Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[BornAgainRN]

Wait a minute, lemmie get this straight.
You ask a question and then demand an answer within the perameters YOU set?
When it comes to the Bible and Church history there are no quick, easy, or simple answers. In order to understand this or any other question one MUST take into consideration all the factors you insist be left out. It’s like asking us to explain the US Constitution without taking into consideration the founding fathers, the historical and political climate at the time. Makes no sense. Catholics do not accept the concept of Sola Scriptura. No question on any subject can be answered on the foundation of a philosophy the Church rejects.
History is a tough instructor because it never pans out the we want it to. Thats why I’m not a Baptist anymore. I think most honest historians, Catholic or otherwise agree that the concept of SS evolved over time to what it is today. Obviously the Reformers would not be in agreement with the average American fundamentalist. They were men of a different age reacting many times to the events going on around them.
Sola Scriptura is refuted in the most simplist of ways:
Open your phone book.
Count the number of denominations in your metropolitan area.
Case closed.

No, it’s not parameters that ‘I’ set. It’s parameters that GOD set in His Holy Inspired Word (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 3:16). All I’m asking, is that since Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord, based on the Word of the Lord, does the Bible, based on the originally Biblically-Inspired languages support the belief that Mary & Joseph have children after Mary gave birth to Jesus? Sola Scriptura primary means that if a belief contradicts Scripture, or adds or takes away from it to the point that it changes the beliefs of Church based on Scripture, then it should be rejected. Would you agree with that at least? I just want to know what you believe based on what God reveals to YOU, through His Inspired Word, rather than what you ‘personally’ believe or what you believe based on what someone else tells you it means. Will you at least consider reading the Bible passages I provided, & compare my conclusions ‘TO’ them, based on the original Biblcally-Inspired Greek language?

 

[Erich]

Sixth, in Acts 1:13-14, Luke names the remaining 11 disciples along with Jesus’ brothers, who are with Mary & the women. Collectively, they are all ‘part’ of the ‘120 brethren’ at Pentecost.

120 brethren. That’s not Mary Ever Virgin, that’s Mary Ever Pregnant.

 

[BornAgainRN]

As you yourself point out, there are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

From reading your conclusion, I see that you are confusing the James’, Jude’s, Joseph’s, & the Mary’s. So as not to repeat, I would encourage you to go back to my original post, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, based on the passages I provided. If you do, I think you’ll see your misunderstanding, & that Jesus did indeed have half-brothers & half-sisters.

 

[BornAgainRN]

120 brethren. That’s not Mary Ever Virgin, that’s Mary Ever Pregnant.

The ‘120 brethren’ are NOT the same as the ‘brothers of Jesus’ in the same verse. The 120 include the 11 remaining disciples, Mary, the women, AND Jesus’ brothers, as a WHOLE. The ‘brothers of Jesus’ are mentioned in Matthew 12:46-50 & 13:54-57 (which include His 2 ‘unnamed’ sisters).

 

[SonCatcher]

…

Before I attempt to answer any of this, will you tell me something?

What difference could it possibly make in salvation history, in your perspective? That is: How is it necessary for our salvation for Mary to have had other children?

 

[Erich]

No, it’s not parameters that ‘I’ set. It’s parameters that GOD set in His Holy Inspired Word (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 3:16).

Those verses don’t say what you think they say.

You skipped over 2 Timothy 3:14-15 – “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Now, even though Timothy was a relatively young man, few, if any, of the books of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child. In other words, the “scripture” being referred to here is the Old Testament. Do you really mean to say that the Old Testament alone is necessary “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”?

In James 1:3-4, it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” James is telling us that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what are the implications here? Well, if I interpret this verse the same way you interpret 2 Tim 3:16, then I have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Do you really mean to say that the man of God doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience? The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.”

What about the Bereans? The Bereans were not interpreting the Bible for themselves to see if what Paul was saying was true or not, they were simply seeing if the passages Paul was telling them were in the Bible were actually in the Bible. Paul was teaching the Bereans what the Scriptures actually meant. He was giving them an authentic interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures - he was interpreting the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ - an interpretation which they obviously did not already have. So they got the correct interpretation of the Old Testament, not from their own personal understanding and interpretation of it, rather they got the correct interpretation of the Old Testament from one of the leaders of the Church, which is in direct contradiction of how its supposed to be - according to you.

Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to see if what Paul said was actually in the Scriptures. The fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures, don’t you think?

Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works to support the Catholic position and is pretty much the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove.

 

[Erich]

From reading your conclusion, I see that you are confusing the James’, Jude’s, Joseph’s, & the Mary’s. So as not to repeat, I would encourage you to go back to my original post, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, based on the passages I provided. If you do, I think you’ll see your misunderstanding, & that Jesus did indeed have half-brothers & half-sisters.

