Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[adrift]

1. Brother is used in many senses and not always as siblings.the Hebrew term for brother(s) appears about 629 throughout the Old Testament in a variety of ways.
   Whether two males have the same mother and father, only the same father, or just the same mother, the term “brother” is used to describe their relationship (cf. Genesis 37:14; 42:3-4; Judges 8:19).

Lot is called the brother of Abraham even though he is his uncle. Also in Genesis chapter 29, Laban is called Jacob’s “brother”: “And Laban said unto Jacob, ‘Because though art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought?’ ” (vs. 15, emp. added, KJV). Just before Laban’s statement, “Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s [Laban’s] brother” (v.s 12, KJV). Considering that Jacob was only Laban’s nephew (24:29-31), when these men used the term “brother” in discussions with (or about) each other, they merely were speaking of one another as blood relatives, and not actual male siblings.
In another nuance, members of the same tribe are called “brethren” ('acha) in 2 Samuel 19:12.
In Exodus 2:11, Moses’ fellow Israelites are called “brethren” (cf. Acts 3:22; Hebrews 7:5). As is noted in A.R. Fassuet’s Bible Dictionary, the Israelites often “distinguished a ‘brother’ as an Israelite by birth, and a ‘neighbor’ a proselyte, and allowed neither title to the Gentiles” (1998).
In the midst of his suffering, Job spoke of his friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) as “brothers” (NKJV, Hebrew 'acha).
In the New Testament, the term “brother(s)” (Greek adelphos) is used numerous times in reference to the relationship Christians have with one another as children of God (1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:6; 7:12; Philippians 2:25; et al.).

1. It would have been unheard of for a younger brother to give advise to an older brother as in John 7:3–4 therefore they must be older.
2. Jesus gives Mary’s care to John. Something that would only be done, if there were no other sons.
3. Jesus is refered to as being the son of Mary. No other person is refered to as being the child of Mary.
4. No other children are mentioned when Jeus remained behind in

 

[benjohnson]

Could someone tell me the significance of this fact/non-fact? If Jesus had cousins or half-brothers, I guess I don’t see it as a problem. What am I’m missing?

…

I fall on the Catholic side of this debate, but even if my Evangelical friends convince me otherwise, I don’t think it would change anything about me or my beliefs.

 

[mark_a]

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.

Who are the Protestants that claim that Roman Catholicism developed from their own?

 

[Erich]

based on the original Biblcally-Inspired Greek language?

Actually, this says that the Greek language was inspired by the Bible… but I assume you are just trying to say that the Greek text of the Bible (and, of course, the Aramaic text of Matthew’s original Gospel) was divinely inspired.

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.

Christianity has been called Catholic in Acts 9:31 (Greek: “ekklesia kath olos”)

 

[mark_a]

I fall on the Catholic side of this debate, but even if my Evangelical friends convince me otherwise, I don’t think it would change anything about me or my beliefs.

It might if Mary’s perpetual virginity were a constant teaching of your church.

 

[SonCatcher]

It doesn’t affect salvation,

Then you’re wasting your time arguing it.

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

Ah - the ulterior motive. I’m not surprised.

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

All these are indeed biblical and citations can be easily found by searching this site. If you prefer, you can open a thread on each of them.

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

These are man-made traditions that are only “supported” by ignoring huge swaths of Scripture. Again, you can find out more by searching the site or opening your own threads.

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’s looks suspiciously like the Catholic position on Works. Did you confuse our position with someone else’s?

THAT is why it is relevant.

Why don’t you just focus on the things that “really matter” instead of the fluff?

 

[thistle]

I don’t know everything. But, what I do know, & what we can agree on, is that the Bible is the Word of God, which we can be assured that everything it says is true, which is why I believe from the Biblical languages that Jesus had half-brothers & sisters. What I am looking for is to see if the claims of Catholics are true when they say that they believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord. As a former Catholic, I was taught that. I wanted to see if that was true or not.

Once a Catholic always a Catholic. It does not matter what you think or feel or do or if you turn your back on the Church.
There is no such thing as a former Catholic. There are only two types of Catholic.Those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.

 

[adrift]

First, Matthew 13:54-57 gives us their names: James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, & Judas (Jude). They are clearly brothers, since they are part of a family unit, along with their father, ‘the carpenter’ (Joseph) & Mary, their mother.

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

Family units in that culture included cousins, uncles aunts, etc not just the nuclear family that is today.

