Jesus had siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roy5 said:
Why do so many Christians, including some Protestants, seem to rate virginity higher than faithful motherhood within the marital relationship?
Click to expand...
Because the Bible says so?
I would think no less of Mary, nor should anyone, if she and Joseph had sexual relations.
Click to expand...
Neither would, for example, St. Jerome, who writes in his tract on the perpetual virginity of Mary, “I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage.”

Our opinions of virginity and marriage are not a zero-sum game.
Actually, that is generally viewed as one of the joys as well as one of the duties of marriage. If the husband or wife consistently refuse, that is grounds for annulment of any marriage.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. If a marriage is valid, then it cannot later be invalidated if one person withholds the marital act from the other.
That is tied in with the sad notion of original sin. Frankly, I have trouble with that idea. You mean God - our just and merciful God - would bestow upon the unborn the burden of a sin already?
Click to expand...
Fortunately, God doesn’t “bestow” sin on anybody.
 
If Jesus had brothers or sisters, step brothers or sisters, why, when He was dying on the cross give His mother to His disciple John?
(Jn.19:26-27)
 
As to family members, the relationships are:

John, Jesus’s Beloved Apostle, is actually also Jesus’s first cousin on Joseph’s side of the family (the son of Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas, Cleophas being one of Joseph’s brothers). Mary had no other living blood relatives left at the time, so Jesus directed that his first cousin by marriage, her nephew, should be her son (caretaker).

Mary of Cleophas, present when this happened (although the spelling in the Bible verse quoted elsewhere is subject to error or translation), is actually not Mary’s sister, but her sister-in-law by marriage, see the above paragraph. Both women were the wives of the two brothers, Joseph and Cleophas.

Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, a blood relative, by her mother, Anne. Jesus and John the Baptist are second cousins. Had John the Baptist not already been martyred, Jesus would probably have entrusted His Mother in His care, her blood relative, as was the custom.

You have to understand that Jesus’s followers were many, many relatives, a very tight group, indeed! Is it any wonder that sometimes they questioned, doubted His teachings? They grew up with Him, after all! Imagine the confusion each revelation had for them, as they increased in understanding of their very unique time in history? Naturally, as they grew in understanding, they were His staunchest supporters, rallied around Him, to the end.

Mary went to spend the days of her confinement with Elizabeth, her cousin, because she had no other living blood relatives at the time. Both her parents had already passed, Saint Joachim in 4 B.C., and Saint Anne in 3 B.C. (Also in the textbook I have referenced, on Page 55.) This was done for Mary’s protection. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she was visited by the Holy Spirit and had accepted God’s Plan for her life. You must remember that had Joseph not accepted his role and not gone forward with the marriage and protected both Mary and the Savior of the World, the custom of the time dictated that she would have been stoned to death. You can now better understand why Joseph had such a hard time accepting that Mary was with Child: he knew that he and Mary both had already committed to lives of virginity, yes, even in a marriage! (It was done!) He loved her, he knew her well. The Angel’s visit to him gave him great relief and comfort, and he went ahead with the marriage, and now understood his role for all time, that they three would become The Holy Family, he would serve for all time as the adopted father of the Savior of the World.

A beautiful verse from this same text explains, at Page 60:

“Jesus was not adopted as a son by Joseph. Joseph was adopted as a father by Jesus.” It is important that we understand that Jesus’s creation in the womb by the Holy Spirit occured first, at the consent of the Virgin Mary.

It was only natural of Mary to ask “how this could be, since she did not know man”. She was not given an opportunity to consent with Joseph first, to ask if he was okay with it. She simply, beautifully, submitted, as the handmaiden of the Lord.

Now that you understand the background, can you now understand that there was no thought of any other children, ever, in the mix? Their roles were fixed for All Time, the Three of Them, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, The Holy Family. A one of a kind.

