Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[Patavium]

Steve,

We realize that there is only ONE of you, and MANY of us. We have raised many good concerns with regards to your OP. Perhaps, you could select a least few arguments and respond to them? Could you also please go beyond just saying Write down a Family Tree, or This is wrong? We will like to actually know the REASONS.

Be Blessed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Very good point. In fact, what you wrote actually supports that not only was Mary a virgin WHILE she was pregnant with Jesus, but also that Mary & Joseph conjugated their marriage AFTER Mary gave birth to Jesus, & then later they also had children. Very well written!

Steve, there were many people who read, and heard, the Bible throughout the course of Christian history.

Why is it that until AD 1600 or so, nobody, despite hearing those ‘clear’ words and passages, ever bothered to teach on “the children of Mary and Joseph”, or taught that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin?

I mean, people aren’t STUPID. If the 'clear words of Scripture were saying to Cedric the Saxon, Simon the slave, Piers the Ploughman, and even Father John of Puddleglum-on-Trent, ‘Mary the mother of Jesus and her husband Joseph went on to have the following children: James, Joses, and some unnamed girls’ while the same people were told as a matter of course that on August 15 they were celebrating the feast of the Ever-Virgin Mary. . .don’t you think that they would have questioned the teaching? People aren’t dumb. . .they know that a woman who has several children isn’t a perpetual virgin, and if they really thought the text meant that Mary and Joseph had other children than Jesus, they would have said so.

They didn’t ‘question’, because despite seeing and hearing those same words and passages, they did not believe (to paraphrase a certain movie) that the words you’re using mean what you THINK they mean.

The teaching against Christ and His Mother (and yes, this is against Christ because in denying that His mother is who she was and attempting to claim she was something she is not is an attack on Christ) is a new teaching of men. And Scripture warns us about this. . .

 

[adrift]

I understand that, but the way he worded it, was that he was saying that it’s not ‘cut & dry’ that Mary remained a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, or that it’s ‘cut & dry’ that they didn’t have children. The post that he ‘led into’ about Jewish babies didn’t really support one way or another. I was merely commending him that the way he posted, that neither belief is ‘cut & dry,’ but when you look into the Greek in Matthew 1:18-25, as well as other Scripture passages that I originally posted & then later went into more detail, that it ‘does’ become ‘cut & dry.’ Well done, KP3243!

What he did was quote your post. Unfortunately he did not use the quote feature. After quoting your misunderstanding of scripture he explained it. I don’t think it was an accident that you quoted your post from his post and left out what he said. In other words, you used circular reasoning. You ignore scripture which goes against your preconceived conclusion. It has been shown by a multitude of posters that Scripture shows that Jesus was an only child.
There would have been no need for John to take Mary into his home IF there were other sons.
The brothers would not have talked to an older brother as these brothers talk to Jesus. Jesus had to be younger than them.

You refuse to address actual post that dispute you instead you twist what is written to mean the opposite of what the poster was stating.

You are trying to use the term first born to mean a second was born which he was kindly pointing out to you was ignorance on your part.

 

[tabycat]

Acording to those who say that Jesus had younger siblings because He refered as Mary’s First Born, I have one little questine: I was my parents’ first (and only) born, where are all my younger siblings?

 

[BornAgainRN]

Why is it that until AD 1600 or so, nobody, despite hearing those ‘clear’ words and passages, ever bothered to teach on “the children of Mary and Joseph”, or taught that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin?

Part of the reason is that the belief in the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ goes very far back in church history. In fact the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James, which was written sometime during the 2nd Cent. A.D., even contains this. However, I think we would both agree that both Catholic & Protestant churches would agree that this is a false gospel. Now, are there some truths in it? Of course. It mentions that Mary was a virgin, married to Joseph, & that Jesus was her Son. Now, how can we be assured this is this true besides our church leaders telling us that it’s true? Because ‘these’ truths are also found in God’s Word, which both Catholics & Protestants know is true.

