Did Mary & Joseph have children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornAgainRN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I admit I get lost in long threads. Has our OP explained yet how it was that Mary went to live the rest of her days in the house of an unrelated male, if she had other children?
 
BornAgainRN said:
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).
Click to expand...
And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Click to expand...
Not that her and Joseph, her husband, did not know each other but an all encompassing man!. Not oh wonderful Joseph(my husband) and I will have a son but I do not have sex.

Both in English and the Greek (do you really have the original?) the use of the word until does not show that it was different after the birth of Jesus.
2 Samuels
23 As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death.QUOTE]
The till is the same Greek word used in Matthew. So either she must not have had a child or until only means up to a certain point without indicating that anything changed afterward. Matthew did not intend to indicate that Mary did not remain a virgin. He only meant to convey that she was a virgin at Jesus’ birth. You argument is flat.
Click to expand...
 
snarflemike said:
I admit I get lost in long threads. Has our OP explained yet how it was that Mary went to live the rest of her days in the house of an unrelated male, if she had other children?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. I would recommend you read the original thread & compare it to the chart I provided (something a lot of people are saying they are doing, but then making comments like these - no offense to you in particular). John was not ‘unrelated’ to Jesus. Along with John the Baptist, John & James were also Jesus’ cousins, because they were sons of Salome, the wife of Zebedee. However, this requires a lot of detailed study of the texts, which I provided to try to make it a little simpler. Hope this answers your question. 🙂
 
snarflemike said:
I admit I get lost in long threads. Has our OP explained yet how it was that Mary went to live the rest of her days in the house of an unrelated male, if she had other children?
Click to expand...
Post 203
He tried with the tired discredited argument that no son was at the cross to give her to and they were not believers. Both of which does not explain the cultural requirement of sons taking care of their mother. They would only have to believe in the Jewish faith not in Jesus and they would be obliged by Jewish Law not by Jesus telling them to do it. They would not have to be present at the cross to fulfill their Jewish duty.
 
BornAgainRN said:
Yes, it does. I would recommend you read the original thread & compare it to the chart I provided (something a lot of people are saying they are doing, but then making comments like these - no offense to you in particular). John was not ‘unrelated’ to Jesus. Along with John the Baptist, John & James were also Jesus’ cousins, because they were sons of Salome, the wife of Zebedee. However, this requires a lot of detailed study of the texts, which I provided to try to make it a little simpler. Hope this answers your question. 🙂
Click to expand...
You are jumping to some conclusions
Luke
40 And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Click to expand...
Matthew
among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee
Click to expand...
Mark
40 And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome
Click to expand...
John
25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Click to expand...
Salome is mentioned by name in Luke and Mark but is not identified as anyones wife or mother.
Matthew says that the mother of the sons of Zebedee is present but does not name her. John does not mention her.
John is unclear as to the mention of Mary’s sister being another women or if it is Mary the wife of Clopas. Since punctuation did not exist, it is up to debate which one is correct.

You make statements as if Scripture clearly says that Salome was Mary’s sister. It does not. It does not say that Salome was the wife of Zebedee.
 
adrift said:
Post 203
He tried with the tired discredited argument that no son was at the cross to give her to and they were not believers. Both of which does not explain the cultural requirement of sons taking care of their mother. They would only have to believe in the Jewish faith not in Jesus and they would be obliged by Jewish Law not by Jesus telling them to do it. They would not have to be present at the cross to fulfill their Jewish duty.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But did they, ANY of them, become believers later? If so, would their mother not have THEN moved in with them, instead of living the rest of her days in the home of an unrelated male?

Besides, when has it ever been Christian doctrine that mothers are to separate themselves from their unbelieving children? Is it traditional Christian teaching that parents must not live with their unbelieving children? Cuz I sure never heard about it.

Besides, if the brothers were unbelievers at the time of the crucifixion (not scriptural, BTW), then we have this situation. Their oldest brother has just been executed for nutty and extremely dangerous beliefs (they were “unbelievers”, remember). So they’re going to LET their mother live in the house of a man who is not only unrelated, but also a leader in their brother’s cult? A man who could himself be executed at any moment for the same reasons? A man who has placed himself completely outside the Jewish faith?

