Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[benhur]

wow, talk about spinning a tale out of thin air. There is not a single line of scripture that would back this up.

Well there are three scriptural references but it does sound better for you to say none.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Totally unbiblical.

The idea that the oral preaching of the Apostles is equal to scripture is totally unbiblical?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Do you have a verse that tells us to pay no attention to the Apostles once NT was completed?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is probably why Jesus ,who had foreknowledge of James’s future conversion, still awarded Mary to John (not too mention the immediate consolation of Mary, not having to wait weeks or months for brethren to convert). .

Well, this is just getting surreal.

In one group of threads, we have people arguing that since Jesus said, “No one knows the hour except my Father in heaven”, Jesus could not have been God.

Then we have you saying that Jesus did have foreknowledge of James’ conversion.

You’re both wrong.

Jesus was a single person with two natures - one divine and one human. Jesus was FULLY human, and in his human nature, He did NOT have foreknowledge and He did NOT know the “hour” known only to the Father.

Jesus commended His mother to John because she did not have any other children to care for her. John was the son of Zebedee and the grandson of Clopas who the brother of Joseph. Mary was John’s Great-Aunt, so he was family.

 

[religioussoup]

Considering that Joseph was a poor carpenter who had only one son, odds are that he had some help from Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

What some Catholics neglect to consider that Jesus’s life was not the only thing going on in the world during the Biblical times. The world kept going on, people kept working at their jobs, cities began to thrive. Mary, a young woman, was probably pregnant more than once.

I think it would be much stranger for Mary and Joseph to only have one son than if they had had many children.

 

[benhur]

The idea that the oral preaching of the Apostles is equal to scripture is totally unbiblical

Partly agreed, but that is not what I thought I was responding to. My understanding of my own response (thank you) is that today, two thousand years later after the apostles, and after the compilation of Sacred Scripture and today’s resting spot of Tradition (for it is not finished), it is not equal to Scripture, nor to the Tradition of the first or second century church either.

 

[benhur]

Considering that Joseph was a poor carpenter who had only one son, odds are that he had some help from Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

What some Catholics neglect to consider that Jesus’s life was not the only thing going on in the world during the Biblical times. The world kept going on, people kept working at their jobs, cities began to thrive. Mary, a young woman, was probably pregnant more than once.

I think it would be much stranger for Mary and Joseph to only have one son than if they had had many children.

Thank you. Welcome to CAF. Another neat thing I have sees on a video is the irony of Jewish /Roman politics. Apparently a bit before Christ;'s time, the Jews revolted and were defeated near Caesaria (was called something else). The place was leveled. The new Roman Emperor decided to rebuild the city in his honor and name. It was near Nazareth and quite possible Joseph and Jesus were employed by the huge project.

 

[benhur]

Well, this is just getting surreal.

In one group of threads, we have people arguing that since Jesus said, “No one knows the hour except my Father in heaven”, Jesus could not have been God.

Then we have you saying that Jesus did have foreknowledge of James’ conversion.

You’re both wrong.

Jesus was a single person with two natures - one divine and one human. Jesus was FULLY human, and in his human nature, He did NOT have foreknowledge and He did NOT know the “hour” known only to the Father.

Jesus commended His mother to John because she did not have any other children to care for her. John was the son of Zebedee and the grandson of Clopas who the brother of Joseph. Mary was John’s Great-Aunt, so he was family.

Still does not answer why a closer kin was not awarded as a half brother .

Are you really saying Jesus did not have an interface, an exchange, a union with his divine nature ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still does not answer why a closer kin was not awarded as a half brother .

Are you really saying Jesus did not have an interface, an exchange, a union with his divine nature ?

Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.

How can God grow in wisdom?

 

[Porknpie]

Partly agreed, but that is not what I thought I was responding to. My understanding of my own response (thank you) is that today, two thousand years later after the apostles, and after the compilation of Sacred Scripture and today’s resting spot of Tradition (for it is not finished), it is not equal to Scripture, nor to the Tradition of the first or second century church either.

Benhur,

Let’s take a peak at the living Tradition of that first and second century Church:

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

St. Ignatius of Antioch
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

St Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Also, the Catechism para. #83 says:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

The Catechism picks up the point of Scripture itself coming from the living Tradition. There was no NT scripture, not the 27 books we have today in the first or second century Church. The forth century Church? For sure: 27 books of the NT and 46 books of the OT, discerned by Catholic Bishops and affirmed multiple times. You compilation of scripture is missing 7 books that was affirmed in the living Tradition of that early Church.

