Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[Rightlydivide]

Mat 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

John 7:3-5 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.** For neither did his brethren believe in him.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

Look at the plain and clear meaning of this text. We have already quoted verses that show that something changes after the use of the word till

So lets look at the verse again;

Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

He took her as his wife
So obviously what about him having sex with her after this?
No of course not. The prophecy is a virgin shall give birth, so Matthew obviously had to point out they never had sex till she gave birth.
The Catholic interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why stop at the giving birth part?
The fact is this verse does not say what you want it to say no matter how hard you try.
The funny thing is some of the people reading this KNOW this and they KNOW this is also supposed to be an infallible teaching…

 

[Cleopas]

Wow, Jimmy B,

You certainly jump through the hoops to make your arguments. Not to mention you have mastered the “yell loud enough and long enough and you’ll at least appear correct” technique.

Please forgive us lowly “separated” brethren, on whom Christ has likewise had mercy. We are not worthy to kneel in contrition and pray in the presence of your chest thumping superiority – You who are so much better than us for whom Christ died as well.

We know your arguments. You make the same one’s over, and over, and over again. Why is it that you will not objectively engage other’s arguments?

You obviously can categorically dismiss them and then repeat the same argument you’ve already essentially made. BUT – Can you actually dialog on the opposing view, and the merit or lack thereof of the argument presented? Or is this the end of your ability to reason?

Come man, let iron sharpen iron.

 

[LilyM]

Look at the plain and clear meaning of this text. We have already quoted verses that show that something changes after the use of the word till

So lets look at the verse again;

Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

He took her as his wife
So obviously what about him having sex with her after this?
No of course not. The prophecy is a virgin shall give birth, so Matthew obviously had to point out they never had sex till she gave birth.
The Catholic interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why stop at the giving birth part?
The fact is this verse does not say what you want it to say no matter how hard you try.
The funny thing is some of the people reading this KNOW this and they KNOW this is also supposed to be an infallible teaching…

The Catholic interpretation makes perfect sense. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, bearing within her the fulfilment of the Law as the OT ark had Moses’ tablets, bearing within her the Bread of Life as the OT ark bore the Manna, bearing within her the divine High Priest as the OT Ark bore within it Aaron’s staff.

God Himself was present in incarnate form within her womb for nine months. Joseph also knew this. If you knew anything about Jewish beliefs - this made her a vessel of God. Untouchable as the OT Ark was untouchable, remember Uzziah who died for touching it?

As for the posters who have said it doesn’t matter - of course it matters. It is dogmatic belief for Catholics precisely because it DOES matter, in view of who Jesus is.

Jesus is God. As God, He sanctifies everything He touches and every place where He dwells, even the burning bush before which Moses had to take off His sandals, and Bethel where Joseph set up a stone to mark the spot where he dreamed - even though he ONLY dreamed of God, didn’t behold Him face to face!

If Mary wasn’t rendered special, didn’t become the Ark of the New Covenant, didn’t become a living Temple or Tabernacle of God’s presence in the same way, then the son she bore in Jesus was not truly God.

And who said Mary wasn’t the spouse of the Holy Spirit? What other relation do you suggest the Holy Spirit had with her then? She DID conceive Jesus through the Spirit, there was a very real and unique interaction between the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin, the result being a child. Sure sounds like a spousal relationship to me, albeit not a physical one. I hope you’re not suggesting that God would ever lay this sort of bodily claim on a woman who was in fact truly espoused, or even engaged, to another!

 

[Cleopas]

The Catholic interpretation makes perfect sense. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, bearing within her the fulfilment of the Law as the OT ark had Moses’ tablets, bearing within her the Bread of Life as the OT ark bore the Manna, bearing within her the divine High Priest as the OT Ark bore within it Aaron’s staff.

God Himself was present in incarnate form within her womb for nine months. Joseph also knew this. If you knew anything about Jewish beliefs - this made her a vessel of God. Untouchable as the OT Ark was untouchable, remember Uzziah who died for touching it?

If you know Jewish belief and custom, then surely you know that the Father/Husband is the head of the home and the priest of the family?

Priests were permitted to touch the ark, in accord with their prescribed duties. Joesph, as Mary’s husband had full prerogative (divinely given I might add) to touch Mary in any way that a husband may touch a wife.

And who said Mary wasn’t the spouse of the Holy Spirit? What other relation do you suggest the Holy Spirit had with her then? She DID conceive Jesus through the Spirit, there was a very real and unique interaction between the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin, the result being a child. Sure sounds like a spousal relationship to me, albeit not a physical one. God certainly doesn’t lay any sort of claim on another man’s wife or even his betrothed!

I said it.

You would make the Holy Spirit an adulterer and/or fornicator? I know that is not your intent. However, that is the only logical conclusion. Scripture plainly declares that Mary was the wife of Joseph. If she was taken by the Spirit in the way a wife is taken by her spouse, then sense Joseph was her husband whoever acted the spouse’s part would be guilty of adultery.

Not to mention this reeks of the cultic belief held by a pseudo-Christian sect that God had physical relations with Mary in causing her to conceive.

Did Mary conceive by the miraculous intervention of th Spirit of God? Yes. Did Mary and the Spirit have sexual and/or marital union? No. That would be absurd.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Catholic interpretation makes perfect sense. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, bearing within her the fulfilment of the Law as the OT ark had Moses’ tablets, bearing within her the Bread of Life as the OT ark bore the Manna, bearing within her the divine High Priest as the OT Ark bore within it Aaron’s staff.

Another Catholic not interacting with the BIble but inventing a term NEVER once associated with her in Holy Scripture.

God Himself was present in incarnate form within her womb for nine months. Joseph also knew this. If you knew anything about Jewish beliefs - this made her a vessel of God. Untouchable as the OT Ark was untouchable, remember Uzziah who died for touching it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

God’s Holy inspired word Lily:
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost

 

[LaMar]

Nope. Sure can’t. There’s no historical evidence suggesting that Jesus ever existed either. Once you establish Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc. as historical characters, then we can look for proof of siblings.

 

[LilyM]

God’s Holy inspired word Lily:
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost

Fear not to go through the ceremony of marriage with her and live in the same house with her, yes. According to the Bible they did so for a minimum of nine months, so clearly it wasn’t sexual relations that made it a marriage And no reason why they had to at any stage HAVE sexual relations for it to be a marriage.

Consider this - Joseph was planning to repudiate her utterly. Why? Because he knew that Another had prior claim on her, which must be the case if she was bearing a child not of Joseph. He just thought it must be another human and not the Almighty Himself.

And what about Mary’s reaction to the angel? She says ‘how can this be, I know no man.’ As a female myself, I can tell you NO engaged woman would hear that she was to bear a son - who, remember, she hadn’t yet been told would be divinely conceived - and say ‘how can it happen’? Engaged women KNOW how babies are made! MARY knew how babies were made - you need a man, as she says to the Angel.

If Mary and Joseph were expecting, in the normal course of events, to consummate the marriage, with resulting children, she would’ve wondered how a child of herself and Joseph could be the son of God perhaps, but she wouldn’t have been wondering how the child would be conceived.

Fact is she and Joseph were planning a celibate marriage.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Wow, Jimmy B,

You certainly jump through the hoops to make your arguments. Not to mention you have mastered the “yell loud enough and long enough and you’ll at least appear correct” technique.

Please forgive us lowly “separated” brethren, on whom Christ has likewise had mercy. We are not worthy to kneel in contrition and pray in the presence of your chest thumping superiority – You who are so much better than us for whom Christ died as well.

We know your arguments. You make the same one’s over, and over, and over again. Why is it that you will not objectively engage other’s arguments?
You obviously can categorically dismiss them and then repeat the same argument you’ve already essentially made. BUT – Can you actually dialog on the opposing view, and the merit or lack thereof of the argument presented? Or is this the end of your ability to reason?

Come man, let iron sharpen iron.

Maybe…Hello Cleopas, you are soooo right and based on your 128 words here and not a single Bible verse, I am going to abandon my Catholic faith and stop defending the Catholic Church…where do I go to sign up to be with the other “separated bretheren”?

You know I’m kidding right? Oh…I mean…you know I’m kidding right… I don’t want to yell…shhhhh.

I don’t know if your comments were meant to insult…but I kind of liked em and I thought they were funny…

I look forward to more of your posts here but try to include some Bible verses… or something, next time…I can work with this stuff… :doh2:

Peace :extrahappy:

 

[Cleopas]

Fear not to go through the ceremony of marriage with her and live in the same house with her, yes. According to the Bible they did so for a minimum of nine months, so clearly it wasn’t sexual relations that made it a marriage And no reason why they had to at any stage HAVE sexual relations for it to be a marriage.

Yet, under Jewish ceremony the moment they were espoused they were already man and wife. The charge to take her unto your home was an instruction to end the period of separation (aka espousal). In Jewish custom at the conclusion of the espousal period the man would by taking the wife back into his home, in the midst of great festivities, consummating the union by intercourse, and then partaking of the marriage supper.

The writer stresses the lack of intercourse in this case to remove any question about the virginity of Mary in carrying and birthing Jesus.

As had already been said, despite the possible varied intentions of the use of till, the context or setting of the declaration lends itself more strongly to explaining why Joseph temporarily abstained from intercourse with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

It is possible He did so throughout the union, but it is not very probable. The passages can only be used to come to this conclusion if one reads into it a preconceived idea.The natural flow of the text does not evoke any understanding of a marital vow including celibacy.

If Joseph was physically unable to be with Mary in that way, that would be different. But to require it of a husband is directly opposed to numerous instructions and implications of Scripture regarding the sacredness, place, and import of sex in marriage.

Consider this - Joseph was planning to repudiate her utterly. Why? Because he knew that Another had prior claim on her, which must be the case if she was bearing a child not of Joseph. He just thought it must be another human and not the Almighty Himself.

Not at all! He was going to divorce her, and privately,l because he wished to see no harm befall her. But the reason was not because he felt someone else had a claim on her. It was because he assumed she had been unfaithful to the marriage vows taken on the commencement of their espousal

And what about Mary’s reaction to the angel? She says ‘how can this be, I know no man.’ As a female myself, I can tell you NO engaged woman would hear that she was to bear a son - who, remember, she hadn’t yet been told would be divinely conceived - and say ‘how can it happen’? Engaged women KNOW how babies are made! MARY knew how babies were made - you need a man, as she says to the Angel.

If Mary and Joseph were expecting, in the normal course of events, to consummate the marriage, with resulting children, she would’ve wondered how a child of herself and Joseph could be the son of God perhaps, but she wouldn’t have been wondering how the child would be conceived.

Fact is she and Joseph were planning a celibate marriage.

But she wasn’t merely engaged. She was espoused – the espoused WIFE of Joseph. An espoused bride was just as married as another wife. Albeit she was in a period of chastity and separation from her husband. An espoused Jewish bride had no idea when her husband would return for her, but was obliged to remain faithful and ready for his return any day.

This equally, and indeed given the context and historical customs of the people of Israel, is a much more likely understanding of Mary’s bewilderment at the angel’s declaration.

She was married, and had not known her husband yet. She knew not when she would know him, and she had no intention of cheating on him. Thus she wold have wondered how then she could conceive and bare a child while espoused.

 

[Cleopas]

based on your 128 words here and not a single Bible verse, I am going to abandon my Catholic faith and stop defending the Catholic Church…

No one has suggested you should. I didn’t ask you to leave your church or your faith.

Rather I questioned your ability to actually reason with others and their perspectives. You like to incite discussion that deal with the differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians and churches. Yet, you remain unwilling to actually try to engage the arguments you solicited, unless they fall within a systematic Q&A rebuttal system you have practically committed to memory?

When Believers brings up a point outside of that comfort zone you just spin the discussion back to it, crying foul in the name of Catholicism. My query is why will you not more readily actually engage the presented argument itself?

where do I go to sign up to be with the other “separated bretheren”?

Friend there is only one book to get your name in – the Lamb’s book of life. All of us who are believers are in it. Those who are not, are none of His. That book does not separate us. In it we are the universal body of all believers in Christ.

 

[Jimmy_B]

… Yet, you remain unwilling to actually try to engage the arguments you solicited…,
.

Hi Chris,

If not being able to be “engaged” means, that I am unwilling to agree with you, when you argue against Catholicism, then yes, you are correct, I am unwilling to “engage” in that way… or in anyway that will compromise my beliefs.

You have posted four posts here on this thread and not a single Bible verse. I don’t want to have a personal discussion with you…Chris, although, I am sure you are a nice guy…I don’t care what your personal opinions are when it comes to Christianity, or my Christian beliefs, especially when I know they are inconsistent with Catholicism and with the Bible.

If you can credibly defend your positions, then do so, but do not criticize others here because some might not agree with Chris… and not be interested in your personal opinions. Most of my posts here, have been Bible verses…do you have a problem with the use of “Scripture” in a “religious” discussion? How shall we continue…should I consider the “Sacred tradition” according to Chris? Are you “Infallible”?

I hope that you can appreciate my point here.

Aren’t you acting out-side the Bible when you make “Christian” arguments and do not specifically cite a single Bible verse? Doesn’t that fall into the realm of “Sacred tradtition” on your part?

Please show me, why you reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and why you “believe” that Jesus actually had biological brothers, using the Bible or some other reliable source and not your own personal opinions, thank you…

I look forward to your posts…

Peace

 

[LilyM]

But she wasn’t merely engaged. She was espoused – the espoused WIFE of Joseph. An espoused bride was just as married as another wife. Albeit she was in a period of chastity and separation from her husband. An espoused Jewish bride had no idea when her husband would return for her, but was obliged to remain faithful and ready for his return any day.

This equally, and indeed given the context and historical customs of the people of Israel, is a much more likely understanding of Mary’s bewilderment at the angel’s declaration.

She was married, and had not known her husband yet. She knew not when she would know him, and she had no intention of cheating on him. Thus she wold have wondered how then she could conceive and bare a child while espoused.

She had no idea when he would return for her? Preposterous - it’s not like he was a soldier or sailor off in some foreign country, or a merchant having to try to sell his goods before he knew how much money he’d have, or something.

All they had to wait for was for him to build the house they were to live in. Which, being they weren’t going to live in some grand palace or anything, would hardly have taken long at all. And being they were in a tiny town like Nazareth she could hardly fail to be aware of exactly how he was progressing, and exactly when it was going to be ready!

In any event, you haven’t addressed the central point - the angel told her she was going to have a son. He didn’t, at first, tell her that it wouldn’t be Joseph’s or that it would be divinely conceived, nor that she would conceive prior to their marriage.

‘You will bear a son’ is all Gabriel said - what’s to say it wouldn’t happen in five or ten years? Sarah was told she would bear Isaac a year before it happened. Abraham, on the other hand, was told about it ten or fifteen years beforehand, before the birth of Ishmael even.

Remember too, no virgin had ever given birth before, so she wasn’t thinking of a virgin birth. Her mention of her virginity proves that she wasn’t thinking of that particular prophecy of Isaiah’s at all.

She was certainly thinking of NATURAL conception, as her remark about knowing no man proves. In the normal course of events, it would go absolutely without saying that she would expect to be consummating the marriage with Joseph - whether in the near future or at a later date - and bear children to him.

And given no date was mentioned for the child’s coming, neither was a virgin birth mentioned at first, she would expect and assume the child to be born would be naturally conceived, and with Joseph. She simply wouldn’t have even asked the question about how she would conceive IF she was planning to consummate their marriage, at whatever date in the future it was to happen.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If you notice in Matthew 13:55-56 -
55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"

“is he not the carpenter’s (Joseph’s) son”.​

And in Mark 6:2-4
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! 3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”​

As previously stated, as Christians, we know that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus; God is the Father of Jesus. Mary conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
==+
Apparently, the ones making the comments in Mathew 13:55, the “non-believers”, did not know Jesus or His family very well, much like the “non-believers” today, who believe that “Jesus had (biological) brothers”, do not know His family very well.​

If one were to accept Matthew 13:55, literally, using the same flawed logic and by taking this verse out of context, one would have to reject the Virgin Birth and the fact that Mary conceived Jesus by the Power of the Holy Spirit. One would then, be rejecting Christianity itself.
+
If one were to believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus, and not God, then he would be in error and is not, by definition a Christian. However, one could, in error, use this same verse, Matthew 13:53 , if taken literally and out of context (the same way that many “Protestants” use this verse today to assert that, “Jesus had biological brothers”) to assert that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. This too would be in error, because we know that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus.
+
Furthermore, if Mary had other biological children, where were they when Jesus was crucified?​

It would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of Mary, at the foot of the Cross, especially when, James the “brother of the Lord” was alive in 49 AD (Galatians 1:19), he should have taken care of her.
+
Remember; if Mary was a virgin (which she was) when she conceived Jesus, then all of Jesus’ siblings would have been younger than Him, and presumed to still be alive when Jesus was crucified, yet not one of his so-called biological “brothers or sisters” were there at the foot of His cross! If that was the case, surely it would have been commented on in the Bible, as Peter’s denial was (John 18:12-27).