These faithful Jews allowed their mother to live with a man who was not only unrelated, but a heretic? How can any rational, truth-seeking person believe this?

Tired and discredited is so right.
 
BornAgainRN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those scriptures are implicit references, not explicit ones to the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. Indeed, Catholics use them as proof of both. However, if they indeed were explicit, as you here claim, the many non-Trinitarian denominations simply would not exist.
BornAgainRN said:
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).
Click to expand...
If you did, you would not have opened this thread except to try to understand why we hold that belief.

Catholics do find the concept supported in Scripture. We have been studying it for 2000 years to understand how our beliefs (which are shared by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Thomasine Christians - some of whom we have had extremely little contact in the critical first centuries) are supported by Scripture which came to us after these were first taught.

The Thomasine Christians are an excellent evidence of the belief’s validity. The Christian West was largely unaware of them until the Jesuits started evangelizing in India. Upon investigation, their beliefs were eventually found to be correct by the Latins (there was, admittedly, some controversy; but not over Mary).

If Christian Churches that basically have been out of contact since the time of the Apostles believe the same thing as the Catholic Church, that is very strong evidence that it is exactly what the Apostles themselves taught.
 
snarflemike said:
Thanks. But did they, ANY of them, become believers later? If so, would their mother not have THEN moved in with them, instead of living the rest of her days in the home of an unrelated male?

Besides, when has it ever been Christian doctrine that mothers are to separate themselves from their unbelieving children? Is it traditional Christian teaching that parents must not live with their unbelieving children? Cuz I sure never heard about it.

Besides, if the brothers were unbelievers at the time of the crucifixion (not scriptural, BTW), then we have this situation. Their oldest brother has just been executed for nutty and extremely dangerous beliefs (they were “unbelievers”, remember). So they’re going to LET their mother live in the house of a man who is not only unrelated, but also a leader in their brother’s cult? A man who could himself be executed at any moment for the same reasons? A man who has placed himself completely outside the Jewish faith?

These faithful Jews allowed their mother to live with a man who was not only unrelated, but a heretic? How can any rational, truth-seeking person believe this?

Tired and discredited is so right.
Click to expand...
You make some good points. John 7:5 states
5 For his brothers did not believe in him.
Click to expand...
But we know that these were not siblings. They are other family members. Did they believe later. Acts 1:14
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Click to expand...
What strikes me is that these “brothers” are not named. Were they the same that did not believe? I don’t think we know. “Brother” can mean many things.

The Greek adelphos can mean
  1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ 6a) his brothers by blood 6b) all men 6c) apostles 6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
    Since there is not word for cousin in Aramaic, the only way they could express a relationship between a Uncle and nephew would be to call them brother or the son of an uncle.
 
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Click to expand...
From your logic - since these siblings are part and parcel with this passage - to be understood in its basic premise - since the passages specifically identify Jesus as the 'carpenter’s son - Jesus did not just have ‘half siblings’ but full blooded siblings …

I actually find it striking that Jesus is identified as the carpenter in one passage - the carpenter’s son in the other - in both clearly Mary’s child and the brothers listed not as sons of Joseph [which would be common and customary] nor are they not listed as Mary’s children … which would not have been common - but is exactly how Jesus is identified on more then one occasion …

As for Mary and Joseph not having carnel ralations and the use of the word ‘until’ or ‘til’ …

What was the purpose of Luke’s writing about this at all … it was to identify the reality of the miraculous birth … God concieved Jesus in the womb of the Virgin [with Mary’s acceptance - Let it be done unto me according to your will] … Luke was writing to defend that event - the Incarnation and Virgin Birth … he was not writing to imply one way or the other about carnal relations after that fact … though if he was and if there were other children - he surely could have identified them at this point in his narrative … he did not … and I do not beleive they existed - for a host of reasons in addition to what is implicit in the scriptures about Mary and 2000 years of constant Christian belief [Luther, Calvin and Zwingli] all held to Mary’s perpetual virginity …

