Nonsense.
Jesus had relatives, “brothers” in some translations. Possibly cousins, possibly sons of Joseph by a previous wife. But there is NO assertion anywhere in Scripture that Joseph fathered children by Mary. Absolutely none.
At the Annunciation, Mary said, “...I know not man...” I.e., she had taken a vow of virginity, and she DID NOT EXPECT to be having relations with Joseph. There is no suggestion anywhere that the vow was violated.
“At the Annunciation, Mary said, “...I know not man...” I.e., she had taken a vow of virginity, and she DID NOT EXPECT to be having relations with Joseph. There is no suggestion anywhere that the vow was violated.”
This passage in Matthew shows that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph moved forward with normal married relations.
Matthew 1:25 -
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”
Well, seeing how you've already been shown to be incorrect on catholics having to go through Mary to get to Christ why should I believe you on this?
And it turns out once again catholicism is wrong.
Jesus had relatives, “brothers” in some translations. Possibly cousins, possibly sons of Joseph by a previous wife.
The Greek in the New Testament supports Joseph and Mary having children in addition to Christ. In Luke 2:7 the good doctor notes: and she gave birth to her firstborn son. The Greek word for first born is πρωτότοκος. It means first, pre-eminent. HELPS Word-studies.
If Luke had wanted to indicate this was her only son, he could have used υἱὸν μονογενῆ...only son. μονογενής (adjective) means only begotten, unique. This is how John referred to Jesus in 3:16 to indicate He was the only son of God.
Recall that Luke was a doctor and would be precise in these matters.
But there is NO assertion anywhere in Scripture that Joseph fathered children by Mary. Absolutely none.
In the section below you used the word "know" to describe Mary not having had sex with anyone. I am glad you did.
In the context of the passage in Luke 1:34 it is understood that "know a man" from her viewpoint was discussing sexual intercourse.
Using context to understanding Scripture is key.
The Greek word used in Luke 1:34 is the same verb, thought in different tenses, used by Matthew in Matthew 1:25 when Matthew records that "he knew her not until that she had brought forth a son"...
The greek word is γινώσκω.
It means: properly, to know, especially through personal experience (first hand acquaintance), to experientially know. HELPS Word-Studies K
In Mary's case the is γινώσκω. It is in the present tense. It can mean continuous action or undefined action. This is determined from the standpoint of the speaker. In the context of Luke 1 it is clear this is a continuous action from Luke's perspective. Mary had continuously remained a virgin through the announcement of the angel.
Now, to keep things in context, we turn to Matthew.
Matthew had followed the command of the angel of the Lord "and not knew her until she had brought forth a son." Then the marriage was consummated. The plain reading of the text, and the usage of the word until indicates this.
The Greek Word ἐγίνωσκεν is in the imperfect tense. It describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past.
Matthew is recording that Joseph, being a righteous man, obeyed the angel and kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.
If until was not in the sentence then there would be merit to the catholic claim of perpetual virginity. But Matthew put until in the sentence as he knew the facts. Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse. This is borne out in Matthew 13:55-56 when he notes: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And with His sisters, are they not all with us?...."
The opening question in the Greek in Matt 13:55 is designed to reveal a yes answer. ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος; ( not this is the of the carpenter?)
Again, context is the key.
At the Annunciation, Mary said, “...I know not man...” I.e., she had taken a vow of virginity, and she DID NOT EXPECT to be having relations with Joseph. There is no suggestion anywhere that the vow was violated.
Pure speculation on catholicism's part Mary had taken a vow to remain a virgin and a distortion of the text.
Her actual reply to Gabriel was "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" This is by no means a promise to remain a virgin.
Nothing in the text indicates this so catholicism is projecting something into the text that is not there.
So we have the Greek to support Joseph and Mary having other children and we have context which supports Joseph and Mary having other children.
We also have Acts 1:14, Paul writing in Galatians that he met James, the brother of Jesus, John 2:12 and others showing Jesus had siblings.
Bottom line.....Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
Horsefeathers.
That is to accept writings such as what is known today as the Protoevangelium of James as having been accurate, instead of a bunch of tongue wagging rumor and supposition.
It became discovered that it was not written by James as that writing represented itself to be.
It was a fraud from the first sentence.
And here, you perpetuate the theological error (if not outright crime!) of that...
What a bizarre un scriptural extrapolation!
She was uttering a statement IN THE moment...that she had never Biblically "known" a man so was confused as to how she could be with child.
To make that into a vow is to change the meaning of scripture. Not a Christian thing to do.
There was no vow to violate.
Poor Mary, the things attributed to her that make no sense and actually show a great disrespect for her are legion unfortunately.