Did Mary, Mother of Jesus, have other children?

[IamAdopted]

What amazes me the most is that repentant accepts the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters but claims that they were Joseph's from a previous marriage. But, axiom obviously claims that Jesus did not have any children. mmmm.... Didn't they use to be the same church when the bible was canonized? Don't both of them read and believe in the protevangelium? They can't even get their stories straight. That is the result of unbiblical oral tradition.

Tee hee I know. In the bible we see over and over again that Jesus did have brothers and sisters. We see that even those who knew them intimatly in their life express this. Because they are amazed at Jesus Teaching. And His authority.

 

[Petunia]

No, cause the Greek does not say her first born, it only says she brought forth a son. uiov..in Matt 1:25 and in Luke it says she brought forth a son "the firstborn", it does not say He was her firstborn (allthough He was), it is saying Jesus was the firstborn in a Spiritual sense..

That seems to be a pretty long stretch, repentant. I found a few greek/english new testament sites.. and they translate it as 'her firstborn'. I haven't found any that translate it the way you have.

 

[repentant]

The scriptures in the NT were written in greek. Precise wording used. Not the greek translated from the latin either But written in the original greek. We see through these writings that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters and that they were from Mary. This is why the word that is used was used. Why people cannot accept that Jesus had brothers and sisters is beyond me. For Salvation comes through Jesus. What is the big deal if He had brothers and sisters?

Please show me in Scripture where it says they are Mary's children. This has been asked hundreds of time's now, and yet has been done. I know it can't, but still stop lying about what Scripture says. No one deny's Jesus had bro's and sis', we deny they are Mary's children..

 

[repentant]

Show me where the authorative word of God says that the children were not Mary's. Questionable writtings do not make your case. I have the bible to prove my point, or do you consider the bible to be "nothing". That is just plain arrogant.

It doesn't, and it also doesn't say that they were her's..that is the point. We have other historical records. The Bible does not prove your point at all, and do not even suggest I say the Bible means nothing. The Bible does not say she had other children, so your ignorant comment doesn't even make sense her. I have not denied what the Bible says, only your additions to it..

Why does anything of record that has to do with anybody that was a Christian in the first century, or that is in the Bible, have to be in the Bible to be true? You are telling me that even biography's of Biblical people have to be in the Bible to be true? Well you're not in the Bible, so I guess you don't exist...

Tradition appears 13 times in the KJV with 10 times having a very negative connotation. The remaining 3 speak of traditions as "just like I, apostles, delivered them to you". Books like the protevengelium do not meet this criteria and since it does not meet this criteria, you are in a sense adding words to scripture. Remember Gal 1:8 "8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

It met the criteria of the men who Canonized Scripture, and the early Church that still holds it to this day.

You finally said something that makes sense. Scripture is about Christ not Mary. There is nothing in scripture to back up the rest of your comment.

So why would Mary or Jospehs ife be in there?

The "Good news" is the gospel that our Lord commanded the apostles to spread to all corners of the world. I don't recall the protevangelium being part of the "good news".

Gospels were the good news, so your right here. The Proto is just a historical record of Biblical people.

Insults weaken your position because it shows your desperation. You are obviously not well equip to maintain a discussion in civilized terms. Grow up.

Please my friend, a history degree does not mean you spent extensive time on the early Church and the Biblical Canon, if any at all. takes 2 years after pre reqs to get a degree, that's not alot of time to cover the history of the world, so I truly doubt they spend much time on the Christian Church...not to mention the thousands of Orthodox Priests (and the many Catholic) who have Theology degree's, and spent their entire schooling learning about the Church, disagree with you..so your history degree here, is really worthless in this case..

As usual, just your opinion.

As is your un Biblical opinion.

It is still in use because it supports the unbiblical accounts of Mary. Due to the humble nature of Mary, based on the biblical accounts, the "cult like" exhaltation of Mary that this book is causing is contrary to her very nature.

You mean not recorded in Scripture accounts...a take offense to "cult like", how is saying she was EV "cult like"? But I asked a specific question. If the ECF's who Canonized Scripture thought enough to keep it around, and not toss it out with the other Books, how can you say it is false?

The fact remains that the protevangelium was not chosen as canonic because of the inconsistencies in the book. Even the "chief cononizers", as you call them, could not make it so.

There is none. You are just spouting now..they didn't add it, because it was not what they were going for..

In summary, you can not make doctrine based on questionable noncanonical writtings. Only the writtings that follow scripture are of value.

