I think many Catholics are open to their minds being changed if proof is presented.
But all I see are quotes from the Bible that don't say Mary had other children.
Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus
- Thread starter Enow
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
I think many Catholics are open to their minds being changed if proof is presented.
But all I see are quotes from the Bible that don't say Mary had other children.
If anything, those quotes would say that Mary did have other children. The fact that you take them as the opposite means that you would not change your mind, even if there was Scripture to show that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin.
"And she brought forth her firstborn son..." implies that Jesus was the first among other children. It does NOT say "her ONLY son".
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. (Mt 12:46,47; Mk 3:31,32)
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mt 13:55,56)
Now we will wait for your Catholic spin on these Scriptures to suggest that they really do not mean what they say, and God would have us to be deceived until the Catholic Church came into existence.
Because of those verses I agree with you that Mary did have children, I did mention this on another thread a few years ago.
None that you are willing to admit to.
Joseph did not knew Mary until after Jesus was born. That means no virginity in a marriage as promoted by Catholic theorists.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
The two references of Mary at the cross as being the mother of James and Joses ties in with His brothers mentioned in His own country.
Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him. 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Matthew 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? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
The fact that only Mary, Joseph, and the child, Jesus, fled to Egypt with no other children and the fact that when it was time to register for the census, it was only Joseph, Mary, & Jesus and no other children, that ought to tell you that Joseph had no other children by any other marriage as concocted by Catholic theorists. Therefore the children mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are all from Mary.
Explain away the verses testifying that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born and had children as a result where there were no other children before under his care from any other marriage during the whole time the baby Jesus was born & laid in a manger, when they fled to Egypt, and when they had registered for the census. To overlook all those verses is not seeing the forest for the trees as in the truth in His words.
I am glad that this thread is featured because of so many believers out there that are believing otherwise. Maybe they will see the thread and join in the discussion to try to correct otherwise, but He will lead them to learn that scripture doesn't really support the notion that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus and she did have other children after Jesus.
So he had brothers by another mother? I'm sincerely confused as to how you can say that.
And it's clear she didn't remain a virgin, which seems to be the main thing Catholics want to believe about her.
In the above posts there are three main arguments put forward:
1. The "until" dispute - Mt 1:25
2. The "brothers" (and "sisters") - e.g. Mt 13:56
3. The "first born" argument"
I'll look at these one at a time. As I'm replying to you I'll take the "brothers" (no. 2) first.
The first point is that there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.
Secondly the word brother can be used in a very loose sense in that culture. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.
In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)”. We know from the letter to Philemon that Onesimus was actually a runaway slave, not Paul’s brother (or cousin).
Thirdly there indications in scripture that the brothers and sisters referred to in Mt 13:55 (and the equivalent in other gospels) are not Jesus brothers in any genetic sense.
Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.
Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)
Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)
John says “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.
The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.
In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.
Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.
Then there is this text:
So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.” (Jn 7:3-4) If Mary had other children these “brothers” would be younger that Jesus. But in that culture to speak to an older brother in this way would be extremely rude. So it would seem likely they were older than Jesus and therefore could not have been Mary’s children.
Finally there is the Protoevangelium of James. This is an early document which describes the early life of Mary. It is not canonical but seems to have been accepted by several early fathers as historical. In this Joseph, the husband of Mary, is described as an older man with children by a previous marriage.
This is from Catholic Answers:
Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.
Papias (d. 163), fragment X The Exposition Of The Oracles Of The Lord.
(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
Fourthly when Luke tells us about the family in Nazareth, he only mentions three persons, not more. (Lk 2:41-52) When Jesus was lost in the temple, Joseph and Mary did not return with other sons. If one were lost, surely they would not leave the others (if there were any) at risk of losing them as well.
Fifthly, an important argument from a theological perspective is that always, when a birth of a son is announced by an angel, it is a matter of an only son.
- Isaac (Gen 18:10)
- Samson (Judges 13:4)
- John the Baptist (Lk 1:13)
-
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
So Luther was wrong,
Calvin was wrong,
Zwingli was wrong,
and every Protestant denomination before the 18th century was wrong,
until modernist liberals came along with their load of crap 200 years ago to enlighten us???
Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality
not so, the Lord speaks to the Jews here, unless you're Jewish by blood and flesh, then you're not mentioned here:
Zec 2:4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:
Zec 2:5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.
