Did Mother Mary have other children?

[jericho777]

I’m sorry, but **you **are the one who is reading into Scripture something that simply is not there.
You begin with the presupposition that the Catholic/Orthodox position is wrong, and that the Bible must support you against them, and then you read into Matthew 1:35 what is not there!!

Scripture says that David’s wife Michal “had no children until the day she died”; does that mean that, once she was dead, she had them? No, and it does not say that she gave birth to sextuplets or something as she was dying. It says she had no children. Period. End of discussion.
In the same way, Scripture tells us that Joseph did not “know his wife” until she gave birth to Jesus.
You only want to make the verse say something because that is a point that you want to make. When what it says, is what Christians (excepting a small group of early heretics) have believed since the very beginning of the church.
Please stop accusing others of doing what you are actually doing yourself!!

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

Whether Christ’s Mother remained a virgin after His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Mt. 1:18): “Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Now the Evangelist would not have said this—“before they came together”—unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine “before he dines” (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ’s) Birth.CCC

 

[Dokimas]

Whether Christ’s Mother remained a virgin after His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Mt. 1:18): “Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Now the Evangelist would not have said this—“before they came together”—unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine “before he dines” (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ’s) Birth.CCC

Thank you for that verse. I never notice this before but, you know how you guys think Mary was supposed to have made a pledge to be celelebate??? Well the writer of the passage you mentioned wouldn’t have said, ‘before Joseph and Mary came together’, if they were going to be celebate for life. Why say, ‘before’ they came together implies they were planning to consumate their marriage.

 

[Teneas]

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

Yes, you are correct, however that is how that is taken today, not 2,000 years ago. It wasn’t used in the same context, it was a tad more broad in it’s definition.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Whether Christ’s Mother remained a virgin after His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Mt. 1:18): “Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Now the Evangelist would not have said this—“before they came together”—unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine “before he dines” (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ’s) Birth.CCC

This is not what the Catholic church teaches. If you are going to argue based on subtleties of words, you will need to go back to the original language of the scripture which probably you nor I are qualified to do.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena

 

[Dokimas]

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

I’ve tried this logic before and I don’t think I got anywhere. I even showed verses with the same Greek word for ‘until’ making the same point you just did. Some just don’t get it.​

The Holy Spirit could have done the same thing that He did for the relationship between God the Father and God the Son when He said that Jesus is God Only Begotten Son if Mary was to remain celebate. That would have settled the deal.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

Perhaps the problem here lies in the presupposition that all doctrines must be found in the Bible. Maybe you should know by now, not all are explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This has been said zillion times – the Church exists even before the NT of the Bible was written and compiled. Our fathers in the faith knew what they were doing; the Catholic Church does not come out with the doctrine today or recently or concocting them out of nowhere.

You are equally in error if you think they (Joseph and Mary) must have sex after the birth of Jesus. We have no proof of that and as had been explained, the word ‘until/till’ has been used number of times in the Bible and it never certainly to show that the opposite happened after it. Mathew 1:35, even according to your logic, it only shows categorically that the marriage was not consummated before the birth of Jesus and it says nothing after it. I am not a language expert but I don’t know of any linguistic rule that says the opposite must happen after the usage of the word ‘until’, certainly not in the Biblical usage. It is foolhardy to brashly use modern linguistic method to evaluate an ancient language without taking into account the background and the culture of the characters concerned.

In reading the Bible in context one also needs to encompass Christianity theology especially as how it was understood by the ECF and not vice versa.

God bless.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Here’s the history and rationale for the “Ever Virgin” Mary:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Also, it’s hard for me to imagine Mary, after giving birth to God, going back to being an ordinary housewife.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena

 

[Zooey]

The Mary doctrines are NOT in the bible and are contrary to its teachings.They are man inspired.

