What is the hold?

[MennoSota]

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born and the scriptural evidence of this is overwhelming.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.

4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. Some say Jesus entrusted his mother to John because His “brothers” were not believers at the time. However, this really is an attack on the prescience of Christ. Being the Son of God, He would have known that these brothers would become believers shortly after His death.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

Why does it bother you if Mary glorified God by having sex with her husband? The entire Bible celebrates the God honoring union, which is prescribed from the beginning of Genesis and onward. The number of illogical leaps you need to make in conjunction with an argument of silence makes it highly unlikely that Mary never had sex. I see no biblical reason why Mary didn't enjoy the pleasures of sex with her husband Joseph to the glory of God.

 

[steaver]

We do not know what Jesus did or did not know when He walked this earth. Yes, He was fully God but He was also fully Man, with the limitations this imposed, having kenotically emptied Himself to share in our humanity (per Phil 2:6-11), and there were certain things He did not know eg: "no-one knows the date and time, not even the Son of Man". I don't expect He was fully conversant with particle physics either, for that matter. So it is unlikely that He knew future Scriptures.

Your are reasoning as though He just came into existence when He was conceived in Mary's womb. He is the Eternal God who is ALL knowing eternally. He could never stop being God.

"Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee". (John1:48)

Jesus didn't say 'the Father told me you where under the fig tree'.

"I don't expect He was fully conversant with particle physics either, for that matter." Seriously??? This is one of the huge problems I have with Catholicism, they see Jesus as mostly an ignorant man and His mother as Divinity who should be worshiped. I hear Catholics calling on Mother Mary nearly 99% of the time over Jesus Christ if they call upon Him in prayer at all.

 

[steaver]

I remember years ago the Catholic church putting out a TV movie called "Mary, Mother of Jesus". It made Jesus out to be just an ignorant man who needed to learn everything about spiritual things. At the end of the movie Jesus was doubting Himself and asked His mother, "How will I be able to teach them?". And then He said to His mother, "I know, I will teach them the things you have taught Me".

As sad as that movie's message was, it nailed what I see in the RCC mindset.

 

[Matt Black]

Your are reasoning as though He just came into existence when He was conceived in Mary's womb. He is the Eternal God who is ALL knowing eternally. He could never stop being God.

"Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee". (John1:48)

Jesus didn't say 'the Father told me you where under the fig tree'.

"I don't expect He was fully conversant with particle physics either, for that matter." Seriously??? This is one of the huge problems I have with Catholicism, they see Jesus as mostly an ignorant man and His mother as Divinity who should be worshiped. I hear Catholics calling on Mother Mary nearly 99% of the time over Jesus Christ if they call upon Him in prayer at all.

You're conflating issues there in the last paragraph.

Yes, Jesus was fully God (I said That, didn't I?). But He wasn't in the same way He was prior to the Incarnation, or indeed after it. For example, He wasn't omnipresent and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that He wasn't omniscient either. That's the paradox of the Incarnation.

 

[Zenas]

Why does it bother you if Mary glorified God by having sex with her husband? The entire Bible celebrates the God honoring union, which is prescribed from the beginning of Genesis and onward. The number of illogical leaps you need to make in conjunction with an argument of silence makes it highly unlikely that Mary never had sex. I see no biblical reason why Mary didn't enjoy the pleasures of sex with her husband Joseph to the glory of God.

Oh it doesn't bother me if Mary lived a normal married life and had a dozen other kids. However, when I read scripture and consider the evidence as a whole it seems certain that Mary did remain a perpetual virgin. I think the better question is why it bothers some that Mary did remain a virgin her entire life. And I will venture to say that by admitting Mary's virginity it places her in a position that is somewhat unique among women. And when Mary is singled out like that it takes you closer to Catholic beliefs about her. If "Mary" were not so central to Catholicism, her perpetual virginity would be a widely held belief among Protestants and Evangelicals.

 

[MennoSota]

Oh it doesn't bother me if Mary lived a normal married life and had a dozen other kids. However, when I read scripture and consider the evidence as a whole it seems certain that Mary did remain a perpetual virgin. I think the better question is why it bothers some that Mary did remain a virgin her entire life. And I will venture to say that by admitting Mary's virginity it places her in a position that is somewhat unique among women. And when Mary is singled out like that it takes you closer to Catholic beliefs about her. If "Mary" were not so central to Catholicism, her perpetual virginity would be a widely held belief among Protestants and Evangelicals.

