Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Angelo_Michael]

It has not been my intention to argue with any certainty that Matthew 1:25 indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and/or children together but rather to provide a scriptural basis wherein some may have founded the notion that perhaps they did. I appreciate the efforts of Mannyfit75 in bringing clarity and expertise to the issue and for highlighting what I did not do so earlier: that the birth of a first born son is always a demarcated event in Judaism.
However, perhaps in my ignorance or laity, I have often correlated the aforementioned implications of Matthew chapter 1 with other scriptural parameters such as: the tenor of Christ toward his mother at the wedding at Cana (John 2:4), the contrasts Christ made between His mother and brothers pertaining to His flesh and His mother and brothers who indicate so by their performing/doing the will of God (Mark 31-35), the concept of the laborers being worthy of their reward-- in this case Joseph would have been worthy of his wife Mary as he effectively adopted and protected Christ, Christ’s teaching on abstinence and chastity as being a struggle too great for many and yet worth undertaking-- especially for those ‘to whom it is given’ (Matthew 19:10-12), and perhaps yet others; and have only yet begun to have heard anything of a perpetual virginity or absence of brothers.
Another thing I have noticed is that it is interesting that people are indicating that Christ’s family was unusual but my initial understanding is that it appeared normal to an outside observer and that Christ struggled to bear the burden of His humanity until He was glorified John chapter 17-- all).

P.S.:
A poster wrote that Christ was married and had children and referenced an excerpt of Isaiah. I understand that it could be misleading but I would indicate that Christ used the parable of the sower and the seed to indicate that the seed is the word and also Christ said that the flesh profits nothing, that it is the spirit that giveth life. Also both Christ and Isaiah promote chastity and abstinence. Christ led by example and His fleshly and spiritual family are not necessarily the same thing. In my opinion, Christ’s seed has become those who receive His words; that is to say: Christians.

 

[freedomwriter]

**Back then there was no engagement! They were married straight away, you are correct in saying that Joseph prepared a room or a house. Yes Mary was Joseph’s wife however she had a special role that God had prepared for her and that was to raise Jesus! St joseph understood this when it was revealed to him that Mary concieved of the holy spirit.

Here are some scripture passages to back this up:

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.
• Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
• John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.**

You have to remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time that he was crucified. That is why he left the apostle John as the caregiver of his mother.
That Joseph being married before is just plain silly. Matt 1:25 "He had no relations with her UNTIL she bore a son. Just like Janet wrote in her post that it would have been unbiblical or unnatural for them not to have sex.

 

[freedomwriter]

True, but note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi).

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

You are right about the Greek Word Adelphos but not in the NT. There is not a single example where adelphos is used for cousin in the NT. The word for cousin in the NT is anepsios. In Matt 13:55 the term for brother adelphos is the normal word for blood brother

 

[freedomwriter]

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

You have to remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time that He was crucified. He didn’t want to leave his mother in the care of his non believing brothers.

 

[freedomwriter]

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

Thank You for your (name removed by moderator)ut Manny but there is more evidence that He had brothers than he didn’t. The Word of God speaks for itself. Like I said there is not getting around it. God Bless

 

[SonofMonica]

Thank You for your (name removed by moderator)ut Manny but there is more evidence that He had brothers than he didn’t. The Word of God speaks for itself. Like I said there is not getting around it. God Bless

No one questions that Jesus had “brothers.” The question is whether Mary had any more children besides Jesus. You do realize the concepts are distinct, don’t you? There is absolutely no scripture that says she had another child after giving birth to Jesus. Why do you insist upon adding to our Bible based upon what you consider to be common sense and tradition? What makes your tradition better than Catholic tradition?

 

[JonNC]

You have to remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time that He was crucified. He didn’t want to leave his mother in the care of his non believing brothers.

Earlier, Matt 13:55-56 was brought up, and it relates to this a little.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude. And his sisters, are they not all with us?

If one believes that this confirms blood siblings, then one must therefore believe at least 7 blood siblings (4 mentioned brothers, and “all”, not “both”, his sisters). What are the odds that none of his brothers were believers?

And in Matt. 2:

19 But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they are dead that sought the life of the child. 21 Who arose, and took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel

If there were at least 7 siblings, one might reasonably expect at least one having been born by this time, since He was at the temple at age 12. The angel doesn’t even say, “Arise, and take your family”, just “the child and His mother”.

And the writer fails to mention them when Jesus was at the temple (Luke 2:45).
ISTM that:

1. one of those siblings would have noticed the oldest brother missing long before a day of travelling went by.
2. one of the siblings would have “tattled” on Jesus for staying behind.
3. they would have asked his siblings, “Where’s your brother?” when they started looking for him.

