How many other children did Mary have?

[Philothei]

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.
Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To me, what is STUNNING is that if one looks to history, you discover..... NOTHING confirming this tidbit of marital privacy to be an issue of greatest importance to all persons. What is CLEARLY the historical position is the position of 49,998 denomination: Silence as to this bit of bedroom information. Silence is the original tradition. Silence is the oldest historical position.


IF it were true that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, and IF she wanted anyone to know that she was a virgin at the moment of her death (or undeath, which was it?), would it be logical to assume people would know that in her time? But what is the HISTORICAL reality, the UNDENIABLE historical reality? Silence. As far as ANY historian has been able to confirm, there is NOTHING from Mary, NOTHING from Joseph, NOTHING from Jesus, NOTHING from any of the 13/14 Apostles. NOTHING about this information. Nothing. At all. NOTHING from anyone who even met Mary. NOTHING from anyone who even theoretically COULD have even seen Mary. NOTHING from anyone who even lived anywhere on the planet Earth when Mary was alive and could have told this normally private marital info. NOTHING from anyone who even could have met anyone who lived anywhere on the planet during the First Century? In fact, it's true for the Second Century, too. So, what is the HISTORY on this? Silence. That's the position of every denomination on the planet save two: the RCC and EOC. Seems to ME the only denominations with history NOT on their side here are the RCC and EOC.








I don't on this dogma..... I know of no historian that does.


NOTHING to document that Mary EVER proclaimed this information to ANYONE. NOTHING that indicates that Jesus taught that as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of fact. NOTHING that proves that all 13/14 Apostles taught this tidbit of info as a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth. NOTHING that it's Apostolic. NOTHING to indicate that Mary proclaimed it and encouraged all to shout this tidbit of normally private information to all they meet. NO HISTORY at all.

Now, you certainly may embrace it cuz your denomination teaches it. I respect that (whether such be by a Mormon, a Catholic, a Lutheran, a cultist, a Muslim), but then it has nothing to do with HISTORY but with your docilic submission to whatever your denomination says. You may certainly embrace it cuz, to you, it's IMPLIED somewhere by something via words never said/penned. And that's okay. I respect that (again, whether such be by a Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, cultist or whatever) but then that's because you accept the IMPLICATIONS of words not existing as documentation, that has nothing to do with HISTORY.


IMO, the more I read RCC and EOC apologetics, the more convinced I am that such is not historical.

So maybe you would beleive a theologian?

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html


Your point was HISTORY. I replied to that.


It seems stunningly obvious to me that the RCC and EOC on this DOGMA are the only two denominations with history not on their side.


No history.
No Scripture.






.

 

[MamaZ]

Nothing ....in the bible would or should persuade you ab out the Holy Trinity Nothing at all

Not true. We see the Trinity in the very beginning of Scripture in Genesis.

 

[Philothei]

Your point was HISTORY. I replied to that.


It seems stunningly obvious to me that the RCC and EOC on this DOGMA are the only two denominations with history not on their side.


No history.
No Scripture.






.

You do not consider then the incarnation valid??? No history there either and no evidence for the eternity of the soul...in the Bible do you still believe it?

 

[Philothei]

Not true. We see the Trinity in the very beginning of Scripture in Genesis.

There is NOT word Trinity in the Bible...what you see is a "we" nothing else...

 

[Philothei]

Martin Luther

• 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.

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

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}​

There is your historian who believed in the EV ^

 

[MamaZ]

I do not see any writings in scripture to back up the EV. I do though see scripture that backs up Mary had other children. I also do not see any mention of Mary from the true Apostles. No mention of her from Paul or Peter or John in the epistles. The only mention I see of Mary after the Gospels is in Acts where she was gathered with other believers in the upper room I believe. So much veneration of her in some denominations but yet none shown in the scriptures of the Epistles.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is your historian who believed in the EV

You offered no history at all.


No Scripture.

No history.


