How many other children did Mary have?

[Thekla]

Cyril the bishop who was of the same apostolic succession in Jerusalem from James brother of the Lord kept the same oral/written tradition.

And then there's Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, and the chap you mentioned. There's probably others if we bothered to look.

PS

1) c400ad cousin theory
2) c150 sons of Joseph/previous wife
3) c50 sons of Joseph/Mary

Iirc, your 50AD claim is reliant on the term adelphos - which we know to be vague/non-conclusive.

Have you new sources for your 50AD claim ?

 

[Thekla]

Note also, that in Leviticus and in Plato, when a specific (as opposed to general) meaning for adelphos is meant a further description is given to describe the specific biological relationship.

 

[Standing Up]

And this is the reason why Mary's perpetual virginity was such an important witness to our Lord Jesus' true parentage. Mary bearing other children would make Jesus' miraculous birth moot.

Not at all. Why would you think that? The prophecy was virgin conceived, not she would be perpetually a virgin.

Other children proved God-in-the-flesh. Recall antichrist (did not come in the flesh) at that time.

 

[Standing Up]

Iirc, your 50AD claim is reliant on the term adelphos - which we know to be vague/non-conclusive.

Have you new sources for your 50AD claim ?

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Rejecting the docetic PoJames, how else would you interpret the word 'brethren'?

Fellow believer? They weren't.
Same national ancestry? No - see below.
Brother in Christ? Not at that point.
Same parents? That's what they thought and Jesus confirms.

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

That was c50. Scripture/tradition.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Jewish marriage does require consummation to be valid. Jewish marriage is a contract. You are right they being betroth actually means that they were married already. Jewish betrothal is not the same as what we understand engagement means. Joseph and Mary were already married. In fact during this time sexual intercource is accepted behavior.

The most interesting quote from Scripture is Mary's response to the angel. "How can this be since I know not man?" There is only two conclusions one can come up with from this response:

1) Being betroth and knowing what normally happens in a marriage she was not going to have a normal marriage, I.e. remain a virgin.
2) Mary was the most naive woman to ever be born.

So you believe Mary is just stupid or she and Joseph had a very unique marriage. I would say their family is the most unique in history.

The word translated betrothed here is mnēsteúō meaning "espouse, then to promise in marriage"
Being betrothed is to promise in marriage - not marry! If Mary is promised in marriage to Joseph she is mnēsteúō, which the scripture says she was.So then, we can add the most obvious, and most viable of all conclusions - that Mary did not know a man when the angel appeared to her because at that time she was only promised in marriage, not officially married.

The fact that she was promised in marriage... later stating that Joseph waited until after she gave birth to Jesus before he "knew her". If someone reading this thread has enough aptitude to put two and two together, obviously somewhere between the "promise" or marriage, and "knew her" (sex) there was in fact a legit marriage.

You see a man with a gun in his hand, you turn the other way, you hear a bang, you look back... gun smoking.... obviously he shot the gun! simple.

 

[Thekla]

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Rejecting the docetic PoJames, how else would you interpret the word 'brethren'?

Knowing the usage of the term adelphos (previously described) , I would make no assumptions about what specific relationship was meant.

Fellow believer? They weren't.
Same national ancestry? No - see below.
Brother in Christ? Not at that point.
Same parents? That's what they thought and Jesus confirms.

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

That was c50. Scripture/tradition.

One can have common parents (a social role) without having a first degree biological relationship.

One can be adelphos (tribe, nation, cousin, neighbor, spouse, extended kin group) without sharing a parent or parents.

 

[Erose]

Not at all. Why would you think that? The prophecy was virgin conceived, not she would be perpetually a virgin.

Quite honestly it depends upon what Biblical tradition you use. The Hebrew scriptures claim that it was a young woman, while the Greek scriptures claimed she was a virgin.

That being said Mary's virginity is a witness to the virgin birth. Take away Mary's virginity you take away Mary's witness of Christ's miraculous birth. Tell me how you could convince anyone that Jesus was born of a virgin when that virgin has 5-12 kids after Him.