For those of you questioning my reference already given above in two prior posts, it is still available today online, at www.catholicism.org. There is much, much more to read in it than what I have given already. A must read! I’m sure they will verify their sources.

Clarifying the confusion and the disbelief of the Protestants, the cradle Catholics, and the uneducated,

🙂
 
Oh, sorry, got ahead of myself …

John, to whom Mary is entrusted, is actually Jesus’s second cousin. Remember in my earlier post I quoted that three of the apostles were Jesus’s first cousins, and two were His second cousins?

John, the Apostle whom Jesus Loved, is actually His second cousin, Mary’s great nephew, by marriage. This explains why he is always portrayed as being so young … he WAS!

Remember, in my earlier post, on Page 70:

" Saint Cleophas (Joseph’s brother) and Saint Mary of Cleophas had another son who was a saint, Saint Joseph Barsabas. And then there was their most beautiful daughter, Saint Mary Salome, who, though she did not marry a saint, had two great sons who were both saints and Apostles. These were Saint James the Greater and Saint John the Evangelist, the Beloved Disciple … ."

Mary of Cleophas, present at the Cross, is John’s grandmother.

I felt I owed it to you to correct my earlier misstatement. Thank you! 😊
 
BRZ said:
Mary made a vow to chastity for her life, do you honestly believe that someone who is deemed humble, and obedient would be willing to give up that vow so easily? She would never have married if she hadn’t gotten pregnant with Jesus and would have faced shame if Joseph had not become her husband. It makes perfect sense that she would not have sexual relations.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose one must first accept as fact that she took a lifetime vow of celibacy, which I find very difficult to believe.

She was already married! Jewish betrothal was far more than our idea of engagement. It was an actual, but incomplete, marriage. They were considered husband and wife, and if she had sex with another man, she would have been STONED. Not shamed, stoned until dead. If people thought she had had sex with Joseph, that was shameful, but not nearly so bad.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a lifetime vow of celibacy would have been completely alien to the ancient Jews. And you folks say that not only Mary vowed celibacy, but Joseph, too? Jewish law allowed the courts to force a man to marry if he was still single after the age of 20. Celibacy was illegal for men. Refusal to have sex with your wife was grounds for divorce.

Where does all this vow of chastity stuff come from, anyway? It seems quite alien to everything I can find about Jewish thinking, and Mary and Joseph - and Jesus - were Jews.
 
MarieCB said:
Well, I suppose one must first accept as fact that she took a lifetime vow of celibacy, which I find very difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
Marie, BRZ said a “vow of chastity”, not celibacy.
Where does all this vow of chastity stuff come from, anyway? It seems quite alien to everything I can find about Jewish thinking, and Mary and Joseph - and Jesus - were Jews.
Click to expand...
It comes from the words of the Blessed Virgin in the first chapter of Luke, “How can this be since I do not know man?” This article addresses this and the whole scriptural witness of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html

Regarding why this teaching is important:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

I also recommend this article regarding the applicable Jewish traditions:

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
 
FCEGM said:
Marie, BRZ said a “vow of chastity”, not celibacy.

It comes from the words of the Blessed Virgin in the first chapter of Luke, “How can this be since I do not know man?”
Click to expand...
Anyone is free to interpret that verse from Luke as Mary taking some vow, but there’s nothing about her taking a vow in the Gospel, and it’s not required by the Church to interpret it that way.

Cheers
 
Just one more thought, to further illustrate the point:

It was Joseph who “put Mary away”, until her time had passed. Earlier I explained that Mary could have been stoned, if he had not done so. This was because Mary and Joseph were already engaged when their roles to become the Holy Family were revealed to them. They were not yet married, nor were they living together. In fact, Mary was living at the temple from the time she was 3 years old, for 11 years, until their marriage. During that brief stint, she lived with Elizabeth, for her protection. The Jewish law held that Mary, engaged as she was to Joseph, by the revelation of the pregnancy, had committed adultery against him, and the punishment was death. Only Joseph could stop that from happening, by stepping up and taking her as his wife. Joseph questioned it, as stated earlier, distraught that Mary would have broken her vows, not only to him, but to God.