I mean, people aren’t STUPID. If the 'clear words of Scripture were saying to Cedric the Saxon, Simon the slave, Piers the Ploughman, and even Father John of Puddleglum-on-Trent, ‘Mary the mother of Jesus and her husband Joseph went on to have the following children: James, Joses, and some unnamed girls’ while the same people were told as a matter of course that on August 15 they were celebrating the feast of the Ever-Virgin Mary. . .don’t you think that they would have questioned the teaching? People aren’t dumb. . .they know that a woman who has several children isn’t a perpetual virgin, and if they really thought the text meant that Mary and Joseph had other children than Jesus, they would have said so

I hope you realize that I’m not calling - nor inferring - that anyone is ‘stupid,’ including early church fathers & leaders. However, keep in mind, that even in the Bible, the early church leaders were rebuked. For example, Apollos was rebuked by Aquilla & Priscilla Acts 18:24-28) & he accepted that rebuke. Paul rebuked the 1st Century Corinthian churches for identifying with certain apostles, such as Peter, rather than identifying strictly with Christ, which was causing divisions among them (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), which is why Paul was glad that he didn’t baptize anyone except for Crispus and Gaius, & the household of Stephanas (v.14-17), who had devoted themselves to ministry (1 Corinthians 16:15). Even Paul ‘opposed Peter to his face’ for being wrong (Galatians 2:11). So, if these ‘heroes’ of the Bible, who are the earliest of Church leaders, can be wrong & accept rebuke, why is it so hard to believe that early - yet later - Church fathers ‘might’ be wrong. Keep in mind, that once a belief - whether it be true or false - even in the Protestant churches - begin to be believed & taught as truth, it is very difficult to change that belief, because then one has to challenge the one(s) that originally taught it, which is why I compare what is not only taught in my ‘own’ church, but also what the early Church fathers taught, to God’s Holy Word. Amen?

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Acording to those who say that Jesus had younger siblings because He refered as Mary’s First Born, I have one little questine: I was my parents’ first (and only) born, where are all my younger siblings?

I, too, am my parent’s first (and only) born, &, therefore, I don’t have siblings either. There are 2 Greek words for ‘firstborn’ in the New Testament, & can both refer to Jesus. One, basically means ‘son’ (huios), like ‘Joseph son of David’ (Matthew 1:20), when 'Mary was bearing a ‘Son [Jesus]’" (Matthew 1:21), or peacemakers being called ‘sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9). There are other uses, but this Greek word for ‘firstborn,’ (‘huios’), isn’t restricted to just an ‘only child.’ It can also refer to ‘the firstborn of others.’ The other Greek word for ‘firstborn’ (prōtotokos) refers to either ‘firstborn of man or beast’ or ‘Christ being firstborn of all creation.’ For example, Hebrews 11:28 reads:

“By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.”

‘Firstborn’ in this passage can either mean that ALL the ‘firstborn’ were either ALL ‘only-children,’ or they were the ‘firstborn’ amongst their parents’ other children. I highly doubt that every ‘firstborn’ Egyptian that the angel of death killed were ‘only children’…although possible. So, ‘firstborn’ isn’t restricted just to ‘only children.’

So, with Jesus, He was both ‘firstborn among creation’ - meaning NOT that He was created, because Jesus is God & is eternal, but that He was the ‘first’ amongst His Father’s children to rise from the dead - ‘one’ reason why Jesus is called the ‘SON of God.’ However, ‘firstborn,’ pertaining to Jesus, also can mean that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, who later had children with Joseph, which I go into more detail in my original post, as well as the more detailed post that I wrote later.

Hope this helps. God bless!

 

[Patavium]

BornAgainRN,

You hold that

(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).

(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.

(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).

(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.

However,

If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.

And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:

– James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.

– And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)

– And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.

So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.

So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?

Well, if this is the case, then

(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then

– The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)

– The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.

I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.

it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.

So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary

JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.

JUDAS

SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a27.htm

 

[Prieldedi]

BornAgainRN,

You hold that

(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).

(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.

(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).

(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.

However,

If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.

And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:

– James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.

– And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)

– And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.

So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.

So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?

Well, if this is the case, then

(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then

– The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)

– The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.

I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.

it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.

So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary

JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.

JUDAS

SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a27.htm

Strong arguments that refute arguments. As you told me, great defense!