This would be the same as finding an ancient artifact, destroying it, and then running around trying to convince people that the artifact actually existed. No body is going to buy it.

If Mary had more Children then Jesus is not the Son of God but of Joseph. All would be a lie, or worse case none is provable.

Other children proved God-in-the-flesh. Recall antichrist (did not come in the flesh) at that time.

Don't know what that has to do with the argument.

 

[Erose]

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Rejecting the docetic PoJames, how else would you interpret the word 'brethren'?

Fellow believer? They weren't.
Same national ancestry? No - see below.
Brother in Christ? Not at that point.
Same parents? That's what they thought and Jesus confirms.

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

That was c50. Scripture/tradition.

So Jesus was actually Joseph's son?

 

[Erose]

The word translated betrothed here ismnēsteúō meaning "espouse, then to promise in marriage"
Being betrothed is to promise in marriage - not marry! If Mary is promised in marriage to Joseph she is mnēsteúō, which the scripture says she was.So then, we can add the most obvious, and most viable of all conclusions - that Mary did not know a man when the angel appeared to her because at that time she was only promised in marriage, not officially married.

And this a mistake made by many who have no training in Biblical exegesis. The Gospels are written in Greek. Greek did not have words that match specifically to Hebrew customs. So the closest is used. Mary and Joseph were not Greeks. They were Jews and thus you must evaluate them in light of Jewish customs at that time.

There was two parts to a marriage. The 1st part was what we translate as the betrothel period. A marriage contract was negotiated between the families of the woman and man, and a celebration is given at this time. If the man was young, he had a year to go and build a house for his spouse to basically create a life for them. During this time the woman would remain with her family.

The 2nd part was after the year or the home was established the husband with normally his family and friends would go to his wife's father's house to get her and bring her to their new home. At that point the husband and wife would begin to live together.

The point needs to be made that they were married from the moment the contract or gift was accepted by the woman's father. It was not uncommon for women to get pregnant with their first child during the betrothel period, for they were married.

If you need some form of evidence of this from Holy Writ, ask yourself why Joseph if he wasn't married to Mary was considering to give her a letter of divorce?

The point is we have to stop trying to read Scripture from the lense of our modern society. Their society and ours were completely different. And this is the reason why studying of their society and their beliefs is so important in understanding Scripture.

The fact that she was promised in marriage... later stating that Joseph waited until after she gave birth to Jesus before he "knew her". If someone reading this thread has enough aptitude to put two and two together, obviously somewhere between the "promise" or marriage, and "knew her" (sex) there was in fact a legit marriage.

See above. Only those who don't understand the customs of the time.

You see a man with a gun in his hand, you turn the other way, you hear a bang, you look back... gun smoking.... obviously he shot the gun! simple.

Not when you don't know that what is in his hand is an actual gun. You have to possess enough information to fully access the situation. If you don't have enough information then you most probably will come up with the wrong observation, which in this case you are.

 

[Erose]

Here is some links that are interesting reading on the subject:

Ancient Jewish Marriage - My Jewish Learning

Jewish Marriage

The Betrothal - Kiddushin - The Structure of The Marriage Covenant

 

[Standing Up]

Knowing the usage of the term adelphos (previously described) , I would make no assumptions about what specific relationship was meant.



One can have common parents (a social role) without having a first degree biological relationship.

One can be adelphos (tribe, nation, cousin, neighbor, spouse, extended kin group) without sharing a parent or parents.

No assumption about what it means, but only about what it couldn't possibly mean.

C/U around.

 

[Standing Up]

Quite honestly it depends upon what Biblical tradition you use. The Hebrew scriptures claim that it was a young woman, while the Greek scriptures claimed she was a virgin.

That being said Mary's virginity is a witness to the virgin birth. Take away Mary's virginity you take away Mary's witness of Christ's miraculous birth. Tell me how you could convince anyone that Jesus was born of a virgin when that virgin has 5-12 kids after Him.

This would be the same as finding an ancient artifact, destroying it, and then running around trying to convince people that the artifact actually existed. No body is going to buy it.