Honestly, you have no leg to stand on with the perpetual virginity theory. It's similar to the baptizing of babies to save them. There is no biblical support.

 

[Bro. James]

Re: immaculate conception and perpetual virginity

Mary, the mother of Jesus, had normal parents. This means Mary was a sinner just like every other humanoid to inhabit this planet--she got this condition from her mommy and daddy. How, mostly her daddy. How does Mary get to be without sin? Jesus' Father is God. Jesus was without sin--He could not sin. This makes Jesus the one and only Redeemer. Mary cannot be a co-redemptrix--she is not qualified.

As far as perpetual virgin--"He (Joseph) knew her not until..." Mt. 1:25 is pretty difficult to explain away. It takes more than a lot of papal bulls and traditions of vestal virgins.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Pastor Tim S]

I agree that the word "until" is key.

If I say, "I did not go outside until it stopped raining," I am saying that I did go outside once it stopped raining. This is simply what the words mean. If someone comes along as says that those words clearly mean that I did not go outside, that person is contradicting basic rules of language communication.

Matthew 1:27 clearly states that Joseph had normal relations with Mary once the "until" condition had been met. This is a statement of a historical event; in other words it is reporting that the event did take place historically after that condition had been met. Sorry for those who don't want the passage to say this. The words themselves are very clear in what they teach.

 

[Adonia]

Why does it bother you if Mary glorified God by having sex with her husband? The entire Bible celebrates the God honoring union, which is prescribed from the beginning of Genesis and onward. The number of illogical leaps you need to make in conjunction with an argument of silence makes it highly unlikely that Mary never had sex. I see no biblical reason why Mary didn't enjoy the pleasures of sex with her husband Joseph to the glory of God.

If that's the case, then why wasn't Jesus a married man in the Jewish tradition? Why was he denied the earthly and spiritual joys of a loving wife and numerous children?

 

[Adonia]

Oh it doesn't bother me if Mary lived a normal married life and had a dozen other kids. However, when I read scripture and consider the evidence as a whole it seems certain that Mary did remain a perpetual virgin. I think the better question is why it bothers some that Mary did remain a virgin her entire life. And I will venture to say that by admitting Mary's virginity it places her in a position that is somewhat unique among women. And when Mary is singled out like that it takes you closer to Catholic beliefs about her. If "Mary" were not so central to Catholicism, her perpetual virginity would be a widely held belief among Protestants and Evangelicals.

And she is not only a central figure in the Catholic tradition, but also in the Eastern Orthodox church where she called the Theotokos, the Mother of God. I guess that they had solid theological reasons why did they not abandon all the central belief's that the Western Church had at the great schism between the two in the 11th century.

 

[Adonia]

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born and the scriptural evidence of this is overwhelming.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.

4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. Some say Jesus entrusted his mother to John because His “brothers” were not believers at the time. However, this really is an attack on the prescience of Christ. Being the Son of God, He would have known that these brothers would become believers shortly after His death.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

Your remarks are a very well reasoned opinion of the subject at hand and raise some very interesting questions. Of course, such words won't sway our separated Christian brethren who have gone their own way with their own particular biblical interpretations.

 

[MennoSota]

If that's the case, then why wasn't Jesus a married man in the Jewish tradition? Why was he denied the earthly and spiritual joys of a loving wife and numerous children?

Who denied God from doing what He wills? Yeshua chose His path according to His own will.
No one can deny the Sovereign King anything.

 

[MennoSota]

And she is not only a central figure in the Catholic tradition, but also in the Eastern Orthodox church where she called the Theotokos, the Mother of God. I guess that they had solid theological reasons why did they not abandon all the central belief's that the Western Church had at the great schism between the two in the 11th century.

