Mary Have No Other Kids?

[ironmonk]

Just using the bible, we can see that Mary did not have any other children. Also, before Christ, men were allowed to have multiple wives.

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

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.

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 - the following verses prove 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.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Jesus was sinless, why did He die?

Mary was sinless also, she was pure, for the Lord received ALL of His flesh from her. She was sinless because she was the new ark of the Covenant.

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the amesome everence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the "woman" that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary's offspring are those who keep God's commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary's offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

Just using the bible, we can see that Mary did not have any other children. Also, before Christ, men were allowed to have multiple wives.

Agreed, however it is always looked upon with distaste and warnings in Scripture, and Joseph was said to be a righteous man.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

That's interesting. Ezekiel 44 is speaking about a temple however, and if you want to say that is Mary, you could have a lot of problems in the passage on your hands.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

"the" son is merely from the definite article in Greek. It does not imply none others as english can.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

A consecrated Temple virgin? Matthew 1:18 says "His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." So they planned to come together in marriage. A temple virgin would not have been married, and this passage indicates they planned on having relations. Your passage does not imply a vow of lifelong virginity, it is a natural reaction to someone saying you are pregnant when you have never slept with anyone.

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

The gospels are very specific about what they write. In doing a harmony you see the different authors left out different stuff, this can only be because of messages attempting to be shown through them each. This is not an indication.

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.

Not true. Not sure what you base this on. You are to respect your elders, but among the Jews they still discussed and gave advice.

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.

Good point in that it should have went to the family first.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

They prove nothing. If anything it means they could have been cousins.

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

That is true. It doesn't account for Simon and Judas however which it says in Matthew 13:53-58.

Jesus was sinless, why did He die?

He was our substitution, it was voluntary. He was also slain.

Mary was sinless also, she was pure, for the Lord received ALL of His flesh from her. She was sinless because she was the new ark of the Covenant.

the new ark of the covenant? Based upon what?

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:39 says that Mary went to the hill country of Judea. Your verses are wrong or you are making connections that are not there. You are making an entire doctrine off of a few similarities between Luke 1:39-1:56. These passages never said the Ark of the Covenant. I could compare Jesus to Santa Clause as well, it doesn't prove that they are supposed to be compared.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

The narrative structure also moves 12:1 to a new story. Your link is weak.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

Even though

1 John 2:1 "But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

Ever think perhaps the woman is not Mary? And perhaps instead are the Jews? IE, the twelve stars are the twelve tribes, the response of Michael fighting the dragon because Michael is the protector of Israel (Daniel 12:1) and not the protector of Mary.

Your servant in Christ,

Circle_Master

[hyperdulia again]

it is both israel and mary, scripture is multilayered..

[hyperdulia again]

Israel is Holy Church btw.

[Circle_Master]

I disagree with both your comments hyperdulia

I believe Scripture to have a plain meaning, and I've never known anyone to write in a way other than that. The oracle of Delphi is said to have written with multilayered comments, but I wouldn't compare Scripture to her.

Israel as the Holy Church I can't agree with either. That would be some of my dispensational blood :D. If you want to argue that, that would be an entire bathtub of worms I'm afraid.

[cmotherofpirl]

I disagree with both your comments hyperdulia

I believe Scripture to have a plain meaning, and I've never known anyone to write in a way other than that. The oracle of Delphi is said to have written with multilayered comments, but I wouldn't compare Scripture to her.

Israel as the Holy Church I can't agree with either. That would be some of my dispensational blood :D. If you want to argue that, that would be an entire bathtub of worms I'm afraid.

WEll of course you think it has a plain meaning, the unitarians and mormons and anglicans and lutherans and methodists and adventists all think that is well.

Of course if it were plain you would all be in complete agreement, correct?

NOT!

[hyperdulia again]

i feedin' da baby. no time to argue. but i'm right. :P

[Circle_Master]

Of course if it were plain you would all be in complete agreement, correct?

Of course, that is why most denominations agree on the "baby food" of Hebrews 6. It is the more complex stuff that is often argued over heatedly, such as the existance of spiritual gifts today. The "day of the Lord" from Acts 2. Evangelical Pluralism and the wideness of God's Mercy. Things such as that.

[Sammy Blaze]

Ok my Catholic brothers and sisters, let's just calm down.  We don't want to set this thread on fire, or dUSt the Firechief and his Firemen (the Moderators) will storm this thread.

