Luke 1:26-35
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I know no man?" 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Here comes when the incarnation is announced to Mary. Here is where Mary is told by the angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child who is the Messiah who will reign. This is strange and wonderful news to Mary. We first note that the angel says to Mary, future tense, you will conceive in your womb. Mary is asking how this can be, since I know no man? The angel does not hint of an immediate future. The angel has not yet told Mary that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit, she is told that in v. 35. Thus, when Mary questions the angel in v. 34 how this will get done, even though technically she is saying this in the present tense, 'I know not man' she is saying, 'I have not had sex yet, and I intend to not have sex in the future, so how can this be? ' Just as someone says to me 'You will smoke'and I respond 'how can this be since I do not smoke' in effect says 'I don't ever intend to smoke, how can this be.' If she as of this point intends to have sex with Joseph in the future, there would be absolutely no reason to ask the question since she knows that the way she would normally have a child in the future, is to have sex with Joseph when married. The angel's statement is that she will conceive in the future. Mary's question indicates a pledge for continued virginity.
Luke 2:41-52:
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; 43 and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the company they went a day's journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; 47 and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." 49 And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" 50 And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. 51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
Now, the presumption we are given by those who believe that Jesus had blood brothers, according to passages that we will look at later, is that He had at least seven siblings, four brothers and at a minimum three sisters, per the passages of Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark, 6:3-4. We know that Jesus was the first of Mary. It was a custom that Jesus went to Jerusalem with his parents to the Passover feast. At twelve years old, if there were any blood brothers or sisters, here would be the point that they should be mentioned. The 'they' mentioned in v. 42 would have consisted of Jesus, his siblings and his parents. However, the 'they' only consisted of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. In all likelihood, those 'kinsfolk and acquaintances' will be those who we see later are those often thought to be blood brothers. Then in v. 51 it says 'he went down with them' and came to Nazareth. Again, there is no mention of children, blood brothers, at all. Where are all these brothers and sisters, when both parents are mentioned consistently throughout this event? I propose that the reason that there is no mention of blood brothers and sisters is that there are no blood brothers and sisters. This often overlooked event in dealing with this issue can not be accounted for by those who say that Jesus did have blood brothers and sisters.
John 19:25-27
25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Jesus, on the cross, gives her to the apostle John to be her mother. Where were all these alleged blood brothers & sisters? If Jesus had all these blood brothers, he should have given Mary to James and Joses for example, or any of the numerous sisters we will see when we look at the brother and sister passages. Hebrew culture mandates that they abide by the commandment of honoring their parents by taking care of them. Some will argue, 'well James was an unbeliever, so he didn't want to give his mother to unbelievers. ' Yes, James was not there. No matter if you are an unbeliever; you go to be at your brother's side if he's your blood brother. If not him, at least one of the other supposed seven or more siblings. Of course if James was his true blood brother, (or Jude or Joses or Simon) Jesus would have said to John, 'bring my mother to James, since he is her child.' He does not do so. The commandment to honor their father and mother were known by all there, and Jesus would know of James' responsibility (if he was also His mother's son). He would not break a commandment by taking his mother from him and give him to somebody not blood related to her, just because at the very moment at the cross, he was not there. Also, Jesus would appear to James and certainly knew that James would turn to Christ (1 Cor. 15:7) and become a believer very shortly after. If James was his blood brother, which could not be the reason, because Jesus would know that he would become a believer.
Another important question is where are the blood brothers and sisters after Jesus died? Let us say that all these alleged brothers and sisters refused to be around their dying brother, while their mother Mary was right at the cross, as the modern Protestant contends. How likely is that? But, let us say that they all thought he was a blasphemer or something and that is why they left their own mother to be by herself. Surely after his death, we'd have some indication of brothers and sisters tending to his body, wouldn't we? This was not so, because there were none.
Ezekiel 44:1-3:
1: Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut.
2: And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. 3: Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way."
We see in this passage that, in the New Covenant, a new temple will come. The Lord God of Israel will pass through the gate and no one shall pass by it. The prince of peace is Jesus, and Mary is the gate, and no one else shall pass through this gate. This is not rank Catholic speculation; this was affirmed by the Fathers and even Protestant 'Reformers'.
St. Ambrose of Milan writes in 391 AD:
Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity." The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , 8:52, in William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1978, #1327, p. 172.
This represents the Church Fathers thought that Ezekiel was prophesying that Christ would be born and pointed to this as Mary. Jesus in John 7:38-39 points to the rivers of flowing water, which is fulfilled in Christ and points to the Ezekiel passages in Ezekiel 40-48. Ezekiel 44 is right in the middle of this. In fact, only the prince of Peace passed through Mary's gate. In my other piece, I also have quotes from St. Proclus and Augustine. Other Fathers who spoke on Mary's perpetual virginity flowing from this passage include Sts. Hilary, Jerome, Peter Chrysologus, and Gregory the Great as seeing Ezekiel 44 as referring to Mary's virginity.
