evidence of Mary having a second son?

[Gear853]

is there any evidence of Mary having a second son that she had with Joseph? one would think, after the birth of Christ. she would - you know - enjoy being married.

what's your thought on this? i personally don't think it would be surprising if Jesus have a step brother =)

[BBAS 64]

is there any evidence of Mary having a second son that she had with Joseph? one would think, after the birth of Christ. she would - you know - enjoy being married.

what's your thought on this? i personally don't think it would be surprising if Jesus have a step brother =)

Good Day, Gear

Here are two for you:

Mat 13:54 And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Mat 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Here is a historian that confirms that Judas and Jesus was of the same flesh, seeing Jesus was not Joseph's son the only flesh that they (Judas and Jesus) could share would be that of Mary's.

Hegesippus:


Concerning the relatives of our saviour:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Bk v

In Him,

Bill

[Matthan]

Many volumns have been written in support of this subject (and against it) every since the silly "perpetual virgin" thing got rolling. The truth is that Jesus had at least four brothers and more than one sister in His family. The New Testament Books of James and Jude are thought to have been written by two of His half-brothers, who also became active in the new Christian Church along with their mother.

Now, some would claim that "brothers" and "sisters" in the New Testament actually means "cousins". They claim that the Greek word for siblings can also mean cousins. But that position cannot be defended at all if you consider that Mary went to visit her "cousin" Elisabeth (see Luke 1:36). (Also see Luke 1:58) The truth is that the men who wrote the various books of the NT used "brother" to denote an actual brother, an they used "cousin" when appropriate.

And Matthew, writing primarily to the Jews, told us that Jesus was the "first born" of Mary, which denotes to Jews that she had more than one son, and Jesus was the first.

There is actually a lot of evidence in Scripture that Jesus had half-siblings and that Mary and Joseph led a normal Jewish life as husband and wife. Still, there are those who ignore what is found in God's Word, His Truth, and instead rely on the decrees of man. Oh well....

Matthan

[BereanTodd]

I do not believe the perpetual virginity of Mary. However I will point out that the word used for 'brothers' of Jesus can mean cousins in the Greek Matthan, to deny that is to be ignorant of the language. It is also true that some of the very early church fathers sometimes espoused basically this teaching. I do think that church history, the writtings of the ECF's and such are extremely important and all-too-often ignored by many evangelicals and in particular baptists.

So was she perpetually virgin? No I do not think so. I do think Jesus had literal brothers. However, I think we need to be less dogmatic in demonizing those who hold to it, as there is nothing bad or wrong in the teaching, and it actually does have some grounds to be espoused.

[arunma]

I do not believe the perpetual virginity of Mary. However I will point out that the word used for 'brothers' of Jesus can mean cousins in the Greek Matthan, to deny that is to be ignorant of the language. It is also true that some of the very early church fathers sometimes espoused basically this teaching. I do think that church history, the writtings of the ECF's and such are extremely important and all-too-often ignored by many evangelicals and in particular baptists.

So was she perpetually virgin? No I do not think so. I do think Jesus had literal brothers. However, I think we need to be less dogmatic in demonizing those who hold to it, as there is nothing bad or wrong in the teaching, and it actually does have some grounds to be espoused.

Yes, that is my thinking on the issue also. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't specifically contradicted by the Bible, so it would not be proper to call it unbiblical. Incidentally, can you tell me which church fathers taught this doctrine, and in which of their works? Thanks.

[BereanTodd]

Yes, that is my thinking on the issue also. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't specifically contradicted by the Bible, so it would not be proper to call it unbiblical. Incidentally, can you tell me which church fathers taught this doctrine, and in which of their works? Thanks.

I'll have to go back and look it up, I don't have it before me, and I am on my way to work at the moment. I will try and get to it tonight.

[BBAS 64]

The idea of Mary having more children after the birth
of Christ is a one of many lies from evil people looking
to destroy souls.

If you study the history of the reformation, protesants
as well as Catholics believed in the prepetual virginity
of Mary. These attacks like these are within the past
100 years.
Ron

Good Day, Jasper

Not sure how one can conclude that Mary's having children or not has any imoact on "souls", illogical stretch and theologically lacking.