If Mary had more Children then Jesus is not the Son of God but of Joseph. All would be a lie, or worse case none is provable.

Don't know what that has to do with the argument.

It is interesting to find the middle ground.

On the one hand, we had those who denied the virgin birth (God with us (in the flesh)).

On the other hand, we had those who denied the flesh of Jesus (God with us (in the flesh)).

While today, the common ground is to merge the two solutions (virgin-ever who nonetheless birthed flesh), centuries ago, it was completely different to arrive at the truth. The truth was God-with-us. We have prophecy (the sign of the virgin) and fulfillment (more children). Again, while that may sound foreign to modern ears, it was proof back then.

 

[Standing Up]

So Jesus was actually Joseph's son?

Please. Just because scripture records the family unit (sons of Joseph/Mary) is not to say we Christians don't believe the virgin birth AND God-in-the-flesh.

 

[Thekla]

Would you please let me know what passage adelphos is found in the Greek OT that clearly means cousins?

Regarding Mary being only betrothed, without marriage. Please forgive my frankness of speech, but that just seems to be a play on words. Explicitly speaking, the scriptures do say that Mary was betrothed. But not everything has to be spoken explicitly to make it true.

Please let me explain: My sister is bad for this. If I ask her to do anything for me I have to explicitly mention every detail. If not she won't do it. For example, lets say I ask her to go to the store for me and get a dozen eggs. Before she leaves I hand her a coupon for 50 cents off of Brand A eggs. I tell her to get Brand A, and I give her the coupon for that specific item.
She comes back with Brand A eggs, but she didn't use the coupon. Why? Because I didn't ask her to use the coupn. I unconsciously assumed that she would put two and two together and figure that the reason I asked for Brand A eggs, and gave her the coupon, she would automatically know that I want her to use the coupon.
This kind of thing happened so many times. If I give her any instructions I must remember to give her explicit details, otherwise two and two just won't make four!
I sarcastically think to myself that I should tell her to make sure she is breathing when running the errand, otherwise it may not be done. No, it's not that bad, but you get my point.

Having said that, putting two and two together regarding the scriptural account of Mary means she got married. How do I figure?
1. She is betrothed.
2. The Angel of the Lord said to Joseph, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife!"
Notice the angel didn't say, "Don't marry her. She is to remain a virgin forever!".
On the contrary, God gave Joseph the "green light" to marry Mary.
3. It explicitly says that Joseph waited until Mary gave birth to Jesus before he "knew her" - obviously referring to sex.

Its as clear as a bell to me. Joseph had sex with her after she gave birth to Jesus. So then, if Joseph never got married to her, then we have a big problem!

No, it doesn't explicitly state that she got married, but put two and two together and there you have it - marriage. Pretty obvious to me!

Some people might say that Mary never died because the scriptures don't say she died... or some stupid thing like that. But obviously, Mary is a human, and as a human she died. Point is - just because it is not explicitly stated doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But honestly, what is wrong with Mary having sex with Joseph and having a family as every blessed couple do? What's the problem with that? I don't get it.

In reference to the bolded statement (which I forgot to give in my previous response to your post),

the angel's statement that Joseph should not fear to take Mary "your woman (yuni)" is recorded by Matthew. This exchange happens early in Mary's pregnancy.

The theory that "take" in the verse in Matthew is related to sexual relations/gamew is not supported by Luke, who records that Joseph and Mary were still betrothed (not married) and of the same household when they travelled to Bethlehem for the census (2:7).

 

[HeavensWorship]

1 Chr 23: 21-22 (the adelphos are biological cousins)

Excellent job.

However, this argument has a few problems.
1. This definiation is taken from the Septuagint. Therefore it is a translation of the original. It is not the original language.
2. Abraham said that his wife was indeed his sister (although she was his cousin). So then we can safely conclude that OT definitions of "brother" and "sister" takes on different meanings than what we know today.

With that as a "disclaimer", you did a great job proving that adelphos has been used to refer to cousins in the OT. In the same way, "brothers" in English can be taken all kinds of ways. But the proof is in the context.