I just showed you, from Scripture, that the four named brothers of Jesus in Scripture are not children of Mary and Joseph. I’m not the one misunderstanding anything.

 

[BornAgainRN]

It has long been a supposition that Joseph was a widower who had children from his first wife. That could possibly explain it.

One, that belief is not in Scripture,. If Joseph had older children from a previous marriage, then why aren’t they mentioned in the caravan with Mary & Joseph when Jesus was left behind in the Temple (if Jesus had younger half-brothers & half-sisters, they may not have been born yet, or they were simply not mentioned, since they were much younger children - not unusual not to mention them). Three, the belief that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, that he was a widower, is based on the false Infancy ‘gospel’ of James, which both the Catholic & most Protestant churches reject, yet many Catholic beliefs are based on some of the things this false ‘gospel’ teaches that are not in Scripture, such as the author being Joseph’s son, James, from a previous marriage, that Joseph was much older than Mary, that Mary was 16 at the Annunciation (her age is not revealed in Scripture), that Mary’s mother’s name is Anna (again, not revealed in Scripture), that Gabriel is an archangel (even though he’s only called an angel twice in Luke, & the perpetual virginity of Mary (which contradicts the Bible - Matthew 1:25). Mary’s virginity was to fulfill Old Testament prophecy to identify the Messiah & His mother, & to show that the Messiah’s birth wasn’t an ordinary one, but rather a miraculous one, to prove He was the promised Messiah.

I encourage you to go back to my original post, & draw out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus with the passages from the Bible I provided, & you’ll see that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus in Matthew 12 & 13 were indeed Jesus’ actual half-brothers & half-sisters. Give it a try!

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[BornAgainRN]

I just showed you, from Scripture, that the four named brothers of Jesus in Scripture are not children of Mary and Joseph. I’m not the one misunderstanding anything.

And if you go back to my original post & draw out a family tree using the Scriptures I provided, you’ll see that Jesus did indeed have half-brothers & half-sisters. Try it & see!

 

[Erich]

Will you at least consider reading the Bible passages I provided, & compare my conclusions ‘TO’ them, based on the original Biblcally-Inspired Greek language?

Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith? I mean, if that were really true, wouldn’t it say so in the Bible?

We already know that Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 3:16 do not say what you think they say.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith? I mean, if that were really true, wouldn’t it say so in the Bible?

We already know that Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 3:16 do not say what you think they say.

Or is it, that you don’t think they say what they are actually saying. 1 John 5:13 tells us that we can be assured of our salvation based on what has been WRITTEN. Only God can convince you of that. Also, if God cannot change, then neither should the beliefs of His Church (limbo, indulgences to get out of purgatory, non-Catholics will go to Hell - taught prior to Vatican II, as far back as the days of Luther, etc.) Again, check out the Bible verses provided, write a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, & the confusion over all the James’, Joseph’s, Judes’, & Mary’s will clear up to see that Mary & Joseph did indeed have children.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t belong to a ‘denomination’ like Catholicism. I am ‘nondenomination’ & my authority is Jesus Christ & His Written Word (2 Timothy 3:16;1 John 5:13).

Catholicism is not a “denomination.” It is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. “Denominations” only came about from those who have separated themselves from that one Church - even those who are a denomination of one.

 

[mark_a]

Eleventh,
So when Mary Magdalene sees the risen Jesus and he instructs her

"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

What does she do?

Mary of Magdala went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and what he told her.

---

 

[BornAgainRN]

Before I attempt to answer any of this, will you tell me something?

What difference could it possibly make in salvation history, in your perspective? That is: How is it necessary for our salvation for Mary to have had other children?

It doesn’t affect salvation, but what I have seen through experience, is that usually people, particularly Catholics, who reject the Biblical evidence that Mary & Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, & hold the perpetual virginity of Mary, because the Catholic church teaches so, despite Scriptural evidence otherwise, usually hold to other nonbiblical beliefs taught by the Catholic church that ‘do’ effect salvation, which are not Biblical, like salvation through water baptism, that salvation can be lost, that certain sins or more ‘mortal’ that without absolution from a priest, those particular sins will condemn a person to Hell, rather than asking Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, once & for all, & that a person can be assured of their eternal salvation, which can’t be lost, which is demonstrated by a persons works, which don’t ‘merit’ or ‘maintain’ salvation, but rather is ‘evidence’ that their faith is genuine, & not ‘dead faith,’ as James, the half-brother of Jesus wrote in his epistle. THAT is why it is relevant.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Eleventh,
So when Mary Magdalene sees the risen Jesus and he instructs her

What does she do?