Well before asking my question to my non-Catholic brothers and sisters, I would like to provide something that should be interesting.  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:8–9).

(quote from Catholic Answers)

Now on to my question.  Why do Protestants usually (not always) ignore the writings of the Church Fathers?  Of course, they aren't Godly inspired, but they are still reliable.  It shows us what the Early Christians taught and believed, in the early Christian Church (aka Catholic Church).  To ignore these, is to ignore actual history.  By using that logic, you have a right to ignore the history of WWII and claim it was just "made up".  I just don't understand, and I hope someone can answer me this question.

Has anyone answered or made comments to this yet...it seems like an interesting view of our early fathers.. ~S.

[Anna]

I believe Scripture to have a plain meaning, and I've never known anyone to write in a way other than that.

Except of course, in John 6, when Jesus says: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world . . . Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him...”

Or at the Last Supper, when Jesus says: Take this and eat. This is My Body. Take this and drink. This is My Blood...

Or when building His Church upon Peter, giving Peter the authority to bind and loosen on earth and in heaven, and promising that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail upon the Church built upon Peter....

Pax Christi. <><

[Circle_Master]

Except of course, in John 6, when Jesus says: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world . . . Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him...”

plain language also includes figures of speech. This sounds like one to me, and research agrees.

Or at the Last Supper, when Jesus says:  Take this and eat.  This is My Body.  Take this and drink.  This is My Blood...

and then other gospels say "do this in remembrance of Me" ? Looks like another figure of speech. We are commanded not to drink blood anyway, and what happens when you digest it too, if it really is Christ, what comes out the other end?

Or when building His Church upon Peter, giving Peter the authority to bind and loosen on earth and in heaven, and promising that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail upon the Church built upon Peter....

I do believe the passage says that the Church is built upon this rock. It doesn't say "Peter", and this has already been argued. When I see other passages saying Jesus is the cornerstone, and I look at the entire narrative context which has Peter's proclamation the focus of the beginning of it, and the middle, and the end, I really question if Peter himself was the focus, or his proclamation.

[Anna]

Circle, the layers are piling up so high, I need hip waders.

History and Sacred Tradition refute all your "research." The false interpretations of Scripture to which you adhere were not known before the 1500's.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

plain language also includes figures of speech. This sounds like one to me, and research agrees.

and then other gospels say "do this in remembrance of Me" ? Looks like another figure of speech. We are commanded not to drink blood anyway, and what happens when you digest it too, if it really is Christ, what comes out the other end?

I do believe the passage says that the Church is built upon this rock. It doesn't say "Peter", and this has already been argued. When I see other passages saying Jesus is the cornerstone, and I look at the entire narrative context which has Peter's proclamation the focus of the beginning of it, and the middle, and the end, I really question if Peter himself was the focus, or his proclamation.

Please cite a single Early Church Father who agrees that Christ was speaking figuratively in the Bread of Life Discourse, or at the Last Supper...or that Christ didn't found His Church on Peter, the first pope.

Find that Early Church Father, and quote him. Otherwise, you're just spouting the ignorant pompous errors of the reformers.

Pax Christi. <><

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Ok, I didnt have time to read all 4 pages so here is my rebuttal on why Mary had no other children besides Christ.

Mind you its long, so this is a good time to practice patience. huh?

Bruce and Circle, you say:

Matthew,[5] "And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogues, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles relates,[6] "These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

I say:

Observe, James and Joses are sons of Mary, and the same persons who were called brethren by the Jews. Observe, Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the greater, who was the son of Zebedee.

John says,[1] "But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphaeus and a believer in Jesus, "For neither did his brethren believe in him." If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says,[2] "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And in the same Epistle,[3] "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars," etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the less," and here, "Mary of Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro.

How could Mary have other children when she is a perpetual virgin?

It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Also as for the word brethren

In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren--by nature, race, kindred, love.

Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy:

[1] "If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee."

Anti in the same book,[2] "Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shall thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother."

And again,[3] "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shall bring it home to thine house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again."

And the Apostle Paul says,[4] " I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is patria,which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds.

In Genesis[1] we read, "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begat Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begat Lot.

Again we read,[2] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife. and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance:

[3] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew nigh and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother.

[4] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother.