Joseph had other children?

[solarguy17]

Jadamo - Traverse’s point is exactly correct. I disagree with your opinion and Catholic tradition that the Chatholic church has all authority. I do also agree the way you stated had a very strong holier-then-thou attitude.

As far a Mary being holy and full of grace, how would she no longer be holy or full of grace if she had other kids? How will fulfilling her “wifely” duty to Joseph make her intelligible to be Jesus’ mommy (I of course mean after the virgin birth)?
These are questions that no catholic layperson or clergy seems to be able to answer.

So that why I ask for your or anyone’s opinion.
If there was irrefutable proof that Mary had other kids with Joseph, would it lower Mary or take away her holiness?

 

[jadamo]

Jadamo - Traverse’s point is exactly correct. I disagree with your opinion and Catholic tradition that the Chatholic church has all authority. I do also agree the way you stated had a very strong holier-then-thou attitude.

As far a Mary being holy and full of grace, how would she no longer be holy or full of grace if she had other kids? How will fulfilling her “wifely” duty to Joseph make her intelligible to be Jesus’ mommy (I of course mean after the virgin birth)?
These are questions that no catholic layperson or clergy seems to be able to answer.

So that why I ask for your or anyone’s opinion.
If there was irrefutable proof that Mary had other kids with Joseph, would it lower Mary or take away her holiness?

Lol! I apologize if I came off as “holier-than-thou” attitude, that was not my intent I also apologize for my less than sufficient response, I am a busy mom of 4 little boys, with my youngest potty traning, I don’t have much time to sit and give long drawn out explanations, lol!

I am a devout Catholic, you asked why the Catholic belief that Mary had no other children is held to be correct, and I tried to answer your question by stating that I believe the Church teachings to be true b/c I believe the Church still has the authority given to them as promised by Christ…b/c I’m a Catholic

I wasn’t trying to avoid your other question about Mary either, I was trying to give other explanations instead about why I believe she doesn’t have other children
I am happily married, I love my husband and we are immensely blessed, the graces we’ve received through this sacrament cannot be replaced. So allow me to clarify for you now, sex in marriage is not a bad thing. IF there was irrefutable evidence that Mary did indeed have more kids, than I would not think any less of her at all! She is still my mother as well
I did not say Mary would not be holy or full of grace anymore had she had more children, I just made a statement that she was holy and full of grace, sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way. There was no remark afterwards how her holiness or grace would disappear had she had more kids, that was all you misinterpreting me.
Your next remark is a bit confusing. How is fulfilling her wifely duty to Joseph make her more intelligble to be Jesus’ mommy? Snarkiness aside, this looks like you’re just trying to pick a fight at this point, lol. Like I said, I did not intend to come off as I did, I apologize for provoking you!
Peace friend! I appreciate your insight to your beliefs and your comments I am again out of time, I have a 7 year old to take to basketball practice!

 

[manualman]

Catholics believe that Mary was perpetually virgin, because that’s the faith we’ve received in unbroken transmission from the time of the apostles. Protestants invented a theory from thin air 1,500 years removed from the situation that Mary and Joseph started having other kids afterwards. It’s not that Mary would be lesser somehow if she had later kids, its that the integrity of the faith itself is compromised if people can start reinventing it millennia after the fact.

What “big Holy Family protestants” never consider is the culture of 1st century Israel. At the cross, Jesus looked down and specifically told St. John to care for Mary as his own mother from then on. Had Jesus had younger actual siblings that would have been a deadly insult tantamount to disowning them. It would have been a declaration of their utter unworthiness as siblings and fellow children of Mary. Instead, he assigned John so that she would not suffer the fate of destitute widow (an awful fate in those days of no respect for women).

The thing that puzzles me about the EO tradition of Joseph having an earlier marriage is the EO idea that ANY second marriage (even in the case of death) is a departure from God’s true intent for the mystery of matrimony. As I understand it, the EO don’t pledge marriage “till death” but for eternity. (This usually comes up as a counter-attack to catholics criticizing what looks like EO waffling on divorce and remarriage). So if the EO consider a widower who remarries after the death of his first wife morally similar to the man who divorces and remarries, are they defaming St. Joseph’s character? There’s probably some subtlety I’m not catching there, but something seems off to me!

 

[solarguy17]

jadamo -
My questions weren’t directed at you personally b/c of something you said but are more just general questions.

