Joseph had other children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter onemangang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
onemangang said:
Maybe to the select few that define SS as it was intended by Luther, but the everyday evangelical fundamentalist Youmeet on the street, it’s means “the bible alone”

That’s not saying much, Catholics on the street are like " St.Paul, who is that?" Or a good question is “what is the significance of these practices, and sacraments?” , under catechized Catholics respond … “I don’t know, we just do them” (face palm)
Click to expand...
It’s not a select few. I think it’s actually a clear minority of churches, even among the different strains of Evangelicals (I don’t know enough to speak of Fundamentalists), who believe that if something is not in the Bible, no-one may believe it. It’s extremely easy, for example, to “catch” Evangelicals routinely speaking to deceased loved ones, though the Bible does not say they can hear us.

That’s a good point, though, that what under-catechized Christians of any sort really believe can be all over the place.

There’s current thread --“Sola Scriptura”–on this subject.
 
Nine_Two said:
That would be Sola Scriptura, which I believe is rejected officially by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
AbideWithMe said:
No, that’s not Sola Scriptura. SS would not preclude the possibility that it may have very well happened.
Click to expand...
My reaction is pretty much the same as Abide’s. Even the stronger forms of SS (the kinds that Lutherans and Anglicans wouldn’t endorse) don’t say that something didn’t exist if it wasn’t mentioned in the bible.
 
Peter_J said:
My reaction is pretty much the same as Abide’s. Even the stronger forms of SS (the kinds that Lutherans and Anglicans wouldn’t endorse) don’t say that something didn’t exist if it wasn’t mentioned in the bible.
Click to expand...
The “Church of Christ” (restoration movement) have beliefs that can be characterized as “that which is not commanded is forbidden” - which informs their prohibition against instruments (organ, etc) during worship. I love acapella singing, but get pretty grumpy when someone declares our worship to be unacceptable to God because we use a pipe organ or piano!
 
Stilldreamn said:
The “Church of Christ” (restoration movement) have beliefs that can be characterized as “that which is not commanded is forbidden” - which informs their prohibition against instruments (organ, etc) during worship. I love acapella singing, but get pretty grumpy when someone declares our worship to be unacceptable to God because we use a pipe organ or piano!
Click to expand...
You use what?? :bigyikes:
 
Peter_J said:
You use what?? :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
If we didn’t have that robust organ playing, you probably would only here a few people. The rest of us would look like fish out of water - soundlessly moving mouths 🙂

Back to Joseph’s kids - I don’t know whether he had children or not, but I was never taught that Jesus had actual full blooded brothers and sisters. Any idea that Joseph touched Mary in that way brings to mind poor Uzzah!
 
Stilldreamn said:
The “Church of Christ” (restoration movement) have beliefs that can be characterized as “that which is not commanded is forbidden” - which informs their prohibition against instruments (organ, etc) during worship. I love acapella singing, but get pretty grumpy when someone declares our worship to be unacceptable to God because we use a pipe organ or piano!
Click to expand...
Stilldreamn, that’s what I was thinking: the Church of Christ appears to have something pretty close to what many people here at CAF have in mind when they debate against SS. I’m not CofC, though, nor terribly knowledgeable about them, so I didn’t feel confident saying that myself. It would be interesting if a practicing CofC member could confirm this.

As for me, being a Methodist-based Evangelical but closely interacting with many other species of Evangelicals, I have never been taught the overblown form of “Bible only”. My guess is that it may exist in some Restorationist churches and some Baptist churches, but it’s not as prevalent as many people seem to think.

Getting back on topic…
 
aidanbradypop said:
I was always taught growing up that Christ had siblings.
Click to expand...
I thought you were raised Catholic. The Catholic Church has never taught that Christ had siblings. Maybe I’m confusing you with another “Catholic to Episcopalian” poster. 🤷
 
SteveVH said:
I thought you were raised Catholic. The Catholic Church has never taught that Christ had siblings. Maybe I’m confusing you with another “Catholic to Episcopalian” poster. 🤷
Click to expand...
Steve, I think he grew up Southern Baptist?
 