It doesn’t prove the lack of siblings, and it is just speculation, of course, but it is curious.

Jon

 

[aquabatix]

You have to remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time that he was crucified. That is why he left the apostle John as the caregiver of his mother.
That Joseph being married before is just plain silly. Matt 1:25 "He had no relations **with her **UNTIL she bore a son. Just like Janet wrote in her post that it would have been unbiblical or unnatural for them not to have sex.

Right there is the hole in your argument. Joseph did not have relations WITH HER until she bore a son. Anybody else? Say, a previous wife?

 

[SonofMonica]

My, my… thanks to some real sleuth work by latter-day Protestants, we now know that the Catholic Church has just failed to read her Bible all these years! Why, if she had read the Word of God, she would have known that it says right there in scripture that Jesus is not the Son of God, but the son of Joseph!

In the gospel of John, it’s plainly written, “Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (John 1:45)

See? It says son of Joseph, not Son of God! Son means son, and it can’t possibly mean anything else! It doesn’t say step-son. That means Mary was never a virgin, because Jesus was Mary and Joseph’s son!

Of course, Catholics will just jump through mental hoops and say, well, “son” doesn’t mean son… But it’s written right there! Don’t try to confuse it by reading scripture together and taking tradition into account, when it’s right there in black and white! How could they have missed it all these years!!!

 

[JonNC]

My, my… thanks to some real sleuth work by latter-day Protestants, we now know that the Catholic Church has just failed to read her Bible all these years! Why, if she had read the Word of God, she would have known that it says right there in scripture that Jesus is not the Son of God, but the son of Joseph!

In the gospel of John, it’s plainly written, “Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (John 1:45)

See? It says son of Joseph, not Son of God! Son means son, and it can’t possibly mean anything else! It doesn’t say step-son. That means Mary was never a virgin, because Jesus was Mary and Joseph’s son!

Of course, Catholics will just jump through mental hoops and say, well, “son” doesn’t mean son… But it’s written right there! Don’t try to confuse it by reading scripture together and taking tradition into account, when it’s right there in black and white! How could they have missed it all these years!!!

First, to whom are you responding?
2nd, What is a latter-day protestant?
3rd, I get your sarcasm, but he was Joseph’s son, in the eyes of the world. My adoptive son is unquestionably my son, as surely as if I were his birth father. I do not know the aramaic equivalent, but I suspect the child Jesus called Joseph something on the order of “Dad”. So, no need for Catholics, or me, to jump through mental hoops.

Jon

 

[SonofMonica]

First, to whom are you responding?

The posters above who say that it’s clear in scripture that Mary had other children.

2nd, What is a latter-day protestant?

I suppose the term is redundant on some levels, but Martin Luther, as I understand it, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The widespread denial of it is a more recent protestant novelty. [Then again, it could all be a matter of perspective, and we could still be ‘early’ Christians, if you think about it, but that’s off-topic.]

3rd, I get your sarcasm, but he was Joseph’s son, in the eyes of the world. My adoptive son is unquestionably my son, as surely as if I were his birth father. I do not know the aramaic equivalent, but I suspect the child Jesus called Joseph something on the order of “Dad”. So, no need for Catholics, or me, to jump through mental hoops.

Okay, back into character… Jon, you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes by all these Catholics. There’s only one type of son, just like there’s only one type of brothers and sisters. It’s so plain in scripture!

 

[JonNC]

=SonofMonica;5502304]The posters above who say that it’s clear in scripture that Mary had other children.

OK

I suppose the term is redundant on some levels, but Martin Luther, as I understand it, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The widespread denial of it is a more recent protestant novelty. [Then again, it could all be a matter of perspective, and we could still be ‘early’ Christians, if you think about it, but that’s off-topic.]

Gotcha

Okay, back into character… Jon, you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes by all these Catholics. There’s only one type of son, just like there’s only one type of brothers and sisters. It’s so plain in scripture!

Yeah, I just spend too much time at CAF.
Jon

 

[Janet1983]

• Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
• Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God
• Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary.

Apart from being wrong in its interpretation, what does this have to do with that: (That’s what I had answered to… that’s the strange assessment I wanted the scripture to…)

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary, for the sake of the Incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit in order to conceive. You expect that she is then to be torn away from that in order to become one with Joseph? Mary is the daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and bride of the Holy Spirit.

Back then there was no engagement!

