Does Joseph have sexual relations with Mary

[Springer]

Genesis315:

I’m glad you think so, but the fact that there are thousands of denominations based on the Bible says otherwise. That’s why that Ethiopian guy needed help reading Scripture.

Here’s a question for you: why did Mary have to go live with John? “Behold your mother.” Did her other kids just ditch her?

Permit to answer your question with a question: Did Mary’s relatives ditch her too?

You see that is your so-called proof text in proving that Jesus had no brothers. But John is not a relative of Jesus. So using your interpretation, did Christ have no relatives as well?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

There is no proof one way or the other. Gosh, we don’t even know if the president of the United States cheats on his wife, even when it happens today when technology exists to track his every move. His wife doesn’t even know where he was going for his fun. To argue about whether Joseph and Mary did may be interesting and all, but cannot produce physical evidence where there is none.

It is an article of faith. By definition, faith is NOT involved anymore once we have worldly proof. Anyone who says they “know” the answer to this in a scientific or logical or I even dare say theological way, is deluded.

The Church teaches it. We can choose to believe her or not, but she can no more prove in a court of law that Mary and Joseph never got together than the any of us can prove otherwise. Call it speculation or divine inspiration, but there is no tangible, physical proof.

Many think the reasons the Church has that Mary and Joseph “could not” have gotten together are strenuously contrived to support the Church’s previous notions that she had about this matter. After all, her credibility is at stake so she certainly has a motive. For myself I really don’t know what happened. I did not hang around them day and night and watch them. I can buy the Church’s argument or dismiss her “infallibility” in these matters.

In the Church’s defense, we also cannot “prove” that they did, in fact, have sex and other biological children. The Church has explanations for each of the supposed incidents where the Bible makes it seem that way. That places it squarely back in our court to determine for ourselves what we believe.

Some think that Mary having sex after Jesus was born is theologically impossible because it would have ruined the whole plan. That is not an argument that I find very convincing. I don’t believe the flesh of Jesus Christ would have been adversely affected if M&J engaged in the marital act, nor does that remove anything from the Holy Spirit’s role in all this.

Alan

 

[mlchance]

fredrock:

Then I think the Scriptures are clear and nothing is taken away from Joseph or Mary by their sexual union.

It was permitted. It produced children.

There are no children of Joseph and Mary mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

Springer:

I suggest you should follow the Greek vocabulary because that’s the languange of the NT. “Adelphos” is used for brothers while “anepsios” (or suggenes) is for relatives.

Half true, which is the same as false. “Adelphos” is also widely used in the Bible, both OT and NT, as well as in non-Biblical Greek texts, to mean “relative” or even “close friend.” What’s more, “anepsios” means “cousin,” specifically “first cousin.” It would not be an appropriate term to refer to a group of relatives, whereas “adelphos” is.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LittleLes]

Good morning, all,

I’m having some difficulty establishing that Mary was a perpetual virgin because:

(1) I can’t find any writings earlier than the 4th century claiming that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian in the second century denied that she was.

(2) The claim that although Jesus is described as Mary’s first born son does not prove that she had other sons may be valid.

(3) The claim that Joseph knew her not until Jesus was born suggests, but does not prove, that he knew her afterwards.

(4) But the claim that the many descriptions of Jesus’ brothers found in the four Gospels, in Paul’s Epistles, in Acts, and even Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, were really cousins doesn’t ring true.

It is claimed that there is no word for cousin in Aramaic so “brother” was used. But the Gospels, Epistles, Acts, and even Josephus are written in Greek, not Aramaic. And Greek has specific words for brother, sister, and cousin.

While “aldelpho” meaning brother (of the same womb) might occasionally be used to designate a relative or close friend, it is extremely improbable that ALL the New Testament’s (and Josephus’) references to Jesus brothers meant someone other than an actual brother, doesn’t it?

LittleLes

 

[Genesis315]

LittleLes:

Good morning, all,

I’m having some difficulty establishing that Mary was a perpetual virgin because:

(1) I can’t find any writings earlier than the 4th century claiming that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian in the second century denied that she was.