 

[BornAgainRN]

BornAgainRN,

You hold that

 

[BornAgainRN]

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

Good point to bring up. Most people believe that Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin (which she could be). However, the Greek word for ‘cousin’ (‘syggenes) in Luke 1:36 simply means ‘close relative,’ but is translated ‘cousin’ in the KJV (which I don’t normally use), which is why in most translations, it’s translated ‘relative.’ The ‘better’ Greek word for cousin (‘anepsios’) literally means ‘cousin’ in Colossians 4:10 to describe Barnabas being the ‘cousin’ of Mark (the Gospel writer). So, if James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas were Jesus’ cousins, instead of His blood-brothers, then why didn’t the Gospel writers simply use the Greek word (‘anepsios’) for ‘cousin’? It’s because these 4 were His actual half-brothers, not cousins.

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Interesting claim, however, since we’re examining who these ‘brothers’ of Jesus are in the Bible, there’s no evidence they were members of His extended family, like there is for James & John, as well as possibly John the Baptist, being Jesus’ actual blood-cousins.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

‘The brothers (adelphos) of the Lord’ could either refer to Jesus’ actual blood-brothers or ‘believing brothers’ in general. However, ‘the brothers of the Lord’ in the passage is paired with the apostles & with Peter. Another wards, Paul is listing 3 ‘different’ groups of people - the apostles, the brothers of Jesus, & Peter. If ‘brothers’ here means ‘believers,’ then does that mean that the apostles & Peter aren’t? Also, if brothers (adelphos) doesn’t refer to Jesus’ actual brothers, then does that mean that James, the ‘brother’ (adelphos) of John isn’t his ‘actual’ blood brother, or James, the son of Alphaeus & the ‘brother’ (adelphos) of Joseph? ‘Brother’ (‘adelphos’) has multiple meanings, but to discern what it means regarding the 4 brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13, we have to examine other passages in context, as well as their family relationships.

Also, do you see that Paul tells us that the apostles, as well as Peter are married - they have wives? (but that’s a totally separate topic).

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

The Greek word translated ‘carpenter’ (‘tektōn’) can also be translated ‘a worker of wood, a ship’s carpenter or builder, a craftsman or workman,’ & is only used twice in the Bible. So, Joseph worked with his hands, but not ‘necessarily’ a carpenter. He could have been in a trade to make enough to support a large family, but just like today, even poor people had large families & worked long, hard hours to support them. What we do know is that based on Mary & Joseph’s faith & devotion to listen to the angel(s) that told them about the birth of Jesus & obeyed, they were faithful Jews & would have obeyed the law of Moses, which instructs husbands & wives to ‘be fruitful & multiply’ & ‘fill the earth’ (Genesis 1:28), which they did by having at least 6 children after the birth of Jesus according to Matthew 12 & 13.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

There’s no evidence in Scripture that all 5 of Joseph’s sons were carpenters, nor does it say that they were required to go into the same line of work. Although James & John were fisherman like their father, Zebedee, John the Baptist was a preacher who baptized people to ‘make ready a path for the Lord!’ rather than going into the ‘family business’ of his father Zacharias.

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary

JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.

JUDAS

SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related.

By now, you should see that the ‘James’ in Matthew 13 is NOT the same James, who is the brother of Joseph, & son of Alphaeus (Clopas) & Mary. I think the lack of belief that a lot of Christians have as to why Jesus couldn’t have had half-brothers & half-sisters, stems from the confusion of the women at the cross & who their husbands & children are.

I drew out a diagram of ‘Jesus’ family tree,’ but I don’t think I can post it here, but there is a similar one on Wikipedia, which I don’t think that either most Catholics, Protestants, or ex-Catholics like myself would agree 100% with, but it does show the family tree with Jesus’ brothers on it.

Hope this answers your questions.

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Strong arguments that refute arguments. As you told me, great defense!

It’s a good attempt, but the argument is based on a misunderstanding of the women at the cross, who their husbands are, who their children are, & how (and if) they are related to Jesus. I wish I could post the graph I made of Jesus’ family tree to illustrate my point better. It’s in Microsoft Word & it’s more detailed than the one of Wikipedia. Is there a way to post it?

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Then why did Jesus say to Mary woman behold your son who was the beloved disciple John, if she already had several more sons to take care of and to care of her. This passage doesn’t make any sense.