We can make Doctrine based on Oral Tradition handed from the Apostles. Her EV is not something new, but has been around since the beginning. Don't you think the early Christians, especially the Bishops, would know if Mary had other children? Why is their word not good enough? Why does every little thing need to be in Scripture to be true? Especially, since back then THEY DIDN'T HAVE SCRIPTURE!!

 

[repentant]

What amazes me the most is that repentant accepts the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters but claims that they were Joseph's from a previous marriage. But, axiom obviously claims that Jesus did not have any children. mmmm.... Didn't they use to be the same church when the bible was canonized? Don't both of them read and believe in the protevangelium? They can't even get their stories straight. That is the result of unbiblical oral tradition.

Is he supposed to believe Jesus had children? Do you? Wouldn't doubt it...

And the reason is because it is both. Some are Joseph's children, some are cousins..

But answer this...

"Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

This is from Matt 28..after the Ressurection, Mary and Mary run into Jesus. He tells them to go tell His brother's to meet Him in Galilee. The Greek uses the word adelphoi. Now who is He talking about? Who are the brothers He is reffering to? Well let's see..

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.

Oh wow. Jesus called the eleven Disciples His brother's. Would you say that the eleven Disciples are Mary's children as well?

 

[repentant]

Tee hee I know. In the bible we see over and over again that Jesus did have brothers and sisters. We see that even those who knew them intimatly in their life express this. Because they are amazed at Jesus Teaching. And His authority.

Do we see these brothers and sisters called Mary's children?...nope

 

[repentant]

That seems to be a pretty long stretch, repentant. I found a few greek/english new testament sites.. and they translate it as 'her firstborn'. I haven't found any that translate it the way you have.

It's not a stretch, it is what the original Greek says..

Here the KJV has "her firstborn" when the word "firstborn" isn't even in the original Greek..

Matt 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

Greek only has the word uiov, which means "son"..

Then we have Luke 2:7, which says "her firstborn" in English, but the Greek does not say "her firstborn" it call's Jesus "THE Firstborn"

Luke 2:7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι

Ton prototokon..THE firstborn. The greek here says, "And she gave birth to the Son the firstborn"

 

[Petunia]

It's not a stretch, it is what the original Greek says..

. . .

Luke 2:7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι

Ton prototokon..THE firstborn. The greek here says, "And she gave birth to the Son the firstborn"

What about αὐτῆς? What does it mean?

When running my mouse across the word on the site below, the highlighted text has the first usage for this word as 'her'.. and describes it as: - "a personal pronoun, genitive singular feminine".
http://scripturetext.com/luke/2-7.htm (you have to click the tab that says 'greek'.. to see what I mean)

 

[L3g3nd]

What about αὐτῆς? What does it mean?

When running my mouse across the word on the site below, the highlighted text has the first usage for this word as 'her'.. and describes it as: - "a personal pronoun, genitive singular feminine".
http://scripturetext.com/luke/2-7.htm (you have to click the tab that says 'greek'.. to see what I mean)

You realize that the term firstborn does not at all suggest other children, right? A firstborn is a firstborn, regardless of whether or not siblings proceed him/her. In the OT, all of the firstborn were consecrated to God; do you think they waited around for a second child to be born before fulfilling their obligation to the Lord? Of course not. An only child is the firstborn just as I, who have three younger brothers, am the firstborn of my parents.

 

[repentant]

What about αὐτῆς? What does it mean?

When running my mouse across the word on the site below, the highlighted text has the first usage for this word as 'her'.. and describes it as: - "a personal pronoun, genitive singular feminine".
http://scripturetext.com/luke/2-7.htm (you have to click the tab that says 'greek'.. to see what I mean)

And brought forth her son, the firstborn. ton protokon..the first born..not ton prototokon tis

 

[Petunia]

You realize that the term firstborn does not at all suggest other children, right? A firstborn is a firstborn, regardless of whether or not siblings proceed him/her.
In the OT, all of the firstborn were consecrated to God; do you think they waited around for a second child to be born before fulfilling their obligation the Lord? Of course not. An only child is the firstborn just as I, who have three younger brothers, am the firstborn of my parents.

There's a difference in the OT writers and Luke though. Luke was very close to the situation. Writing closely after the fact, he knew whether Mary had other children or not. Why make the distinction that the Lord was 'first'.. if she hadn't already given birth to other children by the time he wrote the book?

And brought forth her son, the firstborn. ton protokon..the first born..not ton prototokon tis

I'll agree to disagree with you, repentant... because I don't understand greek. But there are many translations directly from the original greek that say differently. And I haven't found one to match your conclusion.

