Mary Def. Had Other Children...

[StColette]

Okay I'm a little late to the topic but I've dealt and explored this topic quite a bit for the past couple of years.

If you look at the Scripture passages carefully that refer to the brothers of Jesus they at no time refer to them as the children of Mary, the Blessed Virgin. The only person that is ever indicated as the child of Mary is Jesus Christ.

Example of the Scriptural passages

Mk:6:3:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. (DRV)

see no where does it indicate that James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon are the children of Mary.

The Blessed Virgin, is always referred to as the mother of Jesus or the mother of the saviour. Another thing that must be watched carefully is to not confuse the Marys in the Bible.

For example,

Mt:27:56:
56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (DRV)
Mk:15:40:
40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome, (DRV)
Mk:15:47:
47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid. (DRV)

Mt:1:18:
18 ¶ Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. (DRV)
Jn:2:3:
3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. (DRV)
Jn:19:25:
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. (DRV)

After reading those verses its easy to see that Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is always announced with reference toward her son, Jesus.

Maybe this will help

[P3chrmd]

The traditional belief of all the Ancient churches is that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin all her life.

"For neither did Mary, who is to be honoured and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever and immaculate virgin." (Didimus the Blind, The Trinity. 381 AD)

Many Protestants choose to argue with this, quoting the following text:

Matt 1.24-25: And being aroused from sleep, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife, and did not know her until she bore her son, the Firstborn. And he called his name Jesus.

There are two points here. 1. The word "until", sometimes taken to imply that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus; and 2. "Firstborn", sometimes taken to imply other children.

With regard to the word "until", let's look at the following verses:

Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age."

John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day."

In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned primarily to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after.

For the rest, let us allow a very unexpected defender of Marian doctrine to answer the points:

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562

BUT WHAT ABOUT JESUS' BROTHERS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE?

There are several gospel references to Jesus having "brothers and sisters". This is the most specific:

Matthew 13:55. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us?"

One traditional response is that these may have been children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Joseph is traditionally held to be much older than Mary.

Another important factor here is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents.

WHAT PROOF IS THERE OF THIS?

Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother".

BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK, WHICH DOES HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN.

This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above.

SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?"

A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses.

B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus.

C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly as servant of Jesus. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but he doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated.

D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.

A few more points:


In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary"
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

[i]THANKS TO WWW.OURLADYWEB.COM[/i]

[Cure of Ars]

Another argument is in Luke 1:34. Mary when the angel Gabriel said that she was about to have a son she said, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. This is a weird statement. I was married four years ago and have two children. If an angel told me that I was going to have a son right before I got married it would not be a big shock. Babies usually come after you get married. But Mary said, “How can this be”. The only way to make sense of this is if Mary had a vow of virginity. Which Catholic Tradition attests to. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was more than an engagement. Joseph even was going to get a divorce from Mary when he found that she was with child.


Also in Jn 19:26 when Jesus was on the cross he did not give his mother over to his younger brothers. Instead he entrusted Mary to John and John to Mary. In the Jewish culture the responsibility to take care of parents went to the oldest living and able son. This shows that Mary did not have any other children.

Edited June 24, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

But you don't have to take our word for it. Here is what the protestant reformers had to say;

[color=red]Martin Luther[/color]

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 319

"......knew that she was to become the Mother of the Son of God, she did not wish to become the mother of the son of man, but remained in that gift."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

"Undoubtedly, there is no one so powerful that, depending on his own intelligence, without Scripture, he would maintain that she did not remain a virgin."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

[color=red]Calvin[/color]

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}


Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }


[color=red]Huldreich Zwingli[/color]

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

[color=red]John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)[/color]

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

[color=red]Heinrich Bullinger[/color]

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

[phatcatholic]

i have two more arguments to add to what has already been said. these basically come from what quietfire was saying about understanding the thought and the tradition of the day to interpret scripture.

[b]point #1: [/b]in the verses where we see Jesus' "brothers" we often have these "brothers" trying to tell Jesus what to do, to quit saying what he's saying or to leave town. if these "brothers" were really Jesus' blood brothers then they would have to be younger then him--since Jesus is the firstborn. but then--and here's the important part--we would have younger brothers telling the oldest brother what to do.