Without a living Tradition, you would have no bible. :nope:

 

[ericc]

Considering that Joseph was a poor carpenter who had only one son, odds are that he had some help from Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

On the same token, if you are poor, it makes economic sense to have 1 child.

What some Catholics neglect to consider that Jesus’s life was not the only thing going on in the world during the Biblical times. The world kept going on, people kept working at their jobs, cities began to thrive. Mary, a young woman, was probably pregnant more than once.

Clap, clap. Spoken like a true modern 21st century person. Luckily for non-confused Catholics, your imagination stays within your mental world. If you a have a VERY special child, 1 child is all you need. You have God under your roof and all you are thinking is that life goes on per normal? Fortunately Joseph is a righteous Jew and he knows his place and responsibility for the child-God.

I think it would be much stranger for Mary and Joseph to only have one son than if they had had many children.

I think it very strange for Mary to have more children when 1 is enough. Don’t you agree if you have a child-God in your house, HE is all you ever need?

 

[ericc]

Can the inventor of sex/marriage be defiled by it in the best of intentions?

Sorry, I missed your post. Yes, one can defile holy objects when one is not authorized to. Therefore the intention is bad. This is a strange way of arguing a point since God is the creator of all things. All things are created good but improper usage and disobedience is the downfall.

 

[PRmerger]

Where are you PR ? Another either/or argument.

Yes, ben. Some things are either/or.

AGAIN you are making an ALONE or ONLY, where none need exist.

Some things are either/or. Some things are not.

In this case, what vsedriver has posited is very, very logical. If the Church is wrong about this, how do you know she got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

What is the measure you use to discern if she got it right or wrong as it applies to this canon?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said (here):

Wow .Two posts just to say brothers does not mean brothers , nor sisters sisters. but thank you lot of passionate work.

But I am not saying “brothers” doesn’t mean “brothers” OK?

I am saying “brothers” means a LOT of different things in Scripture.

And you must have some good evidence before you can draw conclusions as to what sense “brothers” is being used in a given passage.

It is irresponsible handling of Sacred Scripture to throw an unscripturally truncated or a proverbial “Americanized” view of “brothers” into Sacred Scripture without evidence.

And since there is no evidence of an “Americanized” view of “brothers” in Scripture (in the salient passages concerning Jesus), then you need to turn to other sources.

• And if you turn to Oral Tradition it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Fathers it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Eastern Churches (including their Liturgy) it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Church today it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Councils it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to implicit teachings of Sacred Scripture it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Saints throughout the ages it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But alas . . . .

• And if you turn to heretics it DENIES the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

As Mark Shea has said: “You are not going to get a certificate” here.

These truths are very sublime and this delicate manner is exactly how I would expect this truth to be treated by the Holy Spirit.

Again, “brothers” means a LOT of different things in Scripture. Randy has posted this earlier. I will post it again.

Some New Testament Examples Where Adelphos or “Brothers” Are Used And HOW It Is Used . . . .

1. Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
3. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
4. Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
5. Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
6. Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
7. All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
8. The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
9. Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

The Hebrew word which would have been used in the culture, “ach” or “ah” (Aramaic, a Semitic language variant) meant not only uterine bothers, but cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fellow tribesmen, etc. etc.

• ach = brothers
• ach = cousins
• ach = second cousins
• ach = third cousins
• ach = distant relatives
• ach = fellow tribesmen
• ach = etc. etc.

The word “ach” (Hebrew) or “ah” (Aramaic), means “brother” to be sure, but “brother” in an ancient Hebrew culture had a very wide meaning.

There was no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “cousin” or “distant relative”!

---

I asked for one verse where someone is described as a son or daughter of Mary. I know it can’t be done and you know it can’t be done.

I asked for one verse where Mary is described as someone’s mother (other than Jesus) other than in a spiritual sense. I also know it can’t be done and you also know it can’t be done.

---

Your Marian doctrine effects your Christologic doctrine. This is WHY ancient Christians were united on this doctrinal teaching and is part of the answer to the original question of the post . . . .

. . . . “Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?” . . .

(Part of) The answer is, because it effects your Christology.

 

[Cathoholic]

I think part of the reason people have such a difficulty with the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is due to a loss of the sense of the sacred in the world for a long time now.

In the Temple there were sacred consecrated vessels for the Israelite Temple worship services. Gold chalices were among them.

What does “consecrated” mean in a general sense?

