The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[guanophore]

Yes he was a gentlemen. He thought she cheated on him and instead of pressing charges he decided to do it quietly until Gabriel gave him the truth.

Another way of looking at this would be that he believed every word of what Mary told him about the Annuciation, but being a righteously humble man, he did not consider himself worthy to raise the Son of God. He may have realized that God had much bigger plans for Mary, and that he was not a significant part of them. It took God to reveal this to him directly so that he would take her into his custody, and take on the responsibility of being the foster father of Jesus.

Then he took her as his wife but didn’t engage in sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Jesus birth came after the 1 year waiting period for jewish couples to engage in marital relations. Was Joseph going to have sex with Mary while carrying Jesus?? NO. If he was only protecting her virginity then why would Matthew even write this verse?? It’s not necessary. He wouldn’t need to KNOW her if they weren’t going to have sex.

He understood that she was the spouse of the HS, and just as no one would put a hand to the Ark of the Covenant, he considered her a holy vessel, set aside for the work of God, and not for himself.

 

[Deacon110]

The expression in some English translations stating that Joseph “had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she had borne a son” seems to point to other children. But our English word *until *impies “only up to and not beyond.” The Greek and Aramaic words translated by *until *usually meant “up to” without ruling out the beyond. *Until *in English suggests that Joseph did have relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. But *until *in the Greek or Aramaic does not suggest the he did. It focuses only on the time up to the birth of Jesus and syas nothing about what happened thereafter. A similar expression in 2 Samual 6:23 states that Michal “had not child to the day of her death.” The English translation uses *to *instead of until, but the original word behind both phrases is the same, and obviously Michal did not have children after her death. In Matt. 23:20, Jesus says, “I am with you always, to eht end of the age.” (The word translated here as *to *is the same as the *until *of Matthew 1:25.)

Sorry but I’ve seen this argument too many times. Michal never had any children during her lifetime and saying she didn’t have any “until” or “to” is just another way of saying she didn’t have any children while she lived. Which if you read 2 Samuel you will see that she didn’t.

As far as using the word until to denote up to that time does not apply here either. Why? Because during this time when a man and woman were betrothed they legally could not have sex for a period of 1 year. During this year if the marriage was not working they could legally get divorced. At the one year point the 2 would have the legal right to consumate the marriage with the intent of having children.

Given that Mary was betrothed to Joseph for several months before the visit from Gabriel meant that she would have still been pregnant at the 1 year mark of their marriage with the baby Jesus. So obviously they could not have consumated the marriage at that point in time, hence the need to wait until Jesus was born. This is why Matthew writes the verse in this fashion. If Mary had been a virgin and taken her oath to God as described in Numbers 30 then there would have been no reason for Matthew to clarify that they weren’t having sex up until Jesus was born. The only caviat to that would have been if her father or Joseph overrode the oath which under GOD’s law either of them could have done. So if she took an oath that would have clarified they definitely weren’t having sex. If she didn’t take the oath OR Joseph or Mary’s father overrode it then again we’re back to what happened after Jesus was born. So we have 2 reasons for not needing the clarification of the time frame before Jesus was born 1) legally they couldn’t have sex and 2) if she took the oath. This verse then is a moot point.

Here’s an example I keep using. Let’s say I tell you I’m fasting to 12pm. Or I’m fasting until 12pm. Either way I’m not eating up until 12pm. But how about after 12pm. There would be no need for me to specifiy a time if the status of what I was doing wasn’t going to change. It doesn’t matter if it’s greek or english. Likewise if I said I was going to fast “until” or “to” the day I die, does that mean I’m eating after I die? No. It means I’m not eating while I live. So in that example the use of the word “until” and “to” denoting my entire life makes sense because I’m not changing the status while I live. Likewise back to Mary if she was a perpetual virgin there would be no need for Matthew to clarify that her status as a virgin had changed by telling us she hadn’t been having sex “until” or “to” Jesus was born. The verse would simply be irrevelant.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Because I’m interpreting it applying the law of those times and the use of the word “know” in Greek throughout the Bible. When a man knows a woman that means they had marital relations plain and simple. If you would like examples I can give you plenty. Adam knowing Eve and having Cain and Abel. Adam knowing Eve again and having Seth just to name 2 easy ones. So I think we both agree the use of the word know means sex plain and simple. So then we’re back to the use of the word until or to. Going by the laws for husband and wife back then they were not allowed to have sex until (there’s that word) they were married for 1 year. So yes it makes sense that they weren’t having sex during that year because it was against the law, but then at the end of the year they were allowed to.

So basically what you are saying is that in greek if someone says a man betrothed to a woman cannot have sex legally until or to 1 year, you want to say that ONLY means they cannot have sex during that 1 year. So how about after? Saying that statement has absolutely no implication for after the year is up makes no sense. It doesn’t matter what language you use. If that’s the case you would have to tell me what the proper way to write this statement would be. How do you imply that a man and woman can have sex after 1 year if the word until or to is taken out?

