Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[adrift]

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.’

This doesn’t fly. By Jewish Law sons were obligated to care for their mother. That they were not at the cross would not abrogate the obligation. In other words, Jesus wouldn’t have had to worry about His mother if indeed He had siblings. The very fact that He gave her care to John shows that Jesus was an only child. John was Jesus cousin? Evidence?

 

[reconman]

John was Jesus cousin? Evidence?

He’s confusing him with John the Baptist, who was.

 

[Church_Militant]

This doesn’t fly. By Jewish Law sons were obligated to care for their mother. That they were not at the cross would not abrogate the obligation. In other words, Jesus wouldn’t have had to worry about His mother if indeed He had siblings. The very fact that He gave her care to John shows that Jesus was an only child. John was Jesus cousin? Evidence?

Exactly! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Out of respect. No comment. Just compare the Bible verses I provide to the chart I posted.

And out of respect Steve, you cannot escape this. Remember that oft-quoted verse from St. Peter’s pen?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Your chart, your interpretations, mean zilch if you cannot corroborate your interpretation with any interpretation before by people holier and wiser than you, simply because

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

What you are doing is private interpretation of Scripture, going against what the Church that discerned which books are to be included in the Bible for you and me those centuries ago has taught to be true both by tradition and her expounding on the Scriptures discerned by her.

That is why you can only say “No comment,” because outside of your own private interpretation of Scripture you have nothing to comment with. Which is why you cannot answer this following part of my post, and thus left it out of the quote:

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.

Why would I? It didn’t take long for false beliefs to effect the 1st Cent. Church. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 1.

Oh goodness, you do not find it strange that the WHOLE CHURCH apparently FORGOT something SO FUNDAMENTAL about Jesus Christ’s life, about the existence of siblings/half-siblings, for almost two millenia? If so, how can the Church be “the pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) if she forgot such a fundamental part of the Truth, Steve? Are you calling the Word of God a liar?

No, I don’t want you to believe me anymore than any other fallible human being. I’d prefer that you believe God & what He has revealed to us in His word. I, like any other human being, including the early Church fathers, are capable of misunderstanding & misinterpreting Scripture. Again, compare the chart I provided with my original post, pray to God for guidance (as I have), & make your own decision, based on the text.

Yes, you may be fallible, I may be fallible, the early Church Fathers may be fallible, but NOT THE WHOLE CHURCH, or you are making Scripture a liar (1 Timothy 3:15, again). And as I said, your arguments, your charts, your interpretations are not air-tight, and if they are not so, then I will side with the Churches (and not just the Catholic Church, mind you, but also ALL other old Churches and even the original Reformers who in this regard are unanimous. It is you, against them. Guess who I think is correct).

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.

sigh Please read again:

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,

The second “brethren” include the 11 apostles, Mary, the women, and Jesus’ “brothers” ONLY. Now, where did Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias come from?

 

[Porknpie]

---

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.

 

[adrift]

He’s confusing him with John the Baptist, who was.

 

[Prieldedi]

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.

You’re the one misunderstanding the Gospel. So far what you have is your understanding (which is wrong) of who is who in the Gospels. All you have is your personal understanding, which you find totally “logic”, but not it’s not totally “true”.

The Bible is not a book of riddles written so people can solve them, like a crossword. It is not a Book to read and decipher, and then arrive at conclusions. It is a Liturgical Book whose purpose is to be used as the only readings during the Holy Mass. Yes, we can read it too, it will strengthen our Faith. But it’s not a book of unsolved exercises that each individual is asked to solve. It’s not a book of secret codes to be broken.

The Book started as Oral Tradition and stayed that way for some 30-50 years according to some, give or take 5-10 years. After some time several of the early Christians saw it necessary to put in writing the most important events, according to what each of them saw fit, and they were written for different audiences. Then some of the Apostles wrote letters to the communities they had evangelized earlier to correct them, as some had strayed.

The writers of the NT wrote about events that most converts already knew, they heard the Oral preaching from the very Apostles in their previous visits to their communities. The readers knew who were they referring to when naming names.

The Church for 2000 years has kept this knowledge and has explained the relations between Jesus and the different relatives that lived around Him. What you are doing is useless, no matter how hard you try you will have to surrender your king, you’ll have to accept what the Church teaches.

Do you feel you can write the history of France refusing to listen to what the French know about themselves? Would you accept as true a history book about the USA which excludes what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and others ever wrote about the events they lived? You have to listen to the Church, without your personal prejudices against Her getting in the way.