I have asked many Catholics, why it’s important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin and the only response I got (other then I don’t know) was due to her Holiness and Grace. I didn’t push the answer to the next question of, how would it lower her if she wasn’t a perpetual virgin (the guy is my very strict catholic father-in-law).
So it’s a general question.

Why is it important to Catholics that Mary was a perpetual virgin?
For most Protestants, they might argue, based on the verses I mentioned earlier, that she had to have kids and thus had sex. But realistically, whether or not she had sex has no hearing any Christian faith, except Catholicism.

My snarky comment about Jesus’ Mommy is just to remind me and you and anyone, that Mary wasn’t just the Mother of the Savior but she was also his Mommy. She probably cheered when Jesus learned to walk, looked up at her and said “mama”, cryed when he got hurt, ect. It’s something that you might consider, but as a dad potty training a toddler, Mary had to train Jesus not to poop anywhere He wanted, but to go to the designated place.

Manualman - regarding Mary at the cross. It seems possible that either his “siblings” were present and thus he told John to care for or His “siblings” abandoned Him also when He was sent to the cross, so Jesus put His mothers care to a person that remained faithful to Him.
Not saying that a gaurnutee or proof but a possibility.

Also, what is EO?

 

[ericc]

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.

Well it boils down to choosing the appropriate meaning. Isn’t “relative” a suitable word too and correct as it covers all the possible explanations? At Sunday school, the teacher can easily explain what the word “brother” meant , correct? It includes, half brothers, cousins, relatives, kinsmen, and in fact the tribe itself. Did the teacher teaches that the Protestant church didn’t always teaches Jesus had other blood brothers until recently?

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.

Well, it matters if one is interested in the truth. Doesn’t most elementary schooling teaches GENERAL truth and as one matures, delve into specialization into higher truths?

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.

That is correct. That comes from our Sacred Tradition which has lasted 2000 yrs. In our Tradition, there is no ambiguity about Mary’s ever-virginity. So there is no alternate explanation since Day 1. Blood brothers/sisters of Jesus wasn’t traditionally taught in early Protestant teachings. Your Bible has stayed the same for 500 yrs and the Reformer Fathers did NOT believe in a non-virgin Mary. So the non-virgin Mary concept must be a recent invention. If you have resources that says otherwise, please do share. I am open to reason. See my post #11 on my findings. Perhaps that’s why the Reformer Fathers too believe in Mary’s ever-virginity.

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.

There are possibly many things in the Bible that may not really matter if one were to say “change a bit”. But that is not really the point. The real point is what is truth. What did those early Christians believe. They don’t document everything, but we know they believed in certain things and these came down to us as Tradition, initially orally then over time people wrote them down.

But the question I have is “how would Mary having other kids lower your viewpoint of her?”

My viewpoint carries no weight at all. In fact I don’t even bother with that intellectual exercise at all. I believe what the Catholic Church tells me that for 2000 yrs we have believed Mary is ever virgin. Early writings are evidence of this belief. My Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and therefore I trust what the Church tells me. Jesus guarantees the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So it can not teaches untruths. My Church is apostolic and therefore what the bishops as successors of the apostles bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Why do I need to have a viewpoint on Mary ever-virginity? All I need is to listen to those with the Authority. My viewpoint can be wrong.

 

[oneofmany]

The Church teaches Mary was ever virgin, not sure exactly why though. I recently learned Mary’s parents dedicated her to the Temple when she was born since they had her later in life and were considered infertile. Mary lived in the Temple until she was of age and then needed a guardian, which I don’t understand either. She was betrothed to Joseph as the guardian so they were never going to have sexual relations. I am sure one needs to understand Jewish culture to understand any of this that is why I don’t try to learn the bible on my own. Our culture and Jewish culture at that time is like night and day.

We can get into many crazy scenarios when we try to say what the relationships were like back then. I even read one poster on another web site say the reason Jesus gave Mary to John from the cross is because Jesus’ siblings had a problem with Jesus and Jesus didn’t want his mother to go live with them. I can’t believe God would allow squabbling to go on in Jesus’ family. Mary knew Jesus was the Son of God so why would she squabble with any of Jesus’ siblings, even if He had any? She would do what Jesus said. Having other children would pull her in other directions.

I don’t think it’s worth getting bogged down in all this, instead we need to learn the main lessons in the bible.