The Protoevangelium of James discusses it in the 2nd centurey (120 AD) and Origen discusses it in 248 AD.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Here’s the thing LittleLes. I know you don’t like “because the Church says so” answers. I think you can admit that Mary’s perpetual virginity is possible even if you think it is very improbable. All discrepancies between someone’s personal interpretation and the Church all come down to this: authority. Do you believe the Church was established by Jesus and that it cannot teach error? Did He give us a teacher, or did he just give us the book and say “go figure it out,” even when most people throughout history couldn’t read and mass production of Bibles couldn’t happen until the printing press was invented in the middle of the second millenium. If you believe he did give us a teacher and that He would not let her deceive us, then you will have no problem accepting the authority of the Church’s teaching. If not, then that is where you need to start your search and build from there.

God bless

 

[wcknight]

BoondockRev:

I think what the first poster is asking, is did Joseph EVER have sexual relations with Mary. This does not necessarily mean for the conception of Jesus, but did Jesus have any brothers or sisters. It is evident in scripture He did in one scene in…

…John 7:3-5
(3)and Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. “Go where your followers can see your miracles!” they scoffed. (4) You can’t become a public figure if you hie like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world! (5) For even his brothers did not believe in Him.

Another scene in Luke 8:19
(19)Once when Jesus’ mother and brother came to see him, they couldn’t get ot him because of the crowds(20) Someone told Jsus, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to see you.” (21) Jesus replied," My mother and mybrothers are all those who hear the message of God and obey it.

Hope that answers your question, God speed in your journeys with the Lord.
-Chris

These “brothers” were Jesus’ cousins. There is no word for cousin in Hebrew so brother was used for it instead.

 

[LittleLes]

Genesis315:

The Protoevangelium of James discusses it in the 2nd centurey (120 AD) and Origen discusses it in 248 AD.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Here’s the thing LittleLes. I know you don’t like “because the Church says so” answers. I think you can admit that Mary’s perpetual virginity is possible even if you think it is very improbable. All discrepancies between someone’s personal interpretation and the Church all come down to this: authority. Do you believe the Church was established by Jesus and that it cannot teach error? Did He give us a teacher, or did he just give us the book and say “go figure it out,” even when most people throughout history couldn’t read and mass production of Bibles couldn’t happen until the printing press was invented in the middle of the second millenium. If you believe he did give us a teacher and that He would not let her deceive us, then you will have no problem accepting the authority of the Church’s teaching. If not, then that is where you need to start your search and build from there.

God bless

Hi Genesis315,

I’m afraid that the Proevangelium of James, a apocryphal writing, deals with the virginal birth rather than the perpetual virginity of Mary.

There are three doctrines concerning Mary’s virginity: ante partum (virginal conception), in partum (virginal birth, ie the hymen was not ruptured), and ante partum ( perpetual virginity).

The Protoevangelium conflicts with a number of Jewish practices. But I like the part of the bird flying out of Joseph’s staff and the mountain swallowing up Elizabeth and John the Baptist!

And since it can be evidenced that the Church has taught error in the past, I believe that it has and can teach error.

I’m not really that gullible, a “true beliver” who has to accept all of the party line, nor do I indulge 'let’s pretend" to avoid realities. Sorry.:ehh:

LittleLes

 

[Genesis315]

LittleLes:

Hi Genesis315,

And since it can be evidenced that the Church has taught error in the past, I believe that it has and can teach error.

I’m not really that gullible, a “true beliver” who has to accept all of the party line, nor do I indulge 'let’s pretend" to avoid realities. Sorry.:ehh:

LittleLes

I challenge you to show where it has taught error. This might be good for its own thread. I’ll start one. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=48654

 

[FCEGM]

There is no evidence in Scripture that Mary had other children. The references to Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” fall apart once one contrasts the list of “brothers” in Matthew and Mark with the Cross/Tomb accounts of these Gospels. Two of Jesus’ so-called “brothers” (James and Joseph) obviously have a different mother than Jesus does. Therefore, the Gospels cannot be using the word “brother” literally. Rather, they are referring to Jesus’ tribal relatives - members of His extended family, with whom He was raised.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin is in no way an implication that sex and marriage are anything less than what God designed them to be. Contrary to the usual either-or thinking found in Protestantism, Catholicism has always said that it’s both/and, and this is seen in the Church’s teaching re the Virgin Mary.

