How many other children did Mary have?

[Montalban]

How can we tie tradition of EV to the Apostles?

It's either from the Apostles or

it's made up

or subject to some kind of special revelation

 

[razeontherock]

Raze,
For me, part of Mary's virginity is related to how we, as Christians, handle human passions.

Thank you! I have recently (maybe this past summer?) gotten some glimpse of this idea for the first time. You can imagine how it must challenge my thinking, having been born and bred into show business, first attending choir practice at age 4 in 1969, mini-skirts on teenagers and all ...

 

[razeontherock]

I would say that Mary's perpetual virginity is tied into two doctrines of faith.

1) Jesus' Incarnation: Mary's perpetual virginity is a witness to Jesus' miraculous birth and His divinity. If let us say that I tell you that my wife conceived and gave birth to our first child while a virgin, and after this she had 4 or 5 other children

I don't find this argument convincing, but:

2) If Jesus' is the new Adam, who is the new Eve?

Does this in any way tie in to the statement "Eve was called the Mother of all living?" This is one of those things that even the very first time I read it, i knew there was "more." (Which doesn't mean I want to go making stuff up, esp if it's wrong)

So to answer your question. Yes Mary has other children and they are you, me and all Christians baptized into the Body of Christ.

I have read some of EO's teaching on this; I didn't realize RC held that too. Isn't this just another way of relating to the concept of "new birth?"

Another point to be made is put yourself into Joseph's shoes for just one second. Joseph as just been told by Gabriel that his wife was giving birth to the Son of God. In his eyes Mary just became holy ground.

But we are all the Temple of the Holy Spirit?

Could you possibly have a normal marital relationship with the only person in salvation history hailed by an Archangel with the title of "Full of Grace" or "Highest Favored One"?

I don't see why this poses a problem, but:

I believe that Joseph knew who Mary's true spouse is and he wasn't going to violate that relationship. He was just too righteous and God-fearing for that.

If this is actually how Joseph looked at it, this is an argument that has merit. Trying to establish this is difficult though. I mean I tried living single and chaste for the Lord as a young man, and you're talking about one thing He's not going to do for anyone and that's provide the physical kind of companionship we're clearly designed for. 30 years later and it's not any easier, which I know because the last 1/2 of that I've also been single. I have a tough time seeing that Mary had any "spouse," other than Joseph.

 

[Erose]

Well, we know Matthew used Isaiah's prophecy to prove the virgin birth. He didn't use Mary's life thereafter.

How did Matthew learn of the virgin birth? Like I said the only witnesses that we know of to the virgin birth was Mary and Joseph.

It is an interesting sequence. The whole life of Christ Jesus was not believed. His brothers didn't believe Him. The disciples were scattered. But that too was prophesied. It's not until after the resurrection many believed.

Was there not many that believed before the resurrection? Did not John the baptist believe before Jesus did one miracle? Did not Mary believe in her Son? Don't forget this that Mary is the very first Christian. She is the first believer in her Son. The first to experience Him and have a personal relationship with Him. In fact it is safe to say that no other human being had a greater personal relationship with Jesus than His mother.

For us, we can believe too because it is written.

But it wasn't always written. Don't forget that.

 

[Erose]

Does this in any way tie in to the statement "Eve was called the Mother of all living?" This is one of those things that even the very first time I read it, i knew there was "more." (Which doesn't mean I want to go making stuff up, esp if it's wrong)

This is what the ECF thought as well. To them Eve could not have been the Mother of all living because through her death entered into the world by her disobedience. So the ECFs began to equate this as a prophecy of the new Eve who through her obedience eternal life entered into the world. This thought process was very early and can be found in the writings of St. Ireneaus:

1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death. (Against Heresies, Bk V, Chapter 19)

I have read some of EO's teaching on this; I didn't realize RC held that too. Isn't this just another way of relating to the concept of "new birth?"

Oh yes. We view that in baptism we are born again and we are born into the family of Christ. In Christ we are His brethren, His Father is our Father, and His mother is our mother.

But we are all the Temple of the Holy Spirit?

Do you disagree that there are differing grades of holiness? The Temple of the old covenant is a perfect example of this is it not?

In this temple you had differing grades of holiness in who can go into those areas. The Holy Place only priests of Aaron's line were allowed to go into, then you had the Holy of Holies where only the high priest was allowed to go into once a year after a period of time of sanctification and sacrifice. Part of that sanctification was abstaining from sexual relations.

If this is actually how Joseph looked at it, this is an argument that has merit. Trying to establish this is difficult though. I mean I tried living single and chaste for the Lord as a young man, and you're talking about one thing He's not going to do for anyone and that's provide the physical kind of companionship we're clearly designed for. 30 years later and it's not any easier, which I know because the last 1/2 of that I've also been single. I have a tough time seeing that Mary had any "spouse," other than Joseph.