A very beautiful, true story, a most holy and moral man, the epitome of a loving man, a just man, Saint Joseph. The original Foster Father. A Most Perfect Example of men stepping up, not allowing anything horrific to happen to the women in their lives, and the unborn, regardless of whom the father might be. Does this resonate in our times? Wish it would. Was it MEANT to resonate for All Time? Probably.

Things to think about.😉
 
MarieCB said:
Well, I suppose one must first accept as fact that she took a lifetime vow of celibacy, which I find very difficult to believe.

She was already married! Jewish betrothal was far more than our idea of engagement. It was an actual, but incomplete, marriage. They were considered husband and wife, and if she had sex with another man, she would have been STONED. Not shamed, stoned until dead. If people thought she had had sex with Joseph, that was shameful, but not nearly so bad.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a lifetime vow of celibacy would have been completely alien to the ancient Jews. And you folks say that not only Mary vowed celibacy, but Joseph, too? Jewish law allowed the courts to force a man to marry if he was still single after the age of 20. Celibacy was illegal for men. Refusal to have sex with your wife was grounds for divorce.

Where does all this vow of chastity stuff come from, anyway? It seems quite alien to everything I can find about Jewish thinking, and Mary and Joseph - and Jesus - were Jews.
Click to expand...
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

As to the siblings thing, Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
 
shannyk said:
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.
Click to expand...
This information is fine for personal belief, but I think it’s important to make sure people understand it’s not taught by the Church and it’s not in Scripture. Mary’s response meant, first, that she was a virgin and so had not had sexual relations, so could not imagine how the could conceive. It need not have anything to do with her taking a perpetual vow (if she even did). Similarly, one can believe she was consecrated a Temple virgin, but that’s not required by Scripture or Magisterial Tradition. Ditto for the idea that Joseph was a virgin (wherever that comes from).

Cheers
 
And this is required for one to be Catholic?

Because the linguistic gymnastics aren’t convincing me. It seems completely appropriate for a young betrothed - and therefore virgin - Jewish girl to be surprised that the angel said she’s about to have a baby and to ask how exactly that’s supposed to happen.
 
Not sure which material you’re referring to, but much of what I’ve read is certainly NOT required for Catholic faith. I think your observation is right on target.

Cheers
 
SHW said:
If you are interested in finding out why Mary could not possibly be a carnal wife to Joseph: members.cox.net/studyhisword/ArkNewCovenant.pdf

The original Scriptures were not written in Greek, but the translations of the originals were.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Pax,
SHW
Click to expand...
Where does this first reference come from? It’s not Church teaching is it?

Also, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Or are you referring to the Old Testament?

Cheers
 
shannyk said:
She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.
Click to expand...
Do you have a Jewish reference to the idea of consecrated Temple virgins being an acceptable custom of the times? Because I can’t find anything like that. I know the Mesopotamians had women who were consecrated to the Temples of Sin and Ishtar, but the Jewish people did everything they could to distance themselves from Mesopotamian practices.

Diggerdomer - I was referring to this perpetual virginity stuff. That Jesus was conceived miraculously, and that his mother remained a virgin until his birth, I have no problem with. That she did not, after her ritual cleansing, have normal marital relations with her husband, or that Joseph (or his parents!!!) would have been okay with lifetime virginity, THAT I have a lot more trouble with, because it seems alien to everything I know about the Jews (ancient or modern!). And I can’t figure out this stuff about her being born without sin, or living in the Temple, or being some sort of vestal virgin before her marriage.
 
MarieCB said:
And this is required for one to be Catholic?