Some did some did not we can see here with Basil:



Contrary to what Roman Catholics often suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)


So that blows your 100 year assertion right out the window from a historical prospective.

Thanks for your input though.

In Him,

Bill

[Logos1560]

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't specifically contradicted by the Bible, so it would not be proper to call it unbiblical. can you tell me which church fathers taught this doctrine, and in which of their works?

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is specifically contradicted by Matthew 13:55-56 according to the understanding of many and as translated in several English translations although as already pointed out some understand or interpret those verses differently.

Although not church fathers, here are a couple examples of scholars who accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Erasmus accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. Leon-E Halkin cited where Erasmus wrote: “We believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, although it is not expounded in the sacred books” (Erasmus, p. 225; MacCulloch, Reformation, p. 97). Halkin also observed that “Erasmus called the Virgin ’my salvation’ and ’my refuge’” (p. 224). He pointed out that Erasmus called Mary “Mother of God, Mother of Mercy, Queen of all, New Eve, Queen of Heaven and earth” and that Erasmus “compared her to the morning star” (p. 229). Erasmus wrote a work entitled Supplication to the Virgin that included “two prayers addressed to Mary” (p. 224).

Even though the rendering of Matthew 13:55-56 in the KJV seems to disagree with this view, Lancelot Andrewes, one of the leading KJV translators, accepted the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In one sermon, Andrewes referred to "the blessed virgin" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 10). Andrewes also referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Private Devotions, p. 59). Marianne Dorman quoted where he referred to “the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin” (Andrewes, p. 69). Trevor Owen cited one passage in Andrewes's Devotions where he wrote about Mary the following: "the all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and ever virgin Mary" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 58).

[Cright]

I can't believe that the baptists are letting this conversation slide into a debate with a catholic in this baptist area...

sure the word might be used in SOME context as the word cousin, but it is almost always used as brother... and look at these passages..

Mat 12:46
Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19
John 2:12
Acts 1:14

Why would Mary be toteing around her sister or brothers kids? Taking them to stay a few days in another town (John 2:12)?

If this ment cousins, it would say it, or just use the general term family. The writers were specific that it was Mary (the mother of Jesus) with his brothers.

The trinity isn't nearly as clear as this, yet we believe.

The catholics that have been visiting us here can freely disagree with the baptist beliefs, but they have no room for debate here... they can PM us or go to general theology or ask questions. Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean we need to water down our beliefs or apologize for it, it doesn't mean I'm bashing them... just disagree, respectfully.

ugh!

[Gear853]

The catholics that have been visiting us here can freely disagree with the baptist beliefs, but they have no room for debate here... they can PM us or go to general theology or ask questions. Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean we need to water down our beliefs or apologize for it, it doesn't mean I'm bashing them... just disagree, respectfully.

ugh!

i agree! i didn't ask the catholic for their point of view. if i were to do that. i would have posted on the *shocking face* the catholic forums! but I, as you can see, posted on the baptist forum.

and when you think about it... is not even logical for Mary to stay virgin forever. it will be kind of hard you know?

After Joseph work long and hard all day - come home and take his shirt off. With Mary Thinking "Joseph sure look fine tonight!"

hey, they are married now. she can think like that... i don't think she will think "oh, but i better stay a virgin..." and go "Joseph put that shirt back on!"

=P

[Cright]

i agree! i didn't ask the catholic for their point of view. if i were to do that. i would have posted on the *shocking face* the catholic forums! but I, as you can see, posted on the baptist forum.

and when you think about it... is not even logical for Mary to stay virgin forever. it will be kind of hard you know?

After Joseph work long and hard all day - come home and take his shirt off. With Mary Thinking "Joseph sure look fine tonight!"

hey, they are married now. she can think like that... i don't think she will think "oh, but i better stay a virgin..." and go "Joseph put that shirt back on!"