I think one of the hangups that many people have with this is due to our view of sex in this modern age. We have been told over and over again that chastity is a pipe dream and sex in inevitable so why try? But there has always been in the Christian church, men and women who have dedicated themselves completely to God and part of that dedication is maintaining their virginity. There is nothing wrong with being a virgin, but in this society, a virgin is someone to feel sorry for.

But we see that it is achievable through all the men and women who have given themselves to Christ completely. We see it obviously in Jesus, but also in St. Paul as well. We also see it in the witness of all of the virgins that we call monks and nuns.

As you know as well as most of us do that being chaste is not easy and is very difficult to achieve. But I think that because of this the monks and nuns that have dedicated themselves to God completely know that the only way they can remain chaste is through the grace of Christ and that His grace and not our wills alone maintains their chastity. This helps them surrender themselves even more into the grace of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

How did Matthew learn of the virgin birth? Like I said the only witnesses that we know of to the virgin birth was Mary and Joseph.

So, you don't think the OT qualifies as a witness to Messiah?

Was there not many that believed before the resurrection? Did not John the baptist believe before Jesus did one miracle? Did not Mary believe in her Son? Don't forget this that Mary is the very first Christian. She is the first believer in her Son. The first to experience Him and have a personal relationship with Him. In fact it is safe to say that no other human being had a greater personal relationship with Jesus than His mother.

They believed, but expected Him to rule at the first coming. Strike the shepard and all will fall away (OT prophesy).

But it wasn't always written. Don't forget that.

By 30ad the OT had been written. They knew the prophecies and the time from Daniel. Yes, the apostles spoke and then wrote it down.

 

[Erose]

So, you don't think the OT qualifies as a witness to Messiah?

What Isaiah provides us with is a prophecy, but it is not a true witness that it was actually Jesus that was born of a virgin. The Jews knew of the prophecy and Mary and Joseph are the witnesses that this prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus.

They believed, but expected Him to rule at the first coming. Strike the shepard and all will fall away (OT prophesy).

Did all think this? There is evidence shown that in Jewish thought that the messiah was to be a suffering servant as taught by Isaiah. So not all was looking for a political only messiah.

By 30ad the OT had been written. They knew the prophecies and the time from Daniel. Yes, the apostles spoke and then wrote it down.

So where is an Infancy narrative in the OT? All I have been able to find is the prophecy that it was going to happen, but not a narrative that it did happen.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What Isaiah provides us with is a prophecy, but it is not a true witness that it was actually Jesus that was born of a virgin. The Jews knew of the prophecy and Mary and Joseph are the witnesses that this prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus.

Did all think this? There is evidence shown that in Jewish thought that the messiah was to be a suffering servant as taught by Isaiah. So not all was looking for a political only messiah.

So where is an Infancy narrative in the OT? All I have been able to find is the prophecy that it was going to happen, but not a narrative that it did happen.

Pretty sure that's a typo and he meant NT.

 

[Standing Up]

What Isaiah provides us with is a prophecy, but it is not a true witness that it was actually Jesus that was born of a virgin. The Jews knew of the prophecy and Mary and Joseph are the witnesses that this prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus.

Did all think this? There is evidence shown that in Jewish thought that the messiah was to be a suffering servant as taught by Isaiah. So not all was looking for a political only messiah.

So where is an Infancy narrative in the OT? All I have been able to find is the prophecy that it was going to happen, but not a narrative that it did happen.

You mean Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn?

The OT prophesied it and NT shows its fulfillment. After the birth of Jesus from the virgin, the NT doesn't even mention the virgin Mary anymore, but only Mary. So, the idea of needing Mary to remain a virgin as some type of witness doesn't exist in the NT.

(Maybe she did or maybe she didn't remain a virgin, it's just not necessary in order to prove the fulfillment of OT or the gospel witnesses).

 

[Erose]

You mean Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn?

When did they get into the OT?

The OT prophesied it and NT shows its fulfillment. After the birth of Jesus from the virgin, the NT doesn't even mention the virgin Mary anymore, but only Mary. So, the idea of needing Mary to remain a virgin as some type of witness doesn't exist in the NT.

So what did the early Christians have as a witness before the Gospels were written and accepted?

(Maybe she did or maybe she didn't remain a virgin, it's just not necessary in order to prove the fulfillment of OT or the gospel witnesses).

Your view not mine. Evidently it was important enough to give her the title Virgin Mary in the ECFs and the creeds.

 

[Standing Up]

When did they get into the OT?