The more I read apologetics for distinctive RCC and/or EOC dogmas, the more stunningly obvious it is that there is no history and no Scripture to substantiate such. Yes, I look to the "road of history." It's one of the reasons why I left the RCC.





.

 

[Zeek]

So maybe you would beleive a theologian?

Frequently Asked Questions

Hi...before I continue where I left off, I want to address something you mentioned here. You quote this site as authoritative, and believe the responses are from a solid theological perspective. I note that it is a site devoted to presenting and perpetuating a non-biblical spiritualisation of Mary. Also you mention in another post the age old deception that no one worships Mary it is merely veneration...but any one with eyes that operate correctly and a brain that funtions normally must be able to see this just isn't the case. Here is one example of one of many prayers on that site you have posted.

Mary Our Strength

O Virgin, fair as the moon,
delight of the angels and saints in heaven,
grant that we may become like you
and that our souls may receive a ray of your beauty,
which does not decline with the years
but shines forth into eternity.
O Mary, sun of heaven,
restore life where there is death
and enlighten spirits where there is darkness.
Turn your countenance to your children
and radiate on us your light and your fervor.
O Mary, powerful as an army,
grant victory to our ranks.
We are very weak
and our enemy rages with uttermost conceit.
But under your banner
we are confident of overcoming him. ....
Save us, O Mary,
fair as the moon,
bright as the sun,
awe-inspiring as an army set in battle array
and sustained not by hatred
but by the ardor of love.
Amen

I am sorry, but this goes far beyond mere veneration or godly honour and favour, and moves seamlessly into the realm of worship and adoration.
It is attributing to Mary a power and authority that only lies with YHWH.
Many of the other prayers which I have read on that site contain a puerile language of yucky sentimentality and a completely unbiblical focus that brings Mary into the spotlight that is YHWH's alone.

It is reading through the doctrine and prayers on sites like this that convinces me that anything these people have to say concerning even reasonable questions about Mary e.g. was she EV? makes them unqualified to give a reasoned answer that weighs all the evidence from an unbiased and godly perspective...they are literally incapable of doing it.

Subsequently those that put such trust in such so-called scholarly exegesis have right from the onset misguidedly placed their own powers of reason, deduction and spiritual insight into the hands of others, or submitted their wills to institutional edicts....this is not the yoke that I gladly accepted when I became born again by the Spirit.

Matt 11:28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

 

[Zeek]

(Zazal)..It is much more apparent, and makes sense (even if some don't like the way the jig-saw comes together) to recognise that the Catholic Church has created such myths about Mary, that they have to shore up their theology in such a way, that their rulings on the subject are considered Gospel, and any challenges to what has been in place for hundreds of years are considered unfaithful...or in legal terms unlawful.
​

That is not true again the kind of polemics is just a bunch of superficial garbage... Athanasius was NOT hired by the CC he was a very serious father and scholar of his time; if he was trusted to enlighten us for the NT canon I do not see why we would shy away and believe the conspiracy theory of the CC Sad indeed that this kind of propaganda holds back people from exploring the past of our church. Again Luther would disagree with you...He also believed in the EV of Mary.

There were some very gifted scholars around in those early years...but being a theological genius does not necessarily compute to truly grasping the emphasis of Scripture, and some of them have been recorded as displaying characteristics that do not bear evidence of the fruit of the Spirit.

Some great and gifted men have demonstrated a capacity for a number of blind spots...this includes Catholics and Protestants, although I personally don't do the maths this way as you know. It doesn't mean we should believe everything they say.or throw it all out because of a number of bad calls...but what it does mean is that we need an element of personal discernment and to submit ourselves to Scripture and the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

When a religious institution like the CC or OC use the doctrines of men over and beyond what is reasonably implied through Scripture...then all of us have an obligation to challenge them.
At this very moment I am challenging several doctrines pervading what you would call the Protestant Church, as I believe they are unreasonable, un-biblical and ungodly...and yet they have been accepted for hundreds of years and it is time they were laid to rest.

