How many other children did Mary have?

[Hentenza]

The use of the term "the Virgin" as a proper noun is found in Justin iirc;

Mary was a virgin. Her title of virgin results from the virgin birth not from the EV.

however, your claim was that only texts from this era are acceptable evidence (thus exclude the majority of what you call the New Testament)

Apples and oranges. The OT and NT were FULLY written by the end of the first century. Again, no evidence exists of Mary's EV, whether written or oral until the middle of the second century.

and that all history and fact that is true is in written record.

You doubt scripture and the works of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.?

On the latter point, your contention is false by the standards of the study of history.

Nope. Zero evidence is still zero evidence. The best that one can do with zero evidence is to posit a hypothesis pending evidence. There is no evidence to this date, therefore, the hypothesis remains unproven.

 

[Montalban]

What? There is neither written, oral, or ANY kind of teaching regarding Mary's EV prior to the middle of the second century. What part of written, oral, or any kind are you not understanding?

No. You assume there's no oral teaching based on your idea that there's no written teaching. You keep giving this argument from silence, and then ironically saying that's my argument!

 

[Thekla]

Mary was a virgin. Her title of virgin results from the virgin birth not from the EV.

How could the proper noun (name) "the Virgin" be used for someone who is not a virgin ?

Apples and oranges. The OT and NT were FULLY written by the end of the first century. Again, no evidence exists of Mary's EV, whether written or oral until the middle of the second century.

Then stick to your own standard in other matters as well. No extant original evidence, therefore is not acceptable - only where the evidence is written and extant (thus shaving off swaths of the NT).

You doubt scripture and the works of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.?

I do not hold to your theory of history - that it is entirely comprised of what is written and extant.

Nope. Zero evidence is still zero evidence. The best that one can do with zero evidence is to posit a hypothesis pending evidence. There is no evidence to this date, therefore, the hypothesis remains unproven.

The same of the NT; your standard for what is true is wholly (here) tied to extant written evidence. You should (as before) use consistent standards.

 

[Standing Up]

Mary was a virgin. Her title of virgin results from the virgin birth not from the EV.

That comes through loud and clear, if you read very early tradition. They all knew of Christ Jesus was born of a virgin and they knew of James the brother of the Lord, first bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[Montalban]

It comes in loud and clear if you ignore things and pretend others (like Jerome) are saying one thing about their beliefs when in fact they're contrasting them to what some others might believe

 

[Montalban]

How could the proper noun (name) "the Virgin" be used for someone who is not a virgin ?

the argument is its an adjective only applicable for a particular time because it is.

 

[Thekla]

That comes through loud and clear, if you read very early tradition. They all knew of Christ Jesus was born of a virgin and they knew of James the brother of the Lord, first bishop of Jerusalem.

The use of "the Virgin" as a name (proper noun) postdates the birth of Christ and the fall of Jerusalem.

You have not yet given textual evidence for the narrowing of the term "adelphos" to the definition you claim.

You have not provided Scriptural evidence for the use of the term "adelphos" for issue of matrilineal origin; the Scripture uses the term re: a common male.

 

[Thekla]

the argument is its an adjective only applicable for a particular time because it is.

Well it isn't an adjective in the Greek.

 

[razeontherock]

matrilineal

Now there's a word you don't see every day! (Yet another good point, too ...)

 

[Kristos]

Matthew's genealogy goes through Joseph. The other one (Luke?) is vastly different. I'm told it is actually Mary's genealogy. Anybody know how this works?



I don't see how. I think it would be a sign of .. 2 people being married. Can you explain your thinking here?

Luke's goes starts with Joseph. There are difference but I wouldn't say vastly.

On marriage, as Christian vocation, we must always remember that the ultimate goal is God. Yes, it was not good for Man to be alone. Yes, God ordained marriage, and for Man and Woman to become one flesh, but always with the goal of truly reflecting His image, of Christ in us. In the case of Mary, she literally had the Logos within her, the Incarnate Son of God from her flesh, conceived in her womb and born unto her. She bore God in reality. I would not separate the physical from the spiritual here, otherwise you risk falling into docetism. Same case with us, do not separate the body from the spirit in Christ. So after receiving such a great gift, which is actually the telos of our earthly existence, and the reason God ordained marriage as a path toward Him...why would anyone go backtrack? Because it just wasn't good enough the first time? No - you move forward. For Mary moving forward can really only mean one thing.

 

[Kristos]

Joseph did literally take Mary as his wife prior to Jesus birth but obeyed the angel and kept her a virgin until after Jesus birth. The command of the angel to Joseph required Joseph to keep her a virgin until the birth of Jesus. This part of the command expired at Jesus birth freeing Joseph of his obligation.



My apologies. I misread your post regarding Anna. The same name is assigned by the protoevangelium to Mary's mother.