 

[manualman]

I have asked many Catholics, why it’s important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin and the only response I got (other then I don’t know) was due to her Holiness and Grace. I didn’t push the answer to the next question of, how would it lower her if she wasn’t a perpetual virgin (the guy is my very strict catholic father-in-law).
So it’s a general question.

Why is it important to Catholics that Mary was a perpetual virgin?
…
Also, what is EO?

The question still suggests that catholics conjured up the idea of perpetual virginity later. Not so. This is part of the deposit of the faith we received from the apostles and handed down from them. That’s what makes it so important. We don’t decide that we know better than they did. Protestants act as if the bible is the only surviving record of otherwise lost history of that era. It’s not. Nobody serious in Christendom proposed that Mary had other kids for well over 1,500 years of Christian history.

Why did Mary NOT have later kids? The definition of holiness means “set apart.” Ever read that passage in the OT where some poor guy sees the Ark of the Covenant about to fall to the ground and grabs it to try to prevent that? God strikes him dead. Seems terribly unfair, no? He meant well and trying to prevent harm is certainly no wrongdoing! But God had made clear that the Ark was HOLY and not to be touched by any non-priest for any reason.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not a statement of the inferiority of motherhood or sexual relations, it’s merely an emphatic illustration of how she is “set apart” from others so that she might become the final Ark of the Covenant that carried God himself in her womb.

EO = Eastern Orthodox. They get as testy with us catholics as y’all do sometimes!

 

[solarguy17]

The question still suggests that catholics conjured up the idea of perpetual virginity later. Not so. This is part of the deposit of the faith we received from the apostles and handed down from them. That’s what makes it so important. We don’t decide that we know better than they did. Protestants act as if the bible is the only surviving record of otherwise lost history of that era. It’s not. Nobody serious in Christendom proposed that Mary had other kids for well over 1,500 years of Christian history.

Why did Mary NOT have later kids? The definition of holiness means “set apart.” Ever read that passage in the OT where some poor guy sees the Ark of the Covenant about to fall to the ground and grabs it to try to prevent that? God strikes him dead. Seems terribly unfair, no? He meant well and trying to prevent harm is certainly no wrongdoing! But God had made clear that the Ark was HOLY and not to be touched by any non-priest for any reason.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not a statement of the inferiority of motherhood or sexual relations, it’s merely an emphatic illustration of how she is “set apart” from others so that she might become the final Ark of the Covenant that carried God himself in her womb.

EO = Eastern Orthodox. They get as testy with us catholics as y’all do sometimes!

That is actually the best answer I have ever heard, by explaining why it is important for her to be holy.
That actually makes sense, I still personally don’t think it matters if Mary did or didn’t have sex after Jesus’ birth. She is still a person that was filled with grace, holy, and an example for all mothers to look today. And more importantly, she stuck with Jesus even when almost everyone else gave up on him.

Sorry, I wasn’t attempting to suggest Catholics haven’t always believed in perpetual virginity. I can see why you would think I was suggesting that.
Given how the Catholic faith has evolved over 2000 years and how certain things in the NT are simply looked over, a evolving perpetual viginity belief wouldn’t be that surprising.

 

[prodromos]

The thing that puzzles me about the EO tradition of Joseph having an earlier marriage is the EO idea that ANY second marriage (even in the case of death) is a departure from God’s true intent for the mystery of matrimony. As I understand it, the EO don’t pledge marriage “till death” but for eternity. (This usually comes up as a counter-attack to catholics criticizing what looks like EO waffling on divorce and remarriage). So if the EO consider a widower who remarries after the death of his first wife morally similar to the man who divorces and remarries, are they defaming St. Joseph’s character? There’s probably some subtlety I’m not catching there, but something seems off to me!

St Joseph is remembered in the Orthodox Church as St Joseph the Betrothed while Mary the Theotokos is referred to as the Bride Unwedded in our hymnography. Mary and Joseph were never married but betrothed so that Joseph could act as her guardian. Mary was very young when she conceived.

 

[manualman]

So EO consider Mary and Joseph NOT to be married? They just cohabitated the whole time Jesus was growing up???

 

[prodromos]

So EO consider Mary and Joseph NOT to be married? They just cohabitated the whole time Jesus was growing up???

Mary had her own home inherited from her parents. Mary was betrothed to Joseph as a form of legal guardianship.