Something that is “consecrated”, is something that is set apart exclusively for Holy usage—A Holy Dedication to God.

Their usage is dedicated ONLY for what it is intended for.

Consecration = Holy Dedication = For this special purpose alone.

So the Priests in our day have chalices that they use ONLY for the Mass.

Yet it would be an utter sacrilege for the Priest to take the Sacred Chalice out to a picnic and drink beer or juice out of that chalice.

Why?

Because you don’t take something that’s consecrated, you don’t take something that’s dedicated for a holy special purpose (in this case for use in the Mass), and use it for common or profane circumstances.

• Use of “Dixie Cups” at the picnic etc. for beer or juice? = No problem.
• Use of a Holy Chalice for picnic beverages? = BIG problem.

You all recall Belshazzar’s Feast (see here).

After Nebuchadnezzar had died, later his son Belshazzar was king.

Belshazzar decided to throw a party, take the sacred holy consecrated vessels (that he stole from the Israelites) out of their proverbial storage and use these sacred vessels for his party.

Also Belshazzar recited prayers—using these same sacred vessels—to his pagan gods!

This was a sacrilege. Not a good idea Belshazzar.

As Belshazzar and his “posse” were “living it up”, all of a sudden a supernatural hand appeared and wrote something on the wall of the palace right there where Belshazzar and his fellow partiers all were.

The Prophet Daniel explains . . .

DANIEL 5:1-7a 1 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. 2 Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 **Then they brought in the golden and silver vessels which had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. **5 Immediately the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand; and the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. . . .

Then Belshazzar after committing his sacrilege brought more trouble upon himself by responding to all of this with MORE paganism (bringing in his enchanters and astrologers).

The hand wrote “MENE”, “MENE”, “TEKEL”, “UPHARSIN”. Nobody knew what this meant including all Belshazzar’s magicians. So eventually the Prophet Daniel was called in to the king’s court to interpret the message.

DANIEL 5:13-15, 23-28, 30-31 13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, "You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. 14 I have heard of you that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. . . . 23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” . . . 30 That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

---

Sometimes this loss the sense of the sacred occurs in our culture as well. Especially as it concerns the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Contd. . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

Continued from last post . . .

Sometimes this loss the sense of the sacred occurs in our culture as well. Especially as it concerns the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Are we to think God ordained mere chalices for a special purpose, but NOT Mary the Mother of Jesus—this same Jesus who is God in the flesh!?

**
If these sacred vessels are held in such high regard by God Himself, how much MORE would the Blessed Virgin Mary**, who didn’t carry mere wine for worship services but GOD ALMIGHTY in the flesh taken from HER flesh (Galatians 4:4)!?

---

Nothing “dirty” or “bad” in the use of cups. . . . . BUT! . . . . .

But you don’t use Sacred Consecrated vessels for common everyday usage.

This concept is EXACTLY WHY St. Jerome could say to Helvidius (here) in the late 300’s A.D. . . . .

ST. JEROME In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, (Matthew 1:20) “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, (Matthew 1:20) “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;” and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus (Luke 2:14) “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;” and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation;” and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; **Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? **

– St. Jerome against Helvidius section 8

Your Mariologic views affect your Christologic views and St. Jerome and all the Ancient Church Fathers knew well of this concept!

To attack the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also an attack on Jesus.

That’s WHY Cardinal Newman–a convert from Protestantism–could say:

"Catholics who have honored the Mother, still worship the Son, while Protestants who now have ceased to confess the Son, began then by scoffing at the Mother. "

 

[MartinJordan]

Didn’t Simeon say that Mary will feel the sword when her sons suffers? If he could prophecy then, why not mention that Mary can then find solace with her other (future?) children?

Or why didn’t “other” children of Mary try to convince her not to show up there? Really is that a place for a mother to see her child in that state of suffering?

There are too many questions than answers that there were more children for Mary.

MJ

 

[Cathoholic]

Just a clarification in post 572 of mine.

When I talked of “mere wine” in a worship service and said (bold and ul added):

If these sacred vessels are held in such high regard by God Himself, how much MORE would the Blessed Virgin Mary, who didn’t carry mere wine for worship services but GOD ALMIGHTY in the flesh taken from HER flesh (Galatians 4:4)!?

I was referring to the “mere wine” of the Old Covenant chalices that Nebuchadnezzar had had pilfered from the Temple (that I was alluding to in post 571 here leading up to post 572 here) in Daniel chapter 5 that I quoted.