We see this from an English 'reformer', Jeremy Taylor:
And He that came from His grave fast tied with a stone and a signature, and into the college of the apostles 'the doors being shut,' and into the glories of His Father through the solid orbs of all the firmament, came also (as the Church piously believes) into the world so without doing violence to the virginal and pure body of His mother, that He did also leaver her virginity entire, to be a seal, that none might open the gate of that sanctuary; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet 'This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord God of Israel hath entered by it, therefore it shall be shut. ' Robert Payesko, The Truth About Mary: A Scriptural introduction to the Mother of Jesus for Bible-Believing Christians,: From Human Inventions to the truths taught by Scripture, Volume 1, (Queenship Publishing Company, Santa Barbara, CA), 1996, p. 57, footnote 63, quoted in A.M. Allchin, 'Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology, ' In The Blessed Virgin Mary,: Essays by Anglican Writers, E.L. Mascall and H.S. Box, eds (London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, 1963), 61.
Catholics will sometime allude to Luke's reference to Mary in the first chapter of Luke which shows Luke drawing from Scripture to show that she is the Ark of the Covenant. Luke 1:39-40 compared to 2 Samuel 6:2 shows Mary going up the hill country of Judah and greets Elizabeth and David goes to Judah to bring the Ark. Luke 1:41-42 we have Elizabeth shouting joyously, meeting Mary, while David and the House of Israel bring up the ark with shouting, using the same word, in 2 Sam. 6:15. David exclaims how should the ark of God come to me 2 Sam. 6:9, as Elizabeth says 'how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me', Luke 1:43. Just as John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb (Lk. 1:44) because the baby heard Mary's greeting, David 'leapt' before the ark of the Lord, 2 Sam 6:16. Elizabeth was blessed by Mary's appearance, and of course Mary herself was blessed by her believing (Lk.1:45, 56), the people were blessed by the ark's appearance 2 Sam. 6:11. As Mary remained three months and returned home (Lk.1:56), the ark of the Lord remained in Obededom the Gittites house for 3 months (2 Sam 6:11). As Luke shows that Mary was 'overshadowed' epischiadze by the Holy Spirit when it came down upon her, the glory of the Lord epischiadze, overshadowed, and filled the temple. Mary returned home and eventually brought Jesus to the temple to have him circumcised, the glory of the Lord appeared to Simeon (Lk.2:32), the glory of the Lord came when the ark came to the temple (1 Kngs 8:9-11). The specific passages can be seen here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mary.html#IV. Ark of the Covenant
Luke was not ignorant of the Old Testament. Even if he does not explicitly say 'Mary is the ark of the covenant', we can see him using language, known to the readers of his gospel, familiar with the Old Testament. He is definitely showing explicit parallels between Mary and the ark of the covenant. But Luke is not the only author who identifies Mary as such. Let us look at the apostle John:
Revelation 11:18-12-2
18 The nations raged, but thy wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, for rewarding thy servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear thy name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth." 19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
First the ark of the covenant makes its first appearance in centuries. It reappears at the end of Revlelation 11. Then, and only then we see of the woman who comes with a child. These are not disconnected events. The ark comes in the form of a woman who bears a child. If one reads the rest of Revelation 12 we can see that this child is Jesus (Rev. 12:2, 5), and the opponent is the devil (Rev. 12:4, 9), individuals. But who is the one who bears the child? Mary is the only one who bears the child, in the context of the ark of the covenant. Mary is seen by John as the ark of the covenant as well. She bears the Son Jesus, who will rule the world. Some may argue that somehow this is Israel, or the Church, or something to that effect, but we see in Revelation 12 John talking about individuals, not national entities.
Joseph being the just man that he is, was obviously told by Mary of all the events. A good Jewish man would have been taught of the holiness of the ark. He would have learned of the parallels to the ark, by Mary. Mary obviously told Joseph heard she told Luke. Joseph would have known how Uzziah touched the ark in an unauthorized fashion and was killed (2 Sam. 6:7-8). Joseph would want to dedicate himself to raising the Messiah, and would obviously not see the new ark of the covenant, as someone to have sex with. He'd want to devote himself to raising the Messiah.
Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
Now, some point to verses 18 and 25 as proof that Mary had sex with Joseph. In fact all verse 18 speaks of, is the virgin birth. Yes, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Coming together means getting married, according to modern scholarship. Joseph did not think that Mary had been sexually active and that is why he wanted to divorce her. She had obviously told her about the Holy Spirit coming upon her. Notice that the angel says 'do not fear to take Mary as your wife', not 'do not be mad at Mary, she was not sexually active. ' As a very normal man, he could be so overwhelmed with the idea that he was going to be a foster father to a child who was going to be the savior of the world who is actually God the son!! How could a mere man dare raise the Savior of the world?? That is what he fears. That is more plausible when you look at v. 20. The angel never says, 'after she bears the child, have sex with her and produce other children. ' Then we go to verse 25, which modern Protestants use to prove she had sex, when it says he knew her not until she had borne the son. Modern Protestants assume it implies that they had sex afterward. However, just because it says the word 'until' does not mean that Mary's virginal status changes.
Here are some examples of Scriptures that use the word 'until' does not indicate that after the event the status changes, as modern Protestants assume on Mt. 1:25:
2 Samuel 6:23
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (KJV unto) the day of her death
According to the Mary must have children side, using their logic, because the word until (or to) was used, when 2 Sam 6:23 says Michal had no children until she died, means that after she died, she must have bore other children? I do not think so:
1 Cor. 15:25
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet
Jesus will reign even after he has put his enemies under his feet. His status does not change. Remember, the angel told Luke that Jesus would reign forever (Lk.1:33).
1 Tim. 4:13:
13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.
Paul tells the people to do the public reading of Scripture. This is most likely done during the Christians worship of God. Paul is going to come to visit the readers and he says to read, preach and teach, until he comes. He does not mean or imply that after he comes, that they are to stop the public reading of Scripture, or to preach or to teach.
Other examples which show that the status does not change based on the word 'until' being used, include Matthew 22:44, 28:20, 1 Tim. 6:14, Isaiah 46:3-4, Deut. 34:6. Greek Christians who study this understood for centuries that Mt. 1:25 did not imply a change of Mary's virginal status:
Greek Speaking John Chrysostom addresses this passage:
And when he had taken her, 'he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word 'till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, 'till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, 'The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' Gen 8:7. And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, 'From age till age Thou art,' (Psalm 90:2). not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, 'In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' (Psalm 92:7). It doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word 'till,' to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord (John 19:27). commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? ] St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily V, ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 10 (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995), p. 33.
One other thing noted by the scholar John McHugh, if Matthew wanted to imply the word 'to know' in a way that she would have sex after she was born, he would have used the verb in the 'aorist' tense. He did not.
Why would Mary get betrothed to Joseph if she intended to be celibate? A Catholic does not need to argue that Mary had always had planned to be a virgin. John McHugh makes a good argument that they originally intended to have sex in marriage, but when the angel appeared to Mary with the announcement of her bearing the child Jesus, all things changed, then is when she would make the pledge, per Luke 1:34, looked at above.
There are several passages which seem to Protestants to indicate that Jesus had blood brothers and so disprove Mary's virginal status. Mt. 13:55-56 is similar, but let's look at Mark's reference:
Mark 6:2-4
2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
Here there are several things to note. First, back in Nazareth the people seem to be familiar with who Jesus is. After calling Jesus the son of Mary, the 'many' say he is 'the son of Mary.' The Son of Mary indicates uniqueness. They are not calling him 'a son of Mary', but 'the son of Mary.' Next they do say that he has the four 'brothers', James, Joses, Judas and Simon. No one says that they are sons of Mary and Joseph. Mark 6 gives us an indication from Jesus himself that they are not blood brothers. He seems to elaborate on exactly who the townspeople are identifying as his 'brothers.' In responding back to the townspeople when he says that the people are not honoring him, He says that He is not being accepted by those in his country, among his kin, and in his house. He basically is identifying these ones called as brothers, as his kin, not blood brothers.
However, we can identify who James and Joses parents are, and they are not Joseph and Mary:
Mt: 27:55-56
55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.
We see here Matthew speaking of a Mary who is the mother of James and Joseph, not Jesus' mother.
Mark 15:40:
There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me.
This Mary who is the mother of James and Joses is not the Mother of Jesus. This Mary, from afar, is Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses.
Then we see next in John 19:25-27 who this other Mary is married to, and that she is related to Mary the Mother of Jesus, making her kin:
25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Putting all three passages together we see that there are at a minimum three Marys involved. The synoptic gospels refer to the two Marys, Mary Magdalene, and another Mary, who were at first afar. Then later they came close to be at Mary the mother of Jesus' side per John 19. But we also have the fact that here Mary, the mother of James and Joses is called Mary's sister. And this 'sister' is thus kin to Mary and thus related to Jesus. This other Mary, who is called a 'sister' of Mary, is not Mary the Mother of Jesus, but is married to Clopas. Now, this specifically shows that James, though termed a 'brother' of Jesus, clearly has another mother who is not Mary the mother of Jesus.