You are twisting scripture again by using a different context for the word… If I told you I had no union with my wife until she gave birth. YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. AND WOULD BE SELF DECEIVED IF YOU THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

Actually…I hope your wife will forgive me, but you would actually be saying, “My wife had a baby and I’m not the father”.
And that is all that anyone could infer from that. Even though (I am so in trouble with your poor wife for this but) in the case of you (in particular) & your (particular) wife, the conclusion to be drawn from that statement on your part, would be TOTALLY different :sad_yes:from the conclusion to be drawn from the story of:getholy::heaven: Christ’s conception, birth, and the marriage of Mary & Joseph.

 

[Zooey]

[SIGN]To my Catholic :tada:brethren (male & female), and my Orthodox:tada: brethren (male & female) in this thread:
Have any of you got a cave or a secret passage or something that a little old Methodist lady and her cat can hide in for when our:wink: brother Jericho’s wife reads what I just wrote in my last post?
I have a:frighten:feeling she is looking over his shoulder going :bigyikes::banghead::banghead::banghead: even as we speak…[/SIGN]

 

[ronin67]

I would have to say, does it matter? She is still the Holy Mother of God (The Son). Also, it is said she didn’t die a normal death (Taken directly into Heaven). Why isn’t this in the Holy Bible (any version)? We could argue all day about it. Bottom line she is the most righteous women whoever walked the earth. An example of someone who was flesh, but had the disciple never to sin (amazing to say the least). You can talk about how tough some athletes are, but no one has had the mental disciple that our Holy Mother had. Never committing a sin. Now that is something special. Agreed???

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[Randy_Carson]

Salome couldn’t have been Mary’s sister because the Panagia was an only child. Neither of Mary’s parents had been married to another spouse, so there’s not even the possibility of her having any step-siblings. Perhaps Salome a cousin of the Theotokos? But there is no way she was a sister in the sense that we use that word today in the West.

Please note the quotation marks I put around the word sister in my post.

BTW, I would love to read more about Mary being an only child if you have any links.

Thanks.

 

[Good_Fella]

In a previous post you said brothers can be a relative or a sibling I agree. Yet in the context presented it could very well be the latter.

I’m afraid that a contextual presupposition is not enough to base a conclusion on. Besides, since apostolic time, Church doctrines have never been established by proof-reading Scriptural texts. They are the decision of the Holy Spirit and of the divinely appointed leadership of the Church (Acts 15: 28). The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from teaching what is false as doctrines develop over time (Jn 16:12-14). The primitive Church at Jerusalem believed this to be so. And since then the faithful have never dared to usurp the Church hierarchy by preferring to reach decisions pertaining to doctrine on their individual own in a private, fallible capacity without the Holy Spirit to infallibly guide them (Acts 8: 27-31). The charism of infallibilty has been granted to the appointed shepherds of the Church who hold the divine office and mandate to preach the Gospel in the Episcopacy. Our shepherds are not * random peddlers of God’s word* (revealed to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition), for they do not act on their own authority, but on Christ’s, having been commissioned by Him (2 Cor 2:17).

The divine authority to teach God’s word and His mighty deeds has been strictly conferred on the apostles and their valid successors in the Episcopacy by the laying on of hands (Acts 15:6,24; 14:23; 16:4; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 1 Tim 4:14). By whose authority have you appointed yourself to be a shepherd of the Church? Can you trace that authority back to the apostles who originally appointed their successors with authority as bishops of the Church? If not, then heed the advice of our first Pope (2 Pet 1: 20-21) in the humble spirit of the Ethiopian ennuch who invited Philip to sit with him in his chariot so that he could understand the true meaning of Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition, from whence the true word of God proceeds. The Jews do not read the prophet Isaiah as we Christians do.

The Church had been aware of Mary’s perpetual virginity, by oral tradition, before the New Testament had been written and compiled by the end of the first century. The theological implications behind the chastity of our Lord’s Mother were gradually perceived over time by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (c, A.D. 110), in all probabilty a disciple of John the Evangelist, wrote in an extant letter of his that both *the virginity of Mary ( a state) and the virgin birth of Jesus (an event) were hidden from the prince of this world *. Mary’s virginity could not have remained hidden from Satan if she had in fact had children of her own by having conjugal relations with Joseph. I’m afraid you are reading into Scripture and creating your own personally satisfactory context to accommodate your prejudice.

