Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[BornAgainRN]

“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]).

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Part of the reason is that the belief in the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ goes very far back in church history.

OH I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE UNDERMINE THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS WITH THEIR OWN WORDS!!!

If, as you admit (and I quote), “the belief in the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ goes very far back in church history,” then how far does THAT belief go back?

In fact the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James, which was written sometime during the 2nd Cent. A.D., even contains this.

OH MY! Second century you say?! One up to three generations away from Jesus’ and the apostle’s deaths, when the history of Jesus and identities of His siblings (and descendants) could still be easily discerned and identified.

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.

Do you know how lies become believable, Steve? It is because lies were MADE to be believable. As you said

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…

But the “infancy ‘gospel’ of James,” which we know at hindsight to be a lie, would not have survived to this day if the people AT THAT TIME identified it at once as a lie. At that time, if there were still living descendants of Jesus’ siblings, they should be very important sources of information to collaborate the life story of Jesus and also of the life of the early church. If there were such people, then the “infancy ‘gospel’ of James” would have been burned right away upon seeing the light by Christians.

In other words, the “infancy ‘gospel’ of James” survives to day because people at that time couldn’t identify it as a lie right away, because it was MADE to be believable, and apparently for people of that time the perpetual virginity of Mary WAS believable, and it still IS believable for the older trunks of Christianity.

 

[BornAgainRN]

+JMJ+

If, as you admit

 

[BornAgainRN]

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

Actually, if you read the rest of the post, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is what the Greek definition of ‘firstborn’ means, which where referring to Jesus CAN mean that He is the ‘first of others,’ such as the ‘firstborn of the resurrection’ (first of OTHERS). Scripture, not me, supports that Jesus was the literal ‘firstborn’ Son of Mary, but after Jesus was born, Joseph & Mary did have at least 6 children.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

As I mentioned, the 2nd Century…long after the apostles died.

HOW long?

Or believed since there is also truth in that false ‘gospel.’ Why is it so hard to believe that the belief in the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ originated from this source, or at least gained support, since there are other beliefs in it that are not found in the Bible either?

Because it is as hard as finding evidence that the early Church knew (NOT BELIEVED, ie., they had evidence) Jesus had siblings or half-siblings.

Yes, & one way it through believing the claims found in false ‘gospels’ like this one, because they are mixed ‘with’ lies. It’s easier to believe, & once it gets accepted, it’s hard to stop believing in it.

But those lies have to be mixed in very well, and not so obvious as, well, “Mary’s perpetual virginity” if there were descendants of Jesus’ siblings, or half-siblings, walking around at that time.

Although possible, there is no reliable evidence of ‘descendants’ of Jesus’ siblings, unlike the Biblical evidence for Jesus having half-siblings. However, people can read the evidence, but that doesn’t mean they will automatically believe it though.

Unfortunately, your evidence is as unbelievable as it is illogical, and I could say the same about you, you know, in light of that. My favorite is (and yes that is one of your examples too)

ACTS 1
[12]Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,

Excuse me, but 11 apostles plus 1 mother subtracted from around 120 equals MORE THAN A HUNDRED WOMEN PLUS BROTHERS/HALF-BROTHERS OF JESUS. Considering that they found Joseph Barsabas and Matthias among that lot to vote as the 12th apostle to replace Judas, and I would look at that would suspicion.

 

[BornAgainRN]

In response to several people asking for ‘me’ to post a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, in order to support the understanding of the relationships of the women at the cross, who their husbands & children were, & how they are related to Jesus, based on Scripture, I have created & uploaded an image to the Internet. Hopefully, this will work, & you’ll be able to see it:

img24.imageshack.us/img24/5489/familytreet.jpg

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

In response to several people asking for ‘me’ to post a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, in order to support the understanding of the relationships of the women at the cross, who their husbands & children were, & how they are related to Jesus, based on Scripture, I have created & uploaded an image to the Internet. Hopefully, this will work, & you’ll be able to see it:

img24.imageshack.us/img24/5489/familytreet.jpg

In Christ,
Steve.