Because not only were they not at the cross, but they weren’t believers in Jesus at that time, until Jesus appeared to them, which was sometime between His resurrection & Pentecost. John was the only disciple at the cross (even Peter & John’s brother, James fled). Jesus was dying, & Joseph, most likely was dead. So, since no one was around to care for His mother, & John (who was also Jesus’ cousin), was the only one there at the cross, He entrusted her to not only His beloved disciple, but also a close family member, who became Mary’s ‘surrogate son.’

 

[snarflemike]

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16, 3 widely recognized principles were used to validate the books & epistles of the Bible as being ‘Inspired’ & worthy of being put in the Bible, which was a result of divine revelation from God:

First, the writing had to have a recognized prophet or an apostle (or one associated with them, as in the case of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, & Jude).

Second, the writing could not disagree with or contradict previous Scripture.

Third, the writing had to have general consensus by the Church as an Inspired book. So, when the various councils throughout church history met to consider the canon, they didn’t ‘vote’ for the canonicity of a book, but rather recognized after the fact, what God had already Authored. By Jesus’ day, all the books of the Old Testament were recognized as authoritative & read in the synagogues. Jesus even read from Isaiah. The last book, Malachi, was written about 430 B.C. Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament Jewish canon (which have the EXACT same books that are in modern day Bibles, only some books then were combined), in Luke 24:44-45:

"Now He [Jesus] said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.“Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,”

The Old Testament was divided into 3 sections - The Law, the Prophets, & the Writings (which included the Psalms), which Jesus acknowledged as Scripture. In verse 25, Jesus described Scripture as “Moses & all the Prophets.” Many Jews considered the Law of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) to be ‘separate’ from the rest of the Old Testament (the Prophets).

Jesus also acknowledges the OT canon as Scripture in Luke 11:49-51:

“For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’”

Abel was the first ‘prophet’ who was first mentioned in the first book of the Hebrew canon, & Zechariah was the last ‘prophet’ mentioned in the last book of the Hebrew canon.

The same 3 ‘methods’ used to test canonicity that applied to the OT also applied to the NT. And that’s how we came to get out Bible, & why we can be assured of Paul’s statement that ALL Scripture - both the OT & the NT is Inspired by God.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Since there has been substantial off topic discussion of Sola Scriptura, I have split off the 60+ posts that deal with that and created a new thread for that debate at SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate.

 

[tabycat]

‘Firstborn’ in this passage can either mean that ALL the ‘firstborn’ were either ALL ‘only-children,’ or they were the ‘firstborn’ amongst their parents’ other children. I highly doubt that every ‘firstborn’ Egyptian that the angel of death killed were ‘only children’…although possible. So, ‘firstborn’ isn’t restricted just to 'only childrem.)

At least you are adminttine that the Lord Jesus may have been Mary’s only Child.

 

[Patavium]

I will give it another try, perhaps be clearer. This post will be based on a previous defense by Karl Keating (CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM (p. 287-288,284), and John McHugh.

Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James’ mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross:

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:56);

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the MOTHER OF JAMES THE LESS AND OF JOSEPH, and Salome” (Mk 15:40).

Then look at what John says:

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdalene” (Jn 19:25 [whether there are actually 3 or 4 women distinguished here is a matter of debate]).

If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas [Clopas in Greek]. So far so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus. One solution is that she was widowed once, then remarried. More probably Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the SAME person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as Alphaeus or Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it is probable, anyway, that James is the SON of this OTHER MARY and Cleophas. If the testimony of Hegesippus, a second-century historian, is believed, Cleophas was the BROTHER of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s NEPHEW and a COUSIN of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ cousins is open to legitimate question – they might even be relatives more distantly removed – and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary’s children.

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “THE son of Mary” (Mk 6:3), not as “A son of Mary”. The Greek expression implies he is her ONLY son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s SONS, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren”. If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

A further point is noted by John McHugh, author of THE MOTHER OF JESUS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. After quoting Mark 6:4

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own RELATIVES, and in his own house.”

McHugh notes the following (p. 241) –

"Why does Mark not write ‘in his own country and AMONG HIS BROTHERS and in his home’? Perhaps it was to maintain a crescendo from ‘his own country’ through a narrower circle (his kinsmen [relatives]) to a still smaller group (his own home). All the same, the choice of ‘kinsmen’ [relatives] in v. 4, coming straight after v. 3, might be an indication that the ‘brothers’ just mentioned could also be described as ‘kinsmen’ [relatives], i.e. not full blood-brothers.

