hen we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous seeing how it is so clear, even from the context of many of the scriptures, that He did. And the only major religion that really chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Their teachers 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 else in scripture that points to the opposite conclusion. Though Joseph and Mary did not come together in the sexual union before Christ was born, they did know each other in the Biblical sense, afterward. And the Lord indeed blessed them with children.

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

It is indeed difficult to imagine an argument against Mary having other children being more groundless than this one. Number one, nowhere does the word of God declare that she had no other children, and so it is a doctrine that is not based on the firm foundation of scripture. In effect, it is a doctrine built upon the deafening silence of scripture concerning this theory. Number two, Roman Catholicism has 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 construct technicalities in the Greek, in order to try and give the "appearance" that their conclusions have sound support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that reliable 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 the word to its conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word that says, or even implies that Mary had no other children, then it should be self-evident that this Church's conclusion is based upon the oral traditions of men, not the word of God.

What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word [adelphos], that is translated brethren, and by slight of hand attempted to make its meaning, "in context," 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/Family), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages that we are dealing with with relationship to Christ's mother. Nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this word, in these natural contexts, could mean cousins. The spurious claim that it means brethren 'in Christ' or cousins in the context of these passages in question are a house of cards. For example, they will offer the Hebrew word [ach], translated brother in passages like Genesis 29:15, and then declare that proves for Jews brother can be cousins. But again, that is sleight of hand, as that Hebrew (not Greek) word means Kin. Its like word in Greek would be [suggene] meaning kindred, not {adelphos}. Moreover, even without the passages with the word "brethren," we can see clearly throughout the scriptures that Mary had other children. To simply "ignore" these things would be to handle the scriptures deceitfully, tortuously manipulating it for our own agenda or purposes.

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? The best way to find an answer and discern what is true, is to go right to the scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scripture (the word of the living God) is the ultimate authority of true Christians. And take careful note that one would have to tortuously wrest/twist the scriptures of Matthew to even begin to make them imply that 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?"

    Matthew 27:56

• "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!"

And indeed, that anyone could 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 circumvent or wrest scriptures that say Mary was the "Mother" of Jesus' Brethren, scriptures that say Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, scriptures that say Jesus was the son of Mary, and scriptures that say Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) Mary 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," because no scripture says or implies that she was. The bigger question is, why should/would she be required to be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a deity. Is there anything wrong with Joseph taking His wife Mary and having more children? It is a perfectly normal thing for a righteous husband and a wife to do, is it not? In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians 7:3-5) this.

Another indication that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fable is that Jesus is referred to as her firstborn Son, not her only begotten son. If Jesus was the only child of Mary, wouldn't He be referred to as her only begotten Son? Of course He would, because this is the designation of an only child, and firstborn can assume the existence of more than one son. Not only does the Bible clearly tell us that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus, 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 that would preclude this, is man-made traditions invoking an 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."

    John 2:12

• "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."

Psalms 119:140

• "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."

• "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

    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 themselves say, because their Church leaders or rulers are paramount, rather than the divine 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 that they can claim that the clear text (and context), doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By having the Church hierarchy as ultimate authority over God's word, they can make these private interpretation of scripture and arbitrary define their own terms.

The normal process of sound hermeneutics will not allow us to force into scripture the doctrine that Mary had no other Children. The common usage of these words and their structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His physical Mother, Sisters and Brethren. It does not refer to other Church members, nor can it arbitrarily be defined to mean cousins.

In all matters of Christian doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same common denominator. Namely, 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 ultimate 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 that they can. Or until/unless God decides to open their spiritual eyes. Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes.

As for Mary, the true believer doesn't need to build her up, she is already blessed and honored. 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, prayer tower, mediator or intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not lose sight of that biblical fact. There is one Mediator between God and man, and no redemptrix or female redemptor. 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. Made so by the shed Blood of Christ, not Church tradition.

Amen!