 

[Lampo]

Originally Posted by Lampo View Post
Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Because …

Hold the phone! Are you infallible? Could you be wrong in your interpretation? Don’t you believe that as Christians we all have the right to interpret the Bible as we see fit as long as we’re guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Deacon110]

Another way of looking at this would be that he believed every word of what Mary told him about the Annuciation, but being a righteously humble man, he did not consider himself worthy to raise the Son of God. He may have realized that God had much bigger plans for Mary, and that he was not a significant part of them. It took God to reveal this to him directly so that he would take her into his custody, and take on the responsibility of being the foster father of Jesus.

That doesn’t even make sense. Why did Joseph not want to put shame to Mary then?? No disrespect but let’s look at what Gabriel says to Joseph:

Matthew 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

So Joseph was pondering a divorce. Then Gabriel clarifies that her baby is from the Holy Spirit. If Joseph felt unworthy to raise Jesus then Gabriel would not have said this. Gabriel is clarifying that the baby is from the Holy Spirit as opposed to from another man.

He understood that she was the spouse of the HS, and just as no one would put a hand to the Ark of the Covenant, he considered her a holy vessel, set aside for the work of God, and not for himself.

No he didn’t know she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Gabriel doesn’t even refer to Mary this way. The focus is strictly on the baby. One simple part you are missing that destroys your argument as I stated above:

Matthew 1: 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

If Joseph felt unworthy then why does Matthew say he did not want to put Mary to shame??? What shame is there in the Holy Spirit?? That completely makes no sense considering how just of a man Joseph was.

PEACE

 

[Lampo]

Originally Posted by Lampo View Post
Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Because…

On who’s authority do you claim this? Who could tell you that you are wrong. You have basically made yourself your own pope!

 

[Deacon110]

Originally Posted by Lampo View Post
Why is your interpretation better than mine?

Hold the phone! Are you infallible? Could you be wrong in your interpretation? Don’t you believe that as Christians we all have the right to interpret the Bible as we see fit as long as we’re guided by the Holy Spirit?

Of course I’m not infallible. I never claimed nor do I claim that at all. And of course we’re all guided into the truth. But on this we disagree so someone is obviously completely incorrect, or we’re both somewhat correct. We’re simply debating the scripture which is a good learning experience for us both. If you want to believe she was a perpetual virgin you can. I’m just simply trying to show you that based on scripture and the laws of that time there could be another possibility. I think the scripture plainly states that they had normal marital relations. Now I have to ask you. Why is this so bad?? We know how GOD feels about marriage and having children. It would seem more logical then that Mary and Joseph would have continued this tradition given their obvious respect for GOD.

Now here’s one more possibility that we could consider. I said we both could be correct (somewhat that is). Isn’t it a possibility that Mary and Joseph did have normal marital relations but quite possibly Mary couldn’t have any more children after Jesus. They may have tried but maybe Mary could not get pregnant. It doesn’t completely explain the references to brothers and sisters. We can explain some of the brothers as belonging to another woman but not all. And the parental status of the sisters is only an assumption. Then there’s the issue of the word desposynos (family) that we see in Mark 3:21, that later refers to Jesus Mother and Brothers in Mark 3:31. This name (desposynos) was reserved exclusively for Jesus blood relatives and for the first century and a half was highly respected and esteemed.

I’ve been in this debate plenty of times in and out of this forum and I can always answer any objection or refute an alternate interpretation with good evidence and sound reasoning. Most people usually end up saying I see what you mean. But it seems people are afraid to make the jump that Mary could have had normal marital relations with Joseph therefore having more children. Notice I say could have. It’s almost like it’s disrespectful and this I don’t get. Think of how righteous Mary is by hearing the command of GOD and obeying. In Luke after hearing Jesus preach, a woman from the crowd yells blessed is the womb from which you came and the breasts from which you nursed. Jesus reply is blessed rather are those who hear the will of GOD and obey. So obviously Jesus places a premium on obeying GOD and not who Mary is as a person.

But given the role model she was and is, it would make sense that GOD would give her more children to raise.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Originally Posted by Lampo View Post
Why is your interpretation better than mine?

On who’s authority do you claim this? Who could tell you that you are wrong. You have basically made yourself your own pope!

The pope is a different topic. But this is not about the pope. And yes someone could tell me I’m wrong but then they would have to give good reasoning as to why I am. So you ask who could tell me I’m wrong. Well you are. But to do that I ask for a reasonable explanation. I don’t rule out the possibility that I’m wrong ever. Of course I could be wrong but as long as I can answer objections successfully maybe I’m right.

The bottom line is Mary could have had normal marital relations. Mary could have had more children. To me if she did great, what an awesome Mother. If she didn’t? Ok she didn’t. Nobody knows for sure as we didn’t exist back then. People also thought for a very long time the world was flat. Is it?

PEACE

 

[Righteousone]

The pope is a different topic. But this is not about the pope. And yes someone could tell me I’m wrong but then they would have to give good reasoning as to why I am. So you ask who could tell me I’m wrong. Well you are. But to do that I ask for a reasonable explanation. I don’t rule out the possibility that I’m wrong ever. Of course I could be wrong but as long as I can answer objections successfully maybe I’m right.