Whether you like it or not, you have to go OUT OF THE BIBLE to understand many of the things contained in the Bible. You do it, you go to the Greek dictionary in defense of your points. You cannot abstract the Bible from her surroundings, from the times and customs of that people of that time. This is your error and you refuse to acknowledge and accept facts that we Catholics are telling you through out this thread. It’s this obstinacy, this unhealthy stubbornness to believe only what is in the Bible and disregard everything else, that keeps you and those like you from seeing the Light.

In Christ

 

[Patavium]

Now IMHO when the Catholics and reformation Protestant leaders ALL agree on something, you really have to ask yourself what is the soil that your house sits on made of?

My point exactly in another thread with Steve. Apparently, Protestants cannot help but to protest. I want to ask Steve a question, When did the argument that Mary had other children originate, and Who taught you this?

 

[Patavium]

Patavium;9390791:

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.

There is not a hint that Jesus was an only child either. In Luke 2:41-51, if Jesus’ brothers are actually close relatives, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph, then they would have been OLDER than Jesus, so why aren’t they mentioned? If they are Jesus’ blood brothers & sisters, they would have been younger, & younger children aren’t always specifically mentioned. Also, the story says that Jesus was not found on the caravan with the rest of His family. This means that his brothers & sisters could have been on the caravan with the rest of His family, but Luke simply didn’t mention them. Also, since Jesus was 12, His brothers & sisters may not have been born yet. If Mary was 13 when she had Jesus (which 12 would have been ‘marrying age’ then), that would put Mary at 25, by the time Jesus was 12 - still ‘child-bearing age’ to have children.

Steve, you awfully sidestepping and jumping through hoops to make your interpretation work. Read your own words. Aren’t you being gaps EXTRA BIBLICAL? Outside of the Bible?? I thought we are not supposed to read too much into what is NOT in the bible? Aren’t you Sola Scriptura?

"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.

If they were first cousins of Jesus (or children of Joseph from a previous marriage), then why are they not mentioned in the Luke account when Jesus was 12, or when Joseph & Mary traveled to Bethlehem, or Egypt, or back to Nazareth? And if they were first cousins, when isn’t the Greek word for ‘cousin’ used, like it is elsewhere in Scripture?

But, Steve wasn’t that already answered? Didn’t you know this practice? There is historic evidence of cultural practice already mentioned many times to you, but you choose to ignore.

Here Steve,

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word “brother.” Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for “cousin” (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn’t used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn’t ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

In fact, there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

 

[Prieldedi]

James, Joses, Simon and Judas are “paired” in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 13:55, both passages have the four names together, and both describe the same event.

Correction:

This is from my post #159:

I wrote Mark 15:40, it should be Mark 6:3.

Mark 6:3 has the names of the four “brothers”.

Mark 15:40 is the scene of the “women watching from a distance”.

Sorry for the inconveniences this might have caused you.

 

[Prieldedi]

There is not a hint that Jesus was an only child either. In Luke 2:41-51, if Jesus’ brothers are actually close relatives, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph, then they would have been OLDER than Jesus, so why aren’t they mentioned? If they are Jesus’ blood brothers & sisters, they would have been younger, & younger children aren’t always specifically mentioned. Also, the story says that Jesus was not found on the caravan with the rest of His family. This means that his brothers & sisters could have been on the caravan with the rest of His family, but Luke simply didn’t mention them. Also, since Jesus was 12, His brothers & sisters may not have been born yet. If Mary was 13 when she had Jesus (which 12 would have been ‘marrying age’ then), that would put Mary at 25, by the time Jesus was 12 - still ‘child-bearing age’ to have children.

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

And as Jesus mentioned ‘His own relatives AND in his own HOUSE.’ We know Jesus was honored by His earthly parents (who are in His own house. So, who are the people in His HOUSE that aren’t honoring Him? It would be Jesus’ half-brothers & half-sisters.

OK, let’s take this road. Since the siblings are not mentioned in Luke 2:41-51 they were not in the caravan, so that means they had not been born. If they had been in the caravan, they would have been the first Mary and Joseph would have questioned about the whereabouts of their brother. They were not mentioned because they didn’t exist at that particular time.

So we have a family of three at the Temple when Jesus was 12. The problem then is not the “child-bearing” age for the Virgin Mary, the problem is the age of the other children.

We agree that when Jesus was 12 there were no siblings yet, that means He would have been at least 13 years older than the next in line. The Virgin Mary was not pregnant when Jesus was lost at the Temple at 12, so let’s assume that when He was 13 the second one was born. By the time Jesus started His public life the oldest sibling would have been 17. Jesus was 30 and No.2 was 17 at the time of the Cana wedding, at the crucifixion No. 2 was 20.