AbideWithMe said:
Stilldreamn, that’s what I was thinking: the Church of Christ appears to have something pretty close to what many people here at CAF have in mind when they debate against SS. I’m not CofC, though, nor terribly knowledgeable about them, so I didn’t feel confident saying that myself. It would be interesting if a practicing CofC member could confirm this.

As for me, being a Methodist-based Evangelical but closely interacting with many other species of Evangelicals, I have never been taught the overblown form of “Bible only”. My guess is that it may exist in some Restorationist churches and some Baptist churches, but it’s not as prevalent as many people seem to think.

Getting back on topic…
Click to expand...
I am cautious in characterizing all of the CoC beliefs under that doctrine, but I know this part of it through being involved with my stepchildren. Since we are all adults and treat each other with respect and yes, love - we no longer debate this among ourselves. 30 years ago it was a major issue…
 
SteveVH said:
I thought you were raised Catholic. The Catholic Church has never taught that Christ had siblings. Maybe I’m confusing you with another “Catholic to Episcopalian” poster. 🤷
Click to expand...
I was raised Southern Baptist. I did not start attending a Catholic mass until around the age of 12 or 13. I didn’t convert to Catholicism until I was 24 or so.
 
SteveVH said:
Got it. Makes sense.

Thanks.

Steve
Click to expand...
But even then it was not really an issue of whether or not they were half or step. It was taught that Christ had siblings and that is basically what you believed. Mary was not really a key figure in all of the SB theology so no one really focused on the how and whens.
 
aidanbradypop said:
But even then it was not really an issue of whether or not they were half or step. It was taught that Christ had siblings and that is basically what you believed. Mary was not really a key figure in all of the SB theology so no one really focused on the how and whens.
Click to expand...
I understand.
 
Just going to throw in a my 2 cents. I read through this thread and the comments and I want to add something.
I am member of a church of Christ, believe in Sola Scriptural and I am married to a Catholic, needless to say some of our discussions are very interesting.

I grew up 100% believing that Jesus had younger siblings, whom were fully blooded, at least 4 brothers and 2 sisters. Giving him a huge family! It was never brought up as a “this is why Catholics are wrong” but as part of various Sunday school classes discussing Jesus and his family.
As I have spent more time studying to figure out if He did or didn’t have siblings, I found the following.
Matt 13:55 specifically mention His mother Mary and His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.
And verse 56 then says “Are not His sisters all with us?”

This tells me a couple of things, 4 brothers, and a plurality of sisters (more then 2). So that fits with what I was taught growing up.
Galations also mention James being his Brother.
Mark 6:3 is also a mention that is another aspect of Matt 13.

Now I know the Catholic belief would be ok with 2 possibilities for the brothers and sisters. Either they were Joseph’s kids from an earlier marriage, so older siblings. Or they we Jesus’ cousins. Given the mention of Mary as His Mother in Mat 13:55, I think that would lend a more literal meaning of the 4 as brothers, especially since if they were His cousins, wouldn’t His Aunt also be mentioned?
But just the fact that Mary is mentioned and the brothers and sister lend credence to the idea they aren’t cousins.
So that leaves us with older siblings being Josephs kids from a previous marriage. However as couple of ppl mentioned, wouldn’t they be mentioned in the travels for the census or the fleeing to Egypt? Not necessarily, because they aren’t the focal point of those stories, but it does seem odd that they wouldn’t mention them in a genealogy or something. So thats a possibility,
I guess, its also possible that Joseph could have cheated on Mary….but I won’t even go there, because its a pretty dumb idea.

But you know what i have realized? If He had siblings or not doesn’t matter. Would Mary having sex with her husband lower her at all? Make her unworthy of carrying Jesus? Mean she wasn’t full of grace?
No, Jesus’ mother had to be Virgin when Jesus was to fulfill prophecy, but nothing says she had to remain so, at least in the Bible canon. Does it matter at all? Not really, I don’t even think Catholic doctrine would ding Mary for having sex and kids. She is still full of grace, still a women that was good enough to carry God’s Son, and would still be a good role model for every woman to aspire to be like.