I re-read this later and saw that someone might take this the wrong way so I wanted to be explicit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

benhur. You said (here):

But I am not saying “brothers” doesn’t mean “brothers” OK?

I am saying “brothers” means a LOT of different things in Scripture.

And you must have some good evidence before you can draw conclusions as to what sense “brothers” is being used in a given passage.

It is irresponsible handling of Sacred Scripture to throw an unscripturally truncated or a proverbial “Americanized” view of “brothers” into Sacred Scripture without evidence.

And since there is no evidence of an “Americanized” view of “brothers” in Scripture (in the salient passages concerning Jesus), then you need to turn to other sources.

• And if you turn to Oral Tradition it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Fathers it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Eastern Churches (including their Liturgy) it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Church today it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Councils it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to implicit teachings of Sacred Scripture it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Saints throughout the ages it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But alas . . . .

• And if you turn to heretics it DENIES the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

As Mark Shea has said: “You are not going to get a certificate” here.

These truths are very sublime and this delicate manner is exactly how I would expect this truth to be treated by the Holy Spirit.

Again, “brothers” means a LOT of different things in Scripture. Randy has posted this earlier. I will post it again.

Some New Testament Examples Where Adelphos or “Brothers” Are Used And HOW It Is Used . . . .

1. Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
3. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
4. Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
5. Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
6. Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
7. All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
8. The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
9. Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

The Hebrew word which would have been used in the culture, “ach” or “ah” (Aramaic, a Semitic language variant) meant not only uterine bothers, but cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fellow tribesmen, etc. etc.

• ach = brothers
• ach = cousins
• ach = second cousins
• ach = third cousins
• ach = distant relatives
• ach = fellow tribesmen
• ach = etc. etc.

The word “ach” (Hebrew) or “ah” (Aramaic), means “brother” to be sure, but “brother” in an ancient Hebrew culture had a very wide meaning.

There was no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “cousin” or “distant relative”!

---

I asked for one verse where someone is described as a son or daughter of Mary. I know it can’t be done and you know it can’t be done.

I asked for one verse where Mary is described as someone’s mother (other than Jesus) other than in a spiritual sense. I also know it can’t be done and you also know it can’t be done.

---

Your Marian doctrine effects your Christologic doctrine. This is WHY ancient Christians were united on this doctrinal teaching and is part of the answer to the original question of the post . . . .

. . . . “Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?” . . .

(Part of) The answer is, because it effects your Christology.

Outstanding.

:clapping:

And don’t forget, if you turn to the Early Protestant Reformers, they point you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

benhur-

What exactly are you getting out of this discussion at this point?

You’ve been shown overwhelming evidence in support of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from every conceivable source.

Yet, you continue to cling to a few verses which simply do not mean what you need for them to mean, and they have been explained clearly to you. This doctrine does not affect your Protestant theology in any way that I can see.

So, WHY is it SO important to you to deny this doctrine?

 

[religioussoup]

On the same token, if you are poor, it makes economic sense to have 1 child.

Clap, clap. Spoken like a true modern 21st century person. Luckily for non-confused Catholics, your imagination stays within your mental world. If you a have a VERY special child, 1 child is all you need. You have God under your roof and all you are thinking is that life goes on per normal? Fortunately Joseph is a righteous Jew and he knows his place and responsibility for the child-God.

I think it very strange for Mary to have more children when 1 is enough. Don’t you agree if you have a child-God in your house, HE is all you ever need?

I should’ve included that what I wrote was what I personally believed.

As a matter of fact, in the higher-developed countries of this world, you would be right to say that it makes more economic sense to have 1 child. However, in the lower-developed countries, it makes much more sense to have more children. This is the case of the current overpopulation problem in India, since children are less of an expense and more of an asset. Also, the diseases during that time and lack of medical knowledge would’ve caused Mary and Joseph to want more children (like everyone else did), in case something happened to them.

Of course, if you have God under your roof, that’s pretty special. But while Jesus went off preaching and sharing his new ideas, who was helping Joseph/Mary actually sustain their family? You can’t pay taxes by using the money your son received while coming up with the idea of baptism.

I think that the bible should sometimes be interpreted literally, but other times be interpreted realistically. Personally, I do not believe in Adam and Eve one bit. But I do believe that disobeying your parents is wrong, and that is the underlying tone of the story. I believe that Mary and Joseph had more children. That doesn’t make Jesus any less the son of God or make Mary any less pure. It means that they needed to do what they needed to survive as a carpenter and his wife so they could provide for each other, the son of man, and their children.