The bottom line is Mary could have had normal marital relations. Mary could have had more children. To me if she did great, what an awesome Mother. If she didn’t? Ok she didn’t. Nobody knows for sure as we didn’t exist back then. People also thought for a very long time the world was flat. Is it?

PEACE

Is it me, your profile says you are Catholic. Why then do you question about Mary, the Blessed Mother? Shouldn’t you know as a Catholic she was a virgin and bore no children but Christ?
And the world was flat according to some peolpe but Christopher columbus, who was Catholic discovered it wasn’t.

 

[teadough]

We know how GOD feels about marriage and having children. It would seem more logical then that Mary and Joseph would have continued this tradition given their obvious respect for GOD.

The one question I never really thought of that has always stuck with me since my decision to convert was this: “If you were Mary’s husband and you knew for a fact that she had carried the Messiah of the world in her womb could you honestly say you could have sexual relations with her?”

I know many people will say yes just for the sake of argument,however,I would not look at her that way. Think about it. You are laying in bed with the lady who gave birth to Christ. How on earth could someone do it?Was Joseph like “shhhh, we better be quiet or we are going to wake up Jesus.”

 

[Pax]

…
…
The bottom line is Mary could have had normal marital relations. Mary could have had more children. To me if she did great, what an awesome Mother. If she didn’t? Ok she didn’t. Nobody knows for sure as we didn’t exist back then. People also thought for a very long time the world was flat. Is it?

PEACE

Deacon,

Please read the article at: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

After reading it, please give your analysis and refutation if you think it unsound. I’m interested in getting your take on this.

 

[Old_Scholar]

It does? Where? Where exactly does it say something like, “Joses, the son of Mary” or some such thing?

I have quoted the Scriptures many times in this post…

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS…

You wish to keep saying that there is only one meaning to those passages, but this is not true… I am a blood relative of cousin, but I am not his brother… These are valid meanings as it applies to scripture as well. Words mean a multitude of different things, especially Greek.

Also, with respect to the bible being the best evidence…

While I agree that the bible is the best source of truth period, it is not separate from history. If there is NO evidence of any brother or sister in either Christian or secular sources, then is it possible that your understanding of those scriptures is off.

The bible isn’t wrong, but it also won’t be the opposite of history. If there is no history of any kind outside of scripture, then that means that the understanding you speak of is off because the bible WON’T be the opposite of scripture…

Further more, if you really do believe the tomb ‘story’ thats says more than you think. And not in a positive light.

With respect to Decon’s Comments, While you do put forth a logical reason why they could have existed, the fact is, there still is no evidence. We have Christian writing about a lot of things outside of the bible, but no where do we have any mention of siblings. And as mentioned, I can be blood relatives, but nor a sibling.

But all the same, thank you for your comments

In Christ

Apparently you are not reading the Scriptures…

 

[Old_Scholar]

It does? Where? Where exactly does it say something like, “Joses, the son of Mary” or some such thing?

Read the Scriptures previously quoted.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Another way of looking at this would be that he believed every word of what Mary told him about the Annuciation, but being a righteously humble man, he did not consider himself worthy to raise the Son of God. He may have realized that God had much bigger plans for Mary, and that he was not a significant part of them. It took God to reveal this to him directly so that he would take her into his custody, and take on the responsibility of being the foster father of Jesus.

He understood that she was the spouse of the HS, and just as no one would put a hand to the Ark of the Covenant, he considered her a holy vessel, set aside for the work of God, and not for himself.

And so the brothers and sisters just simply appeared out of thin air???

 

[Old_Scholar]

Is it me, your profile says you are Catholic. Why then do you question about Mary, the Blessed Mother? Shouldn’t you know as a Catholic she was a virgin and bore no children but Christ?
And the world was flat according to some peolpe but Christopher columbus, who was Catholic discovered it wasn’t.

You’re really saying that if you’re Catholic then you have to believe Mary remained a virgin and that the Bible is wrong. I’m also a Catholic (albeit not a Roman Catholic) but I believe the Scriptures and they say Jesus had brothers and sisters and Joseph and Mary were their mother and father. To say that there were no more children of Mary when the Bible is so explicit is simply not true.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Is it me, your profile says you are Catholic. Why then do you question about Mary, the Blessed Mother? Shouldn’t you know as a Catholic she was a virgin and bore no children but Christ?
And the world was flat according to some peolpe but Christopher columbus, who was Catholic discovered it wasn’t.

Not all Catholics are Roman Catholics…

 

[Lampo]

I have quoted the Scriptures many times in this post…

Good. I have too. Would you oblige me and show me where exactly it says something like, “Joses, the son of Mary” or some such thing?

 

[Lampo]

I’m also a Catholic (albeit not a Roman Catholic) but I believe the Scriptures and they say Jesus had brothers and sisters…

Then you must believe the Blessed Mother had 80-90 children if you interpret the Scriptures the way that you do.

 

[Lampo]

And of course we’re all guided into the truth. But on this we disagree so someone is obviously completely incorrect, or we’re both somewhat correct.

I am a moral absolutist. Either the Blessed Mother remained a virgin or she did not. Since you and I disagree on the same passages of Scripture pertaining to her perpetual virginity, suppose we should go to the “pillar and bullwark of truth” to find the answer?