Just my 2 cents.
 
solarguy17 said:
Just going to throw in a my 2 cents. I read through this thread and the comments and I want to add something.
I am member of a church of Christ, believe in Sola Scriptural and I am married to a Catholic, needless to say some of our discussions are very interesting.

I grew up 100% believing that Jesus had younger siblings, whom were fully blooded, at least 4 brothers and 2 sisters. Giving him a huge family! It was never brought up as a “this is why Catholics are wrong” but as part of various Sunday school classes discussing Jesus and his family.
As I have spent more time studying to figure out if He did or didn’t have siblings, I found the following.
Matt 13:55 specifically mention His mother Mary and His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.
And verse 56 then says “Are not His sisters all with us?”

This tells me a couple of things, 4 brothers, and a plurality of sisters (more then 2). So that fits with what I was taught growing up.
Galations also mention James being his Brother.
Mark 6:3 is also a mention that is another aspect of Matt 13.

Now I know the Catholic belief would be ok with 2 possibilities for the brothers and sisters. Either they were Joseph’s kids from an earlier marriage, so older siblings. Or they we Jesus’ cousins. Given the mention of Mary as His Mother in Mat 13:55, I think that would lend a more literal meaning of the 4 as brothers, especially since if they were His cousins, wouldn’t His Aunt also be mentioned?
But just the fact that Mary is mentioned and the brothers and sister lend credence to the idea they aren’t cousins.
So that leaves us with older siblings being Josephs kids from a previous marriage. However as couple of ppl mentioned, wouldn’t they be mentioned in the travels for the census or the fleeing to Egypt? Not necessarily, because they aren’t the focal point of those stories, but it does seem odd that they wouldn’t mention them in a genealogy or something. So thats a possibility,
I guess, its also possible that Joseph could have cheated on Mary….but I won’t even go there, because its a pretty dumb idea.

But you know what i have realized? If He had siblings or not doesn’t matter. Would Mary having sex with her husband lower her at all? Make her unworthy of carrying Jesus? Mean she wasn’t full of grace?
No, Jesus’ mother had to be Virgin when Jesus was to fulfill prophecy, but nothing says she had to remain so, at least in the Bible canon. Does it matter at all? Not really, I don’t even think Catholic doctrine would ding Mary for having sex and kids. She is still full of grace, still a women that was good enough to carry God’s Son, and would still be a good role model for every woman to aspire to be like.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
The problem is that your church is teaching kids that there is only one explanation to the brothers and sisters interpretation as if it is the only interpretation. Many scholars, both Catholic and Protestants know that at best it is inconclusive. The word adelphoi has a wide range of meaning and yet, certain churches knowing that they can’t teach infallibly, has made the decision for you. In my previous post, I mentioned early writings indicated there were support for cousins and half-brothers. This is not hidden knowledge. Yet churches are not intellectually honest enough to teach there are very valid other interpretations. In your day-to-day living, you wouldn’t want to be deprived of important knowledge which will help you make a better decision and people get really upset when information was knowingly withheld. Multi-million $ lawsuits do result from that. Now, for something as important as your soul, don’t you think you deserve more from your church? Ask them, why is the Catholic explanation not feasible? Why is your explanation the correct one? The reformer fathers did not believe in your current belief, why do you think that reformer fathers are wrong and you are right? What new knowledge has appeared in the last 500 years to warrant this belief? Who were the first protestants to put forward this thinking? Why did they think they were right and the reformer fathers wrong? Why did they think they couldn’t get it wrong either? I have yet to get a decent answer for these questions. Perhaps you could ask around to get some (name removed by moderator)uts?

Yes, nothing in the Bible says that Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Jesus. And there is nothing in the Bible that said she did have sex after Jesus was born either. Nothing to stop you from extrapolating what Mary could have done, should do, didn’t do etc.

However, in the OT, it is very clear that items set aside for God, remains holy, even after the event. OT folks abstain from sex when preparing to commune with God. True, they could resume their sex lives after the meetup was over. However, in Mary’s case, God is in their midst, every day, under the same roof. It is impossible for Joseph to have sex in the presence of God. The only people I could think off who would do that on the church altar are Satanists.