In her person she mirrors the two truths of the sacredness of marriage and the goodness of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom. And St. Joseph, too, was part of this equation. He with Mary reflects these truths. The self-sacrifice of rightful joys for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God - especially with God’s own Son in their midst! - is a theme found in both Testaments.

St. Paul himself speaks with encouragement for wives and husbands to practice periods of continence in order for their prayer to flourish (1 Cor. 6:17). He also wishes that some would be as he and live a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom. And, of course, there is the life of the Savior Who is the Exemplar of the celibate life

In considering the life of Mary we often find among non-Catholics (and some Catholics) a judging of higher things - indeed Divine Mystery - by lower things, the ordinary working of humanity, rather than the reverse. God is Holy, and anything else that is holy is such by a special relation to God making that holy. Thus creation is not holy although it is good; it is made out of nothing and not out of the substance of God. Marriage is made holy by the Sacrament of Matrimony; otherwise it is very good and special. By Mary’s womb being physically touched by the Body of God the Son, there is a special relation of her womb to God far beyond the goodness of married love, which is intended by God for intimate love of spouses and the creation of new life.

To use the now holy womb which contained the God-Man for another lower but very good purpose would be totally inappropriate, just as to use the chalice at Mass for drinking one’s soda at lunch. Why? Because it would profane what is sacred and what has only a Divine use.

Now the plan for the Blessed Mother in marrying St. Joseph was holy and not just natural and therefore not just naturally good. The holiness of Mary’s body having this special relationship to God the Son was to be respected by her husband, as her vocation was not to become anyone’s wife and mother, but to become the Mother of God. Marriage is good and special; Christian Marriage is sacred by the grace of Christ, but its purpose in being sacred is to elevate Marriage to the level of being able to sanctify the participants. Mary was sanctified from conception in order to be a fitting dwelling place for God the Son Incarnate. Her special vocation thus precludes the good but lesser vocation of natural marriage and even the sanctified Christian marriage which is to provide a means of sanctifying the spouses; Mary, already sanctified, did not need this lesser means of sanctification, lesser, that is, in comparison with the graces of sanctification given at her Conception and subsequent pregnancy. St. Joseph, however, was sanctified by the marriage to Mary, especially in sacrificing his personal needs in order to safeguard and support his Most Holy Wife. One does not profane (treat as ordinary) such holiness.

The virginal birth of Christ points to a miraculous conception (that His Father by Nature is God, not a man) by the Holy Spirit (indicating the Trinity of Divine Persons); that Mary had no more children indicates Christ is different in some essential way from all other humans. If she had had other children, there would be absolutely no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin, i.e, that He was God the Son become Man. Thus the Perpetual Virginity safeguards the specialness of Jesus as born miraculously, which safeguards His special conception, which manifests His Eternal Pre-Existence. So there is a “logic” to the Incarnation of God as Man.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

We need to understand more fully this “logic” of the Divine Incarnation. The Man Jesus is claimed to be a Divine Person, always having existed eternally with His Father, Who descended to become a man. His conception must manifest this (He can not have a human father); thus the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and making from the flesh of Mary a Conceptus. Mary’s Virginity guarantees that He has no human father (St. Joseph being a foster father and guardian) but only a Divine Father.

Also, we must consider prayerfully the religious distinction between the sacred and the profane or ordinary. Something sacred is set apart from the ordinary only for Divine use or purpose. Mary’s womb is the sacred “chalice” containing the Divine Humanity of God the Son; her womb is to be used only for that special purpose - because of the HOLINESS of God. (Remember God in the Judeo-Christian understanding is different from His creation; and holiness is the attribute of this difference.) So there is a religious “logic” of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for divine use or purpose; therefore never for ordinary use. (Another example: the cloths used at Mass separated from ordinary use as table cloths or napkins.) It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.

