Why is Mary called "Virgin Mary" when Jesus had several brothers and sisters?

Question

Were they also born "immaculately?

Answer 1

No.

Christianity teaches that the Virgin Mary was virgin when she conceived Jesus. While she was pregnant, the bible states that Joseph took her as his wife. So Jesus' earthly siblings were NOT immaculately conceived.

Answer 2

The thing is that the Catholics for some reason feel that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. That Jesus never had biological brothers and sisters, but that any siblings mentioned in the good book are Step-siblings via Joseph or cousins whom were just referred to as brother/sister. They want to think that Mary too was sinless, well if that had been the case there would have been no need for Christ, Mary could have died for our sins if she was sinless. However she was human so though she was a good person she was not with out sin.

Protestants believe that Mary and Joseph did have children after Jesus was born, and so Mary is called Virgin Mary in regards to her being a virgin when she birthed Christ. Even the holy book (changed for the Catholic version) says that Joseph was told after Christ was born Mary would bare him children as well. I also don’t understand why it wouldn’t be thought that Mary and Josephs consummated their marriage other wise they wouldn’t have been fully married. As there are two parts of a marriage
1. Legal part
2. consummation (Sexual intercourse)

Answer 3

Well, whether Jesus had brothers and sisters is, in the first place, not universally accepted. Some try to say Jesus had half-siblings and Mary was a second wife, others that Jesus was the eldest child, and still others simply ignore any evidence, whatever the source, presented and claim that the references to brothers and sisters are misinterpreted altogether.

This is, of course, actually has little to do with the title "Virgin Mary." The idea behind this is that Mary had never had sex up until the time when she gave birth to Jesus, thus firmly establishing Him as God's son rather than Joseph's.

The Immaculate Conception is still another concept, but it has been misunderstood by many, yourself, apparently, included, since it applies not to Jesus, but to Mary. The idea is that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of original sin. It is a concept of the Catholic church and, so far as I know, not embraced by any other Christian sect. So it does not really enter into your question, but if you were, as others do, to apply this idea to Jesus, it would not hold true for any siblings unless they, too, were to be considered God's children rather than Joseph's, which, again, so far as I know, they are not.

It may sound strange, but in a very real way the idea of Jesus having elder siblings and the idea of the Virgin Birth truly have little to do with each other. One may or may not be a historical fact, and the other is, essentially, a religious concept. I suppose one could say that with God, all things are possible and leave it at that. Sometimes, though, I think even God is perplexed by the ideas theologians come up with. (That can go for historians, too, by the way.)

The real problem I think you are facing here is a need to 'reconcile' history and religion. Many Christians, particularly American Protestants, have, in my experience, a deep need to *know* that everything they believe is 'real,' ignoring the fact that, if their beliefs are proven to be based on absolute, rock-hard fact, then where does faith, the most essential part of religion, come in? Nonetheless, from Constantine's mother on down, Christians have been at this task for centuries, and the current furor over whether or not Jesus had siblings is really a product of that.

My advice is that if it is important to your faith to believe Jesus was born of a virgin, then have faith in that and ignore all of these 'reality' shows that attempt to prove otherwise. What they (by whom I mean persons such as Simcha Jacobovici, who is involved in the latest, though not the last, controversy in this matter) 'prove' (this changes daily) is one thing; what you have faith in is another.

(For more detailed information, I suggest you check out Wikipedia as a starting point. Just keep in mind that the writers there, too, can often have their own axes to grind. Case in point, the article on the Virgin Birth)

Answer 4

Christian and Muslim belief maintains that Mary was a virgin who miraculously (through the power of God) conceived the child Jesus. That is why she is called the Virgin.

Catholics would maintain the Mary was "ever virgin" and did not have other children. Reformed churches would disagree. I'm not sure of the position of the Orthodox Churches.

Immaculate Conception does not have anything to do with the "virgin birth". Catholic doctrine maintains that Mary, by virtue of her destiny to become the Mother of God, was conceived in her mothers womb free of the "original sin". That is the Immaculate Conception.

Answer 5

It is in reference to her still being a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. That she may not have remained a virgin after that is unimportant.

It is similar to a woman who is a virgin on her wedding night. She does not remain a virgin after the wedding night, but she was one at the time. And so should receive respect for being a virgin at that time.

It is also possible that Jesus' brothers and sisters may have been Joseph's children from a previous marriage, and not birthed by Mary. One tradition holds that Joseph was an older widower when he married Mary.

Answer 6

Jesus was conceived and born before Joseph had marital relations with her. Luke 1:27. In Matthew 1:24-25 we read that Joseph 'knew her(Mary) not until after she had given birth to Jesus. The term 'knew her not' is referring to the marital relationship. Only the Lord Jesus Himself was conceived without sin, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Answer 7

When referred to as the Virgin Mary she is being referred to at the time of Jesus birth not after.

Answer 8

easily Scripture does not say that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus became born. The word "till" does not advise that they had family members afterwards - Matthew became in elementary terms commenting on the reality that Joseph and Mary had no family members in the past then - that it became a virgin delivery. all of us recognize this as a results of fact the Greek word he used (heos) does not advise the action occurred afterwards. "Heos" is utilized in 2 Sam. 6:32 which says that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no newborn "till" the day of her dying. If we used your interpretation it would advise that she had toddlers after her dying - which of path isn't the case. Hebrews a million:13 and a million Timothy 4:13 are comparable examples. And the word "firstborn" does not advise there became a 2d word. on the time of Jesus and whilst the gospel became written it had a particular meaning. The firstborn became to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the mother and dad have been to redeem each and every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t meant to attend till that they had a 2d newborn to redeem the firstborn, and so the 1st son born to a female became noted as the firstborn in spite of whether or not she had different toddlers later on. And the bible on no account says that the "brothers" or "brethern" that have been suggested have been easily sons of Mary. The Greek word utilized in scripture (adelphoi) has a much wider meaning than chum. it may consult with male family members like a step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.. it may additionally be used for or alongside with buddies, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends. as an occasion, we can be constructive that the one hundred twenty "brothers" in Acts a million:15 did not have the comparable mom. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who have been noted as "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15). So your assumption that the "brethern" had to be toddlers of Mary is incorrect. as an occasion, they might have been Joseph's toddlers from a prior marriage or cousins to Jesus. So it truly is a mistake to anticipate that the renowned interpretation you placed on the text textile is what the classic biblical writers meant. you should take the texts in historic context. The early Christians properly-known the perpetual virginity of Mary - the theory she had different toddlers is a marginally late theory. Oh and ultimately -- Catholics do not worship Mary. She is commemorated and commemorated yet in elementary terms God is to be worshipped.

Answer 9

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus' mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 10

The simple answer to this is that Mary was still a virgin when she was pregnant with her first child, Jesus.

The more complicated answer to this is that the bible never claims *per se* that Jesus had any siblings. The term "brother" and "sister" both are terms applied to close blood relatives (such as cousins), and this term is used in just this way in several verses in the bible.

SO, no one can say *with scriptural certainty* that Jesus had siblings, or that he did not have siblings.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/