For example, I call a few people "brothers", who are not my flesh and blood brothers, although I do have a flesh and blood brother also. In fact, I even call my cousin "brother" because he is a fellow Christian like myself.
However, suppose a newspaper reporter said that I was holding a meeting at an auditorium and my mother and my brother showed up wanting to talk to me, everybody without exception would naturally put two and two together and think "bio-mom"/"bio-brother". Its the context it is in.
In the same way, if I was a religious leader who had a great following, many of whom one could call my "brothers" (in the faith), and then someone were to refer to someone specifically as being my brother, as to distinguish him from the rest of the crowd, anyone would certainly take that as a reference to a bio-brother.

Quite frankly, your argument is on the same level, and using the same principles as those who argue that Mary wasn't a virgin at all - because the word translated "virgin" simply means "young girl".
I'm sure you know that there are people who argue that quite fervently. And their argument is based on the same principle as yours. Therefore, you would have a great problem arguing with those who say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, because you play on the same field as they, taking words out of context, using an alternative, rarely used definition to prove your point.

The word here translated as wife just means "woman"; it is also used for any female beyond the age of childhood including single women and widows.

(shaking my head in disbelief) Yes. We had this argument before. Ok, so the angel said, "Joseph, don't be afraid to take Mary as your woman". Obviously, if a man were to take a certain girl as his woman ummmm I don't think it takes much peanuts to know that means "wife". Guess what, Thekla? I took a girl to be my woman too! Yes, indeed. And now we have 5 children.

The use of the word ews/while/until never refers to what happens after the time span referred to by the term.

So wrong! So it never refers to what happens after the time span referred to by the term? Is that true?

Let's look at a few NT scriptures (to keep it in context) that use that same word:

Matt 2:9 : "After the wise men heard the king, they left. The star that they had seen in the east went before them (until or while?) it stopped above the place where the child was"
Clearly, the scripture would make no sense if you used the word while.

And again...
Matt 2:13: "After they left, an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt, because Herod is starting to look for the child so he can kill him. Stay in Egypt (until or while?) I tell you to return.”"
Again, it would make no sense to translate heos(ews) as while.

And again...
Matt 5:18 "I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost (until or while?) everything has happened."

And again...
Mark 6:3 "When you enter a house, stay there (until or while?) you leave that town."

And again...
Luke 17:8 "But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me (until or while?) I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?

And again...
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost (until or while?) he finds it?"

I could go on, and on, and on... but I think (at least I hope) you see my point.
In fact, my boy in grade 3 would be able to accurately answer these questions. It doesn't take much.

But Scripture never says they marry, so how do you come to a conclusion not present in Scripture ?

Ummm. Hello?

Ok. So there is a police report.
*Janice saw Greg with a gun in his hand
*Janice turned to look the other way and she heard a bang
*She looked back and saw Greg holding the smoking gun

What makes you think Greg shot the gun? In fact, what makes you think it was loaded?
It doesn't say that he shot the gun! Therefore he didn't right? [not]
It doesn't say that Greg's gun was loaded, therefore it wasn't right? [not]

Likewise:
1, Joseph was betrothed to Mary (promised in marriage)
2. Mary got pregnant
3. Angel told Joseph, "Don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife!" In other words God said "go ahead, you can marry her!" not "Don't marry her. She is to remain a virgin forever! I know you are already promised to her, and I know I should have told you before you got betrothed. I'm sorry, I'm a bit late. But now that I'm here. Don't touch her! She is to remain a virgin"
4. Joseph waited until after Jesus birth before having sex with her.
5. In the "sin of familiarlity" people said of Jesus, "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (notice the context; mother; brothers; sisters)
6. Jesus mother and brothers wanted to talk to him on another occasion.
7. Specific people are referred to as the brothers of Jesus, which out-rules the "nationality", or "like-minded" applications of the word adelphos. This is not to mention the word translated "sisters" above.
8. There is no scriptural evidence that James, Jude, etc... are cousins - just theories, assumptions, and speculations, concocted by EV proponents.

These facts in combination spells only one conclusion: Mary got married, and had children.

In fact, in Jesus day, every young woman was expected to get married. This is especially true of younger women. It was nearly a necessity as women could not work, nor support themselves without a husband.
Case in point: Jesus warned those who divorce their wife for no good reason, saying that such a husband causes his ex-wife to commit adultery. How would she commit adultery is she didn't remarry? Marriage was expected.

Also, a woman, especially a young woman, who never got married was considered accursed. This is also clear in scripture.

Consider, there are very few examples from the early centuries of people claiming that Joseph and Mary were gamew - and these were denounced as heretics.

Considered heretics? Perhaps hundreds of years after Joseph and Mary died, after the EV doctrines came to fruition. That way the truth of the matter is cloudy as it is centuries past.
Is there any documentation of anyone being call a heretic for saying that within the first century?

Sure, but a straight reading of the Gospels and historical sources leaves little if any support for the claim that Joseph and Mary were gamew.

Greg had a gun. bang! Gun was smoking. Was the gun loaded? Nobody saw him load it! It doesn't say in the police report that Greg loaded the gun. Therefore, according to your way of thinking, Greg's gun wasn't loaded.
Its amazing what people do to argue against obvious truth.

if Mary had other children there was no reason for Christ to leave her in the care of John.

Christ said, "Mother, behold your son" and to John, "Behold your mother" and John accepted her as his mother.
Where does it say that John was the only one taking care of Mary?
Some of my close friends, and even my wife calls my mother, "Mom". Does that mean my mother has no other children? Does that mean there are no other siblings taking care of her?

why should Mary necessarily have had other children ?

I asked an honest question, expecting an intelligent answer.
My question was, "What is wrong with Mary having sex with Joseph and having a family as every blessed couple do? What's the problem with that? I don't get it."

If someone were to ask me what's wrong with Jesus being born of a mother who is not a virgin I would have a lot to answer. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. There is prophecy that the virgin birth fulfilled. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. Without getting into too much detail. In Jesus wasn't born of a virgin we are both doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be crucified, I would have a lot to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. If Jesus never experienced a complete, absolute, and literal death we are all doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be raised. I would have much to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. Without writing a book, if Jesus wasn't raised bodily then we should all just live like dogs, and die like dogs. Without the bodily resurrection, we are doomed.

Likewise, when I ask why Mary has to remain a virgin I expect an intelligent answer.
Did it fulfill prophecy like all other events did. Was is the reason for such doctrine?
After Jesus was born, Mary's sexual and marital status has nothing to do with him. He is separated from her body. Therefore whatever happens to that body doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. If she is defiled, He wouldn't be! If she got married, that wouldn't affect Jesus' sinlessness of holiness in any way. Every person is responsible for their own bodies, especially if they are not pregnant.
Jesus was already born of a virgin, which fulfills all requirements and prophecies.

The question remains - Why is it that Mary had to remain a virgin? (at least in your mind)
Or is it true that someone concocted the doctrine within the first few hundred years AD for the purpose of applying hyper-holiness to Mary, which is nothing more than an over-exaggeration that is simply not true.

 

[Erose]

It is interesting to find the middle ground.

On the one hand, we had those who denied the virgin birth (God with us (in the flesh)).

On the other hand, we had those who denied the flesh of Jesus (God with us (in the flesh)).

While today, the common ground is to merge the two solutions (virgin-ever who nonetheless birthed flesh), centuries ago, it was completely different to arrive at the truth. The truth was God-with-us. We have prophecy (the sign of the virgin) and fulfillment (more children). Again, while that may sound foreign to modern ears, it was proof back then.

It is foreign back then on what we view as sacred and how we treat sacred. If anyone can imagine that Joseph who was a God fearing man would not view Mary as someone set aside as Sacred is not walking in his shoes on this point. Mary is a very unique person who had something very unique happened in her life. For radicals to try and downgrade her uniqueness for the sole purpose of refuting the Catholic Church is just well sad. Mary is a very unique person. There has been no one like her before or after her. There is no one else that could have been her. She was pre-destined to be that virgin who through her obedience would be used by God to bring salvation into the world through her Son. Through her obedience she undid Eve's disobedience.