“Thus this second Synoptic pericope does not supply clear and irrefutable evidence for the Helvidian theory [that Mary had other children]; it might even find a more satisfactory interpretation if that theory were untrue. At all events, a solution must be sought elsewhere.”

"In the New Testament, the term ‘brothers’ does not mean ‘cousins.’ It means ‘brothers.’ But that is not to say that it DENOTES blood-brothers; it can denote first cousins who were KNOWN as brothers; who ever refers to his foster-brother (outside a legal context) as anything but his ‘brother’? These ‘brothers’ were, as this chapter has shown, the FIRST COUSINS OF JESUS on his father’s side, and not (as [Jerome’s] -Adversus Helvidium- suggested) on his mother’s.

“Thus the hard core of St. Jerome’s theory stands, and with it the Roman Catholic and Orthodox dogmas (or, to those who prefer it, the ancient Lutheran and Calvinist tradition) of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS.”

 

[tabycat]

An idea just hit me; since most of us live in more of a Western urban enviernment that we don’t realise (or have forgeten) how close knit a small town or village canbe. For example, when I was a little kid, if someone refered to ‘the twins’ they may have been talking about a neighbor girl and me because we were born only a week apart. Some of the references to ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of the Lord Jesus may have been people that He had grown up with.

 

[zz912]

Haven’t read the whole thread, so I hope I’m not repeating what others have posted.

Many Protestants miss the theological reasons for the necessity of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and that she only gave birth to Jesus. They simply don’t tie in the OT to the NT.

NO ONE was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies except the High Priest. NO ONE was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. NO ONE could enter into the gate that God had entered through.

The womb that held GOD HIMSELF was the Holy of Holies, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed Mary.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Haven’t read the whole thread, so I hope I’m not repeating what others have posted.

Many Protestants miss the theological reasons for the necessity of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and that she only gave birth to Jesus. They simply don’t tie in the OT to the NT.

NO ONE was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies except the High Priest. NO ONE was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. NO ONE could enter into the gate that God had entered through.

The womb that held GOD HIMSELF was the Holy of Holies, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed Mary.

You are correct that most Protestants aren’t aware of the ‘correlations’ posed to support the ark with Mary. However, those that do, like myself, have spent considerable time researching them, & the correlations aren’t as close as you may think. For example, Scripture doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed’ just the Holy of Holy, but rather He overshadowed the ENTIRE Tabernacle, not just the Holy of Holies. Plus, the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies, not the ark of the covenant. The New Testament doesn’t say that Mary could not be ‘touched.’ In fact, it says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus, & although the word ‘until’ can mean that the activity can continue, the ‘specific’ Greek word for ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 means ‘up the completion of an activity.’ So, Joseph would obviously have to ‘touch’ Mary in order to ‘come together’ (Greek: conjugally cohabitate’) with her. The ark of the old covenant was a symbol of God’s ‘covenant’ with Israel. While Mary was pregnant with Jesus, the old covenant was still in effect. When Jesus died on the cross, the old covenant was abolished, & the new covenant was established ‘in His blood’ (1 Corinthians 11:25), which Jesus calls us to ‘remember’ when we have communion.

This by no means diminishes Mary’s significant & important position in the Church, as being ‘blessed amongst women’ throughout all generations & ‘being favored by God as the mother of our Lord Jesus.’

 

[BornAgainRN]

An idea just hit me; since most of us live in more of a Western urban enviernment that we don’t realise (or have forgeten) how close knit a small town or village canbe. For example, when I was a little kid, if someone refered to ‘the twins’ they may have been talking about a neighbor girl and me because we were born only a week apart. Some of the references to ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of the Lord Jesus may have been people that He had grown up with.

Of course, if you had a sister who was an actual, blood-related ‘twin,’ wouldn’t they still call you & your blood-sister ‘twins?’ That is why I put up the original post & the followup post, in order to see what Scripture means, in context, to the ‘brothers’ of Jesus in Matthew 13, since, as you stated correctly, that ‘brothers’ can have numerous meaning, besides literal blood brothers, but it can also mean that.