So what did the early Christians have as a witness before the Gospels were written and accepted?

We'd have to expand our 'fulfilled prophecy' list, but clearly it wasn't only or even the supposed ever-virgin idea.

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The context is Joseph and Mary and their children.

Your view not mine. Evidently it was important enough to give her the title Virgin Mary in the ECFs and the creeds.

I understand EV is a salvific issue for you, so I hesitate to bring out ECFs who disagreed. And the title Virgin Mary specifically relates to Jesus' birth, not her later life. Again in scripture, there is no later sense of it when she is mentioned.

 

[Philothei]

*coughing* Joseph kids? Maybe "brothers" as cousins? or maybe kinsmen growing up in the same family? Take your pick Standing Up. Unless it means blood brothers and sisters you have proved nothing.

NO ECFs disagreed...They just did not mention it ... You disagree and it is ok you can as you do not have the fuller picture of what the gospel says. In Scripture there is NOwhere that is says that Mary was NOT EVER VIRGIN so you have no case.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's either from the Apostles or

it's made up

or subject to some kind of special revelation

Bingo! That is exactly what happened in 1950 when the Pope proclaimed the EV as an ex-cathedra Dogma. It was not enough that the idea had been embraced for a very long time. The RCC required a special revelation to cement it firmly in place as a salvific dogma.

 

[Montalban]

Bingo! That is exactly what happened in 1950 when the Pope proclaimed the EV as an ex-cathedra Dogma. It was not enough that the idea had been embraced for a very long time. The RCC required a special revelation to cement it firmly in place as a salvific dogma.

I'm not sure that you've got the date for RCC however Orthodox have always believed it.

 

[razeontherock]

This is what the ECF thought as well. To them Eve could not have been the Mother of all living because through her death entered into the world by her disobedience. So the ECFs began to equate this as a prophecy of the new Eve who through her obedience eternal life entered into the world.

Thank you for the post this was snipped from! A very thorough address

 

[Montalban]

Bingo! That is exactly what happened in 1950 when the Pope proclaimed the EV as an ex-cathedra Dogma. It was not enough that the idea had been embraced for a very long time. The RCC required a special revelation to cement it firmly in place as a salvific dogma.

I believe that in 1950 the pope declared the Assumption of Mary.

She was declared to have been Immaculately Conceived in 1854

At the Council of the Lateran, 649 she was declared Ever-Virgin...

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. It stresses thus the radical novelty of the Incarnation and Mary's no less radical and exclusive dedication to her mission as mother of her Son, Jesus Christ. Vatican II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever-Virgin, by stating that Christ's birth did not diminish Mary's virginal integrity but sanctified it
Mary: The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

 

[Erose]

We'd have to expand our 'fulfilled prophecy' list, but clearly it wasn't only or even the supposed ever-virgin idea.

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The context is Joseph and Mary and their children.



I understand EV is a salvific issue for you, so I hesitate to bring out ECFs who disagreed. And the title Virgin Mary specifically relates to Jesus' birth, not her later life. Again in scripture, there is no later sense of it when she is mentioned.

Have you ever found anyone in Scripture or the ECFs that is called either the son of the Virgin Mary or the son of Joseph that is not Jesus?

As has already been kicked around enough in other threads it has been shown that in Scripture the word "brother" was not exclusive to siblings, but also includes near relations, fellow Christians, etc.

 

[Philothei]

Have you ever found anyone in Scripture or the ECFs that is called either the son of the Virgin Mary or the son of Joseph that is not Jesus?

As has already been kicked around enough in other threads it has been shown that in Scripture the word "brother" was not exclusive to siblings, but also includes near relations, fellow Christians, etc.

ah...yeah this has been kicked around about a million times .... brother Erose

 

[Erose]

ah...yeah this has been kicked around about a million times .... brother Erose

Yeah I know I was involved in Montaban's double thread and I haven't seen any evidence as of yet of someone else besides Jesus being call the son of Mary.

 

[Standing Up]

Have you ever found anyone in Scripture or the ECFs that is called either the son of the Virgin Mary or the son of Joseph that is not Jesus?

No. Just the 4 brothers James, Judah, etc.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:

FWIW- Their recognition of Immanuel-not the mother.

As has already been kicked around enough in other threads it has been shown that in Scripture the word "brother" was not exclusive to siblings, but also includes near relations, fellow Christians, etc.

IIRC, the term in hebrew may include near relations, but the term in greek does not include it, yet folks will nevertheless interpret the words to mean the same, when they do not.

ach-hebrew
1) brother
a) brother of same parents
b) half-brother (same father)
c) relative, kinship, same tribe
d) each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
e) (fig.) of resemblance


adelphos-greek
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place