You need to think about this just for one second. The first time. The very first time that a Christian group challenged Mary's perpetual virginity occurred in the 15th century. Not in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th or 12th. The 15th century. 1600 years after the fact is this miracle challenged for the first time.

 

[Erose]

Please. Just because scripture records the family unit (sons of Joseph/Mary) is not to say we Christians don't believe the virgin birth AND God-in-the-flesh.

Please, the source by which you get the idea that Mary have more biological children also said that Jesus was the Carpenter's son. If they got the first part wrong, what gives you so much confidence that they got the second part right?

 

[Erose]

Excellent job.

However, this argument has a few problems.
1. This definiation is taken from the Septuagint. Therefore it is a translation of the original. It is not the original language.
2. Abraham said that his wife was indeed his sister (although she was his cousin). So then we can safely conclude that OT definitions of "brother" and "sister" takes on different meanings than what we know today.

With that as a "disclaimer", you did a great job proving that adelphos has been used to refer to cousins in the OT. In the same way, "brothers" in English can be taken all kinds of ways. But the proof is in the context.

For example, I call a few people "brothers", who are not my flesh and blood brothers, although I do have a flesh and blood brother also. In fact, I even call my cousin "brother" because he is a fellow Christian like myself.
However, suppose a newspaper reporter said that I was holding a meeting at an auditorium and my mother and my brother showed up wanting to talk to me, everybody without exception would naturally put two and two together and think "bio-mom"/"bio-brother". Its the context it is in.
In the same way, if I was a religious leader who had a great following, many of whom one could call my "brothers" (in the faith), and then someone were to refer to someone specifically as being my brother, as to distinguish him from the rest of the crowd, anyone would certainly take that as a reference to a bio-brother.

Quite frankly, your argument is on the same level, and using the same principles as those who argue that Mary wasn't a virgin at all - because the word translated "virgin" simply means "young girl".
I'm sure you know that there are people who argue that quite fervently. And their argument is based on the same principle as yours. Therefore, you would have a great problem arguing with those who say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, because you play on the same field as they, taking words out of context, using an alternative, rarely used definition to prove your point.

(shaking my head in disbelief) Yes. We had this argument before. Ok, so the angel said, "Joseph, don't be afraid to take Mary as your woman". Obviously, if a man were to take a certain girl as his woman ummmm I don't think it takes much peanuts to know that means "wife". Guess what, Thekla? I took a girl to be my woman too! Yes, indeed. And now we have 5 children.



So wrong! So it never refers to what happens after the time span referred to by the term? Is that true?

Let's look at a few NT scriptures (to keep it in context) that use that same word:

Matt 2:9 : "After the wise men heard the king, they left. The star that they had seen in the east went before them (until or while?) it stopped above the place where the child was"
Clearly, the scripture would make no sense if you used the word while.

And again...
Matt 2:13: "After they left, an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt, because Herod is starting to look for the child so he can kill him. Stay in Egypt (until or while?) I tell you to return.”"
Again, it would make no sense to translate heos(ews) as while.

And again...
Matt 5:18 "I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost (until or while?) everything has happened."

And again...
Mark 6:3 "When you enter a house, stay there (until or while?) you leave that town."

And again...
Luke 17:8 "But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me (until or while?) I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?

And again...
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost (until or while?) he finds it?"

I could go on, and on, and on... but I think (at least I hope) you see my point.
In fact, my boy in grade 3 would be able to accurately answer these questions. It doesn't take much.

Ummm. Hello?