Uhm, where are Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas there?

 

[BornAgainRN]

+JMJ+

HOW long?

If you are asking, “when was the false ‘infancy’ gospel of James written, which makes the claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin?” then the approximate answer is between 140-170 A.D. Prior to the 2nd Century, there is no evidence of the Church teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In fact, Tertullian (c.160 – c.225 did not teach the doctrine, but he did teach the virginity of Mary, which IS supported by both the Old & New Testaments. The earliest Church father who taught the belief was Irenaeus (130-202 AD), but it didn’t gain steam until the 3rd century, & it wasn’t until the 4th Century that the doctrine was being taught consistently.

Because it is as hard as finding evidence that the early Church knew (NOT BELIEVED, ie., they had evidence) Jesus had siblings or half-siblings.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

If you are asking, “when was the false ‘infancy’ gospel of James written, which makes the claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin?” then the approximate answer is between 140-170 A.D. Prior to the 2nd Century, there is no evidence of the Church teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In fact, Tertullian (c.160 – c.225 did not teach the doctrine, but he did teach the virginity of Mary, which IS supported by both the Old & New Testaments. The earliest Church father who taught the belief was Irenaeus (130-202 AD), but it didn’t gain steam until the 3rd century, & it wasn’t until the 4th Century that the doctrine was being taught consistently.

AND YET, there are NO teachings or writings by the Early Church Fathers saying THE OPPOSITE. Zilch. Nada. Even before the Second Century. And your “evidence” that Jesus had siblings/half-siblings from the Scriptures? No one interpreted them as such, in the 2000 year history of Christianity until the modern era. Not even those who compiled the Scriptures for you or anyone here to read. Not even those who broke off from the Catholic Church some five hundred years ago. None.

And then there’s the “infancy ‘gospel’ of James” that made its appearance in 140-170 A.D., only three generations apart from the death of Jesus and the apostles, are you saying that the teachings on the life of Christ have deteriorated so much by then that the “lie of the perpetual virginity of Mary” crept in? Really?

All the evidence the early Church would need to believe that Jesus had half-siblings would be the Bible. Rather, ‘theories’ developed that they were either children from Joseph from a previous marriage (Origen - 185-254 A.D.), or they were were either his cousins, disciples, or ‘spiritual’ or ‘believing’ brothers.

And you didn’t find that strange?

However, if you go back to my original post, I provide Scripture where the Bible writers make distinctions between Jesus’ ‘disciples & brothers’ & His ‘spiritual believers & His brothers,’ as well as His cousins, James & John, & John the Baptist.

Oh goodness, who am I going to believe, you, or those who have made studies and sermons of EACH AND EVERY verse of the Gospels, of which the greatest minds of the Church have studied again and again. Can you read them in their original languages, even?

Again, “IF” there were descendants of Jesus’ half-siblings walking around. Again, there is no evidence that either way, & even if there were, who’s to say that they were even part of the Church? Even Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him (John 7:3-5).

Uhm…first chapter of Acts?

Unfortunately, your evidence is as unbelievable as it is illogical, and I could say the same about you, you know, in light of that. My favorite is (and yes that is one of your examples too)

Is name-calling necessary here? Trying to have a civil, as well as LOGICAL, discussion with you.

Alright, I apologize.

You are misunderstanding the text. The 11 disciples, plus Jesus’ mother, the women [who we don’t know who they were, nor how many were there - possibly the wives of the disciples (1 Corinthians 9:5)], plus Matthias, plus Barsabas, plus Jesus’ brothers, are included AMONGST the 120. The text doesn’t say that they were the ONLY people there, just that Peter stood up ‘amongst the brethren, which numbered 120.’ The ‘120 brethren’ is not necessarily LIMITED to the specific individuals members listed, just that these specific individuals were ‘amongst’ the 120, or ‘part’ of the 120.

Uhm, actually, I cannot help but say you are adding your own interpretation Is there anything from the text that what you are saying IS what the text is saying, Steve?