I am not a scholar, I am no intellectual, and I have no acknowledged ministry...but I have a voice, a conscience and personal conviction to motivate me, and am persuaded through a desire for truth and holiness to persist in being a pain in the butt to some good friends that I love dearly.
​

As a non-Catholic I don't accept their image of the L-rds mother which I consider wholly inappropriate and grossly unbiblical, and therefore most of the reasoning surrounding her EV is viewed in the same manner, although I remember some points a Catholic friend of mine brought up a couple of years ago certainly made me think.
​

Do not feel this way as most RC brethren does NOT worship but venerates her they are fully aware that the Lord is our God and they HONOR his mother. After all the miracles that have been associated to her I would hardly doubt that the "cult of Mary" as it is called by some historians is a 'dangerous heresy" if it was then you would see an exclusive adoration and worship. There are NOT such things. Intensesion is a fully accepted practice as common as asking each other for prayers...

As I said in the post above... you are not being truthful in this, because the very site you posted flies in the face of what you have just stated...worship and adoration are what is given to Mary time and time again...it is a total cop out to call it veneration...please read some of the prayers..prayerfully.

I am sorry if I come out too strong but we have been discussing this over years and so forth and it is exhausting. I understand your dismay though as it can be difficult for people who are not born in the tradition of like ours and it is confusing and frustrating.... Protestant churches have strayed away from the major CC dogma for one thing they are proclaiming "reformation" and by the very name one would think that a "reaction" is at play. BUT I think the more mature in the faith do recognize that reform does not mean "changing" and 'throwing" out everything...but just modifying a few things "that went wrong" along the way. That is how IMHO I see Protestanism and I think that is the way it should be and in general is. I think that sometimes we get overzelous in our newly found faith and all...It happens to most converts or overzealous followers of any church

Please don't ever worry about coming across too strongly...I have argued and debated with you several years ago and know you have a good heart and would not mean to be offensive in any way....and I hope you will find the same attitude in me.

In a sense Philothei, I am as concerned with some of the things creeping into the Protestant Congregations at this very moment in time, as I am with some of the things that have remained in the CC and OC for up to 1,500 years...but as I have said before, neither the CC, the OC or any Protestant Assembly is fully representative of the ekklesia...G-ds sons and daughters are scattered throughout the many traditions, He knows His sheep, and His sheep know His voice.
​

 

[HeavensWorship]

Laying aside all of the he said/she said quotes from people who were born long after the fact, lets stick strictly with the scriptures that was written by those who were eye witnesses, who lived "on site" with Mary, Joseph and Jesus.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everything boils down to the interpretation of the Greek word "Adelphos", which is translated "brothers" our English Bibles.

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon Adelphos means:
a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)

Thayer clearly makes a convincing argument that James, Jude...etc...etc are indeed the sons of Mary. Adelphos meaning either full blood brothers, or step-brothers there can be no other conclusion.

The argument that Joseph was married to someone else [too] has its own problems.
1. This is demeaning to Mary. Ask any women if being the only wife is more of an honor, or being one of many wives is more of an honor.
2. If these brothers of Jesus was indeed Joseph's sons, and not Mary's, then Joseph must have been the blood Father of Jesus, which we know is not the case. Jesus' Father, biologically is God. Therefore, "adelphos", would not have been used.
3. There is no scriptural evidence of this even in the slightest.

Bottom line: If there is anyone who thinks that "adelphos" can be clearly, and unequivocally applied to mean that Mary had no other children, then please show me some scriptures, using "adelphos" is this manner, where it does not imply blood relation from at least one bio parent. As you know, the only way Jesus can be blood related to anyone is through Mary. as Joseph wasn't his bio father, and therefore "adelphos" would not be used as Thayer stated.

