Was Jesus and only Child?

[Of Mike and Men]

I was reading various passages from Calvin and Luther which seem to suggest that Jesus did not have any brothers/sisters. But, when the Bible refers to brothers, it means all relatives such as cousins, etc. Luther seem to say that those who even consider Jesus as having TRUE brothers and sisters are plain ignorant to the matter entirely. Whereas Calvin seemed more of an agnostic to the idea.

From Luther:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

From Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

[dr2005]

Given the nature of family life in Judea in those days, it is quite plausible that Jesus had siblings and it always puzzles me that Luther and Calvin got into such hysterics about this. The word "virgin" can also be taken in the sense of meaning one who is pure, and as such the claim of Mary remaining "virgin" after the birth of Jesus could refer to her spiritual purity and not physical virginity. In that context, having other children with Joseph would still fit this model, and would follow the cultural norms of the day.

Of course, this is all a bit of a non-issue if you don't believe the Biblical account in the first place, which I thought I should throw in for the many non-Christians on this site. Don't ever say I don't think about you guys.

[Kitty]

Personally, I'd lean towards Mary was no longer a virgin after she was married. However, whether she had other children would be another issue altogether. I would lean towards Calvin being correct when he says that the historians do not tell us.