be a lie (because apparently it wasn't). The rest of the logic follows. If Jesus had brothers why did He hand Mary over to the apostle John when upon the cross? We KNOW James was still alive. If James was truly her son don't you question why he didn't take her in as was customary? Have you not thought of these things?

 

[Starman3000m]

... Do you mean to tell me if your brother was the Son of God you wouldn't be proud of Him? In addition, if someone claimed your mother a virgin don't you think you would come forward and correct them? I know I would; however, we have no evidence anywhere whatsoever that James et al came forward to correct what they would have known to be a lie (because apparently it wasn't). The rest of the logic follows. If Jesus had brothers why did He hand Mary over to the apostle John when upon the cross? We KNOW James was still alive. If James was truly her son don't you question why he didn't take her in as was customary? Have you not thought of these things?

C'mon Radiant1 - Let's give Jesus some credit for knowing what He was doing and why He was doing it. For example, John lived the longest and died of natural causes while the rest of the Disciples were brutally martyrd - including James. According to an historical account by Josephus, James was stoned to death.

As far as Jesus' brothers being "proud of Him" the Bible states quite the opposite in that they mocked Him - not believing that He was the Jewish Messiah. Here are some tidbits of info for you to consider regarding why Jesus entrusted Mary to John, and also how Jesus' brothers were quite skeptical at first.

About Jesus Bretheren

John, Chapter 7

1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
2 Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.


More about James (and Jude)

James, the brother of Jude and the half brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem church. When Jude identified himself as the "brother of James", he immediately acquired a lot of credibility, because James was a well-known man and an outstanding leader. That would help people listen to what he had to say. I think it is an interesting footnote that when James wrote his epistle, he humbly said that he was "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ..." (v. 1). He too, was the half brother of Jesus, but he didn't draw any attention to that fact. Like Jude, he recognized that the family relationship didn't matter anymore.

The brothers of Jesus didn't consider themselves servants of Jesus until they had experienced a major change in their lives. Apparently, the brothers had grown up resenting Jesus. John 7:5 says, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him." Jesus' brothers mocked Him in verses 2-4, not really believing that He was the Messiah. Yet, their lives were transformed at some point, for both James and Jude changed from those who resented Jesus to those who were willing to be His servants. Somewhere along the line, they were converted. I believe it probably happened after the resurrection. Jesus appeared to James after He rose from the dead according to 1 Corinthians 15. That appearance must have finally convinced the two brothers, who then saw themselves as servants of Jesus Christ."
BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: MARY, DID SHE HAVE CHILDREN AFTER GIVING BIRTH TO OUR LORD?


Why did Jesus entrust Mary to be cared for by John?

John was, as it says in this context, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (cf. also Jn.13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). Since our Lord's judgment was perfect, this means that John certainly had a lot going for him relative to the other disciples. And the qualities which attracted our Lord to John must have been primarily spiritual. We certainly see His great humility and responsiveness to the leading of the Spirit in his gospel and his epistles. And John, of course, lived longer than any of the rest, penning the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, apparently just before his death in circa 64-68 A.D. For all these reasons, John seems to have been the best choice and indeed the perfect choice to look after Mary.

Why did Jesus choose John over James to take care of His mother Mary?

 

[Radiant1]

C'mon Radiant1 - Let's give Jesus some credit for knowing what He was doing and why He was doing it. For example, John lived the longest and died of natural causes while the rest of the Disciples were brutally martyrd - including James. According to an historical account by Josephus, James was stoned to death.

Yeah, and John was exiled to Patmos, so what.

As far as Jesus' brothers being "proud of Him" the Bible states quite the opposite in that they mocked Him - not believing that He was the Jewish Messiah. Here are some tidbits of info for you to consider regarding why Jesus entrusted Mary to John, and also how Jesus' brothers were quite skeptical at first.

They certainly believed in Him at His death and/or after the resurrection and Jesus would have known that, so why would that have made a difference? As you said, give Jesus some credit.

Look, I simply gave StoneThrower a quote that he asked for and only some of the logic behind why Jesus is believed to have been her only child. You don't have to believe it. It's no skin off my back, it's only skin off yours. :shrug:

 

[Zguy28]

The bottom line is there is really no significant Scriptural evidence beyond the assertion that adelphos can mean cousins in addition to siblings.

Does anybody know 100%, nope. But a plain reading of the bible, even in the original language, clearly supports siblings more than cousins.

The implications to the Protestant are really nothing. If Mary remained a virgin and James, Jude, Joses, and Simon were cousins, I'm fine with that.

The implications for the Roman Catholic however are staggering. It would mean Tradition, which is valued equally with Scripture, was in error and all such statements of Tradition are now suspect.