Zec 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.
Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
and to imply that you will have the same place in Heaven as King David or Abraham or Moses is ludicrous.
101G
Well-Known Member
we will answer this in a couple of VERSES, Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God".
Now DP, are you circumcised of the HEART, and are you in the Spirit? then you are the apple of his EYE. just keep on reading Romans 2:28 and 29 over and over until you get it in your heart.
hope that helps.
PICJAG.
When Luther did not prune everything Catholic, yes, Protestants can still be in the wrong when they did not prove everything by scriptures of the false teachings from the CC that got carried over.
Last edited:
101G
Well-Known Member
the term "brother".
Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". if one use the word G80 ἀδελφός adelphos (a-d̮el-fos') in this case, (by faith), it would be of no used. for the verse qualified it's use. by saying "the Lord's brother" and not "our brother" 2 Corinthians 8:22 "And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you".
but in direct relation to only his kin in flesh. scripture, Mark 6:1-6 "And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. (HOLD THAT THOUGHT). And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 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. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching".
now if James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon was his brothers in the faith why not mention by name the other disciples that followed him also, since they was his .... brothers also, (if by Faith?) that's if one use G80 ἀδελφός. adelphos. but no that was not the case. these was his brithers "by BIRTH from the SAME MOTHER, according to the flesh.
so no, Mary is not a virgin, nor is ames, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon was his brothers in the faith ... "ONLY".
PICJAG.
Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". if one use the word G80 ἀδελφός adelphos (a-d̮el-fos') in this case, (by faith), it would be of no used. for the verse qualified it's use. by saying "the Lord's brother" and not "our brother" 2 Corinthians 8:22 "And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you".
but in direct relation to only his kin in flesh. scripture, Mark 6:1-6 "And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. (HOLD THAT THOUGHT). And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 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. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching".
now if James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon was his brothers in the faith why not mention by name the other disciples that followed him also, since they was his .... brothers also, (if by Faith?) that's if one use G80 ἀδελφός. adelphos. but no that was not the case. these was his brithers "by BIRTH from the SAME MOTHER, according to the flesh.
so no, Mary is not a virgin, nor is ames, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon was his brothers in the faith ... "ONLY".
PICJAG.
Scripture doesn't say that they were brothers in the flesh by birth from the same mother.
And if you actually read my post, brothers in faith is not the only explanation I gave for these brothers. See my third point particularly.
101G
Well-Known Member
I have read your third point but the scriptures are clear, Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS". she is no virgin period.
so are you saying that the scriptures are in error?
PICJAG.
Stan B
Well-Known Member
Mungo, typical of God-rejecting, Bible-rejecting Romanism, following this ungodly cult, the fruit of your religion has been around for thousands of years. Your only evil objective is to twist Scripture beyond recognition.
"As our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.… 2 Peter 1:15
All day long they twist my words; all their thoughts are of my demise. Psalm 56:5
But no longer refer to the oracle of the LORD, for each man's word becomes the oracle, so that you pervert the words of the living God, the LORD of Hosts, our God. Jeremiah 23:36
We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain, because you are dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:11
Your god, must be most proud of you.
Last edited:
At the moment we are discussing po9int 2 in post #27. I haven't even attempted to discuss points 1 & 3.
Can we settle this point before we dive off into other points, or are you accepti9ng nopw that the "brothers" of Jesus are not Mary's children?
Then explain how He deferred from his natural mother and natural brothers to refer to His spiritual mothers and spiritual brothers then.
Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
As you have no answer to the points I made you now descend to insults.
Last edited:
What do you mean deferred from?
I don't see what point you are trying to make.
How does what you said relate to my point?
You were trying to say that all references to brothers of Jesus was just to spiritual brothers, and not natural brothers; but that is not the case below.
Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus was in a building when someone told Him that His mother and brothers were outside wishing to inquire of Him. Jesus deferred from His natural mother and His natural brothers by citing who His spiritual mothers and brothers are; He stretched forth His hands towards His disciples and sai those who do the will of my Father in Heaven is His brother, sister, and mother.
That is how Jesus deferred from His natural mother and His natural brothers by referring to who His actual spiritual mothers and brothers and sisters are.
- Status
Similar threads
