How do I argue that Mary did not have other children?

[TommD]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

Thanks to EWTN’s, Open Line show I have great answers for many questions…

 

[Church_Militant]

Call No Man Father?

 

[DebChris]

The scripture passage that is often used to claim Mary’s other children has Jesus being told his “brothers and sisters are here.” Jesus responds that his brothers and sisters are those who do the will of God. The passage is generally read from a Western perspective rather than the cultural perspective in which Christ lived.
I have a sister-in-law from Thailand. While my mother was still alive they had a discussion of the various terms we have to describe relationship. In her oriental culture there is no word for cousin. The Catholic Church teaches that when Jesus referred to his brothers and sisters he was actually speaking about cousins. What is also not known is whether or not Joseph was married before he wed Mary. If he was an older man, as is often speculated, he may have had children from an earlier marriage.
Mary’s perpetual virginity is a tenet of the Catholic faith with Jesus as her only begotten son. The rest of us were adopted.

 

[chartie57]

Well, consider for a moment “blended families”. It is speculated that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were half-brothers and sister, by Joseph’s first wife. I don’t know about you but I have a half-brother and sister (may she rest in peace) through my late father’s first marriage. In addition, I always consider them as full blood brother and sister even though they don’t have the same mother I do.

Also, the Gospels never mention Mary having more babies. Even at Jesus’ crucifixion, Mary stood alone at the foot of the cross next to John, one of the Zebedee brothers, when Jesus instructed John to take care of her, by this time she’s probably in her mid- to late-40’s.

 

[briang72]

This is worth a read:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT

 

[ryanoneil]

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Good Luck,

Ryan

 

[Fredrick_Correa]

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Good Luck,

Ryan

Good explanation. I was not aware of Ezekiel 44: 2. Thanks for the same.

I wish to add the following:

1. The word brethren/brothers is used in the Bible a number of times. David calls Jonathan, his brother, though we know very well that Jonathan was the son of Saul.
2. If Mary had other children, assuming that Joseph must have died by now, one of them would have claimed the body of Jesus. But the body was claimed by Joseph of Arimathea.
3. When Jesus was 12 years old, when they went to the temple, surely the other “children” would have accompanied them. But we know only Jesus had accompanied them.

Warm regards,
Fredrick Correa, Nairobi

 

[DebChris]

Good explanation. I was not aware of Ezekiel 44: 2. Thanks for the same.

I wish to add the following:

1. The word brethren/brothers is used in the Bible a number of times. David calls Jonathan, his brother, though we know very well that Jonathan was the son of Saul.
2. If Mary had other children, assuming that Joseph must have died by now, one of them would have claimed the body of Jesus. But the body was claimed by Joseph of Arimathea.
3. When Jesus was 12 years old, when they went to the temple, surely the other “children” would have accompanied them. But we know only Jesus had accompanied them.

Warm regards,
Fredrick Correa, Nairobi

Good points that are often overlooked

 

[mdgspencer]

Since the word used in the bible can mean cousin as well as blood brother and sister, it is up to the other person to prove that the Bible speaks of actual blood borthers and sisters of Jesus. She is the one saying these things, so she should give some actual evidence, which she has not yet provided. Often when things are translated from another language, there is no English word so that a translation can provide only some of the meaning of the original, which in this case was Greek and Aramaic.

 

[thistle]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

Thanks to EWTN’s, Open Line show I have great answers for many questions…

When you said someone of another religion do you mean a non-Christian or someone of a Protestant denomination? The reason I ask is because if he/she is a Protestant you might like to remind them that Luther and the other founding pillars of Protestantism not only believed and declared that Mary was a perpetual virgin but they put it in writing.

 

[chartie57]

When you said someone of another religion do you mean a non-Christian or someone of a Protestant denomination? The reason I ask is because if he/she is a Protestant you might like to remind them that Luther and the other founding pillars of Protestantism not only believed and declared that Mary was a perpetual virgin but they put it in writing.

Yes, Luther did believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin, but he recanted after he was excommunicated from the Church. In fact, he took the feast days of Mary off the Church calendar. Lutherans don’t believe in her Immaculate Conception or her Assumption. Also, they don’t pray the rosary or to any of the saints. They will even go so far as to not allow Ave Maria to be sung.

I, for one, since leaving the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod, has found much solace in praying the rosary and especially praying to certain saints.

 

[FCEGM]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

Thanks to EWTN’s, Open Line show I have great answers for many questions…

Tomm, I think you’ll find these articles helpful in articulating to your acquaintance the belief of both Catholics and Orthodox in Mary’s regard:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

. . .There is also the religious distinction between the sacred and the profane or ordinary. Something sacred is set apart from the ordinary only for Divine use or purpose. For example, one does not take the chalice used at Mass and use it for ordinary meals to drink soda from. Mary’s womb is the sacred “chalice” containing the Divine Humanity of God the Son; her womb is to be used only for that Divine purpose – because of the Holiness of God (God in the Judeo-Christian understanding is different from His Creation; and Holiness is the attribute of this difference). So there is a religious “logic” of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for Divine use or purpose, therefore never for ordinary use. It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.