Betrothal was what we would consider an “engagement” today. The first stage of the betrothal was finding a suitable spouse for the bride or bridegroom. In the ancient Near Eastern culture, this was most often initiated by the families of the bride and groom. Though a young man could make his preference for a wife known to his family, his parents may or may not have agreed to pursue his wishes. Young men and women were pledged to each other at ages as young as twelve or thirteen.
The second stage of betrothal involved a sort of “prenuptial agreement”. Before witnesses, the young man and woman would enter into a formal betrothal. It was a legally binding contract, which gave the man legal rights over the woman. Once a couple entered this stage of betrothal, it could only be broken by a formal divorce. The terms “husband” and “wife” were used during this period, though the couple did not live together. Sexual relations were not permitted during this time, and if one was found to be unfaithful to the other, it was considered adultery. At the time of Jesus’ birth, adultery was punishable by stoning. Also, if one of the young people died, the other would be considered a “widow” or “widower”.
The length of betrothal was generally about a year. The wedding was a special ceremony. Both bride and bridegroom wore special wedding clothes. The wedding started with a procession of the groom and his companions to the bride’s home. The company would then escort the bride and her companions back to the groom’s home where there would be a special supper prepared. During this celebration, the parents and friends blessed the couple and the father of the bride drew up a written marriage contract. The couple would then be escorted to a special “bridal chamber” where the marriage would be consummated. As prescribed in the Old Testament, evidence of the bride’s virginity would then be given. Marriage festivities continued for up to a week.
It is always interesting to reflect on the marriage customs of another culture. This is especially true when the customs are so different from the traditions we observe.

 

[freedomwriter]

No one questions that Jesus had “brothers.” The question is whether Mary had any more children besides Jesus. You do realize the concepts are distinct, don’t you? There is absolutely no scripture that says she had another child after giving birth to Jesus. Why do you insist upon adding to our Bible based upon what you consider to be common sense and tradition? What makes your tradition better than Catholic tradition?

I perfer to go the Word of God route than tradition. Like I posted earlier it would be unnatural or unbiblical for Joseph not to have sex with his wife Mary. Gen 1:28; 1 Cor :1-7, Heb 13:4. So these brothers were from Joseph and Mary no question about it. I am not adding to your or my bible. These scriptures are in there. Check it out for yourself

 

[freedomwriter]

Right there is the hole in your argument. Joseph did not have relations WITH HER until she bore a son. Anybody else? Say, a previous wife?

Sorry no one else. Like i said in my post earlier as well as Janet it would be unnatural or unbiblical for them not to have sex. Therefore Jesus had brothers and sisters. No getting around God’s Word. And that is silly to say Joseph had a previous wife cmon lol

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Why is it silly to say he had a previous wife? You don’t even know how old he was.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thank You for your (name removed by moderator)ut Manny but there is more evidence that He had brothers than he didn’t. The Word of God speaks for itself. Like I said there is not getting around it. God Bless

No there isn’t. I already pointed out the misinterpretation of Protestants about their erroneous belief that Mary had other sons and daughters.

You have to remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time that He was crucified. He didn’t want to leave his mother in the care of his non believing brothers.

They were believers and had expecttions of that Jesus is the promised Messiah. They hide because they didn’t want to ridiculed by the religious authorities of the Pharisees and they were afraid. You claimed that they were not believers is a very illogical statement. Do you mean, that if brother of Jesus do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you as a Jew lost all rights to care for the elderly (in this case Blessed Virgin Mary)? Jesus would be going against his own commandments. It is the very fact that during the time, Jesus lived, he blasted the Pharisees and the Sadducee for the sin of hypocrisy. They would tell Jews to do this, but they themselves do not practice it.

It is Jewish custom that sons and daughters have a responsibility to take care of their parents when they are old. Jesus gave John his mother, Mary because He had no other siblings. Like I said before, in the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was 12 yrs old, Mary and Joseph, only found Jesus in the Temple. There were no other siblings. Luke’s Gospel show kinsmen which means cousins.

 

[Janet1983]

Why is it silly to say he had a previous wife? You don’t even know how old he was.

Do you?

 

[1beleevr]

Uh-oh, here comes the fly in the ointment I like to believe in the POSSIBILITY that Mary was able to have other children, after Jesus, and that she and Joseph enjoyed marital relations(Matthew 1:25) Because as we all know, and believe,“With God, all things are possible!”

 

[freedomwriter]

Why is it silly to say he had a previous wife? You don’t even know how old he was.

There is not a hint of Joseph being previously married. Didn’t matter how old he was. Thats why it is silly