He would have been violating the Law if he did this before her 40 day purification. So, was the angel just imprecise - and really meant until after her purification or did the angel mean exactly what he said in that "until" is eternal as can be shown by its usage throughout Holy Scripture.

Do you really see this an obligation on Joseph's part? Wouldn't it be his joy???

 

[Montalban]

What? There is neither written, oral, or ANY kind of teaching regarding Mary's EV prior to the middle of the second century. What part of written, oral, or any kind are you not understanding?

That's not true. The church has always taught the EV. For you the EV teaching begins to ermge at the extant written record c.145 AD

For me, the church would not introduce a new teaching because it never has.

For me that is the guarantor that it was always taught.

For you, you keep arguing from silence

 

[Montalban]

Mary was a virgin. Her title of virgin results from the virgin birth not from the EV.

Your posts keep missing the point.

Mary is a virgin.

Mary the Virgin.

One is an adjective. The other is a title.

It's been pointed out that the word isn't used as an adjective, but as a noun.

 

[HeavensWorship]

After all the smoke clears from all the "smoke" that was blown in the thread it is pretty clear.. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but got married. according to God's Word, a husband and wife have an OBLIGATION to have sex with one another. Additionally, the Bible bares record that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Laying aside all Mary worship, and laying aside all justification for the over-exaltation of Mary as a "virginity goddess", one must conclude the obvious - Mary was a wonderful woman chosen by God to carry Jesus. Afterwards, she, as the wife of Joseph bore more children. Bareness in marriage was considered to be a curse in the Bible. Mary bore more children. How many more? No one knows. Why? Because it really doesn't matter. All we know is that Jesus is the son of God through Mary, and he has step-siblings. Mary is not to be over-exalted as some kind of eternal virgin.

 

[Ave Maria]

The Blessed Virgin Mary only had one child, her only Son, Jesus Christ. She was a Virgin her entire life and was sinless as well. She had no children. When the Bible mentions the "brothers" of Jesus it is talking about His cousins most likely because the Biblical word for "brothers" can also mean cousins or other relatives from what I understand. Check out this article:

"Brethren of the Lord" | Catholic Answers

Here are some other resources I recommend as well:

Two-Minute Apologetics

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord

Catholic Apologetics: The Brothers of Jesus.

Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Apolonio's Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/1stborn.pdf

 

[Fireinfolding]

After all the smoke clears from all the "smoke" that was blown in the thread it is pretty clear.. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but got married. according to God's Word, a husband and wife have an OBLIGATION to have sex with one another. Additionally, the Bible bares record that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Laying aside all Mary worship, and laying aside all justification for the over-exaltation of Mary as a "virginity goddess", one must conclude the obvious - Mary was a wonderful woman chosen by God to carry Jesus. Afterwards, she, as the wife of Joseph bore more children. Bareness in marriage was considered to be a curse in the Bible. Mary bore more children. How many more? No one knows. Why? Because it really doesn't matter. All we know is that Jesus is the son of God through Mary, and he has step-siblings. Mary is not to be over-exalted as some kind of eternal virgin.

I agree

 

[whitetiger1]

But to many Protestant she must be cheapen and the new Ark must be cheapen because it only matters what they think not what is thought through Christian history and the historic Churches.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That's not true. The church has always taught the EV. For you the EV teaching begins to ermge at the extant written record c.145 AD

For me, the church would not introduce a new teaching because it never has.

For me that is the guarantor that it was always taught.

For you, you keep arguing from silence

Indeed it has, and for the most part still does:

Concordia; the Lutheran Confessions; Solid Declaration, Forumula of Concord:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. [/FONT]

Also...(http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm)

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. ​

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. ​

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

• A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

• Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

• Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."
Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
​

 

[Montalban]

I agree

Let me know if it's a position you want to argue against, or not.

 

[Montalban]

After all the smoke clears from all the "smoke" that was blown in the thread it is pretty clear.. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but got married. according to God's Word, a husband and wife have an OBLIGATION to have sex with one another. Additionally, the Bible bares record that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Laying aside all Mary worship, and laying aside all justification for the over-exaltation of Mary as a "virginity goddess", one must conclude the obvious - Mary was a wonderful woman chosen by God to carry Jesus. Afterwards, she, as the wife of Joseph bore more children. Bareness in marriage was considered to be a curse in the Bible. Mary bore more children. How many more? No one knows. Why? Because it really doesn't matter. All we know is that Jesus is the son of God through Mary, and he has step-siblings. Mary is not to be over-exalted as some kind of eternal virgin.

The evidence about 'brothers' doesn't necessarily mean literal brothers.

This has been gone over before.

The argument that she then had a 'normal' marriage is also speculation given that the beginning of her marriage was anything but normal.

As to 'over-exalted' well she's unique amongst women. She herself said she would be blessed through the ages, but if you're aware of other women who have similarly given birth to God, let me know.