 

[Radiant1]

The bottom line is there is really no significant Scriptural evidence beyond the assertion that adelphos can mean cousins in addition to siblings.

Does anybody know 100%, nope. But a plain reading of the bible, even in the original language, clearly supports siblings more than cousins.

You say in one breath that scripture can mean both cousins and siblings and then in another that it clearly supports siblings more than cousins. You can't have it both ways. Thankfully, the Church relies on other methods to support the teaching that Mary remained a virgin (and no it's not just "Tradition", see below).

The implications to the Protestant are really nothing. If Mary remained a virgin and James, Jude, Joses, and Simon were cousins, I'm fine with that.

Sure, no biggie in the scheme of things for you, except for those who were wrong about it and want to insist on the truth of it, right?

The implications for the Roman Catholic however are staggering. It would mean Tradition, which is valued equally with Scripture, was in error and all such statements of Tradition are now suspect.

When you take the OT and NT typologies together as a WHOLE, there is no contraindication; Tradition never stands alone. The OT Ark of the Covenant, Queen of the Kingdom, etc and so forth...they all tie in together and there in lies the reason for Mary's perpetual virginity. It's not just what words scriptures uses i.e. brothers and/or cousins. Protestants fail to understand this, and this is why they fail to understand scripture properly when it comes to Mary's virginity. As I've said before, you miss a great deal and that's why it's said you do not have the fullness of truth.

Let's face it, a woman who stayed a virgin all her life? It's hard to think it. But then again, so is God born of a woman and yet you believe that. My point being, we don't just pick and choose what to believe because it suits us. In fact, as Catholics we believe some really whacked stuff that doesn't suit us, we believe it because it's been revealed.

 

[onel0126]

OBTW, If I got my information from here, I would probably be a decieved Roman Catholic, putting my trust in wicked men that walk around in their sleepware that are part of an institution based on corruption and power. I perfer to spend my time reading Gods word so I know the truth, getting a formal education, and studing your false teachings.

So, in the interest of fairness, what church do you attend (and be specific)? Or are you of the Starman, IS, ilk that believe Christ didn't leave behind a physical church?

 

[Starman3000m]

Yeah, and John was exiled to Patmos, so what.

They certainly believed in Him at His death and/or after the resurrection and Jesus would have known that, so why would that have made a difference? As you said, give Jesus some credit.

Consider that James was an unbeliever at the time. And, even when he did become a believer, after the Resurrection, James would have been quite busy becoming a leader of the faith there in Jerusalem and may not have had as much time to devote in personally caring for Mary. :shrug: However, just because Jesus entrusted Mary into the care of John does not negate the possibility that Christ could have had half-brothers and half-sisters from the consummated marriage between Joseph and Mary. The Holy Bible more than implies that there were other children; Scripture specifically records it while the RCC remains in unbelief.

Look, I simply gave StoneThrower a quote that he asked for and only some of the logic behind why Jesus is believed to have been her only child...

Um, you mean "believed by the RCC" which, by the way, even admits that there is no Biblical proof in regard to its own teaching about the "Assumption of Mary".

 

[onel0126]

Um, you mean "believed by the RCC" which, by the way, even admits that there is no Biblical proof in regard to its own teaching about the "Assumption of Mary".

I was going to post the link to this blog under a new thread. But since it applies here....

Bible Tidbits: 5 Reasons We Can't Go By The Bible Alone - & 3 Questions for Thought

 

[libby]

Consider that James was an unbeliever at the time. And, even when he did become a believer, after the Resurrection, James would have been quite busy becoming a leader of the faith there in Jerusalem and may not have had as much time to devote in personally caring for Mary. :shrug: However, just because Jesus entrusted Mary into the care of John does not negate the possibility that Christ could have had half-brothers and half-sisters from the consummated marriage between Joseph and Mary. The Holy Bible more than implies that there were other children; Scripture specifically records it while the RCC remains in unbelief.



Um, you mean "believed by the RCC" which, by the way, even admits that there is no Biblical proof in regard to its own teaching about the "Assumption of Mary".

There is also no reason to think that they are not step brothers and sisters by Joseph. You are doing no less than what you accuse us of doing, that is, interpreting it in a way that suits what you've already determined is the truth. Fine. That is your right. Just don't suggest we are doing something "anti-Biblical" or "other Jesus" blather you like to throw out there. You do so much darn talking on this forum that you have no time to listen to anyone. Starman does not have the words of eternal life, but by the mere fact that you step into virtually every thread and declare what it all means, you reveal your attitude. Just don't even bother blaming that on Christ's Great Commission.