You make some other unwarrented assumptions. Where in scripture does it identify them as Joseph’s sons. Nor is Mary Identified as their mother.

Second, at the cross, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), who is the mother of James the Less & Joses (Joseph) are mentioned (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25-27). James is the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). However, James & Joseph are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, they are ‘not’ the ‘James & Joseph’ in Matthew 13:54-57.

That is a big learp. It is equally true to say that since no others are mentioned that they must be the same. It is the same as saying when Peter and John are mentioned that it can’t be the apostles because the rest aren’t mentioned.

 

[Jeanne_S]

This!

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

Actually, “Christian” was a derogatory term directed toward the first believers. They referred to the new religion as the “Way”. Later, they did adopt the term Catholic (probably before accepting the term Christian, BTW). All Apostolic churches (including Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Chaldean, Thomasine, etc) refer to themselves as “Catholic.” The issues separating them are different from the denominations imposed by the Reformation.

 

[Erich]

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am a new member, & I am new at this. Not intentionally meaning to try to purposely break forum rules.

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.

Now that you know what the rules are, you need to start paying attention to them. Otherwise your time here will be short indeed.

As for your claim that Catholic beliefs are based on a false gospel… actually, the authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine. Not only does this observation undermine your belief in the doctrine of Sola scriptura, but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

For example:

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3). One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

“All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13)

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ " (Jude 9). … As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.”

There are a number of other examples in the New Testament in which the writer likely draws on oral tradition, but not so clearly in support of any doctrine. For instance, Paul dips into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court (2 Tim. 3:8). In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous (Ex. 7:8ff.). James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years (Jas. 5:17), but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying (1 Kgs. 17).

 

[BornAgainRN]

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

I just included some that affect salvation, which they teach is wrong. I would think that would fall under ‘immoral’ since they are teaching false gospels (salvation can be earned, salvation can be lost, salvation can be re-earned, Muslims (& other nonchristians) who reject Christ can get to Heaven, etc). Also, you might want to read up on a some books by Fr. Thomas Doyle on the subject of self-imposed 'immorality that the Catholic church caused itself & maintained over the centuries, that out of respect for Catholics, I won’t go into here.

 

[mark_a]

For example:

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3). One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

“All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13)

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ " (Jude 9). … As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.”

There are a number of other examples in the New Testament in which the writer likely draws on oral tradition, but not so clearly in support of any doctrine. For instance, Paul dips into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court (2 Tim. 3:8). In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous (Ex. 7:8ff.). James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years (Jas. 5:17), but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying (1 Kgs. 17).

Good stuff!

 

[maltmom]

Steve, you are barking up the wrong family tree here.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN
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.

Sorry,but Catholicism is NOT denomination no matter how much you wish to deny it! Those outside the church merely want to include it as denomination in order to justify the denominational mess that lies within Protestanism,evagelicals and fundamentalist.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Now that you know what the rules are, you need to start paying attention to them. Otherwise your time here will be short indeed.

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

 

[Jeanne_S]

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.

33,000 of them all claiming to have the “truth”

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I don’t know everything. But, what I do know, & what we can agree on, is that the Bible is the Word of God, which we can be assured that everything it says is true, which is why I believe from the Biblical languages that Jesus had half-brothers & sisters. What I am looking for is to see if the claims of Catholics are true when they say that they believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord. As a former Catholic, I was taught that. I wanted to see if that was true or not.

Are you claiming that you are a biblical scholar who is fluent in liturgical Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, the original languages of the New Testament? If so, please list your degrees and the Universities that issued them. Otherwise, you have no position from which to argue. There are too many lingual errors in the English Language translations of Holy Scripture-especially in the King James translation.

 

[mark_a]

I would think that would fall under ‘immoral’

No, no. That would fall under faith theology. I want to know about morals theology teachings. Not trying to derail, but you drifted.

since they are teaching false gospels (salvation can be earned

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

salvation can be re-earned

Again, not a teaching of the Church

Muslims (& other nonchristians) who reject Christ can get to Heaven, etc).

You seem to take delight in your belief that anyone who believes differently from BornAgainRN is hellbound.

 

[Jeanne_S]

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.

I am not as knowledgable or capable of defending my Catholic faith as so many on this forum are ,however,the Catho.ic faith is the "original"Christian faith,whether it was called Cathilic initially,is beside the point.It is the fullness of Truth.