Pure speculation. The fact is that the scriptures refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters and nothing in scripture suggests that Mary remained a "perpetual" virgin. Indeed, the passage wherein her virginity is mentioned clearly suggests that she did not know Joseph until AFTER Christ was born.
The chances are that if Mary were espoused to Joseph while she was a virgin, that Joseph would have been a virgin as well. Why is it that the Catholic Church doesn't bother to honor the Virgin Joseph?
Would you not agree that saying Mary had other children is "pure speculation" as well, since scripture does not say Mary had other children? I was reading this recently from an Orthodox priest, Fr. John Whiteford. It might interest you:
In response to appeals to Matthew 1:25:
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
The point of the verse you have cited is plain. It leaves no room for doubting that Christ was not the result of relations between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph—it says nothing about what happened thereafter, one way or the other.
St. Jerome wrote a very detailed treatise on this subject that one can find in several readily available translations—it is titled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary".
Not only was this view held universally in the Early Church, but the Early Reformers all believed it as well. John Wesley did too.
By the way, where in the NT does it say that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever moved beyond betrothal? The Bible speaks of St. Joseph's "espoused" wife—but never mentions anything beyond it.
Baptists are likely not familiar with the rite of betrothal, but the Traditional understanding thereof is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony.
In response to the question of whether or not this doctrine only brings glory to the Virgin Mary, and not to God:
This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).
This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.
The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.
This does not mean that sex is dirty, though the Apostles taught that it was better to remain in virginity—though only those who can accept such a life are called to do so. Certainly some are called to this life, and it is blessed by God.
Why then did the Virgin need St. Joseph? That question is valid even if one believes she had other children later—why did she need St. Joseph to give birth to Christ. The answer is obvious: virgins do not as a rule give birth, and Christ would likely have grown up an orphan had he been born to a single mother.
You ask: "So then was Jesus born out of wedlock? Why then did they travel together to be taxed? Why does Luke write Luke 2:48 ‘And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.’?"
I could ask you the same questions: Why does she refer to Joseph as Christ's Father? Obviously not because he really was his father. Why did they travel together to be taxed when they were clearly only at that time "espoused" or betrothed: "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child (Luke 2:5). Do you think they were married on the way to Bethlehem, because they clearly were not when they set off in that direction? Furthermore there is no mention of such a marriage ever having taken place—and certainly it would be odd for them to have had such a ceremony with a women "great with child" or even thereafter with a women who had a nursing baby. As I stated, a betrothal gives one all the responsibilities of a marriage without the marital privileges thereof. It can only be broken by a divorce—so in a sense they were married when they were betrothed.
In the Orthodox Church we still have the rite of betrothal, but because it is so serious—and is considered a marriage even if never consummated—it is almost always done these days immediately prior to the wedding ceremony.
You said: "Mary had other children. James is called The Lord's brother. The brothers and sisters who came for Jesus while he was teaching are not cousins as catholic footnotes try to make out, like there is no Greek word for brother."
Do you really believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? Also, if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas (as the second century Palestinian Christian history Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord.
Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?
You said: "There's no need to be that specific. Can't it be understood from several Scripture passages (John 2:12; Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; especially Matthew 13:55,56 and Mark 6:3,4; etc.) that what's referred to are Mary and Joseph's offsprings?"
How do you deal with the Mary who is not Christ's mother but who also just happens to be the Virgin Mary's sister and who happens to have kids with the same names as Christ's brothers? How do you deal with the very early testimony of Hegesippus who states plainly that the brethren of the Lord were the Children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas and his wife Mary?"
See: Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 The Matthew account has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark has Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. John has "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas". All accounts mention Mary Magdalene separately and Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who could not also be married to Clopas). This suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas, who is Mary's sister, is the mother of James and Joses, etc.
[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:11] "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions, with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive), to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with once consent pronounced Symeon, the Son of Cleopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention [note the Gospels only list Symeon as one of the Brother's of the Lord], to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph." [note: Hegesippus was a 2nd Century Palestinian Jew. Eusebius preserves one of the few fragments left of his works, since he had access to the great library of Ceasarea and of Alexandria—the contents of which were mostly lost later.]
A few additional points on this subject:
1) The Apostle James, the Son of Alpheaus is not necessarily the same as James the less. They are not connected in the Gospels, though this connection is possible. James the less was the son of Cleopas, but as I have read up on this, it is possible that "Cleopas" is a variant helenized transliteration of the Aramaic name "Chalphi".
2) Yesterday I quoted from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in which a fragment from St. Hegesippus was preserved. As I dug about last night, I found some more:
"Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martrydom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was Consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason it could be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the [wife] of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father. The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Savior, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded. He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And after profound peace had been established in every church they remained down to the reign of Trajan Caesar: that is, until the time then he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified...." [St. Hegesippus [who reposed 170 ad], Fragments from his five books of commentaries on the acts of the Church, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8, p 762]
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx
>>Why is it that the Catholic Church doesn't bother to honor the Virgin Joseph?
Saint Joseph has long been honored as the "Protector of Virgins" by the Church, both East and West.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/litany16.htm
Moreover, while Aramaic and Hebrew leave some room for ambiguity between a "brother" and a "close relative," Greek does not. And in every instance where Yeshua's brothers are mentioned, from the Gospels to Galatians to the works of Josephus, James is always referred to as Yeshua's brother, not His cousin. There is exactly zero room for doubt on this point.
See also my earlier posts on this thread pointing out the foolishness of imposing a Greek Platonic ideal on a Jewish woman.
You should study Catholicism sometime.
Joseph is often lauded for his chastity.
SD