hen we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear, even from the context of many of the scriptures, that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in her virginity the rest of her life, never bearing any more children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that, though Joseph and Mary did not come together in the sexual union before Jesus was born, they did afterward. And the Lord indeed blessed them with children.

With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, "why would anyone attempt to dispute it, or even want to?" The answer is as simple as the word "tradition." It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. If the Roman Catholic Church were to confess that the scripture is correct, and that Mary had other children, then it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary. Therefore, a way had to be devised which could be used to justify this teaching.

It is indeed difficult to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more groundless. Number one, nowhere does the word of God say that she had no other children, and so it is a doctrine which is not based on the firm foundation of solid scripture. In effect, it is a doctrine built upon the silence of scripture concerning this. Number two, Roman Catholics have made the fundamental construction error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call "technicalities" in the Greek, to try and give the appearance that their conclusions have real support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Biblical hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the word, and then follows it to its conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word that says, or even implies that Mary had no other children, then this Church's conclusion is based upon the traditions of men, and not the word of God.

What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word [adelphos], that is translated brethren, and attempted to make its meaning vague and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple of meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ, Brethren/Kin), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we are dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this word, in its context, could mean cousins. As for the spurious claim that it means brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the passages in question preclude it. Moreover, even without the passages with the word "brethren," we can see clearly that Mary had other children. To simply "ignore" these things would be handling the scriptures deceitfully, tortuously manipulating it for our own agenda.

The best way to find an answer of what is true, is to go right to the scriptures and let them speak for themselves. Remember, the scripture (the word of the Living God) is the ultimate authority. Note carefully that you would have to "tortuously" wrest/twist the scriptures of matthew to even begin to make them imply Mary didn't have other children. e.g.:

    Matthew 13:55

• "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

• "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

    Mark 3:31

• "There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him, calling Him."

• "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

    Mark 15:40

• "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;"

• "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him."

    Matthew 1:24-25

• "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him HIS WIFE:
• And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"

That anyone can read all these scriptures and still believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin is a testimony not to scripture, but to the indoctrination of traditions. To believe this, they must ignore or wrest scriptures that say Mary was the Mother of Jesus' Brethren, ignore scriptures that say Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, and ignore scripture which says Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) her not "until" after the birth of the firstborn (Jesus). And that's just for starters!

The deeper question is not, "was Mary a perpetual virgin," (no scripture says that), but why should/would she be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a deity! Is there anything wrong with Joseph and Mary having more children? It was a perfectly normal thing for a husband and a wife to do. In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians 7:3-5).

Another Biblical indication that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fable is that Jesus is referred to as her firstborn Son. If Jesus was the only child of Mary, would He be referred to as her firstborn Son? Of course not, because this designation assumes the existence of more than one son. It designates more than one child, among whom a specific one, is the first. Mary certainly had other children after the birth of Jesus. Not only does the Bible clearly tell us that, but it also gives us the very names of those children. From the very beginning God ordained that wife and husband should be fruitful and multiply. The only thing which would preclude this, is man-made traditions invoking the idolizing of Mary. Because God's word is abundantly clear on the matter.

    Matthew 12:46

• "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him."

• "After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His Mother, and His Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."

    John 7:3-5

• "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
• For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
• For neither did his brethren believe in him."

    Acts 1:14

• "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

• "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

We would love to have many Roman Catholics consider the word wisely and come to the truth of scripture. But the fact is, you cannot argue anyone into believing anything. Either they are noble to receive what is written, or blinded by tradition that they won't receive it. The key is not to let their frustration become your frustration. Go into any discussion with the proponents of this doctrines with your eyes wide open. Don't expect people to listen to the word of God, because they probably won't. Nevertheless, here and there there will be a remnant, a few who will hear, being called of God that they won't blindly follow man-made doctrines. The Spirit of truth will guide these to listen with all readiness of mind (as the Bereans of Acts 17:11) to rational consistent Biblical teachings. As these Bereans didn't blindly accept what their Priests said, so a few will search it out to see if what is witnessed by you is true.

    Acts 1:14

• "These all continued with one accord in Prayer and supplication, and with the women, and MARY the Mother of Jesus, and with HIS Brethren."

So what can the faithful Christian glean in information about the Lord's brothers and sisters from all of these pertinent passages? First of all, we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.

These things are so clear and so straight forward in the scriptures that it seems totally irrational to deny them. But with some people, it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, because Church leaders or teachers are paramount, rather than the authority of the word of God itself. We should understand (though not condone) that this is the way it has to be with them because that is the only way they can claim that the clear context and text, doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By having the Church hierarchy as ultimate authority instead of God's word, they can make these claims with private interpretation of scripture, and arbitrary define their own terms.

The normal process of hermeneutics does not allow us to force upon the scriptures the idea that Mary had no other Children, ever! Both the context of the passages as well as the common usage of these words and structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His Mother, Sisters and Brethren. It does not refer to cousins or other Church members.

In all matters of doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same common denominator. What is our Authority? Is it God, where we receive and obey God's word as the ultimate authority, or is it man, where we receive and obey our teachers words as the authority? Those who reject scripture in favor of their teachers (no matter what religion) have another authority other than that of the Bible. And as long as they do, they will never come to any agreement with any scripture unless their church leaders (man) says they can (or God decides to open their eyes). Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes.

As for the Blessed mary, the true believer doesn't need to build her up, she is already Blessed and honoured. Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel and was blessed of God to bear the Lord, but she must not be set up as a idol, or prayer tower, or intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not loose sight of that. There is one Mediator between God and man, and no redemptrix, and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. The idea of Mary as a Co-redemptrix is anathema. We don't have to artificially make her Holy, she is Holy, just like all the rest of God's Chosen vessels. ..by the Blood of Christ.

Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone so long as this notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in its original form, unedited, and without cost.