 

[Radiant1]

Consider that James was an unbeliever at the time. And, even when he did become a believer, after the Resurrection, James would have been quite busy becoming a leader of the faith there in Jerusalem and may not have had as much time to devote in personally caring for Mary. :shrug: However, just because Jesus entrusted Mary into the care of John does not negate the possibility that Christ could have had half-brothers and half-sisters from the consummated marriage between Joseph and Mary. The Holy Bible more than implies that there were other children; Scripture specifically records it while the RCC remains in unbelief.

Jesus was pretty busy during His lifetime, but that didn't stop Him from caring for His mother now did it.

If Joseph had children by a previous marriage or what have you, that doesn't stop Mary from being a virgin, which is the issue at hand.

At least ZGuy (like Calvin) admits scripture, on the scholarly level (original languages), is neutral on the subject. It would do you well to try such intellectual honesty.

Um, you mean "believed by the RCC" which, by the way, even admits that there is no Biblical proof in regard to its own teaching about the "Assumption of Mary".

We were talking about her virginity and the logic thereof, not the assumption, but even so, are you saying there is no biblical basis for assumption?

 

[Starman3000m]

...We were talking about her virginity and the logic thereof, not the assumption, but even so, are you saying there is no biblical basis for assumption?

Not for Mary's "assumption".

 

[Starman3000m]

I was going to post the link to this blog under a new thread. But since it applies here....

Bible Tidbits: 5 Reasons We Can't Go By The Bible Alone - & 3 Questions for Thought

Hmmm...an excerpt from your link states:

IN BRIEF – The Holy Spirit inspired the writing.
The Holy Spirit guides the choosing.
The Holy Spirit guards the interpretation.

Um...where does the Holy Spirit give written inspiration and interpretation revealing that Mary was His wife?

(As you know the RCC teaches that Mary was the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit" which in essence, makes her God's wife! Is that what you really believe?)

The most authoritative writers and conveyers that gave an account of Christ's life and ministry would have been the Messianic Jews who were taught by Christ's Apostles. They have no such writing nor "tradition" that indicates such beliefs in "purgatory," Mary's "perpetual virginity," Mary's "assumption" and new role as "Queen of Heaven/spouse of the Holy Spirit," etc.

Those teachings were introduced a few hundred years later by Constantine's interpretation of "Christianity" which was re-formed to include and attract Rome's pagan masses.

 

[onel0126]

Hmmm...an excerpt from your link states:


Um...where does the Holy Spirit give written inspiration and interpretation revealing that Mary was His wife?

(As you know the RCC teaches that Mary was the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit" which in essence, makes her God's wife! Is that what you really believe?)

The most authoritative writers and conveyers that gave an account of Christ's life and ministry would have been the Messianic Jews who were taught by Christ's Apostles. They have no such writing nor "tradition" that indicates such beliefs in "purgatory," Mary's "perpetual virginity," Mary's "assumption" and new role as "Queen of Heaven/spouse of the Holy Spirit," etc.

Those teachings were introduced a few hundred years later by Constantine's interpretation of "Christianity" which was re-formed to include and attract Rome's pagan masses.

So you agree with the rest of the bog I can assume....

 

[libby]

Hmmm...an excerpt from your link states:


Um...where does the Holy Spirit give written inspiration and interpretation revealing that Mary was His wife?

(As you know the RCC teaches that Mary was the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit" which in essence, makes her God's wife! Is that what you really believe?)

The most authoritative writers and conveyers that gave an account of Christ's life and ministry would have been the Messianic Jews who were taught by Christ's Apostles. They have no such writing nor "tradition" that indicates such beliefs in "purgatory," Mary's "perpetual virginity," Mary's "assumption" and new role as "Queen of Heaven/spouse of the Holy Spirit," etc.

Those teachings were introduced a few hundred years later by Constantine's interpretation of "Christianity" which was re-formed to include and attract Rome's pagan masses.

You love to perpetuate the most crude thought processes possible. She was not God's "wife" the way you want her to be in order to discredit the RCC. God intended husband and wife to be one; Mary was one with God in her perfect submission to His Will. She went where she was led and said, "Let it be done to me according to Thy Word", which is the same thing Christ said in the Garden, "Not my will, but Thy Will be Done".
She was Jesus' Mother by supernatural Divine Intervention, and it is through that Divine Assistance that she is also considered spouse of the Holy Spirit.
You have such a small and silly theology. The depths you cannot begin to grasp, it seems.

 

[onel0126]

Hmmm...an excerpt from your link states:


The most authoritative writers and conveyers that gave an account of Christ's life and ministry would have been the Messianic Jews who were taught by Christ's Apostles. They have no such writing nor "tradition" that indicates such beliefs in "purgatory," Mary's "perpetual virginity," Mary's "assumption" and new role as "Queen of Heaven/spouse of the Holy Spirit," etc.

