Is this blasphemous enough for you?

I don't think so. Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.

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. However, in the narrative of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem at age 12, there is no mention of any other children.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph. 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 language 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 reasonable.

4. 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).

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

6. 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. Not only would it have been highly insulting, it would have been impossible. Jesus would have had no right to do this. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

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 is 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.

 

Mary was probably still alive when Hebrews was written. If I recall, everyone mentioned in Hebrews 11 were O.T. saints.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

 

But if the "brothers" said to be his were really cousins, as you indicated, would not THEY have been the ones responsible for her care, instead of John?

 

No, they were cousins, nephews of Mary (unless they were stepchildren). Children have rights and responsibilities toward their parents. Nieces and nephews have no such rights and responsibilities toward their aunts and uncles.

 

Nice try, Jedi. Do you realize this link is from a website whose mission is to convert Catholics to Protestantism or Evangelicalism? Even so it is a totally inadequate attempt to show that Mary had other children. Give me 30 minutes and I could write a better essay in support of their position than they put up.

 

I just produced a whole page of evidence and you rejected it, apparently without even reading it. If I could produce the birth certificates of James, Jude, etc., showing that their mother was not Mary, you would still not believe it because you don't want to. See Jeremiah 5:21.

I find it difficult for you to believe this was a fabrication of the Catholic Church because this doctrine goes back to the very earliest days of the Church. Do you believe the Catholic Church existed before Constantine? The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary did.

 

Totally inadequate.....you are the one who rejects the plain written scripture for tradition.

 

Why would Mary need to remain a virgin once Jesus was born? The Scriptures only teach the virgin birth it does not teach any reason why Mary would need to continue to be a virgin....it seems obvious to me that once Jesus was born there was no reason for Mary to remain a virgin.

 

Well according to 1 Tim. 5:4 they do.

1Ti 5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

 

I don't know that it makes any difference in the scheme of things, except is sort of sets Mary apart from the crowd. Perpetual virginity could be seen as similar to a Nazarite vow for women.

If you take this Psalm to be a literal prophecy of Christ, you run into serious problems. Look three verses earlier, "O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee". Since Jesus did no wrong and had no follies, it seems clear we shouldn’t take this passage literally.

I don’t know what word is used in Colossians 4:10 but since the KJV does not say “cousin” but rather says “and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas”, I expect the word “cousin” was inserted in the later translations to provide equivalent meaning. And, they may not have been cousins, they might have been children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

This is speculation and arguing from silence, and no that is not the better explanation.

I need all the help I can get and will take it where I find it. The idea that scripture interprets scripture will only go so far. Can you honestly say you have never consulted a commentary to help you understand scripture? So yes, I give great weight to the writings of the ECF’s because of their relative closeness to the events they are interpreting. I do however, reject them if what they say is manifestly in opposition to scripture. Concerning Mary they are not in opposition to scripture.

 

Good point. However, I would note that only the KJV says "nephews." All the other translations, even the older ones, say "grandchildren."

 

If she was unmarried. But if she is married she has obligations to her husband....lest Satan tempt.

 

When I cut and paste, I give credit to the original author. This is my research, written in my words.

Yes, Athanasius (b. 296, d. 373) in his Discourse Against the Arians, Ch. 2, v. 70:

Note that he wasn't arguing for the perpetual virginity of Mary. He just took it as a given.

All right, I won't say anything else about it. As for the OP, I would agree the depiction of Mary in that church is a little over the top but certainly not blasphemous.

 

nevermind.

 

I cannot tell you how many times I've started a post and deleted it saying that very word. Couple of times on this thread even.