Now you could argue - exptra-biblically -as you have done with speculation about when in what order these fictional children arrived and why and why they are not mentioned either in the New Testament - or other early writings … My thoughts were that if any half or step siblings or close cousins even had been around - they would have been mentioned - kept track of - been in suport of or oposition to the “Christian Way” that followed … the record would be clear enough to leave little doubt to their existance … alas - the literary, archeological and tradition do not support any such claim …

This notion that Mary is not a Virgin her entire life is relatively new - born out of the enlightenment period with a lot of other non-sense …

My :twocents:
 
In reading as many of these posts as my tired eyes will allow… it strikes me in this thread and others that if person “A” says, it’s not in the Bible so it can’t be, there is always a person “B” that says, yes, but Tradition tells us… however, when person “B” wants to say, it’s not in the Bible, so you’re wrong, then person “A” is supposed to just go along with it.

The Bible DOES mention brothers of Jesus in places. The Bible mentions Mary, what 20 times? and not NEARLY in all the capacities that the Catholic Church has put her in. Don’t get me wrong, I hold Mary in highest regard, but her perpetual virginity, her assumption, these things are not in the Bible, and yet it does name these other people as her sons but we’re not to believe that? Sometimes it’s very difficult to know what to believe…
 
YADA said:
Now you could argue - exptra-biblically -as you have done with speculation about when in what order these fictional children arrived and why and why they are not mentioned either in the New Testament - or other early writings … My thoughts were that if any half or step siblings or close cousins even had been around - they would have been mentioned - kept track of - been in suport of or oposition to the “Christian Way” that followed … the record would be clear enough to leave little doubt to their existance … alas - the literary, archeological and tradition do not support any such claim …

This notion that Mary is not a Virgin her entire life is relatively new - born out of the enlightenment period with a lot of other non-sense …

My :twocents:
Click to expand...
But by your logic, shouldn’t Joseph be written about in greater detail? Or Mary? We really hear nothing about them in the Bible to support all that the Catholic Church holds about them!
 
Sandalwood said:
In reading as many of these posts as my tired eyes will allow… it strikes me in this thread and others that if person “A” says, it’s not in the Bible so it can’t be, there is always a person “B” that says, yes, but Tradition tells us… however, when person “B” wants to say, it’s not in the Bible, so you’re wrong, then person “A” is supposed to just go along with it.

The Bible DOES mention brothers of Jesus in places. The Bible mentions Mary, what 20 times? and not NEARLY in all the capacities that the Catholic Church has put her in. Don’t get me wrong, I hold Mary in highest regard, but her perpetual virginity, her assumption, these things are not in the Bible, and yet it does name these other people as her sons but we’re not to believe that? Sometimes it’s very difficult to know what to believe…
Click to expand...
I know it is a long thread so I know you have missed a lot. What you have missed is that brother has many different meanings. That the language spoken did not have a word for brother. Her perpetual virginity is indicated in the bible. As my previous posts have shown. No where did Jesus say write all down what He did say was go and teach. Jesus left a Church not a book to teach us. I would suggest that you read all of the thread.
 
YADA said:
From your logic - since these siblings are part and parcel with this passage - to be understood in its basic premise - since the passages specifically identify Jesus as the 'carpenter’s son - Jesus did not just have ‘half siblings’ but full blooded siblings …

I actually find it striking that Jesus is identified as the carpenter in one passage - the carpenter’s son in the other - in both clearly Mary’s child and the brothers listed not as sons of Joseph [which would be common and customary] nor are they not listed as Mary’s children … which would not have been common - but is exactly how Jesus is identified on more then one occasion …

As for Mary and Joseph not having carnel ralations and the use of the word ‘until’ or ‘til’ …

