Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[bextah]

Hi,

I actually posted something ages ago but I got distracted by another tangent… it’s been a long time for me since I pondered these things, but I do remember being presented with the notion that Mary being a virgin referred to her being born without original sin?

Kind of like her immortal soul was a virgin (that is to say, had never known sin) unlike the rest of us… has anyone ever heard anything like that?

Other posters have referred to passages that do seem to speak of brothers of Jesus…
I don’t know the semantics of the tranlations of the Bible, so I really can’t comment on whether ‘brother’ really meant cousin in some passages, I really don’t know enough to decide definitively what I believe

I also don’t really know what the church officially says so please don’t take my lack of conviction as a lack of faith - I am just relearning, that’s all

 

[Janet1983]

The Greek word for “until” is heos which never references the future. The evangelist is telling us that Mary and Joseph had no relations “up to the point” of the birth of Jesus - nothing more - to assure the Jews whom he addressed that our Lord’s conception and birth were virginal in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

PAX :harp:

So this passage does tell us neither. It is neither a good argument for nor against her fulfilling her marital duties after giving birth to our Lord.
It simply tells us what happened until the time of His birth, but not what happened beyond that.

 

[Good_Fella]

So this passage does tell us neither. It is neither a good argument for nor against her fulfilling her marital duties after giving birth to our Lord.
It simply tells us what happened until the time of His birth, but not what happened beyond that.

First of all, the dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, like all dogmas, isn’t formed by initially proof reading Scriptural texts in the first place. Second, I am simply arguing, now that modern Protestants have raised the issue, that the conjunction “until” doesn’t logically entail a change of state upon the occurrence of an event. Third, one mustn’t presume that a marriage remains unfulfilled by the observance and exercise of continence between spouses.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[dougfreed]

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas **(Matthew 13:55). **The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You are of course aware that those men named as brothers are shown (in Scripture itself) to have a mother other than the Virgin Mary? If they were brothers in blood at all, they would have to be sons of Joseph by a previous marriage… .and thus have no ‘blood’ tie to Jesus.

 

[Janet1983]

You are of course aware that those men named as brothers are shown (in Scripture itself) to have a mother other than the Virgin Mary? If they were brothers in blood at all, they would have to be sons of Joseph by a previous marriage… .and thus have no ‘blood’ tie to Jesus.

Where are the quotes from scripture to these? There are many people here who claim that and come up with “family trees” but there is no proof that the brothers mentioned in Scripture are not the sons of Mary…

Matthew 12:46-47
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

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

Mark 6:2-3
2 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?
3 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.

John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Acts 1:14
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

1 Corinthians 9:4-5
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Galatians 1:19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

 

[dougfreed]

You are of course aware that those men named as brothers are shown (in Scripture itself) to have a mother other than the Virgin Mary? If they were brothers in blood at all, they would have to be sons of Joseph by a previous marriage… .and thus have no ‘blood’ tie to Jesus.

This passage alone states The Virgin Mary was mother to these boys and yes Joseph was thier earthly dad…
Matthew 13:55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

 

[Good_Fella]

Where are the quotes from scripture to these? There are many people here who claim that and come up with “family trees” but there is no proof that the brothers mentioned in Scripture are not the sons of Mary…

Matthew 12:46-47
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

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

Mark 6:2-3
2 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?
3 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.

John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Acts 1:14
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

1 Corinthians 9:4-5
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Galatians 1:19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Where is it actually written in the Scriptures that James, Joses, Judas, and Simon are “sons of Mary” ? You’ll notice in Mark 6:3 that Simon’s name is mentioned last because the other two who follow James are younger brothers of his. These three are the sons of the “other” Mary, our Lord’s cousin. Paul writes to the Galatians that he saw none of the other apostles save James the Lord’s cousin. Considering the grammatical structure of the verse, it would have been akwardly repetitive to say ‘save the Lord’s apostle.’ “Brother” may also mean ‘a close disciple by family relations.’

PAX :harp:

 

[guanophore]

This passage alone states The Virgin Mary was mother to these boys and yes Joseph was thier earthly dad…
Matthew 13:55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

I can understand how it seems that way,but these are children of another Mary who is described as “the sister” of the Mother of our Lord. They are very close kindred, and grew up together as siblings. James and Joseph (Joses) are the sons of Alphaeus (Clopas) who may have been a brother to Mary or Joseph.

Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.

Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

 

[dougfreed]

Where is it actually written in the Scriptures that James, Joses, Judas, and Simon are “sons of Mary” ? You’ll notice in Mark 6:3 that Simon’s name is mentioned last because the other two who follow James are younger brothers of his. These three are the sons of the “other” Mary, our Lord’s cousin. Paul writes to the Galatians that he saw none of the other apostles save James the Lord’s cousin. Considering the grammatical structure of the verse, it would have been akwardly repetitive to say ‘save the Lord’s apostle.’ “Brother” may also mean 'a close disciple by family relations.'

"Brother" may also mean 'BROTHER.'

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I surely do wonder why God waited so long to have this ‘teaching’ (and all those others like the ‘figurative’ Eucharist) taught. What about all those Christians (not just Catholics but Orthodox too). . . what about Martin LUTHER . . .who read the same Scripture yet believed that these were not ‘uterine brothers?’

IF the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. . .and I think we can agree that He does not. . .then either all those Christians. . .and Luther. . .and the Catholics and Orthodox today. . .are RIGHT. . and the Johnny-come-latelys are WRONG. . .or else for centuries and centuries God permitted people to teach and learn falsehood along with truth and to present the falsehood AS truth.

In the latter case, if He allowed X teaching (the perpetual Virginity, say) which you say is false, to be taught as true, to all Christians for centuries, without ever having the ‘true’ teaching out there proclaimed concurrently during that time period. . .then what about ‘other’ teachings. If ‘one’ was wrong, then others could be too. And there is simply no possible way to know which is, or isn’t, because the Holy Spirit ‘let’ all those millions of Christians believe falsely for hundreds of years.

Well, I trust God and His Church, not the trumped up sayings of fallible men whose rejection of truth and assertion of a ‘new’ teaching wouldn’t even be believed by those who had rejected the Church themselves.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella;5759701:

Where is it actually written in the Scriptures that James, Joses, Judas, and Simon are “sons of Mary” ? You’ll notice in Mark 6:3 that Simon’s name is mentioned last because the other two who follow James are younger brothers of his. These three are the sons of the “other” Mary, our Lord’s cousin. Paul writes to the Galatians that he saw none of the other apostles save James the Lord’s cousin. Considering the grammatical structure of the verse, it would have been akwardly repetitive to say ‘save the Lord’s apostle.’ “Brother” may also mean 'a close disciple by family relations.'

"Brother" may also mean 'BROTHER.'

I’m pretty sure scripture here refers to The Virgin Mary and Joseph…

What in the world does the order they are listed in have anything to do with it?

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

How can you be sure? Outside the Apostolic community and Tradition you have only your personal feelings to rely on. Moreover, you have no authority to interpret the Scriptures in a fallible, private capacity. Since apostolic time, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been a sacred tradition of the Church. The writings of early Church Fathers show this to be true.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke follow the custom of keeping brothers’ names together in a general list (of the apostles), which includes names of non-relatives. Joses was a younger brother of James, but not an original apostle.

 

[mariedibourd]

but the passages I think are the most common are the ones that mention Jesus’ “brothers and sisters,” especially when the word “brothers” occurs in the same sentence as the word “mother.”

This is how rumors get started The original said brothers. This was changed in some recent translations to include women (sisters) who were offended by the exclusive masculine word. But in fact the original word, I believe, was brethren which didn’t mean siblings but included lots of people… cousins and relatives for sure. And I heard one person, who may have been wrong, say that the original meaning of that word at that time included close neighbors, too… something like that.

Not sure that addresses the whole topic but thought it might throw in some food for thought. The New American Bible notes are super to learn stuff like this. It is just a good read all around.

 

[Arandur]

This passage alone states The Virgin Mary was mother to these boys and yes Joseph was thier earthly dad…
Matthew 13:55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

This passage was merely an exclamation from the people that they thought they knew Jesus and His family (“family” meant extended family in those times, not just nuclear), and that they were of just humble origin. It was like saying, “Hey, haven’t we lived with this guy as our neighbor for 30 years? How’d he get to be so special?” The reference point back then was not so much “I grew up with this guy,” or “We knew him since he was a kid,” but “We know him and his family.”

It was just like it is in small towns and among some types of families (particularly of some cultural backgrounds) people are very interested in making familial connections, finding out how many people of the family they know. Family is the reference point. You know someone by knowing their family, who they are related to. That’s all this statement was saying. It does not in any way rely on or make a specific statement that Jesus had direct brothers and sisters from His mother Mary. Since later Scripture passages clearly and directly attribute another mother to those very same people listed here, we know that they are relatives, but not womb brothers.