Thus there are at least two sets of reasons for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The first is the One just mentioned: the Holiness of Mary’s womb to be used for no other purpose but a thoroughly Divine one, never to be desecrated by ordinary use or purpose. The Second is the manifesting of the Special Divine origin of her Child. If she had other children the ordinary way, of course, then why wouldn’t her first be just a human with a human father like His brothers and sisters?! He must be a unique son of Mary to manifest being a unique Son of God the Father, having no human biological father. Thus the miraculous Virginal Birth (like the Risen Body passing through the walls He will have at the Resurrection).

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is impossible to establish by reason or logic alone. But IF God became a man called Jesus Christ having brothers and sisters would be so unsuitable to His holiness shaped by His Mother, and so unsuitable to manifesting His Divine origin as to be practically unrealizable. The Scriptures do not teach she had other children, nor does the Tradition. The reference to Christ’s brothers is therefore to be taken another way, as the linguistic analysis (with the Greek used as it was in the Septuagint) supports anyway: his extended family members, the clan members with whom He was raised.

 

[BoondockRev]

Genesis315:

I’m glad you think so, but the fact that there are thousands of denominations based on the Bible says otherwise. That’s why that Ethiopian guy needed help reading Scripture.

Here’s a question for you: why did Mary have to go live with John? “Behold your mother.” Did her other kids just ditch her?

hey not being sarcastic or anything, but mind if you find me those scriptures on whether or not she did go live with John after the cruxificion. Also, if she did, was it temporary while they were in Jerusalem or if it was permanent was it out of respect for Jesus’ words. Also where the heck is Joseph? Mary’s Joseph, he basically vanishes off the scene after Jesus is born.

and honestly what would be wrong with Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus? Its not exactly “consecration” of a holy vessel. Technically ALL of us are Holy vessels:
1 Corinthians 6:19
(19)Or don’t you know that yoru body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.

 

[Ignatius]

GerardPaul:

My free church fellowship friend said that in Matthew 1 when it states that Joseph did not KNOW Mary untill after Jesus birth directly implies sexual relations. What say you?
Jeffrey

I had a uncle with a drinking problem. He finally quit and did not drink again until he died. What do you think that means, that he started drinking again after he died? What do you say?

 

[Kurt_G]

BoondockRev:

hey not being sarcastic or anything, but mind if you find me those scriptures on whether or not she did go live with John after the cruxificion…

Here’s that verse you asked for:
John 19:27 “And from that hour the disciple took her into his home”.

BoondockRev:

Also, if she did, was it temporary while they were in Jerusalem or if it was permanent was it out of respect for Jesus’ words…

Early Christian history later places Mary with John, in Ephesus.
Also, you mention John’s “respect”, which I feel is an understatement. I would call it “obedience” to Jesus’ command…

Also, this conversation, as Jesus is dying on the cross, should not be taken as “private family filler material”, so to speak. The words recorded in John’s Gospel are for our salvation, and there are not any “filler” passages. It’s all important to us even today…

Therefore, John represents us Christians today (you and me and all of us). That makes us all children of Mary, as Jesus said to Mary “Behold your son” in reference to John.

BoondockRev:

Also where the heck is Joseph? Mary’s Joseph, he basically vanishes off the scene after Jesus is born.

Well, not quite that soon… Luke 2:48 recounts his “parents” worried and finding 12 year old Jesus in the Temple after missing 3 days. Most everyone I have read, Catholic and Protestant alike, assume that Joseph had died some time after Jesus was 12…

BoondockRev:

and honestly what would be wrong with Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus? Its not exactly “consecration” of a holy vessel. Technically ALL of us are Holy vessels:
1 Corinthians 6:19
(19)Or don’t you know that yoru body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.

But ALL of us have not carried the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity in our womb for 9 months… ALL of us have not given birth to the same God who created all of the universe! Mary is the holiest creation in all of the entire history of the universe, angels included, for that very reason.

I think folks who just want to see her as “another ordinary mom” are not being honest with themselves over who her Son really is!

Gee, we could go on and on about the OT types for her (Ark of the Covenant, etc.) but this post is already too long, I know!

GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[Tom]

fredrock:

Hi,

I would be interested in knowing the Scriptures that would have prohibited the sexual union between a husband and wife as it relates to Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. I heard a mention of the Mosaic Law, but nothing was cited. Thanks in advance.

In His Service,
Fredrock

The reference is in the book of Numbers, I don’t have my bible here right now, but start around chapter 29 and read thru 30, It’s there. Mary was under a vow of celibacy prior to her coming into Josephs house as his wife, he knew of this vow (Matthew chap 1) and accepted her under this vow, for him to break the vow after he took her into his house would have been a violation of the Law.

 

[bloodwater]

There is more then one verse about this dudes. Mary wasn’t a virgin all her life, it’s just logic. What kind of a man is joseph to wait around like that.

 

[Church_Militant]

bloodwater:

There is more then one verse about this dudes. Mary wasn’t a virgin all her life, it’s just logic. What kind of a man is joseph to wait around like that.

A very old and righteous man. He was a much older widower and the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually step- children of a mother who had already died.

 

[adstrinity]

bloodwater:

There is more then one verse about this dudes. Mary wasn’t a virgin all her life, it’s just logic. What kind of a man is joseph to wait around like that.

Did you not read the Mosaic Law post in this thread?

Provide the verses…ALL of them.

Mary WAS a virgin all her life, it’s just history.

WAIT!!! Are you saying that one isn’t a real man UNTIL/unless he has sex? It sounds like you’re putting Joseph down. AND, to wait around like what? It’s not like he EVER had sex with the Virgin. What kind of man are you to pass judgement?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

adstrinity:

Mary WAS a virgin all her life, it’s just history.

Says you, because the Church says so, after many years of hand wringing they determined it.

It is an article of faith that Mary was a virgin all her life, not “just history.”

WAIT!!! Are you saying that one isn’t a real man UNTIL/unless he has sex? It sounds like you’re putting Joseph down. AND, to wait around like what? It’s not like he EVER had sex with the Virgin. What kind of man are you to pass judgement?

You have to admit it is not very normal for a married man to fail to consummate the marriage. These days that could be grounds for annulment, can it not? For that matter, can we even say they were truly married? If not then Joseph may have been a “real man” but not a real husband.

Also, I hope Joseph’s wedding didn’t have some of the lines I hear in modern Catholic weddings about being blessed with children and children’s children.

Alan

 

[fredrock]

FCEGM:

IF God became a man called Jesus Christ having brothers and sisters would be so unsuitable to His holiness shaped by His Mother, and so unsuitable to manifesting His Divine origin as to be practically unrealizable.

Hi,

Christ, with ten thousand brothers and sisters does not suffer the distinction of being unsuitable and His Divine origin is not unrealizable to those who love Him.

Lots of words being said, but where is the praise and glory due JESUS!

In His Service,
Fredrock

 

[fredrock]

Tom:

The reference is in the book of Numbers, I don’t have my bible here right now, but start around chapter 29 and read thru 30, It’s there. Mary was under a vow of celibacy prior to her coming into Josephs house as his wife, he knew of this vow (Matthew chap 1) and accepted her under this vow, for him to break the vow after he took her into his house would have been a violation of the Law.

Hi,

I looked over Numbers 30.

A couple things,

First, Mary was under a command of celibacy not a vow, as are every other unmarried people in the sight of God.

Secondly, Joseph was contemplating wether to have her stoned to death which was the command of God, for she appeared to him to be an adultress, ( Read Deuteronomy Chapter 23) or to become a law breaker himself and give her a secret divorce that would spare her life because of his love for her. Since he was a just man he seemed to be conflicted by believing the amazing story that Mary no doubt had told him or the alternitive, that she had sinned. This is when the angel appeared to him in his sleep and told him to not be affraid to take Mary as his wife. Matthew 1:18-24

This could hardly be considered an acceptance of the alledged vow you speak of. Instead it was the angel of the Lord who confirmed this to Joseph and he accepted it as a blessing and the will of God…

Incidently, verse 25 says that Joseph did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son (implying other sons, four infact.

In His Service,
Fredrock