Replies

MAAG just cited Matthew 13:55-56 as evidence that Jesus’ mother had other children and you completely side stepped the verse in citing your own view. Now if you want to try reconciling Matthew 13:55-56 a little better with Matthew 27:56...you better explain these words which specifically mention...the father of Jesus.

“5 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?”

The implied mention of Joseph as the “carpenter” whose son is Jesus is tied specifically to the “Mary” described in Matthew 13. And what do we also find?...that this Carpenter’s son ‘s mother was Mary?!! Then we find mention of his “brethren”...James, JOSES or Joseph...in some translations(who was he anyway?...only one mention of him ever in the gospels or at least this particular name),Simon and Judas(but not Iscariot) and then the mention of sisters but not their names....!

It is the mention of “the carpenter’s son” in connection to the Mary who was then connected to Jesus is where your claim of “no evidence” that Mary had other children falls flat.

Now we also know that this Mary...that was married to the Carpenter that was her husband who was known as the father of Jesus was in Jesus’ home town when mention of Jesus family was made in chapter 13...why? This is where lifting verses out of context can be sketchy...so lets look at Chapter 13:53-58...”3 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.”

Yes I know about the Catholic argument that these “brethren and sisters” could have been “cousins” based on variable translations from the Aramaic; that is a circular argument colored from Catholic doctrine the Mary must remain perpetually virgin with no children from the time before and after Jesus’ birth. In which case if these “siblings” be cousins, why the mention of only Mary and the “Carpenter” whose son was Jesus, but no mention of aunts and uncles? It is because the intention was to describe the “Carpenter’s son” Jesus’ immediate nuclear family of Mom his named brothers and his un-named sisters.

Oh and lets not forget Matthew 12:46...I will include thru verse 50 for added context...”Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Again in 12:46...a specific mention of Jesus’ mother connected with her other sons, “his brethren” as opposed to the description of Jesus pointing out of the disciples as being those who do the work of the Father as his “brother, sister, AND MOTHER”.

Mary had other kids but I see no reason that the fact diminishes Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus, who was seen as “blessed above all women”. God blessed Mary and Joseph with additional children which was considered an honorable thing back then especially the number that appeared to have survived childhood and reached adulthood. And the Bible says that “the marriage bed is undefiled” so having additional married sex with Joseph which led to other children was no violation of Mary’s virtue, grace, and honor.