 

[repentant]

There's a difference in the OT writers and Luke though. Luke was very close to the situation. Writing closely after the fact, he knew whether Mary had other children or not. Why make the distinction that the Lord was 'first'.. if she hadn't already given birth to other children by the time he wrote the book?

Because like I said, there are spiritual implications behind it..just like the verses I posted before..He is the firstborn of many, the many are us..

I'll agree to disagree with you, repentant... because I don't understand greek. But there are many translations directly from the original greek that say differently. And I haven't found one to match your conclusion.

Ok

 

[L3g3nd]

There's a difference in the OT writers and Luke though. Luke was very close to the situation. Writing closely after the fact, he knew whether Mary had other children or not. Why make the distinction that the Lord was 'first'.. if she hadn't already given birth to other children by the time he wrote the book?

Because the distinction was commonly made in Luke's culture. If you were the first child of your parents, whether you had siblings or not, you were the firstborn. It really is that simple. The significance of the firstborn had not diminished by the time of Luke's writing. He wrote through his cultural prism, and you cannot twist his words to be out of the ordinary simply because he had a personal relationship with Christ. The tradition of the Church has clearly not interpreted the Bible in this way, and there is no evidence for us to do so either.

 

[sunlover1]

Because the distinction was commonly made in Luke's culture. If you were the first child of your parents, whether you had siblings or not, you were the firstborn. It really is that simple. The significance of the firstborn had not diminished by the time of Luke's writing. He wrote through his cultural prism, and you cannot twist his words to be out of the ordinary simply because he had a personal relationship with Christ. The tradition of the Church has clearly not interpreted the Bible in this way, and there is no evidence for us to do so either.

But luke did know the difference
and was able to in other places,
make that distinction.

Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city,
behold, there was a dead man carried out,
the only son of his mother, and she was a widow:
and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out,
saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son:
for he is mine only child.

Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter,
about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying.
But as he went the people thronged him.

 

[L3g3nd]

But luke did know the difference
and was able to in other places,
make that distinction.

Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city,
behold, there was a dead man carried out,
the only son of his mother, and she was a widow:
and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out,
saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son:
for he is mine only child.

Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter,
about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying.
But as he went the people thronged him.

None of these instances have to do with birth, but with death (or near death), and they emphasize the importance of the children involved as the only children of their parents. Thus, they are not comparable to the passage on Christ's birth.

 

[Petunia]

Because the distinction was commonly made in Luke's culture. If you were the first child of your parents, whether you had siblings or not, you were the firstborn. It really is that simple. The significance of the firstborn had not diminished by the time of Luke's writing. He wrote through his cultural prism, and you cannot twist his words to be out of the ordinary simply because he had a personal relationship with Christ. The tradition of the Church has clearly not interpreted the Bible in this way, and there is no evidence for us to do so either.

Regardless. "First-born" still implies..'the first born of her children'. Using the argument that it's a 'cultural' term.. doesn't remove this fact.

If the situation were as 'simple' as you claim, Luke would have also used the term 'firstborn' in regards to Elizabeth's son. Instead.. he said 'she brought forth a son'. Elizabeth was old. Would have been too old to have John, if the Lord hadn't ordained it. So Elizabeth wasn't going to have anymore children after John. Therefore, Luke didn't use the term 'firstborn' in regards to John.. because John was going to be an 'only' child.

 

[Hentenza]

It doesn't, and it also doesn't say that they were her's..that is the point. We have other historical records. The Bible does not prove your point at all, and do not even suggest I say the Bible means nothing. The Bible does not say she had other children, so your ignorant comment doesn't even make sense her. I have not denied what the Bible says, only your additions to it..

The bible did say that Mary had other children. Psalm 69:8- "8I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children."
This verse talks about Jesus's mother's children. The bible does prove that Mary had other children.
I am not adding anything to the bible, you are the one that continues to deny the teachings of the bible in lieu of extrabiblical writtings.

Why does anything of record that has to do with anybody that was a Christian in the first century, or that is in the Bible, have to be in the Bible to be true? You are telling me that even biography's of Biblical people have to be in the Bible to be true? Well you're not in the Bible, so I guess you don't exist...

The bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. Everything else has to measure up to the bible standard. To deny the specific teachings of the word of God is to deny Jesus himself. If you add teachings to the bible, you will be accursed per Gal 1:8.

It met the criteria of the men who Canonized Scripture, and the early Church that still holds it to this day.

You did not meet the criteria by a mile. Scripture that is not inspired by the Holy Spirit is not scripture. The protevangelium is not inspired so it does not measure up to scripture. Or are you saying that even though it was not chosen as inspired scripture that it holds as much weight or more than inspired scripture?

So why would Mary or Jospehs ife be in there?