For the next 5 siblings the ages would have been: 15, 13, 11, 9, 7 (at the crucifixion 18, 16, 14, 12, 10). I’m giving 2 years between them based on the fact that 13 years went by between the first and the second. If they waited that long for the second one to come along, I don’t think they were on a mission to populate Palestine as fast as possible.

Now let’s put names to those ages. Let’s make James 17, Joses 15, Judas 13 and Simon 11. Since the sisters are not named I’m assuming them to be the last in line, as they are the least in importance according to the Gospel writers, since their names will remain unknown UNTIL (Catholic until) the end of the world. That would leave us with sisters of 9 and 7. If the sisters were those ages, how would you reconcile that fact with these passages?:

“And his sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matthew 13:56)

“And are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3)

This means they were living with someone else and not their mother. Why weren’t these very young girls living with their mother?

Now, if you want to make the sisters older so they would be of age to live elsewhere and not with their mother, then the brothers have to be younger, which would give you and even bigger problem as their ages would be 13, 11, 9 and 7. How can you explain “brothers” of 13, 11, 9 and 7 say to Jesus of 31-32?:

“Don’t stay here; go instead to Judea and let your disciples see the works you are doing. Anyone who wants to be known doesn’t work secretly. Since you are able to do these things, show yourself to the world.” (John 7:3-4)

It’s impossible to prove your case. You recognize the “brothers” are not mentioned in the early life of Jesus, so you say that 13 years of difference between Jesus and the next in line is all it’s needed to confirm Jesus had brothers. But even if that were true, you cannot explain how these kids were expressing their opinion among their elders. The saying goes “children should be seen, not heard”, specially in a strict society like the Jewish of the First Century. Do you have another explanation? So far every explanation you have given us has failed. One way or another your assumptions crumble, and they do because there was only one Son born to the Virgin Mary: Jesus.

 

[panevino]

…Fourth, in Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus compares His ‘believing brothers’ by pointing to his disciples INSIDE, with His ‘non-believing brothers’ OUTSIDE (compare to John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8).
…

Hi thought I’d jump in regarding the reference to ps69:8 .

*Perhaps Take care with psalm 69:8 given how this mother and her child birth are described in ps51:3-5, *you may not want to rely too much on that arrangement for a full “type” , given the insinuation for Jesus of being conceived in iniquity.
But don t get me wrong I take this verse seriously.

I read that in the Talmud, jewish tradition gives an explanation for this iniquity. davids father was going to have extra marital affair to resolve some sort of family lineage issue? The mistress and His wife spoke about it and the wife snuck in to the tent and pretended to be the mistress and David was made. *Father was not very happy. the tradition says that his 7 brothers and the father I think treated him pretty poorly when he grew up because of the drama.
Which is why, aparently David was the last son to be presented to Samuel by davids father.1sam16:10-11

Also you will also have to leave out Psalm 69:5
O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and **my sins *are not hid from thee.
We can’t align this with Jesus!
So not every verse and every part of a verse from psalm 69 can be confidently assigned to Jesus, given verse 5 and particularly the implication of psalm 51:3-5 for the mother/son relationship of psalm 69:8

I agree with you that brethren in psalm 69:8 “seems”*a fitting comparison prohecy to John 7:5

John 7:5 For even his brethren did not believe on him.
Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

the brethren of ps69:8 and the parallel with jesus is identified in John 2:16-18
See below comparison

Psalm 69:shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.9 **For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; **and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

John 2:15***And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, **and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the16 **And said unto them **that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, **The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. **18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

 

[SonCatcher]

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

So do belief in the divinity of Jesus and in the Trinity. Neither of these beliefs is found explicitly in the Bible and there are many “Sola Scriptura” groups which deny them on that ground.

They are uniquely Catholic beliefs. Do you deny them, as well?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I don’t know everything. But, what I do know, & what we can agree on, is that the Bible is the Word of God

Christ is the Word of God. Are you implying the Bible is God?

 

[tabycat]

Christ is the Word of God. Are you implying the Bible is God?

I’ve meet some that have crossed that like line between the Bible being important and It being ‘God’.

 

[BornAgainRN]

So do belief in the divinity of Jesus and in the Trinity. Neither of these beliefs is found explicitly in the Bible and there are many “Sola Scriptura” groups which deny them on that ground.

They are uniquely Catholic beliefs. Do you deny them, as well?