=P

I agree with you, I think it would have been sinful for her to remain a virgin. The bible clearly instructs how a husband and wife should behave. See below:

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-28473a)] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

[Gear853]

not to mention. we are suppose to be fruitful and multiply

[Matthan]

Quite correct! for Mary to be "married" to Joseph and not fulfill ALL of her wifely duties would probably have been against the Law of Moses (actually God's law) that she lived under. Such an attitude would no doubt have caused all sorts of problems for both her and Joseph.

Matthan

[Logos1560]

I think it would have been sinful for her to remain a virgin. The bible clearly instructs how a husband and wife should behave.

Along with what is stated in Matthew 13:55-56, the scriptural principles and teachings concerning husband/wife relations (Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, Ephesians 5:21-33, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:7-9) would be another problem for the claim of perpetual virginity of Mary. In addition, another verse clearly indicates that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born [Matthew 1:25: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son"].

[Dave01]

Acts 1:14 (EMTV) These were continuing with one mind in prayer and petition, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.


Case closed.

[Project 86]

In addition, another verse clearly indicates that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born [Matthew 1:25: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son"].

Matthew 1:25 is a great verse for this debate. I think Matthew 1:25 makes it clear Mary and Joseph had "relations" after Jesus was born. If they didn't the verse wouldn't make any sense at all.

[synger]

Just to add some more confusion to the pot, the idea that Mary was and remained a virgin during her pregnancy and the birth of Jesus may be looked at separately from the idea that Mary then either went on to have more children, or to remain a virgin perpetually.

In the Lutheran confession The Solid Declaration (http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/person.html) (section 8, paragraph 24), for instance, it is expounded in a section dealing with the Godhood of Jesus, that he "...showed his divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin."

And yet, the LCMS Lutherans (https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4884) have no problem with the idea that after Jesus' birth, Mary had other children with Joseph.

That being said, it seems that even some of the Reformers, like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, believed and taught that Mary was ever-virgin and had no other children.

Ultimately, I don't think the doctrine is one that is important to argue about. Discussion is interesting, of course. But it neither adds nor detracts from the person and work of Jesus, which is the Gospel.

[arunma]

Matthew 1:25 is a great verse for this debate. I think Matthew 1:25 makes it clear Mary and Joseph had "relations" after Jesus was born. If they didn't the verse wouldn't make any sense at all.


Actually, I've read Catholic apologetics which explain this. Apparently, an equally valid alternative translation makes it more apparent that Mary did not necessarily have sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. In fact, Catholics can point to several other texts in the Bible in which a certain act does not happen "until" a certain point in time, yet it is clear that the act does not happen after that point in time either. Not that I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. As Adam Clarke says in his commentary on St. Matthew 1:25,The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith: her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labor spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible; but it never has been, and never can be proved.
I tend to agree. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a useless doctrine. Yes, the possiblity exists that Mary was a virgin for the course of her natural life, but it really has no bearing on the sinless nature of Christ Jesus. And besides that, there is no direct or consequential evidence in Scripture to suggest that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth. So it's an argument from ignorance (or in the case of Catholicism, from Church infalliblity).

I can't believe that the baptists are letting this conversation slide into a debate with a catholic in this baptist area...

Well, I don't mean to debate Catholics in here. But I was a bit perplexed by the Catholic poster's statement. Roman Catholics effectively believe in universalism. So I'm very curious as to why a Roman Catholic would suggest that a believing non-Catholic Christian can be condemned on grounds of heresy, while in the same breath suggesting that the True God can be sought out at the local Jewish synagogue or Hindu temple. I detect a preference for false religion over non-Catholic Christianity, and that confuses me quite a bit.

But then, maybe he doesn't believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

[Matthan]

Anyone who has even a relativly open mind can put the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity behind them with the truth, and it is as simple as using the Catholic church's "explanation" to obtain that truth.

Here is what I am talking about. Take the following verses,
"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?"
Then, simple insert "cousins" for the bold words and see if it makes any sense.
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his cousins, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56. And his cousins, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
Has the original meaning been altered with that insert?Does the altered verses make sense to anyone? :confused: It sure does not make any to me. :scratch: But, should anyone not be able to think for themselves, then it probably does make sense. :sleep:

Hey, just remember that ditch Jesus mentioned.... :amen:

Matthan