Ok. So there is a police report.
*Janice saw Greg with a gun in his hand
*Janice turned to look the other way and she heard a bang
*She looked back and saw Greg holding the smoking gun

What makes you think Greg shot the gun? In fact, what makes you think it was loaded?
It doesn't say that he shot the gun! Therefore he didn't right? [not]
It doesn't say that Greg's gun was loaded, therefore it wasn't right? [not]

Likewise:
1, Joseph was betrothed to Mary (promised in marriage)
2. Mary got pregnant
3. Angel told Joseph, "Don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife!" In other words God said "go ahead, you can marry her!" not "Don't marry her. She is to remain a virgin forever! I know you are already promised to her, and I know I should have told you before you got betrothed. I'm sorry, I'm a bit late. But now that I'm here. Don't touch her! She is to remain a virgin"
4. Joseph waited until after Jesus birth before having sex with her.
5. In the "sin of familiarlity" people said of Jesus, "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (notice the context; mother; brothers; sisters)
6. Jesus mother and brothers wanted to talk to him on another occasion.
7. Specific people are referred to as the brothers of Jesus, which out-rules the "nationality", or "like-minded" applications of the word adelphos. This is not to mention the word translated "sisters" above.
8. There is no scriptural evidence that James, Jude, etc... are cousins - just theories, assumptions, and speculations, concocted by EV proponents.

These facts in combination spells only one conclusion: Mary got married, and had children.

In fact, in Jesus day, every young woman was expected to get married. This is especially true of younger women. It was nearly a necessity as women could not work, nor support themselves without a husband.
Case in point: Jesus warned those who divorce their wife for no good reason, saying that such a husband causes his ex-wife to commit adultery. How would she commit adultery is she didn't remarry? Marriage was expected.

Also, a woman, especially a young woman, who never got married was considered accursed. This is also clear in scripture.

Considered heretics? Perhaps hundreds of years after Joseph and Mary died, after the EV doctrines came to fruition. That way the truth of the matter is cloudy as it is centuries past.
Is there any documentation of anyone being call a heretic for saying that within the first century?

Greg had a gun. bang! Gun was smoking. Was the gun loaded? Nobody saw him load it! It doesn't say in the police report that Greg loaded the gun. Therefore, according to your way of thinking, Greg's gun wasn't loaded.
Its amazing what people do to argue against obvious truth.

Christ said, "Mother, behold your son" and to John, "Behold your mother" and John accepted her as his mother.
Where does it say that John was the only one taking care of Mary?
Some of my close friends, and even my wife calls my mother, "Mom". Does that mean my mother has no other children? Does that mean there are no other siblings taking care of her?

I asked an honest question, expecting an intelligent answer.
My question was, "What is wrong with Mary having sex with Joseph and having a family as every blessed couple do? What's the problem with that? I don't get it."

If someone were to ask me what's wrong with Jesus being born of a mother who is not a virgin I would have a lot to answer. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. There is prophecy that the virgin birth fulfilled. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. Without getting into too much detail. In Jesus wasn't born of a virgin we are both doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be crucified, I would have a lot to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. If Jesus never experienced a complete, absolute, and literal death we are all doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be raised. I would have much to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. Without writing a book, if Jesus wasn't raised bodily then we should all just live like dogs, and die like dogs. Without the bodily resurrection, we are doomed.

Likewise, when I ask why Mary has to remain a virgin I expect an intelligent answer.
Did it fulfill prophecy like all other events did. Was is the reason for such doctrine?
After Jesus was born, Mary's sexual and marital status has nothing to do with him. He is separated from her body. Therefore whatever happens to that body doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. If she is defiled, He wouldn't be! If she got married, that wouldn't affect Jesus' sinlessness of holiness in any way. Every person is responsible for their own bodies, especially if they are not pregnant.
Jesus was already born of a virgin, which fulfills all requirements and prophecies.

The question remains - Why is it that Mary had to remain a virgin? (at least in your mind)
Or is it true that someone concocted the doctrine within the first few hundred years AD for the purpose of applying hyper-holiness to Mary, which is nothing more than an over-exaggeration that is simply not true.

I would recommend to you to read the following from St. Jerome. In this he provides an excellent refutation of your assertions from Scripture:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

 

[HeavensWorship]

I would recommend to you to read the following from St. Jerome. In this he provides an excellent refutation of your assertions from Scripture:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

Thanks, I will read it.

 

[seashale76]

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, zilch, nada, none.