What was the purpose of Luke’s writing about this at all … it was to identify the reality of the miraculous birth … God concieved Jesus in the womb of the Virgin [with Mary’s acceptance - Let it be done unto me according to your will] … Luke was writing to defend that event - the Incarnation and Virgin Birth … he was not writing to imply one way or the other about carnal relations after that fact … though if he was and if there were other children - he surely could have identified them at this point in his narrative … he did not … and I do not beleive they existed - for a host of reasons in addition to what is implicit in the scriptures about Mary and 2000 years of constant Christian belief [Luther, Calvin and Zwingli] all held to Mary’s perpetual virginity …

**Now you could argue - exptra-biblically -as you have done with speculation about when in what order these fictional children arrived and why and why they are not mentioned either in the New Testament - or other early writings … My thoughts were that if any half or step siblings or close cousins even had been around - they would have been mentioned - kept track of - been in suport of or oposition to the “Christian Way” that followed … the record would be clear enough to leave little doubt to their existance … alas - the literary, archeological and tradition do not support any such claim … **

This notion that Mary is not a Virgin her entire life is relatively new - born out of the enlightenment period with a lot of other non-sense …

My :twocents:
Click to expand...
👍 Especially the bolded part. Our friend Steve (BornAgainRN) doesn’t realize he is simply citing verses from the bible and speculating the existence of brothers of Jesus. This is called INTERPRETING 👍, and a bad interpretation because he doesn’t offer any support for any of his Extra Biblical claims. On the other hand, We do OFFER support for our extra biblical claims. A support as you say that rest on Early Church fathers who were closer to the apostles than us now.

I also love how Protestants tell us we hold too literally the word Full of Grace for Mary, but they hold literal Until in a verse… Oh Wow!
 
BornAgainRN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Show me in the bible where does it says these sentences? This is clearly EXTRA-Biblical speculation. You could have said Jesus’ brothers are at home in Nazareth with a babysitter.
 
Patavium said:
Show me in the bible where does it says these sentences? This is clearly EXTRA-Biblical speculation. You could have said Jesus’ brothers are at home in Nazareth with a babysitter.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by BornAgainRN
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.
Click to expand...
I am glad you brought this up. When I read it what went through my mind was
And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.
Click to expand...
No mention of brothers or sisters just father and mother.
As for them not being born yet. That would mean that the closest in age when Jesus was beginning His ministry would be 17 and that would be if Mary was pregnant when Jesus was 12. The break between pregnancies would be about two years so that would mean that the siblings would be 17 15 13 11 19 and 7. Very unlikely that these sibling would behave as described in the Bible. Trying to seize Jesus or giving Jesus advise. Nah! not a plausible explanation.
 
adrift said:
I am glad you brought this up. When I read it what went through my mind was

No mention of brothers or sisters just father and mother.
As for them not being born yet. That would mean that the closest in age when Jesus was beginning His ministry would be 17 and that would be if Mary was pregnant when Jesus was 12. The break between pregnancies would be about two years so that would mean that the siblings would be 17 15 13 11 19 and 7. Very unlikely that these sibling would behave as described in the Bible. Trying to seize Jesus or giving Jesus advise. Nah! not a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...
Yes. This was brought to his attention 2 or 3 times, but still no answer from BornAgainRN, except the argument that Jesus’ brothers were in hiding either at the caravan or at Nazareth with a babysitter…
Patavium said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Regarding Jesus staying behind in the temple, my wife has commented that siblings being the way they are, 5 minutes after they left on their return journey the “brothers and sisters” would have been tugging at Joseph and Mary’s robes “telling on” Jesus. “Mommy, Daddy, Jesus is HIDING!”
 
Sandalwood said:
In reading as many of these posts as my tired eyes will allow… it strikes me in this thread and others that if person “A” says, it’s not in the Bible so it can’t be, there is always a person “B” that says, yes, but Tradition tells us… however, when person “B” wants to say, it’s not in the Bible, so you’re wrong, then person “A” is supposed to just go along with it.
Click to expand...
It’s just about holding people to their own professed standards of evidence. Catholics can appeal to both scripture and sacred tradition, but sola scripturists have chosen to restrict themselves to the bible. They don’t then get to have it both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top