This is not to mention the scriptures that clearly state that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born. Any scholar that denies that this means sex is in fact in denial himself. All throughout scripture when a man "knew" and woman (especially his wife) it means sex.

Anything else, in my opinion, is denial.

 

[Standing Up]

You got it (poster above).

At that time, there were only 2 interpretations of the brothers of Jesus.

1) Sons of Joseph/Mary (scripture/tradition)
2) Sons of Joseph/previous wife (Protoevangelium of James)

c400 Jerome invented the cousin theory, as the PoJ was banned as heresy. Priests/bishops were aghast, as you mention, that Joseph could have been married with children before Mary! Sensibilities run amok. Scandal. Then it became:

1) Sons of Joseph/Mary (scripture/tradition)
2) erroneous, banned, heretical
3) Cousins (Jerome)

Today RC typically picks the cousin theory, while EO reinstates the previous wife theory to explain the brothers.

 

[HeavensWorship]

I want my RC and EO brothers and sisters to understand that my motive is not to demean Mary in any way. The fact that she was chosen of God to be the mother of Jesus demands great respect and honor.

However, it is clear to me that somewhere down the line (within the first few hundred years AD), this great respect and honor has been blown way out of proportion to the extreme - even to believe and teach that Mary never had a sexual relationship with Joseph, her husband.
If we look at Mary as the human vessel that brought Jesus into the world it should not be hard to believe and understand that Mary conceived Jesus while she was still a virgin, and remained a virgin until Jesus was born as scripture teaches.
But to go to the utmost assumption of saying that Joseph married Mary just for the sole purpose of protecting her is in fact just a bad as the Muslims who say that Muhammad married minors just to protect them - and that is indeed what they say! But it is absurd. A marriage involves sex or else it wouldn't be a blessed marriage. As much as Muslims don't like to admit it, Muhammad married minors for sex! There is a lot more ways to protect a minor than to marry them!
In the same way, Joseph married Mary and eventually had sex. Plain as day, in spite of the mass denial.

So because of the worship of, and over-exaltation of Mary, priests and laymen alike are forced to dance around the scripture in attempts to justify their beliefs. They say things like Joseph had other (another) wife (wives) - a theory that has no solid evidence to support - other than reading A LOT in between the lines that simply is not there.
And to say that the "adelphos" of Jesus was in fact his cousins is again twisting the truth to suit one's own [erroneous] theology!
As I said in my previous post, I challenge anybody to produce solid evidence that "adelphos" can be clearly, and unequivocally applied to mean that Mary had no other children. Please, somebody, show me some scriptures, using "adelphos" is this manner, where it does not imply blood relation from at least one bio parent.
Otherwise, the "eternal virginity" of Mary is shockingly not true.. (no disrespect to Mary as it is in fact acceptable, and respectable for a wife to have children by her husband)

 

[Trogool]

Just to make sure I'm clear, I'm talking about the mother of Jesus. How many other children did she have? and Where are their decendants?

Is there any historical documents that suggest the answer?

Zero.

 

[Trogool]

I want my RC and EO brothers and sisters to understand that my motive is not to demean Mary in any way. The fact that she was chosen of God to be the mother of Jesus demands great respect and honor.

However, it is clear to me that somewhere down the line (within the first few hundred years AD), this great respect and honor has been blown way out of proportion to the extreme - even to believe and teach that Mary never had a sexual relationship with Joseph, her husband.
If we look at Mary as the human vessel that brought Jesus into the world it should not be hard to believe and understand that Mary conceived Jesus while she was still a virgin, and remained a virgin until Jesus was born as scripture teaches.
But to go to the utmost assumption of saying that Joseph married Mary just for the sole purpose of protecting her is in fact just a bad as the Muslims who say that Muhammad married minors just to protect them - and that is indeed what they say! But it is absurd. A marriage involves sex or else it wouldn't be a blessed marriage. As much as Muslims don't like to admit it, Muhammad married minors for sex! There is a lot more ways to protect a minor than to marry them!
In the same way, Joseph married Mary and eventually had sex. Plain as day, in spite of the mass denial.