---

Brothers here obviously means Jesus’ disciples. However, the same Greek word for ‘brothers’ can also mean ‘literal’ blood brothers, such as James the BROTHER of John. John is not James’ ‘spiritual’ brother, nor is John his disciple. John is James’ LITERAL brother. That is why I posted the Bible passages. If you write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, with the passages I provided, you’ll see that the ‘brothers & sisters of Jesus’ in Matthew 12 & 13 are clearly Jesus’ half-brothers & half-sisters,’ just like James & John are literal blood brothers. Try it & you’ll see!

 

[Erich]

The Immaculate Conception contradicts Scripture (Matthew 1:25).

It does nothing of the sort. “And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” has nothing to do with Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

You must be stuck on the (non-existent) brothers of Jesus who are also children of Mary and Joseph.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

I don’t belong to a ‘denomination’ like Catholicism.

The word “denomination” signifies a division or a segment; thus, in the religious sense, a sect or a party. Catholicism is not a denomination; as the Church that Christ founded, the Catholic Church is One **(Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13) **, Holy **(Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8) **, Catholic **(Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10) **, and Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20). She is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

I am ‘nondenomination’ & my authority is Jesus Christ & His Written Word (2 Timothy 3:16;1 John 5:13).

Acts 2:

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
40 He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Not a syllable of the New Testament had been written prior to that day, yet 3,000 persons were nonetheless brought to repentance and pointed to Christ. The New Testament Written Word came later.

You are your own authority. “Pope BornAgainRN the first”

 

[mark_a]

It doesn’t affect salvation, but what I have seen through experience, is that usually people, particularly Catholics, who reject the Biblical evidence that Mary & Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, & hold the perpetual virginity of Mary, because the Catholic church teaches so, despite Scriptural evidence otherwise, usually hold to other nonbiblical beliefs taught by the Catholic church that ‘do’ effect salvation, which are not Biblical, like salvation through water baptism, that salvation can be lost, that certain sins or more ‘mortal’ that without absolution from a priest, those particular sins will condemn a person to Hell, rather than asking Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, once & for all, & that a person can be assured of their eternal salvation, which can’t be lost, which is demonstrated by a persons works, which don’t ‘merit’ or ‘maintain’ salvation, but rather is ‘evidence’ that their faith is genuine, & not ‘dead faith,’ as James, the half-brother of Jesus wrote in his epistle. THAT is why it is relevant.

Ok, suppose your list is right. Can you indicate where the Catholic Church’s morals theology is incorrect?

 

[po18guy]

No, it’s not parameters that ‘I’ set.

Absolutely they are! When you restrict the discussion to use only of the fragmentary written record, you attempt to control the discussion. This is not a search for truth, but rather, validation. No, thanks!

Man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). Yet, the bible tells us that it does not contain every word of God (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 etc.etc.etc.). Now, what? Have we begun making things up and thinking as man does, and not as God does?

It’s parameters that GOD set in His Holy Inspired Word (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 3:16). All I’m asking, is that since Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord, based on the Word of the Lord, does the Bible, based on the originally Biblically-Inspired languages support the belief that Mary & Joseph have children after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

No! It does only if you violate the bible by privately interpreting it. 2 Peter 1:20.

This is the elephant in the living room of your opinion. You must get past the elephant before a discussion will result.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Catholicism is not a “denomination.” It is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. “Denominations” only came about from those who have separated themselves from that one Church - even those who are a denomination of one.

Those denominations are Protestant denominations, but Catholicism is still a denomination of Christianity. Remember, believers were first called Christians in the Bible - not Catholics. The term Catholic didn’t even appear until the early 2nd Century, after the Bible was completed. Prior to that, the ‘true’ Church was called Christians, which is what I am. Roman Catholicism is still just a denomination, just not a Protestant one obviously.

 

[Erich]

1 John 5:13 tells us that we can be assured of our salvation

So, you believe that 1 John 5:13 teaches eternal security, eh? Well, let’s look at that: “I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” “Amen!” says the Catholic. Eternal life is the reward of those who believe in the name of the Son of God. Agreed. 100% agreed. I know that I have eternal life if I believe in the name of the Son of God. Does it say, however, that once you believe in the Son of God, you cannot ever lose your salvation? No, it doesn’t. For instance, what if you believe in the name of the Son of God, so you’re irrevocably saved - according to your theology - but then at some future point in your life, you stop believing in the name of the Son of God? Are you still saved? According to you, the answer is yes! But, according to the Bible, you can’t be saved if you don’t believe in the Son of God. You’ve got a bit of a quandary there.