Those teachings were introduced a few hundred years later by Constantine's interpretation of "Christianity" which was re-formed to include and attract Rome's pagan masses.

So where were these non-Catholic Christians for 1400 years? Why did it take so long to break away from the evil RCC. Where is the evidence of their churches? Where are their writings other than the NT?

 

[Starman3000m]

So where were these non-Catholic Christians for 1400 years? Why did it take so long to break away from the evil RCC. Where is the evidence of their churches? Where are their writings other than the NT?

I was referring to the original believers/followers of Jesus (Yeshua HaMashiach) All Jewish men, women and children, who were persecuted by the likes of Saul (later Paul - prior to his conversion).

They are the original believers who "broke away" from the teachings of Orthodox Judaism through their acceptance and participation in The New Covenant established through Christ.

The RCC was not even in existence until Constantine established it in Rome and developed it into an organized religion that adapted Rome's pagan beliefs and incorporated them as being "Christian".

 

[drivingdaisy]

No, but she did have a little lamb.

 

[Zguy28]

At least ZGuy (like Calvin) admits scripture, on the scholarly level (original languages), is neutral on the subject. It would do you well to try such intellectual honesty.

I'm not sure I'd say neutral, but rather circumstantial. It is true it is impossible to form a 100% conclusion based on the text.

However, it appears more likely (imho) that it is a reference to actual brothers just based on the plain reading and common sense. Especially in Matthew 13:56 when it is mentioned that Jesus also has sisters and they are consistently mentioned in other passages as being present with Mary. Do your cousins follow your mom around constantly?

The Jamieson Fawcett Brown commentary gives a good treatment of it.

Matthew 13:56
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Mat_12:46; and its parallels, Mar_3:31; Luk_8:19; our present passage, and its parallels, Mar_6:3; Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3, Joh_7:5, Joh_7:10; Act_1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. As to the names here mentioned, the first of them, “James,” is afterwards called “the Lord’s brother” (see on Gal_1:19), but is perhaps not to be confounded with “James the son of Alphaeus,” one of the Twelve, though many think their identity beyond dispute. This question also is one of considerable difficulty, and not without importance; since the James who occupies so prominent a place in the Church of Jerusalem, in the latter part of the Acts, was apparently the apostle, but is by many regarded as “the Lord’s brother,” while others think their identity best suits all the statements. The second of those here named, “Joses” (or Joseph), must not be confounded with “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus” (Act_1:23); and the third here named, “Simon,” is not to be confounded with Simon the Kananite or Zealot (see on Mat_10:4). These three are nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament. The fourth and last-named, “Judas,” can hardly be identical with the apostle of that name - though the brothers of both were of the name of “James” - nor (unless the two be identical, was this Judas) with the author of the catholic Epistle so called.

 

[StoneThrower]

You love to perpetuate the most crude thought processes possible. She was not God's "wife" the way you want her to be in order to discredit the RCC. God intended husband and wife to be one; Mary was one with God in her perfect submission to His Will. She went where she was led and said, "Let it be done to me according to Thy Word", which is the same thing Christ said in the Garden, "Not my will, but Thy Will be Done".
She was Jesus' Mother by supernatural Divine Intervention, and it is through that Divine Assistance that she is also considered spouse of the Holy Spirit.
You have such a small and silly theology. The depths you cannot begin to grasp, it seems.

In Luke 1:47 She also acknowledged that she need a savior!
Although an honor was bestowed upon her to deliver the child, thats it, that is her only role, and thats why she is remembered, other than that shes a sinner just like the rest of us, not a mediator, not a queen of heaven, just another sinner saved by grace.

I think Jesus made that pretty clear too in Matthew 12:48
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers", oh looky, Jesus said, he had brothers!
And if you want to debate it 12:46 says they were his brothers.

Why do you want to cling to Marryology when the church didnt even buy into that, till way late in history. When A pope declared it contary to the historical perspective.

 

[Bird Dog]

In Luke 1:47 She also acknowledged that she need a savior!
Although an honor was bestowed upon her to deliver the child, thats it, that is her only role, and thats why she is remembered, other than that shes a sinner just like the rest of us, not a mediator, not a queen of heaven, just another sinner saved by grace.

I think Jesus made that pretty clear too in Matthew 12:48
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers", oh looky, Jesus said, he had brothers!
And if you want to debate it 12:46 says they were his brothers.

Why do you want to cling to Marryology when the church didnt even buy into that, till way late in history. When A pope declared it contary to the historical perspective.

Are you Starman's clone or little brother?

Marryology???? What planet do you live on?