“The former (Eve) was seduced to disobey God, but the latter (New Eve) was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180)

“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; the Spirit is truth.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180)

You keep referring to the Semitic language but the text is in Greek. The five writers had many opportunities to use the word relative as in Lk 1:36 but did not. You would think at least in one instance a more definitive description would be used.

The characters in the gospels were Jews who spoke Aramaic in a peculiarly customary way. Matthew’s gospel was not originally written in the Greek anyway. His audience was the people of Palestine. Again, there is no reason for the angel Gabriel to use Semitic idiomatic terms.

I go back to this text Mat 1:25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. because people keep saying it does not mean what is says. If I said “I had no union with my wife until she gave birth” you know that after she gave birth we would have a marital union. You all know what the word until means and are being intellectually dishonest if you think otherwise.

In the Greek, assuming the Gospel of Matthew was written in this language, as Protestants erroneously believe, the word for the conjunction “until” is heos, which never references the future. What the evangelist intends to tell the Jews is that* Joseph had no relations with Mary before the birth of Jesus* in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14). “Not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” Rather, the Gospel means He did not know her up to the point of Jesus’ birth. In other words, Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This traditional belief of the Judeo-Christians is explicitly confirmed in Luke’s Gospel (1:35).

I will believe what the text reveals.

The text does not truly reveal what you prefer to believe in your private interpretation.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello Randy I mean no disrespect but personally don’t care if Mary was or was not …take your pick fill in the blank. I have no personal agenda to that end. I don’t care.

Sure you do. That’s why you’re responding.

I do care what the bible clearly says.

You MUST mean verses like:

“You are [kepha] and on this [kepha] I will build my church.”
“This IS my body”
“If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven.”
“Baptism now saves you”
“A man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE”

Hmmm…I’m just guessing here, but I bet you feel the need to add some explanation of these passages to help me interpret them in some fashion other than the PLAIN MEANING of the words, eh?

I care unbiblical doctrines are put on people under the guise of “authority”. In this thread people are turning themselves inside out do deny the plain and simple reading of scripture and making excuses. They are being intellectually dishonest with the written word by denying universally accepted rules of interpretation. Mt 1:35 is a great example of this. The word until "preposition; used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time " But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This is clearly saying Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal marital relations. To say otherwise is being untruthful. You all clearly have an agenda and why I don’t know. We should be more interested with what scripture actually says and not what you want it to say.

I understand your passion over this issue and empathize with you over this. But this does not accurately reflect the truth of scripture. You are denying something the text accurately describes.

Thank you

Actually, we know what the passage SAYS and we know what the author’s intended meaning was since our Church has maintained the “traditions” passed on to us “whether by word of mouth of by letter” - just as scripture commands.

This is called the literal meaning - as opposed to the literalist meaning (which you want to take in this case, but not in the case of the passages I quoted above).

My “agenda” is to provide a clear explanation of what scripture means and to refute those whose agenda is to oppose Catholicism at every opportunity simply to justify their continued separation from the one true Church.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

(borrowed from a fellow poster, it’s a nice summary)

"(a) While Mary had a sister (John 19:25), there is no evidence that she was named Mary; nor is there any parallel case of two Jewish sisters having the same name; nor is there any evidence that she was the wife of Cleophas; (b) It could not be true that his cousins are meant because “his brethren” were not apostles, nor believers, and he had cousins who believed and were among the apostles, if this theory be correct; (c) Nor does it prove anything that the names James and Joses occur as those of the children of another Mary, as the names were very common. There are five Jameses in the New Testament, several Judes, and Josephus, who lived at this time, names twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joseses, and sixteen Judes.