Finally, If one were to interpret John 19:26-27, using the same flawed logic that some use to interpret Mathew 13:55, then one could also assert (in error) that John 19 ‘proves that “Jesus had biological brothers” and that John was a biological brother of Jesus and we know that he was not. In fact, this would actually be a “stronger” argument because the words in John 19 are attributed to Jesus. Neither argument makes and senses what so ever, when compared with the rest of the Bible and viewed and understood in context.

John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Mathew 13:55
55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

 

[Cleopas]

If you notice in Matthew 13:55-56 -
55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"

“is he not the carpenter’s (Joseph’s) son”.​

And in Mark 6:2-4
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! 3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”​

As previously stated, as Christians, we know that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus; God is the Father of Jesus. Mary conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
==+
Apparently, the ones making the comments in Mathew 13:55, the “non-believers”, did not know Jesus or His family very well, much like the “non-believers” today, who believe that “Jesus had (biological) brothers”, do not know His family very well.

That is a denial of the very record of the gospel writers. These people, who watched Jesus grow up, knew him and his family very well. To the world around Him, even the closest of neighbors, Christ was the son of Joseph. Indeed, for all practical intents and purposes he was the son of Joseph. Biologically? No. But then his miraculous conception and birth does not lend itself to easy explanation.And most of His own were not willing to receive the truth of His other worldly origins.

=
If one were to accept Matthew 13:55, literally, using the same flawed logic and by taking this verse out of context, one would have to reject the Virgin Birth and the fact that Mary conceived Jesus by the Power of the Holy Spirit. One would then, be rejecting Christianity itself.

That’s a bit of a stretch friend. We can trust the divinely inspired authors included this bit of information to let us in on the perceived origins and family relations of Jesus. They did not include it to deny His miraculous conception. So, again, your conclusion is a stretch.

Furthermore, if Mary had other biological children, where were they when Jesus was crucified?

I don’t know.The Scripture does not say.

What it does say is that His siblings did not believe on Him during His pre-ressurection ministry.

John 7:3-5
*His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.For neither did his brethren believe in him. *

However, according to the apostle Paul, post resurrection He appeared to various individuals. At least one of them was His brother James.

1 Corinthians 15:7
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

c’tnd in next post …

 

[Cleopas]

c’tnd.

=
It would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of Mary, at the foot of the Cross, especially when, James the “brother of the Lord” was alive in 49 AD (Galatians 1:19), he should have taken care of her.

It may indeed have been strange. But that’s what He did. To argue from this there were no brothers is to deny the plain declaration of Scripture to the contrary.

Remember; if Mary was a virgin (which she was) when she conceived Jesus, then all of Jesus’ siblings would have been younger than Him, and presumed to still be alive when Jesus was crucified, yet not one of his so-called biological “brothers or sisters” were there at the foot of His cross! If that was the case, surely it would have been commented on in the Bible, as Peter’s denial was (John 18:12-27).

It was. See the references above. Up until the time of His resurrection His brothers had not believed on Him. After the resurrection, at least one, and by the implication of the gospel writer all, of His brothers came to believe in Him.

55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Indeed, He was the legal son of Joseph, though mistakenly believed to be the biological son of Joseph (understandably). Therefore, per this same gospel writer’s pen, Jesus had brothers.

 

[Righteousone]

It does, I am & I do - sorry.​

---

If Jesus did not have genuine siblings, that takes away half the point of the passages in which He contrasts His family relationships, with those which are created by doing the Will of His Father in Heaven.

You are distorting the truth here for all non-Catholics. You must be in disguise but won’t admit it.

 

[Righteousone]

Furthermore, Jesus was Divine! He came for one reason and one purpose only. HE HAD NO BROTHERS AND SISTERS. Geez…I have some swamp land for you to buy in florida…

 

[emeraldcoast]

Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

How does this scripture work with Mary remaining a virgin? Why would Mary and Joseph, a devout Jewish couple, ignore the Jewish tradition that believes that marital sex strengthens the bond between a couple? Mary and Joseph would have also been aware of what Genesis 1:28 states, “Be fruitful and multiply”.

Do I need to list Jesus’ brothers for you here? Open your Bibles and it will be clear to you that Jesus did have brothers. Biblical and other evidence shows that Mary and Joseph were, in many ways, a conventional Jewish couple of their time and place, and seeing them in that way helps puts Jesus’ life and experiences in context. Would a sexless marriage be the happy relationship that God intends to portray as an ideal?
God Bless!