--this was simply NOT DONE in jewish society. the eldest of the brothers held an esteem which did not allow the younger brothers to be so bold.

so, these "brothers" are either half-brothers (Jesus' brothers from Joseph's other marriage--which is possible since early documents testify that Joseph was a widow) or they are counsins, other family, friends, or individuals related to Jesus in some other regard. this is really the only way those instances fit into Jewish custom


[b]point #2:[/b] it was also Jewish custom for the eldest son, when he died, to place the care of his mother to his next oldest brother. we know from the bible that Jesus was aware of jewish custom and was faithful to them--when they were in accordance w/ God's true intentions (celebrating the passover, being baptized, etc.). but, he gave care of his mother to the apostle John. therefore, these "brothers" were not his actual brothers or Jesus would have undoubtedly given care of his mother to them, instead of John.


these are just two points which stress the important of the context of scripture w/in the time and culture it was written. added to the other arguments that have been made in this thread, a strong case is made for mary's perpetual virginity.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 24, 2004 by phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

Would anyone care to respond to this?

This was my defense of Mary's perpetual virginity

[quote]Objection 1: It seems that Mary was not perpetually a virgin, for, it is written in the Gospel of Luke (1:24-25): When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Reply Obj. 1: The Protestant here reads the word "until" in the modern sense of the word, that is, that it denotes a stopping or beginning of an action after a specified event. However, we find its usage in Scripture in places where one would expect the action to continue. The word "until" in this sense can imply that Mary and Joseph had no relations before the birth of Christ. It does not necessarily speak of consumnation AFTER Jesus' birth. However, let us look at other examples of where the word "until" is used in Scripture.

The Apostle says (1 Cor 15:23-26): But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

I ask the question, then: Will not Christ continue to reign after His enemies have been trampeled under His feet?

As Moses writes: (Genesis 8:4-5)
and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

I ask the question, then: Did the waters not continue to recede after the tenth month? I assert emphatically that they did, for it is written that the waters did not completely recede until the first month of Noahs six hundred and first year. Recall that Noah was instructed to build the boat in his six-hundredth year. If the standard, modern usage of the word "until" were applied here, the floodwaters would have stopped receding in the tenth month, leaving the earth still partially covered with water. Therefore, the usage of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25 does not imply anything other than that an action did not occur up to a point in time, and does not mean that the action occured after said point in time. [/quote]

And this was my opponents rebuttal

[quote name='swordfish7']The Greek word for "until" in Matthew 1:25 is: "heos", and it really does mean "only up to this point in time". It is this same word, "until", that refers to the star that moved ahead of the wise men until it stood over the place where Jesus lay, then it stopped moving. Again, it is used in Matthew 2:13 to show that Joseph and Mary were to remain in Egypt until receiving a revelation from God, and then they could return.

You incorrectly state that 1 Corinthians 15:26 uses the same word "until" that is used in Matthew 1.25. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 15:26 is actually "achri", meaning both "while" and "up to".

It is not good form to rely on the surface English word to attempt to prove a point about syntatical and grammatical comparisons. It would be better to rely on the underlying Greek or Hebrew.

It is entirely proper to understand Matthew 1:25 to mean "Joseph kept Mary a virgin only until after she gave birth to Jesus" based on the actual rendering of the original words.

Cheers.[/quote]

[Hananiah]

[quote]The Greek word for "until" in Matthew 1:25 is: "heos", and it really does mean "only up to this point in time". It is this same word, "until", that refers to the star that moved ahead of the wise men until it stood over the place where Jesus lay, then it stopped moving. Again, it is used in Matthew 2:13 to show that Joseph and Mary were to remain in Egypt until receiving a revelation from God, and then they could return.

You incorrectly state that 1 Corinthians 15:26 uses the same word "until" that is used in Matthew 1.25. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 15:26 is actually "achri", meaning both "while" and "up to".

It is not good form to rely on the surface English word to attempt to prove a point about syntatical and grammatical comparisons. It would be better to rely on the underlying Greek or Hebrew.

It is entirely proper to understand Matthew 1:25 to mean "Joseph kept Mary a virgin only until after she gave birth to Jesus" based on the actual rendering of the original words.[/quote]
One would get laughed out of the university if one cliamed that [i]heos[/i] necessarily terminated the action of the main clause, as this Protestant is doing. It is common knowledge that [i]heos[/i] means only that the action continues up to the specified point, and that whether or not it then terminates is dependent on context.

But that is irrelevant to this particular argument. To be more precise, it is not [i]heos[/i] which is used in Matt 1:25 but [i]heos hou[/i]. Eric Svendsen's doctoral thesis is that [i]heos hou[/i] always terminates the action of the main clause, or at least it did when the gospel of Matthew was written. It has been refuted to my satisfaction. See [i]heos hou central[/i] at [url="http://www.catholic-legate.com"]http://www.catholic-legate.com[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

I notice our person has not responded to all these excellent points yet, hope he at least reads them..

Phatcatholic, can we put some of these in the apologetic section?