Both the Trinity & the Divinity of Jesus are explicitly found in the Bible:

Jesus proclaimed His Divinity when He says, 'Before Abraham was ‘I AM,’" which in the original Greek New Testament means ‘self-existent,’ which is how God described Himself to Moses in Exodus 3. Jesus also said, ‘The I & the Father are One,’ which the Jews stated they wanted to stone Him, because Jesus was declaring Himself to be God. The Word ‘One’ in the Old Testament is used to describe the Lord being ‘One,’ which is plural (Deuteronomy 6:4). Thomas also declared Jesus to be his “Lord (Master) AND God (Deos).” John 1:1,14 declares “In the beginning the WORD was with GOD, & the WORD WAS GOD…& the WORD became FLESH & dwelt among us.”

The Trinity is also explicitly found in the Bible:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT,” By saying NAME & not NAMES, Jesus is telling us that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are not 3 SEPARATE gods, but ONE God, but also three ‘Persons,’ as evidenced by Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3, where the Father is in Heaven, Jesus is on the earth, & Holy Spirit is descending FROM Heaven TO earth, & then the Father IN HEAVEN declares that He is ‘well pleased’ of His Son (Jesus).

Also, 1 John 5:7-8, also affirm the Trinity, although there is some debate whether this verse was in the original manuscripts.

I could give other examples, so although the WORD ‘Trinity’ & Jesus saying the EXACT words ‘I am God’ are not in the Bible, both of the Trinity AND the Deity of Christ are BOTH EXPLICITLY in the Bible, despite some Christian groups believing otherwise. I assume you are a Christian, & I guess I am wondering why you would use these arguments, & why your church wouldn’t have taught these to you.

But as far as the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ goes, although I respect the traditional beliefs of Christians who believe that, not only are the words not found in Scripture, the CONCEPT of it isn’t found either. In fact, the opposite is actually true, both in English, & from understanding the original Greek, as well as the fact that after the birth of Jesus, Mary & Joseph consummated their marriage (Matthew 1:18-25) & then went on to have children (Matthew 12 & 13).

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

But as far as the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ goes, although I respect the traditional beliefs of Christians who believe that, not only are the words not found in Scripture, the CONCEPT of it isn’t found either. In fact, the opposite is actually true, both in English, & from understanding the original Greek, as well as the fact that after the birth of Jesus, Mary & Joseph consummated their marriage (Matthew 1:18-25) & then went on to have children (Matthew 12 & 13).

Ah, you deny interpretation from the 2nd century onwards (St. Irenaeus, St. John Chrysostom, Origen) in favor of your own amateurish and heretical interpretations?

 

[BornAgainRN]

Steve, you awfully sidestepping and jumping through hoops to make your interpretation work. Read your own words. Aren’t you being gaps EXTRA BIBLICAL? Outside of the Bible?? I thought we are not supposed to read too much into what is NOT in the bible? Aren’t you Sola Scriptura?

 

[adrift]

What is being ignored is the culture of Jesus

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. The same is true for Mark 3:21
2. Jesus gives Mary’s care to John. Something that would only be done, if there were no other sons. Jesus would not have had to give Mary’s care to John. It would have been automatically assumed IF there were other sons.
3. Jesus is refereed to as being the son of Mary. No other person is refereed to as being the child of Mary.

 

[Patavium]

It’s not ‘side-stepping’ or being ‘extrabibilcal,’ I’m attempting to explain why the half-brothers of Jesus weren’t mentioned on the caravan. Keep in mind, the gospel narratives are about JESUS & His purpose - which was to be born, grow up, & become our Savior by dying on the cross for our sins - NOT so much as to focus on His family. Either they were there on the caravan, but not SPECIFICALLY mentioned since they were young, just as other people on the caravan with Mary & Joseph weren’t mentioned, or they simply weren’t born yet, since they were younger. But if Joseph had children from a previous marriage, then why weren’t they mentioned on the caravan, since they would have been OLDER than Jesus, & why aren’t they mentioned on the journey to Bethlehem, or Egypt, or at the Temple when Jesus was consecrated, or back to Nazareth, or anywhere else in Scripture?

Oh yeah!, Wow! indeed!. I didn’t see it. The rest of Jesus brothers were under Mary’s skirt, or no no no they were back home in Nazareth with a babysitter. No wait! they were inside the caravan drinking koolaid.

Steve, How are those arguments? You are jumping all over the place EXTRA-BIBLICALLY and without EXTRA-BIBLICAL sources to support your claims