Mother of God: In AD 431, the Council of Ephesus countered the Nestorian heresy by declaring that Mary was truly the Mother of God: “Not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from Mary, but the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself, was born from Mary.” One problem with this wording is that it awakened the old Arian heresy that the Logos (Jesus) was a created being. In AD 451, at the Council of Chalcedon, Leo, Bishop of Rome, ratified the decision that Mary was theotokos (“God-bearer”) only as to the humanity of Jesus. The title had nothing to do with Jesus’ divinity as the eternal Word of God. The Chalcedonian definition added the words “as to the manhood” immediately after theotokos, which should have ended erroneous thinking. But the populace took this word theotokos as an uplifting of Mary’s status and started to venerate her. The term theotokos was not incorporated into the Nicene Creed of 321 or the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. Neither is that expression used in the Anglican Articles or in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

What is Mariology?

 

[Adonia]

Who denied God from doing what He wills? Yeshua chose His path according to His own will.
No one can deny the Sovereign King anything.

That's right, including a new Ark of the Covenant that would bear Him and Him alone into this world. Seriously now, would the OT Ark of the Covenant have ever been used to carry other things besides those things God commanded be within it?

 

[Adonia]

Mother of God: In AD 431, the Council of Ephesus countered the Nestorian heresy by declaring that Mary was truly the Mother of God: “Not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from Mary, but the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself, was born from Mary.” One problem with this wording is that it awakened the old Arian heresy that the Logos (Jesus) was a created being. In AD 451, at the Council of Chalcedon, Leo, Bishop of Rome, ratified the decision that Mary was theotokos (“God-bearer”) only as to the humanity of Jesus. The title had nothing to do with Jesus’ divinity as the eternal Word of God. The Chalcedonian definition added the words “as to the manhood” immediately after theotokos, which should have ended erroneous thinking. But the populace took this word theotokos as an uplifting of Mary’s status and started to venerate her. The term theotokos was not incorporated into the Nicene Creed of 321 or the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. Neither is that expression used in the Anglican Articles or in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

What is Mariology?

Tell me brother, why didn't the Eastern Orthodox Church abandon all the Christian teachings up to the schism point? One would think that if the Western Rite had been so wrong, so un-biblical as you claim, they would have changed every doctrine as they went their own way.

 

[MennoSota]

That's right, including a new Ark of the Covenant that would bear Him and Him alone into this world. Seriously now, would the OT Ark of the Covenant have ever been used to carry other things besides those things God commanded be within it?

What are you talking about? Are you calling Mary's genitals the Ark of the Covenant? Such a belief is non-sensical and truly bizarre. Do you have any more weird and unbiblical allegories your church teaches?

 

[MennoSota]

Tell me brother, why didn't the Eastern Orthodox Church abandon all the Christian teachings up to the schism point? One would think that if the Western Rite had been so wrong, so un-biblical as you claim, they would have changed every doctrine as they went their own way.

Humans tend to like rules. It makes them feel like they are holy. Paul tells us that they are no value for becoming more holy.
Like the Pharisees and Sauces that added weight upon weight to God's word, so your church leaders and Orthodox leaders have added weight upon weight that is of no spiritual value. It may make you feel like your holy, but it doesn't make you more holy. Look at the problems in both churches in relation to immorality and you can see this is true.

 

[Adonia]

Humans tend to like rules. It makes them feel like they are holy. Paul tells us that they are no value for becoming more holy.
Like the Pharisees and Sauces that added weight upon weight to God's word, so your church leaders and Orthodox leaders have added weight upon weight that is of no spiritual value. It may make you feel like your holy, but it doesn't make you more holy. Look at the problems in both churches in relation to immorality and you can see this is true.

Immorality is part of the human condition, it affects us all including your own particular Christian sect.

 

[Adonia]

What are you talking about? Are you calling Mary's genitals the Ark of the Covenant? Such a belief is non-sensical and truly bizarre. Do you have any more weird and unbiblical allegories your church teaches?

Her womb is the Ark of the Covenant, not her genitals. There is a big difference between them. Why is it that you cannot fathom this, or other things that started in the OT but reappeared in the NT?

 

[MennoSota]

Immorality is part of the human condition, it affects us all including your own particular Christian sect.

Of course, but when traditions that have no basis in God's word become more important and twist the meaning of God's word, there is a problem. I see many non-biblical traditions in the church at Rome and in the Orthodox church.