 

[BornAgainRN]

+JMJ+

Uhm, where are Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas there?

This is Jesus’ family tree based on Matthew 13:54-57; Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40 & 44; Luke 1:5-7-13 & 36; and John 19:25. Matthias & Barsabbas were the ‘spiritual’ brothers of Jesus at Pentecost, NOT His half-brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude). I did this to give a ‘visual’ to help clear up the confusion of the numerous Mary’s, James’, Judas,’ & Joseph’s. Take a look back at my original post & compare it to this chart.

 

[BornAgainRN]

+JMJ+

And then there’s the “infancy ‘gospel’ of James” that made its appearance in 140-170 A.D., only three generations apart from the death of Jesus and the apostles, are you saying that the teachings on the life of Christ have deteriorated so much by then that the “lie of the perpetual virginity of Mary” crept in? Really?

In regards to Acts 1, I was merely pointing out your assumption of me, that I was not taking into account that there were 120 people amongst the ‘brethren.’ What I am was originally trying to point out, was that the ‘brothers’ of Jesus, & the ‘brethren’ that they were ‘amongst’ are 2 different ‘brothers.’ The first being Jesus ACTUAL half-brothers, the second being the ‘120 brethren’ as a whole, which includes the 11 remaining disciples, Mary, the mother of Jesus, the ‘women,’ Barsabas, Matthias, the half-brothers of Jesus, as well as the ‘rest’ of the ‘brethren’ that were there.

 

[Ion]

Pay attention what you think, because what you actually say is:
“If I were Joseph, I would have lived a different life”
Now, Joseph is Saint Joseph, so you might end up in a totaly different place…

 

[BornAgainRN]

Yep. People asked me for it. I just had to figure out how to produce one, upload it somewhere on the Internet, & then link it. Is there a way to post a link, so that the ACTUAL graph is displayed on the page, not just the name of the link? Hopefully, this will be a little clearer than my original post, since all the Mary’s, James’, Joseph’s, & Judas’ can get confusing.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Thanks for the tip, & God bless!

 

[BornAgainRN]

+JMJ+

Uhm…first chapter of Acts?

If I understand correctly, you are asking “If Jesus’ had half-brothers who didn’t believe in Him according to John 7:3-5, then why are they later ‘believing’ half-brothers in Acts 1:13-14?” Because they weren’t ‘believing’ brothers in John 7 AT THAT TIME, but merely his ‘unbelieving’ half-brothers (see Matthew 12:46-50 & 13:54-57). But after Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter) & the ‘12" (which includes the 2 James’), then 500 ‘brethren,’ Jesus THEN appeared to James. ‘This’ James is Jesus’ half-brother. After Jesus appeared to His half-brother James, he BECAME a believer, along with Jesus’ other half-brothers who were with the rest of the ‘120 BELIEVING brethren’ in Acts 1:13-15.

Is this what you were asking, & does that answer it?

 

[BornAgainRN]

I had to edit the page, because I noticed I made one error on it. Now, it should be okay, to compare this graph to my original post. Sorry, if there was any misunderstanding or confusion from my first graph.

img40.imageshack.us/img40/8902/familytreea.jpg

 

[BornAgainRN]

Had to edit the graph, so please refer to my updated one.

 

[Ion]

Matthew 1:25,
“He had no relations with her until she bore a son…”
in the orthodox translation, sounds like this:
“Without being known (physically touched) by Joseph, she bore a son …”

It’s only your imagination…

 

[reconman]

. I want to know what YOU think, & when you respond, please base your conclusion using Holy Scripture, NOT the beliefs of church leaders or the early church fathers.

Luke 1:41-42a "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women…”

 

[reconman]

I want to know what YOU think, & when you respond, please base your conclusion using Holy Scripture, NOT the beliefs of church leaders or the early church fathers.

Luke 1:41-42a "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women…”

Luke 1:28 "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”

God could not defile the womb of His Son with a mortal human stained by original sin. It is not possible.