Thus there are at least two sets of reasons for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The first is the one just mentioned: the Holiness of Mary’s womb to be used for no other purpose but a thoroughly Divine one, never to be desecrated by ordinary use or purpose. Second, manifesting the Divine origin of her Child. If she had other children the ordinary way then why wouldn’t her first child be just a human with a human father like His brothers and sisters? He must be a unique son of Mary to manifest being the unique Son of God the Father, having no biological father. . .

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2914614#post2914614

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Fredrick_Correa]

Tomm, I think you’ll find these articles helpful in articulating to your acquaintance the belief of both Catholics and Orthodox in Mary’s regard:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2914614#post2914614

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Good explanation. Goes well with Ezekiel Chapter 44: 2.Thanks for the inspiration and enlightening on this so precious topic.

God Bless all the children of Mary i.e. all of us.

Fredrick Correa, Nairobi

When wicked men blaspheme thee, I’ll love and Bless thy name!

 

[Vintagecoils]

I was a convert and some things that I started to see was:

1. Mary declared herself to be the handmaiden of the Lord.

Since Christ shall fulfill our ever desire if we surrender to him it would be a little empty to think that.  After Christ was born to her any other need for mother hood would continue.  Joseph too.  Remember he was about to secretly divorce her but then submitted to the calling to be the earthly father of Jesus Christ.  With such charge given them all would be fulfilled and a new priority in life given.   They were given a great commission.   Also since Joseph knew his scriptures the teachings in Ezekiel would jump out at him.

I found during my conversion that Protestants have in many ways lost sight of the great Holiness of all that the Lord is and has done. The reverance has been reduced to “he’s our friend”.

Some times now I have to penatrate that simplistic view they have of every thing and reintroduce them to the Holiness of it all.

God Bless.

Also I began to see that there is no record of anyone else being accused of being a possible successor of Christ. The Jews were never worried that some brother would try to claim the same lineage and the next son of God to replace Christ.

Can someone tell me if the Genesis verse 3:15 relates to this?

The enmity between Eve’s seed and satan seed and her seed…

Doesn’t this verse say that Christ will come from eve’s seed?.
Is she representing Mary at this point?
The seed that will bruise satan’s head is the one and Only Christ Our God.? There would be no other from Mary except Christ?

Help me clear this up:blush:

 

[Mannyfit75]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

Thanks to EWTN’s, Open Line show I have great answers for many questions…

For one in Luke Chapter 2 verse 41-51, only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were there. He was twelve. If Mary and Joseph did have children, they would be mention but they aren’t. Jesus is the only child of Mary. No where in Scripture does it say that James, son of Mary. The one who they refer to as James, the brother of the Lord is Jesus’ first cousin.

There is no Aramaic word or Hebrew word for cousin. So when they wrote it in Greek, brothers or sister were commonly used. It the DR Bible, Lot is called brother by Abraham.

Mark J. Bonocore states the following:

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then

– The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)

– The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.

Still playing devil’s advocate, I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

… ((continue from previous post )) Therefore, my whole “devil’s advocate” position is undone, and it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.

So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary

JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.

JUDAS

SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related. I look forward to any comments or objections you might care to add.

 

[Axion]

Here is another point:

The Third Apostle James?

The Apostle James, “brother” of Jesus, was a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Was he a Son of Mary? If so, you have to invent a shadowy third Apostle called James. Is this credible?

James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1.9. Yet we know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of the Virgin Mary! One of the Apostles James, is however, the Son of ALPHAEUS, who most bible scholars agree is the same person as Clopas - already identified as Father of James and Joseph.
So if James “brother of Jesus” was an Apostle, he cannot have been a son of Mary.

One can argue that a **third ** James, supposed blood brother of Jesus, was elevated to the Apostleship at some time after the resurrection. However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” **never ** mentioned in the gospel accounts?
b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?
c) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?
d) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?
e) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection? If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in Jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth
Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?
The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

 

[Fredrick_Correa]

Here is another point:

The Third Apostle James?

The Apostle James, “brother” of Jesus, was a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Was he a Son of Mary? If so, you have to invent a shadowy third Apostle called James. Is this credible?

James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1.9. Yet we know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of the Virgin Mary! One of the Apostles James, is however, the Son of ALPHAEUS, who most bible scholars agree is the same person as Clopas - already identified as Father of James and Joseph.
So if James “brother of Jesus” was an Apostle, he cannot have been a son of Mary.

One can argue that a **third ** James, supposed blood brother of Jesus, was elevated to the Apostleship at some time after the resurrection. However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” **never ** mentioned in the gospel accounts?
b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?
c) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?
d) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?
e) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection? If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in Jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth
Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?
The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

Just a small correction. Brother of our Lord is referred to in Galatians chapter 1 verse 19 and not Gal. 1.9 mentioned by you.
Fredrick Correa, Nairobi

When wicked men blaspheme Thee, I’ll Love and Bless Thy name

 

[Rightlydivide]

Here is another point:

The Third Apostle James

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

This is partially Western mentality (to take ‘brothers’ literally)

I used to live in the Middle East for a few years. while living there, I noticed that most people called each other brother/sister when clearly they arent related. They use it to show how close they are to you and more likely if you share common interests in something (religion, work, etc). My own dad adopted the habit and called a few interns working with him his ‘sons’ when clearly they werent his true sons.

Some things never change. This was probably the same case 2000 years ago.