Another argument used by the Mary had children side is Psalm 69:8. It is said that it is a prophecy towards Christ and it is fulfilled in Mary having children. I will give the passage and the surrounding context to see whether this passage truly proves that Mary had other children.
Psalm 69:4-9
4: More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore? 5: O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee.
6: Let not those who hope in thee be put to shame through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; let not those who seek thee be brought to dishonor through me, O God of Israel. 7: For it is for thy sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face. 8: I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons. 9: For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me.
The argument is that Psalm 69 is messianic, and it includes verse 8. Modern Protestants cross reference that verse to John 7:3-5, where it is said that his 'brothers' were unbelievers. Psalm 69:8 reads that he is separated from his mother's children. In actuality, verses 5, 9, 21 and 25 are cited or referred to in John 2:17, 15:25, Acts 1:20 and Mt. 23:38. Since his brethren did not believe in Jesus, it says he's separate from his mother's children, it supposedly shows here that these are his blood brothers, since they are his mother's children. The problem is that not all of the Psalm is messianic and Psalm 69:8 is not cited at all in the New Testament. For example, Jesus cites in John 15:25, Psalm 69:4 about people hating him without cause. However, that does not mean verse 5 applies to him, because there it says that the Psalmist committed folly and wrongs, surely nothing Jesus did. Psalm 69:18 and 29 show that the person needs salvation and redemption. Surely that passage is speaking of the Psalmist (David), not Jesus. Just as Psalm 69:5 is not referred to in the New Testament, neither is Psalm 69:8 referred to. Psalm 69:8 does not teach Mary had children, its reference is to David who we know had blood siblings. Of course the Mary had children side, is reduced to try to finding something somewhere to try to prove that Mary had other blood children, because nowhere is it found within the New Testament.
We saw that Scriptures do point to Mary's perpetual virginity. The Church Fathers, Christians through for the most part 19 centuries do have biblical reasoning for saying that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The first Scripture we looked at we see Mary ask how can this be since she does not know man (Lk.1:34). The angel had told her that, she will conceive in the future. The only way Mary's question makes sense is if she did pledge to remain a virgin. Though technically it is in the present tense, since it is addressing a statement dealing with the future. Just as if someone says 'you will smoke in the future' and I reply, 'I do not smoke', means I do not smoke now nor will I smoke in the future either. Then we saw passages in Luke 2 where there was nobody around when Jesus visited the temple at the age of twelve, though allegedly he had at least seven or eight blood brothers/sisters. Nowhere were they to be found. Also, nowhere to be found in John 19:25-27, at the cross, were any brothers and sisters when Jesus gave to John his mother Mary as his mother. The claim that well, he did not give him to James because he wouldn't give Mary to an unbeliever is wrong on two fronts; first, James would in few days become a witness of Jesus risen alive and would become a believer; second all Jews were bound to care for their parents, in keeping with the fourth commandment that all were bound by. Also, Ezekiel 44:1-3 was shown to be a Scripture by many Church Fathers and even Protestants, that pointed to Mary being an ever virgin. Also we saw how Luke's recounting of the story of the annunciation and after, drew many parallels with the Ark of the Covenant as spelled out in 2 Sam. 6, Exodus 40, and other places. Joseph was obviously aware of this, and would not violate the new Ark of the Covenant, who bore God himself.
We also looked at Matthew 1:25, which did not show Mary to have sex with Joseph after Jesus was born, despite modern Protestant readings of it. The word 'until' does not mandate that after the event, the status changes, as many Scriptures showed. We also noted that Greek Christians have never read that passage as though it indicated that Mary had sex, including Greek speaking/writing, St. John Chrysostom, who analyzed the Scripture indicating Matthew 1:25 did not indicate that Mary had sex after Jesus' birth. The brothers and sister passages show them to not be blood brothers and sisters. Looking at for example, Mt. 13:55-56 and Mk 6:3-4, and comparing that to Mt. 27:56, Mk 15:40, and John 19:25-27 shows that the ones who are most often thought to be Jesus' blood brothers, James and Joses, are shown to be sons of another Mary, one who was married to Clopas. This Mary is called Mary's sister, though she very well could be her sister-in-law. Finally Psalm 69:8 is another Scripture that modern Protestants use also does not indicate that Jesus had blood brothers any more than Jesus was a sinner (Psalm 69:5). Psalm 69:8 was never referred to by any one in the New Testament so it does not apply to Jesus.