I find your response very telling. You automatically try and cast the ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church in the worst possible light. Have you ever considered why you do that? Do Catholics have so little respect for ancient traditions they don’t share (except that you do by way of your Eastern Catholic brethren).

 

[ericc]

Mary and Joseph were never married but betrothed so that Joseph could act as her guardian. Mary was very young when she conceived.

I thought under Jewish laws, betrothal is already considered to be legally married? That’s why Joseph thought of quietly divorcing Mary. If they were never married, no divorce would be necessary.

 

[manualman]

I find your response very telling. You automatically try and cast the ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church in the worst possible light. Have you ever considered why you do that? Do Catholics have so little respect for ancient traditions they don’t share (except that you do by way of your Eastern Catholic brethren).

Not at all. It’s called critical thinking. If I see a gaping hole in an argument, I ask about it. If there is a response or a solution I didn’t perceive, others point it out. It keeps life rather interesting to explore conflicting ideas rather than to pretend that all is roses and that there are no conflicts.

So the EO believe that Mary and Joseph lived separately all the time Jesus was growing up? Is that what you mean by “her own house?” I’ve honestly never heard such an idea before!

Do the EO have no tradition of the Holy Family as Catholicism does? I mean, separate houses? Or am I misunderstanding you here? So far what I’m hearing IS internally logically correct in that EO claim that second marriages of any kind (via either divorce or widowhood) are less than ideal. So if you believe Mary and Joseph were never wed, then there is no inconsistency created by the EO theory that Joseph had other kids before becoming a widower. But the idea that Joseph and Mary never married really seems to gut the Holy Family to me…

 

[Stilldreamn]

Ever read that passage in the OT where some poor guy sees the Ark of the Covenant about to fall to the ground and grabs it to try to prevent that? God strikes him dead. Seems terribly unfair, no? He meant well and trying to prevent harm is certainly no wrongdoing! But God had made clear that the Ark was HOLY and not to be touched by any non-priest for any reason.

That would be poor Uzzah… I actually made that connection (Mary as the Ark) without the prodding of my Catholic friends years ago. Ever-virgin indeed.

 

[manualman]

??? You’re not usually one to refuse to discuss a subject. I don’t get it.

When somebody comes along and says “I don’t get it. You catholics act like NFP is different than contraception somehow”… We don’t say “Stop it, just stop. You’re being disrespectful.” No, we explain the difference. Why’s this off limits?

 

[manualman]

That would be poor Uzzah… I actually made that connection (Mary as the Ark) without the prodding of my Catholic friends years ago. Ever-virgin indeed.

I had my OT catechesis in the 70’s. I’m doing good to remember the STORY. No way I’m recalling names! But I can recite the verses to Kumbaya!

 

[prodromos]

So the EO believe that Mary and Joseph lived separately all the time Jesus was growing up? Is that what you mean by “her own house?” I’ve honestly never heard such an idea before!

I spoke out of turn. Mary did indeed have her own house, but since they were living in Nazareth after their return from Egypt, they obviously lived in the same house. Their betrothal was to provide for supporr for Mary since she was commited to living her life as a virgin but had no immediate family to provide for her, since her parents Joachim and Anna had long since passed away. Betrothal provided all of the legal benefits of marriage without the marriage bed. Their relationship would have been more like father and daughter, and Joseph’s own daughter Salome was very close to Mary.

Do the EO have no tradition of the Holy Family as Catholicism does? I mean, separate houses? Or am I misunderstanding you here? So far what I’m hearing IS internally logically correct in that EO claim that second marriages of any kind (via either divorce or widowhood) are less than ideal. So if you believe Mary and Joseph were never wed, then there is no inconsistency created by the EO theory that Joseph had other kids before becoming a widower. But the idea that Joseph and Mary never married really seems to gut the Holy Family to me…

That is not the fault of EO tradition though, is it.

 

[manualman]

Well there you go then. I had no idea that the EO didn’t believe that Mary and Joseph were actually married. You taught somebody something!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Mary did indeed have her own house, but since they were living in Nazareth after their return from Egypt, they obviously lived in the same house. Their betrothal was to provide for supporr for Mary since she was commited to living her life as a virgin but had no immediate family to provide for her, since her parents Joachim and Anna had long since passed away. Betrothal provided all of the legal benefits of marriage without the marriage bed. Their relationship would have been more like father and daughter, and Joseph’s own daughter Salome was very close to Mary.