Because the linguistic gymnastics aren’t convincing me. It seems completely appropriate for a young betrothed - and therefore virgin - Jewish girl to be surprised that the angel said she’s about to have a baby and to ask how exactly that’s supposed to happen.
Click to expand...
It’s not linguistic gymnastics (which I personally am not a fan of either), it’s a matter of putting scripture into context for the place and time and the subject, and how the language was used and what things meant and to whom they were said.

The interpretations in my former post we’re not my own they are those that are generally accepted by Catholic biblical scholars and theologians who are experts, have a knowledge of the language and culture of the times.

As for what is required to become Catholic, that is another matter…these exact interpretations certainly aren’t required belief, they are deeper explanations of doctrine, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of those doctrine.
 
Thank you, SHW, and others, for your links.

It would be helpful if everyone would take several evenings to follow these back and study them, for they give numerous and complete Biblical references to most of the issues we have addressed.

The PROBLEM is that the Protestants and Jews cannot accept the seven Deuterocanonical books in the Bible, from which Jesus and the Apostles quoted. It is all explained in the links. A must read. You are not on an even playing field because you choose to disregard or disbelieve, and that is no excuse.

My brother tells this story: A man was driving down a country road, fell asleep at the wheel, and ran into a tree, rendering him unconscious. The officers arrived at the scene, and when the man awoke, they explained to him what had happened. He exclaimed, “That’s impossible! I don’t believe in trees!”

Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean you aren’t going to run right into it one day.

You simply will have to get up to speed and understand these books to discuss Catholic and Biblical theology on a Catholic forum. Until and unless you accept from Heaven these teachings, we will hold you in our hearts that one day the truth will be made known to you in Heaven, when all understanding will be made perfect. Until then, we believe it as a matter of personal responsibility to seek and learn the Truth. I am in a constant state of learning.

Love you,

🙂
 
MarieCB said:
That she did not, after her ritual cleansing, have normal marital relations with her husband, or that Joseph (or his parents!!!) would have been okay with lifetime virginity, THAT I have a lot more trouble with, because it seems alien to everything I know about the Jews (ancient or modern!). And I can’t figure out this stuff about her being born without sin, or living in the Temple, or being some sort of vestal virgin before her marriage.
Click to expand...
Hi MarieCB,

I wouldn’t worry about the living in the Temple or vestal virgin stuff. That’s not taught as part of the Catholic faith.

The two doctrines you refer to that ARE part of the Catholic faith are (1) the Immaculate Conception and (2) the perpetual virginity.

I’d say the first key to reflecting on these teachings dealing with Mary are to learn to view them as primarily being about Christ (which they are). If they were simply biological or sociological facts about Mary’s life, they wouldn’t be taught as truths of the faith. They would simply be data that scholars and so on could research and discuss and present evidence for and conclude whatever they were led to.

The real issue are the Christological beliefs that each doctrine flows from and refers back to. Both teachings have long and somewhat involved histories and devotions, but let me take a stab at some very brief thoughts:

Immaculate conception: As Mother of God, Mary was blessed by God to be free of original sin from the moment of her conception, i.e. Christ’s saving action was effective in that first instant.

perpetual virginity: not just as a physical state of celibacy, but as a spiritual disposition of fidelity, single-heartedness, and openness to God–the model disciple.

Hmm. Not sure that helps. Hope so.

Cheers
 
This is why I couldn’t read past the second page of Ann Rice’s novel about Christ. (“What, not this bit about brothers again?!”)
 
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Cant help thinking about, not the hundreds, the thousands of priest who as you say we should not reject, that are abusing our children, abusing women on the quiet, in the case of my parish priest at my first holy communion, running off with the housekeeper. As a catholic, whenever this subject would rear its ugly head, i would prepare myself for my non catholic friends who would have a field day. I looked on them with disdain, explaining that would it be the case that the whole british army was rotten to the core, and should be disbanded because of a well publicised child abuser arrested at the army barracks. But now that its abundantly clear that only the minority of priests have a real calling, are we just to pretend that all is well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top