After Jesus was born did Joseph and Mary have children together? I read where Mary and Jesus' siblings appear to the New Testament but I have heard some people believe Mary died a virgin. I'm just not finding that in the Bible.

Mark 6:3

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,a Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 1:22-25

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit , after Jesus was born did Joseph have sexual relations with Mary. verse 25, "knew" meant they had sex, after all they were Husband and Wife.

And as the previous poster, there are Scriptures that mention there names and others that refer to his brothers and sisters.

Why then do some Christians believe she died a virgin? Where does that come from?

It was common in the Roman religions.  Even simply by becoming a Caesar (ruler), where you had been a normal man, now you were from a virgin birth and ascended to heaven after death.  Some historians even believe that the teaching that Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven was never intended to be taken literally.  it was simply a comparison, to say that it happened to Caesars, that it happened to Jesus too.  Just like the official mythology about the North Korean leader and his unicorns and such.  It is a Korean tradition to use this symbology and not intended to be taken literally.

Never knew any Christian that believed that way.  References to Virgin Mary are relative to having given birth to the Jesus while still a virgin per the human sexual perspective.

At least some of the Orthodox Christians believe she died a virgin.

Here is another short vid, a little more to the point of this long debate:

Those two videos are horse crap.  She wasn't a virgin when she died, he did have brothers. It's cut and dried.  Like many religions are always "deducing" things not explicitly stated in the Bible, it's poppycock.

That contradicts God's word.

Contradicting God's word with man made doctrine is nothing new.

I believe what is written in the Holy Bible.

If Mary had other children, why did Jesus turn her over to the care of John while he was on the cross?

Because they were not believers yet?  John was there...were the brothers (or non brothers) at the cross?  I have not seen mention of that.  I'm gonna just have to pull a Twire on this one.  The Bible says brothers.  So did God get it wrong? If you doubt the authenticity of Gods word here, maybe body and blood will be next....come on people, it says what it says...

I hope you all know I am just stirring the pot.  I personally don't think that someone's belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary  has a bearing on their salvation.  Interestingly did you know the first reference to this is from a book, that was and still is rejected by all Christians as inspired. It is pretty graphic on how they tested her.  Wouldn't want to read that one in Church.

Amen brother.

Matthew 12:46?

I, too, have to go with what is written in the Bible.  Some believe that the book of James is written by James a brother of Jesus.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but I don't know of any around here that believe that.

Mary definitely had other children after Jesus.

Eta. Didn't even see "Catholics"

Yes. I find their view to be in conflict with what I've read in the Bible

You do know that Catholics are a minority within Christianity. Are there any other Christians except Catholics and Orthodox that believe Mary remained a virgin?

According to my pastor, while the English translations of the Bible say brothers and sisters, the same word in the Greek can also mean cousin or close relative. Thence the confusion. He doesn't believe that Mary remained a virgin, but in the Greek it is not conclusively clear. Nor is it clear that James and Jude were Jesus brothers as we define the word to mean. But they could be. 

Where are you getting those stats?

Are you being obtuse? These are very well known numbers.

By the time Mary & Joseph were together, he was already much older. He was more of a guardian.

Why is it so hard for you to belive the Mother of God would not have had carnal knowledge? She is the new Eve. Jesus renewed Eden as the new Adam for us. Mary repaired what Eve had done.

The war of disparaging the Queen of Heaven are sad and exhausting.

God bless you.

Adam and Eve had 3 sons.

Then what?



<<<Couldn't b MOAR Roman Catholic

Are you serious?  He posted the link to the source.

Here it is again.

Thanks for explaining that. I was no fully grasping why there is idolatry of Mary.

Yes, that kids name was Jesus.

Adoration. Not Idolatry.

But you already knew that.

ETA:

"Perhaps, I should first explain what Mary as the New Eve means. Because of Eve’s disobedience to God and Adam’s cooperation with her, they lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Like Eve, Mary was created full of grace. But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God, just as Christ, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God. In cooperation with God, Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she became Mother of the redeemed as well."

The phrase "New Eve" or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ’s becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.

Then you would have to say the same about one of the greatest defenders of Christian orthodoxy, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, "Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience" (ibid., 5.19.1)."

Catholic Answers

I can understand those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I can understand those who do not.

What I will never understand is the smug attitude expressed by the usual suspects who say things like "Mary dying a virgin contradicts God's word."

No, it doesn't.

Of course her hymen was intact after birthing Jesus.

It makes as much sense as the rest of it.

"Queen of Heaven"?

So, you are bring obtuse.  That, or you're sadly ignorant of Christian belief outside of your own narrow upbringing.

Edit: just realized this was the OP. So, troll thread. We allow these here?

The belief and the practice predated the writing of scripture and was present long before the canon was codified. The earliest Christians believed it. 

And there we have it! Let me translate this for you all 'Catholics are damned as idol worshippers. Thanks for the ecumenical statement!