Is not and will never will be.

Gospels were the good news, so your right here. The Proto is just a historical record of Biblical people.

Gee, I am glad that I am right about anything in your eyes. The proto is not a recognized canonical book and therefore it does not measure up to canonical writtings.

Please my friend, a history degree does not mean you spent extensive time on the early Church and the Biblical Canon, if any at all. takes 2 years after pre reqs to get a degree, that's not alot of time to cover the history of the world, so I truly doubt they spend much time on the Christian Church...not to mention the thousands of Orthodox Priests (and the many Catholic) who have Theology degree's, and spent their entire schooling learning about the Church, disagree with you..so your history degree here, is really worthless in this case..

Don't insult my intelligence little guy. My first degree is in History and I have studied more than two years of biblical history. I won't even bother to tell you about my other 2 degrees. If you study noncanonical, errant material, the result is noncanonical, errant study. There are plenty of scholars with Phd's that will argue that the protevangelium is a great book but has no biblical value. Anyway, what is your degree on?

You mean not recorded in Scripture accounts...a take offense to "cult like", how is saying she was EV "cult like"? But I asked a specific question. If the ECF's who Canonized Scripture thought enough to keep it around, and not toss it out with the other Books, how can you say it is false?

It is "cult like" since there is not biblical evidence to back any of it up. They only kept it around because, without it, there would not have been anything to support the unbiblical exhaltation of Mary. The protevanlelium questionable timing suggest that the purpose of its writting was to defend against the heretics and the Talmud charges of Mary's infidelity. This is consistent with the "catholic church" historical propensity of making official doctrine when attacked.

There is none. You are just spouting now..they didn't add it, because it was not what they were going for..

The protevangelium did have inconsistencies in geographical accuracy regarding Palestine. It is a fact that the author has not been established. This issues make this book inconsistent with biblical accounts and with the requirements set forth by the council. If this is not the case, tell me why has this book not been canonized?

We can make Doctrine based on Oral Tradition handed from the Apostles. Her EV is not something new, but has been around since the beginning. Don't you think the early Christians, especially the Bishops, would know if Mary had other children? Why is their word not good enough? Why does every little thing need to be in Scripture to be true? Especially, since back then THEY DIDN'T HAVE SCRIPTURE!

Doctrine can be based from the apostles teachings which is listed in the bible. The apostles would have known if Mary did not have any other children but they would have said so instead of making all those claims, challenged by you, that Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary. Their word is good enough, it is called the bible.
Back when the apostles were alive, oral tradition was important to spread the gospel. The apostles had every chance to deny any teaching that did not come from them back then. Once the apostles died, the bible as we know it, was already written. You either believe that the bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit through the apostles, or you just don't believe that the bible is the authoritative word of God. You decide.

 

[Hentenza]

Is he supposed to believe Jesus had children? Do you? Wouldn't doubt it...

And the reason is because it is both. Some are Joseph's children, some are cousins..

But answer this...

"Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

This is from Matt 28..after the Ressurection, Mary and Mary run into Jesus. He tells them to go tell His brother's to meet Him in Galilee. The Greek uses the word adelphoi. Now who is He talking about? Who are the brothers He is reffering to? Well let's see..

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.

Oh wow. Jesus called the eleven Disciples His brother's. Would you say that the eleven Disciples are Mary's children as well?

You ARE grabbing at straws!!!!

 

[L3g3nd]

Regardless. "First-born" still implies..'the first born of her children'. Using the argument that it's a 'cultural' term.. doesn't remove this fact.

If the situation were as 'simple' as you claim, Luke would have also used the term 'firstborn' in regards to Elizabeth's son. Instead.. he said 'she brought forth a son'. Elizabeth was old. Would have been too old to have John, if the Lord hadn't ordained it. So Elizabeth wasn't going to have anymore children after John. Therefore, Luke didn't use the term 'firstborn' in regards to John.. because John was going to be an 'only' child.

The use of the term firstborn does not imply other children. That's the only point I'm making.

I'm not trying to prove that Luke will only refer to an only child as the firstborn; I'm explaining to you that the term firstborn does not at all denote other children. You are trying to bend Luke's writing style and choice of words, influenced by his culture, to your own logic. Luke probably emphasized Christ as Mary's firstborn to emphasize her virginity; Elizabeth, on the other hand, was not a virgin.

 

[Hentenza]

There's a difference in the OT writers and Luke though. Luke was very close to the situation. Writing closely after the fact, he knew whether Mary had other children or not. Why make the distinction that the Lord was 'first'.. if she hadn't already given birth to other children by the time he wrote the book?

That makes perfect sense.