Also I am not saying to stop being fruitful and multiply. 21st century sex attitude is very different to the 1st century. There is a higher regard for God then than now. It used to be “fear God and you don’t even dare to lift up your eyes to see God”. Now God is my brother, my friend, give me a high five, kid around with God, God with a sense of humour kind of God. That’s why I can understand why some posters say if they were Joseph, they don’t have a problem having sex with God’s mother even if Jesus is around. There is no sense of holiness.
 
Eric,
Yes kids at my church are generally taught that Jesus had brothers and sisters. That has to do with how the general English translation reads. All use of adelphoi is translated “brother” in the Bible. Right or wrong, that’s a fact. And also generally teaching kids the various Greek translations of words doesn’t work, so they choose to teach brother are actual brothers.
When people get older and really start learning to they discover they there are other possibilities and the relationship adelphoi had with Jesus doesn’t really matter.

You could also say the Catholic Church doesn’t give their kids the option of believing anything different since Mary being a virgin is major belief in the Catholic faith.

I would say that many I go to church with accept that those mentioned are either birthers, cousins, or just spiritual brothers and it doesn’t really matter or raise or lower Mary or Jesus regardless.

But the question I have is “how would Mary having other kids lower your viewpoint of her?”
 
solarguy17 said:
Eric,
You could also say the Catholic Church doesn’t give their kids the option of believing anything different since Mary being a virgin is major belief in the Catholic faith.

But the question I have is “how would Mary having other kids lower your viewpoint of her?”
Click to expand...
I think this is a very interesting topic, I have also heard recently that Joseph may have had other children from a previous marriage, which would give Jesus half-siblings, and also would have made abstinence more attainable for Joseph because he already had other children.

Solarguy, thank you for your response 🙂 The Catholic Church claims its teaching authority from Jesus Himself. Given to the Apostles and handed down these past 2000 years. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide and direct us into all truth, therefore, only the Church can rightly teach us truthfully from sacred scripture and sacred tradition. So the Church teaching that Mary didn’t have other kids, means, she didn’t have other kids, there could be no other option since she either has or she hasn’t. To claim both is a contradiction and God is not a God of contradiction and disorder.

Mary is the mother of God. She is full of grace and holy. Celibacy is a special gift in which a person dedicates themselves to God. If Mary had many other children after Jesus, she would’ve been very preoccupied with raising her large family. St Paul says “An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” 1 Cor 7:34.

Also, while Jesus was still alive on the cross, he gave his mother to his Apostle John. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.” Jn 19:26-27. As a widow, Mary would’ve been taken care of by her children. If she had other children, it would’ve been their responsibility to care for their mother, and it would’ve been an insult to the next eldest brother, if Jesus had given his mother to another person outside the family.

I hope this explanation makes some sense for you 🙂
 
If I may interject, the problem with your explanation is that you’re basically saying “the catholic church is right, therefore Mary had no children.” That is not an explanation that stands with those who have doubts about the catholic churches claim of being an unbroken connection to the apostles.

Your second point from 1 Cor 7:34 seems to avoid the original question. The question being, would not remaining a virgin and having more children with her husband have lowered Mary’s status in your eyes? I would argue it shouldn’t because there is certainly no sin in making love with a spouse. But going along with your use of this passage… it ignores the fact that Mary still had a husband. To be consistent here you’d have to argue that she was already distracted and therefore imperfect. Or you could concede that there was nothing wrong with her having a husband to care for and therefore more children would not have been any more of an issue.

Your point about John taking Mary in is one I’ve seen before, and is quite fascinating, but ignores the fact that we don’t really know anything about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t know what Christ’s siblings were up to, if indeed they were siblings. We also don’t know how long Mary stayed with John. It could very well have been temporary. Furthermore, none of the siblings in question were present at the crucifixion. It’s entirely possible Christ would have wanted her protected right away rather than have her traveling to who knows where first. My point is that we don’t really know everything about the situation so judging it doesn’t seem prudent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top