Remember that the Jews dispute the words used for “virgin” in prophecies of the Messiah, claiming they mean merely “young woman,” and use this as a means to deny the truth of Christ. They actually have a much stronger leg to stand on in Scripture since the original term used is not clarified nearly as well as the word normally translated as “brother” is in the New Testament.

So, as ever, we must be careful in Scripture interpretation. Your own argument that the English translation to “brother” just means “brother” would work even more strongly in favor of the Jewish argument used to deny the virgin birth and to deny Christ. Is that really the company you want to keep?

 

[SonofMonica]

This passage was merely an exclamation from the people that they thought they knew Jesus and His family (“family” meant extended family in those times, not just nuclear), and that they were of just humble origin. It was like saying, “Hey, haven’t we lived with this guy as our neighbor for 30 years? How’d he get to be so special?” The reference point back then was not so much “I grew up with this guy,” or “We knew him since he was a kid,” but “We know him and his family.”

It was just like it is in small towns and among some types of families (particularly of some cultural backgrounds) people are very interested in making familial connections, finding out how many people of the family they know. Family is the reference point. You know someone by knowing their family, who they are related to. That’s all this statement was saying. It does not in any way rely on or make a specific statement that Jesus had direct brothers and sisters from His mother Mary. Since later Scripture passages clearly and directly attribute another mother to those very same people listed here, we know that they are relatives, but not womb brothers.

Remember that the Jews dispute the words used for “virgin” in prophecies of the Messiah, claiming they mean merely “young woman,” and use this as a means to deny the truth of Christ. They actually have a much stronger leg to stand on in Scripture since the original term used is not clarified nearly as well as the word normally translated as “brother” is in the New Testament.

So, as ever, we must be careful in Scripture interpretation. Your own argument that the English translation to “brother” just means “brother” would work even more strongly in favor of the Jewish argument used to deny the virgin birth and to deny Christ. Is that really the company you want to keep?

Excellent points. Also, I wanted to add this side bar about the Jewish interpretation thing. If it really only meant “young woman,” what kind of prophecy would that be? That’s like, “I predict the next U.S. President will be born of a young woman.”

 

[1beleevr]

How come in the Old Testament,“he knew his wife, and she conceived,” means they had sex, but in the New Testament, it means something else? Can we REALLY, without any shadow of a doubt, say that Joseph and Mary did NOT have sexual relations?

 

[1beleevr]

Sure seems like there is a lot of effort put into defending Mary’s virginity, and childlessness! Imagine if we worked that hard on saving the world? Imagine if every Christian, regardless of denomination or religion, shared the gospel with just one(1) unsaved person! W-O-W!

 

[SonofMonica]

Sure seems like there is a lot of effort put into defending Mary’s virginity, and childlessness! Imagine if we worked that hard on saving the world? Imagine if every Christian, regardless of denomination or religion, shared the gospel with just one(1) unsaved person! W-O-W!

We believe in sharing the whole gospel, not just a part. And that’s what we’re doing on this forum. Besides, by your own standard, you just wasted valuable soul-winning time with your post.

 

[elvisman]

Sure seems like there is a lot of effort put into defending Mary’s virginity, and childlessness! Imagine if we worked that hard on saving the world? Imagine if every Christian, regardless of denomination or religion, shared the gospel with just one(1) unsaved person! W-O-W!

Unfortunately, your inability to grasp the importance of this is all-too-telling.
The charge that Mary had other children is ludicrous at best. If Mary DID have other children, there wouldn’t be any reason at all to think that Jesus was any different from his siblings in His origin - that He was God the Son who became man.

Her perpetual virginity had more to do with Jesus than her own self.
The perpetual virginity of Mary safeguards the Jesus’ miraculous birth, and this safeguards His miraculous conception, which manifests His eternal pre-existence.

We read of Mary in the Old Testament:
Ezek. 44:1-2
Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. **
He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.

What part of "it shall remain closed" do you not understand?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Imagine. Now if only people would realize that defending the faith in any way (whether it is on Mary’s perpetual virginity, the Real Presence, or that Christ redeemed us) does **not **somehow **take away from us doing anything else. . .
**
I wonder if those who say “Christ died for us” are somehow not involved in ‘saving the world’ or in doing charitable works simply because they are defending Christ’s redemptive action.

How about people who defend the Trinity? Are they ‘not involved’ because of all their ‘effort’ in defending the Trinity?

Seems to me that it’s only when Catholics start defending beliefs that are seen as ‘purely’ Catholic that we start hearing that our defense is somehow ‘taking away’ from time that would be ‘better spent’ in some ‘real Christian’ behavior. . .