Josiah said:
This thread is not about the PVM (there are threads on that). This thread is about a view that originated in the 18th Century among some liberal Protestants; the view that Mary had other children (usually including Joseph and James). Some, following them, dogmatically insist that Mary did have other kids. I simply note the Bible never says that (it's actually SILENT on that point). I also note that this is a very new invention; from at least the year 90 AD or so, all Christians held that Mary had no other children.
Now, true - IF the PVM is true, then obviously she had no other children. But that's not the issue here since it's entirely possible to have had a million cases of marital intimacies and not bear a child recorded in the Bible (or at all). Indeed, I know MANY couples that have no children (mentioned in the Bible or otherwise); it would be quite a leap for me to dogmatically declare, "Ergo they have never had marital intimacies."
IMO, declaring a Dogma based on, "Hey, but usually married people have children" is not proof that therefore Mary had more than one child. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure! Is it LIKELY? Maybe. Is it CERTAIN? No. Frankly, I agree with MennoSota (even if he disagrees with himself): We should stick to what the Bible says and does not say. And it's SILENT on this. Maybe we should be too. To quote John Wesley, "We must be clear where Scripture is clear and silent where Scripture is silent." Some wisdom there, IMO. I hold no Dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" or "Mary Had No Other Kids." The Bible states neither. And frankly, it doesn't matter anyway
.
Mary did have other children.
Does truth matter in this regard? IF so, is truth determined by the opinion/speculation of one, you? I'm sure your answers are "yes" and "no." So, where does Scripture or Tradition or any Ecumenical Council or Creed state what you do? And why does it matter so highly?
There is no evidence that Mary did not have more children. In fact Scripture calls Jesus her firstborn. This would indicate that she had more.
No. The word means, "one who opens the womb." It has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. The verse you reference does not say, "Mary had other children."
According to the Law a man and woman had to consummate a marriage in order for it to be a legitimate marriage. Having other children is not strange, especially for a woman as young as Mary.
Again, you seem to be confusing issues: The issue here is not whether Mary and Joseph had relations, the issue is whether the Bible states Mary had children besides Jesus. Unless you can show that every act of marital intimacy results in the birth of a child, then your point is irrelevant. IMO, founding a new dogma on "But hey, usually married couples have children" is NOT substantiation for a dogma, "Mary Had Other Children." And it certainly does not show that the words of the Bible state this.
I agree, the Bible never says she had no more children. It also never says that she did. True, 1700 + years of Christians all held to the view that she did not (a view that PREDATES the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" by CENTURIES) - this speculation that she had other kids wasn't invented until the 18th Century, but the Bible is silent on this. Frankly, I don't know why it would not be silent, what difference does it make? The Bible is also silent on Jesus' shoe size and hair color.
Edited to add....
[MENTION=509]RichWh1[/MENTION]
Friend, let's try this.....
1. By at least the year 90 AD (shortly after Mary's death), we can document that there was the belief that Mary had no other children. Also, the speculation that Joseph was much older than Mary and that he had children from a previous marriage whom, after Joseph was widowed, brought into his new family. We know this was the Christian belief, and that it remained so (universally) until the 18th Century when some liberal Protestants challenged it, albeit they did NOT claim that ANYTHING in the Bible made it problematic (the same liberals also questioned that Mary was a virgin and the virgin birth of Jesus).
2. The belief (NOT dogma! NEVER claimed to be stated in the Bible or anywhere else for that matter) that Mary had no other children PREDATES (by centuries) that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It seems to me you are trying to see the issue here in the light of a separate and MUCH LATER view. The PMV may have been a result of this teaching (but there's NOTHING to so indicate) but it could not have been the other way around because for centuries, Christians held that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin AND that they had no other children. Accepting that Mary may not have had other children is NOT - in any way - dependent upon a MUCH later view that she remained a virgin. TRUE, if the PVM is true, then Mary had no other children. But the reverse is not true, Mary not being a perpetual virgin has nothing to do with whether she had lotsa kids. Follow?
3. The Bible never says that Mary and Joseph had marital relations (in fact, it never says they actually ever married - ONLY that Joseph was given divine permission to do so). But in the West (not in the Eastern Orthodox Church), this is ASSUMED (It's not dogma). So, if we do not impose the MUCH LATER idea of the PVM, is it POSSIBLE that they had marital relations? Yes. In fact, I'd argue virtually certain.
4. BUT what is NOT dogmatically true is that every case of marital intimacies results in a child (certainly not one specifically mentioned in the Bible). Would you agree with that? To argue: Because they almost certainly had sex,
ERGO it is a dogmatic fact that they had lotsa kids" is an apologetic that ENTIRELY depends on marital intimacies always resulting in births. And we both know, that's not true. Biology proves it's not true. You too probably know married couples who have no children, would you shout to them dogmatically "YOU NEVER HAVE SEX!?" No. My wife and I were married for over two years and had no children, and (without getting too personal) I can tell you we DID share marital intimacies. I think any fertility doctor would assure you: just because a couple has normal intimacies does NOT prove or mandate that they give birth to children (much less lotsa them, lol). Do you get my point? Do you follow me? The apologetic, "Since they had sex they thus had lotsa kids" is biblically and biologically wrong and invalid. Would it be LIKELY? Yes. Would it be dogmatically necessitated? Absolutely not. Follow me?
5. The invented dogma we are discussing is not the PVM but "Mary Had Lotsa Kids." This view invented by some liberal Protestants in the 18th Century along with their denial of the Virgin birth of Jesus. Some here have claimed "The Bible states this." Then prove it does not. IMO, imposing newly invented dogma requires more than, "Well, heck, most married people have lotsa sex and more than one kid - so it seems kinda likely that Mary and Joe did." That doesn't substantiate a dogma, "Mary Had Other Children." Nor does it substantiate the insistence, "The Bible STATES that." One may have the opinion that Jesus had black hair..... that I'm probably go along with that likelihood, but is that the basis to invent a new dogma and insist the Bible STATES that?
Allow me to add, just as another bit of info, this new dogma creates a lot of problems: For example, at the Crucifixion, Jesus entrusts His mother to JOHN (the Apostle and son of Zebedee). In that culture, the care a widow went to the oldest surviving son. It was a matter of steadfast custom, virtually a matter of law. If Jesus had a younger brother, Mary would become HIS responsibility and Jesus would be acting in direct conflict to the law, He would have greatly insulted His younger brother, an no doubt neither Mary or John would have honored it. Yet the Bible states she thereafter lived with John. This whole thing makes no sense - indeed, seems profoundly wrong - unless there were no younger sons of Mary. Does this PROVE anything? Nope. But it's just one of the problems this new invented dogma creates.
I hope that helps.
Josiah
.