That is not the fault of EO tradition though, is it.

I don’t think it IS the fault of EO tradition; I don’t think you have EO tradition exactly right.
As I understand it, they believe nearly exactly the same thing that we Catholics believe: that Mary & Joseph were indeed married, they just didn’t exercise their right to sex out of a sense of holiness and most likely a vow that they had made.

That’s where we get the term “a Josephite marriage” from. But a marriage it is.

In Matthew’s Gospel, the Angel referrs to Mary as Joseph’s wife (Matt 1:20).

If we project our culture’s terms and understanding of marriage on the historical story, we will misunderstand or at least misstate (and risk others’ misunderstanding) the facts.

 

[Medawlinno]

Not my intent to stir up a hornet’s nest, but with regards to Joseph, I have never believed he was an “older guardian”, simply betrothed to Mary, to marry her for the sole purpose of watching over her as her protector. Joseph’s depiction in most religious art is not overly flattering – an old man who looks more like he could be Mary’s great-grandfather, frequently depicted as looking barely awake half the time and nodding off while supported by his staff (lest he topple over), or being shown seemingly just starring off into space; hardly calls to mind the image of “guardian/protector” in even the broadest sense of the word.

Frankly, if it was the intent of Mary’s parents to more or less provide a guardian, that guardianship could have been accomplished much more easily by simply placing her in a household with an older adult than going through the bother of a marriage. It also begs the question of why wouldn’t they have just kept her at home and acted as her guardians themselves. The whole “guardianship thing” just doesn’t stand to reason for me. One could argue that Mary’s parents were old, but I mean, let’s look at that – Mary was probably around 15 when she married Joseph. Assuming she had, let’s say for the sake of argument, four or five older siblings, that would make her parents somewhere in their late thirties when Mary was married. Hardly old even by ancient standards. Another convenience is having her parents as being “older” when they had Mary. I don’t know that it can be said for certain when Mary’s parents deceased; history does not even record their names let alone when they died; “Anna” and “Joachim” are simply later conventions (similar to the “names” of the three Magi) based on the infancy gospel which is more a work of (pious) fiction than anything. Over time the names have become accepted as fact and are now part of the tradition.

To me the guardianship theory is nothing more than a later device used to back up or bolster the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. No offence intended, but I’m of the opinion she had children with Joseph after Jesus; those children being the named siblings of Jesus in various places in the canonical gospels. So, yes, I believe Joseph (as well as Mary) did indeed have other children.

To be an only child in a Jewish community in the first century AD would have been something extremely unique and worthy of writing about, yet the gospels only speak to the siblings of Jesus, not to the fact he was a supposed only child (Jews were very aware of the first commandment given mankind by God; be fruitful and multiply – to purposely only have one child would, I think, have been almost unthinkable to Jews in those times.

Marriages, up until fairly recently in history, were virtually almost always exclusively arranged by the parents. Said parents usually knew each other for some time whether through business, being neighbors, friendship, etc. As such, the two sets of parents typically both lived in the same town. Joseph’s parents would have most likely have known Mary’s (and as such, I don’t think Joseph was ever born in or came from Bethlehem, but that’s another topic altogether). Joseph, in all likelihood, would have only been a few years older than Mary at best so, somewhere between 17 and 19 when they married. It’s quite possible they may have even known each other growing up.

This age of between 17-19 more or less negates the possibility of Joseph having been previously married and having several children. Even if that were the case, let’s face it, an older widower with several children in tow (some of them possibly almost as old as, indeed if not even older than, Mary herself) doesn’t exactly make a good prospective marriage match for your 14-15 year old daughter.

I don’t know if there is any truth to this, but I have heard/read that with typical Jewish marriages of the time, couples were betrothed for ‘x’ amount of time (a year maybe - ?). During that time, the couple were, I believe, permitted to live together and even have sexual relations. As I understand it, it was sort of a “trial marriage”. During this betrothal period and up until the couple were actually married, the woman was still legally considered a virgin even if said relations produced a child. This may account for Joseph to want to “put her away privately” even though they were not yet fully married; the betrothal was legally binding, just like the marriage, so either partner would have the option of ending the contract (essentially backing out of the marriage contract legally) if there were any issues.