That also confuses me.  If Jesus was truly 100% man, He was born as a man.  Not any other way.  He couldn't  just appeared in her lap as some accounts say.  

Again, if she did or didnt, it makes no difference to me.  I don't believe that my belief on this subject will damn or save me.

No, I've never heard Mary called the "Queen of Heaven". If by narrow upbring you mean not being taught un-Biblical teachings then ya I guess so.

Lol

I am so glad Jesus gave that Bible to the apostles in the upper room. Otherwise, nothing from Jesus's life until a few centuries would have happened.

Queen of Heaven is only one of her names.  Here is the complete litany (Litany of Loreto or Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary):

http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/litanies/loreto.htm

Most protestants have issue with this stuff because the entire theotokos teaching flips on it's head everything that protestants "protest" about!  Simply saying, "I don't see that in the Bible" doesn't cut muster when you can't back it up with biblical history.  

What I find interesting is, especially on a site like this, we identify ourselves as essentially "conservative."  Yet, I've never met a protestant who is willing to apply that same philosophy to his spirituality.  Church is supposed to be "easy & comforting," right?  

Camel through the eye of a needle and all.  

Catholicism isn't for everybody, however.  I will say that.

The usual claim (from those who bother to assert one) is that Roman politics post-Constantine corrupted the Church. I have yet to see an explanation for the doctrinal consistencies from Egypt to India to Rome which all show remarkable similarity compared to the quite novel faith practices of modern Protestant "bible believers."

When your entire "sola scriptura" theology is rooted in one line in one epistle that doesn't even really say what you claim it says (lest it refer to documents not yet written), it's pretty ridiculous to accuse others of "non-biblical" beliefs. But, that's the kind of thread we're in.

At least we haven't seen any outright insults cast towards the woman God Himself chose as the vessel for His incarnation and whom the Gabriel referred to as uniquely "blessed among women" and "highly favored" by God.

Please...I have to ask this in every thread on this topic it seems.....give us your definition of Sola Scriptura.

Assuming you're directing this at me, its the belief, as illustrated by the OP, that scripture is the sole guide for proper belief and practice of the faith, in rejection of the authority of the Church.

Some take it even further and go so far as to say that practices or traditions not specifically mentioned in the Bible are not only "Non-Biblical" but harmful or even satanic. But, Martin Luther did not espouse such, that came later in Protestant theological tradition. He merely rejected the authority of the Catholic Church. In so doing, he rejected the entire concept of a Church Militant whose leadership has "bind and loosen" teaching authority - thus arguably rejecting that bit of scripture.

The even more extreme "Sola Scriptura" is far more clearly "Non-Biblical," as the Bible itself speaks to traditions not specifically discussed in the books within.

Certainly, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not "non-Biblical," nor does it "contradict God's word." Nothing in the Bible suggests Joseph was a virgin or not a father when betrothed to Mary. In fact, it's clear he was already quite old. He pretty much disappears from the narrative after the presentation at the temple (there might be one other mention, but I don't recall it). He's definitely out of the story by the wedding at Cana, and the passage asserted above to "prove" Mary had other children. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude Jesus had half-siblings, and that Joseph viewed Mary more as a daughter than a wife, thus never consummating the marriage. The way the "brothers" passage is worded also seems to suggest those brothers are older and more established in the community, whereas Jesus is some young punk kid talking smack.

Because Jesus was the oldest, the first born, and it was his responsibility.

I find it odd that this is a belief. Why wouldn't tgere be more info, reverence or adoration to these "other children of Mary and Joseph "? Why weren't they hierarchs of the early church? Why don't I hear about them in ANY writings from the Apostles?

Thank you.  I'm not gonna speak for everyone because I'm sure someone will disagree, and I'm more sure that many protestants don't even know what it means.  Obviously it means by Scripture Alone.  This means that all we need for salvation is in scripture.  And that the Bible is the final authority.  Every church everywhere has traditions.  I am Presbyterian.  We have lots.  And I rather enjoy them.  If your church opens with a song every week, that is a tradition.  People get strung up in anti Catholic stuff sometimes and want to say everything resembling it is wrong.

I believe Scripture alone. I don't hold any contempt for Catholics as some in this thread hint at. I can't think of any religious traditions that I value other than Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is anti-Catholic.  You may not hold any personal contempt for Catholics you know, possibly because the ones you know (personally) are kind enough to placate you just enough to remain cordial friends because they like your personality/world views.  Nothing wrong with that, except being comfortable with error, and your Catholic friends allowing it to continue.  They're not being true friends no matter how much they help you in the temporal world, they're really just exercising patience - only it is a patience that lacks the other virtues:  temperance, prudence, etc.  Patience out of fear or indifference, in other words (there's that error again).

What people miss is that Catholics actually put great emphasis on Scripture, I would even argue the most emphasis.  Tradition speaks, however, where Scripture does not.

Wow. I guess if I did hold anything against Catholics it would be this type of attitude.