So because of the worship of, and over-exaltation of Mary, priests and laymen alike are forced to dance around the scripture in attempts to justify their beliefs. They say things like Joseph had other (another) wife (wives) - a theory that has no solid evidence to support - other than reading A LOT in between the lines that simply is not there.
And to say that the "adelphos" of Jesus was in fact his cousins is again twisting the truth to suit one's own [erroneous] theology!
As I said in my previous post, I challenge anybody to produce solid evidence that "adelphos" can be clearly, and unequivocally applied to mean that Mary had no other children. Please, somebody, show me some scriptures, using "adelphos" is this manner, where it does not imply blood relation from at least one bio parent.
Otherwise, the "eternal virginity" of Mary is shockingly not true.. (no disrespect to Mary as it is in fact acceptable, and respectable for a wife to have children by her husband)

I find it curious how so many people think sex is the most important and paramount reason to get married. It is ridiculous to think that even in modern times, much less in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Becoming "one flesh" (the joining of two) is in fact the act of sex. It doesn't say one spirit, or one mind, although those attributes are obviously part of it.

If a person gets married and does not plan to have sex with their new spouse it is certainly not a good marriage. Marriage involves sex just like going to school involves learning.
Perhaps you may find the oddball that gets married for money or for "companionship" with no sex. But that is certainly not what God intended.

Thats like say, "Hey, I enrolled in University, but I am not going for an education. Education is not my reason for going to University"
Perhaps you would be able to find an oddball that says that. It wouldn't surprise me as it takes all kinds to make the world. Although making friends, and finding something to do may be a part of a persons decision to attend university, education and learning is something that must be in the picture! Likewise it is with marriage and sex.

But that's not the point. The point is that it states explicitly in the scriptures that Mary and Joseph remained celibate until Jesus was born, and that Jesus had blood brothers (adelphos), which could only come from Mary. And still no one is able to match my challenge.

It amazes me how many people blow smoke over this, and dance around the facts just to justify their deification and/or worship of Mary, which God strictly forbids.

 

[Trogool]

It amazes me how many people blow smoke over this, and dance around the facts just to justify their deification and/or worship of Mary, which God strictly forbids.

What amazes me, is that you claim to be against people who take mariology "too far" and "worship" Mary, and yet yourself become just as rigidly dogmatic in your insistance that the Mother of God herself coupled with Joseph and had lots and lots of babies. For someone criticizing the emphasis others put on the Mother of God and the saints, you sure seem just as intent on this as anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqZbFQb0O0

 

[Thekla]

How about researching the meaning of adelphos beyond a lexicon that doesn't include all (then contemporary) uses of the term.

It isn't so easily boiled-down to Thayers.

 

[Trogool]

Pointing out for the 892,239,023rd time that St. Jerome refuted the vast majority of the objections to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God that are still repeated ad naseum today.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

 

[narnia59]

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Becoming "one flesh" (the joining of two) is in fact the act of sex. It doesn't say one spirit, or one mind, although those attributes are obviously part of it.

If a person gets married and does not plan to have sex with their new spouse it is certainly not a good marriage. Marriage involves sex just like going to school involves learning.
Perhaps you may find the oddball that gets married for money or for "companionship" with no sex. But that is certainly not what God intended.

Thats like say, "Hey, I enrolled in University, but I am not going for an education. Education is not my reason for going to University"
Perhaps you would be able to find an oddball that says that. It wouldn't surprise me as it takes all kinds to make the world. Although making friends, and finding something to do may be a part of a persons decision to attend university, education and learning is something that must be in the picture! Likewise it is with marriage and sex.

According to St. Paul it's a perfectly legitimate choice to remain in a 'betrothed' state and not consummate the marriage, but certainly don't let that confuse you.


1 Corinthians 7: 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well