On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language. To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in all the passages cited above. The “brothers” of Jesus are constantly represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her children. These cogent facts cannot be set aside by a tradition or by conjectures. Alford well sums up the argument in a few words which we quote:

1. There were four persons known as the brethren “of him,” or “of the Lord,” not of the number of the Twelve.
2. That these persons are found in all places, but one or two, in immediate connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
3. That not a word is anywhere dropped to prevent us from inferring that the brothers and sisters were his relations in the same literal sense that we know his mother to have been.
4. All explanations which make them aught else than the children of his mother are mere conjectures.
5. The silence of the Scripture narrative leaves Christians free to believe that they were real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord. 50"

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whether Christ’s Mother remained a virgin after His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Mt. 1:18): “Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Now the Evangelist would not have said this—“before they came together”—unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine “before he dines” (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ’s) Birth.CCC

Bill-

I want to be clear about your position. From reading this post, it appears to me that you are denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a dogma that was proclaimed by the Catholic Church infallibly in AD 553. The Second Council of Constantinople stated in the Fourteen Anathemas:
2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

Did I misunderstand you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

(borrowed from a fellow poster, it’s a nice summary)

On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language. To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in all the passages cited above.

Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek:* heos*, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

The “brothers” of Jesus are constantly represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her children. These cogent facts cannot be set aside by a tradition or by conjectures.

The “facts” are simply speculations by those who seek to undermine the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, but that is a separate thread.

If Mary was “attended” by Jesus’ close relatives, it is understandable in light of the facts that A) her husband, Joseph, had died years earlier and B) her only son, Jesus, was spending long periods away from home preaching the gospel.

Alford well sums up the argument in a few words which we quote:

1. There were four persons known as the brethren “of him,” or “of the Lord,” not of the number of the Twelve.
2. That these persons are found in all places, but one or two, in immediate connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
3. That not a word is anywhere dropped to prevent us from inferring that the brothers and sisters were his relations in the same literal sense that we know his mother to have been.
4. All explanations which make them aught else than the children of his mother are mere conjectures.
5. The silence of the Scripture narrative leaves Christians free to believe that they were real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord. 50"

Alford has not done his homework. The “brothers” of Jesus are shown to be the sons of other women as I demonstrated in a previous post (#110).

 

[jericho777]

To all, these are same arguments that are made by the JW’s in reference to John 1:1. You invoke man made traditions to back up your claims and still have to do a great amount of twisting to justify your position. Church leadership uses false suppositions and flat out denials of what the text reveals. You have to take a text out of context to support your ideas. The church has made dogmatic statements it can not intellectually defend when scripture has the final authority.

God speaks to us through HIS word. It belongs to ALL believers not a Church. The Church should welcome dialog and exploration of Gods word. When people ask questions in love Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Even Paul was not above scrutiny. We all win.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Mary the Mother of Our Lord had one Son and His name is Jesus
Cathloic Doctriinal, Brothers of Jesus?
Traditional Christianity held that Jesus is Mary’s only son. The references to Jesus’ brothers refers to other family members, and in some cases to his disciples.

Mary wife of Cleophas and sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the “brothers of Jesus” (Mk 6:3).
Acts 1:12-15 Apostles, Mary, some women and Jesus’ brothers number about 120. That is a lot of brothers.
Gen 14:14 Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham’s brother (KJV).
Gen 29:15 Laban, Jacob’s uncle, calls Jacob his brother (KJV).
John 19:26-27 Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his brothers.
Zechariah 12:10 Predicts the Messiah will be an only child.

 

[Zooey]

Mary the Mother of Our Lord had one Son and His name is Jesus
Cathloic Doctriinal, Brothers of Jesus?
Traditional Christianity held that Jesus is Mary’s only son. The references to Jesus’ brothers refers to other family members, and in some cases to his disciples.

Mary wife of Cleophas and sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the “brothers of Jesus” (Mk 6:3).
Acts 1:12-15 Apostles, Mary, some women and Jesus’ brothers number about 120. That is a lot of brothers.
Gen 14:14 Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham’s brother (KJV).
Gen 29:15 Laban, Jacob’s uncle, calls Jacob his brother (KJV).
John 19:26-27 Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his brothers.
Zechariah 12:10 Predicts the Messiah will be an only child.

Now that is what I call “rightly dividing the Word of Truth”!!:clapping::clapping::clapping: