Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[Irishgal49]

Yes - One CAN ask these questions but one does not need to. They were not considered important enough by the Holy Spirit to cause them to be either a) recorded or b) passed to us in Sacred Tradition.

So be careful as you speculate lest you find your faith challenged…

Peace
James

Actually it seems only those who tout the perpetual virginity have a faith challenge. It doesn’t change the Blessed Mother for me at all.

Here’s a monkey wrench for the machinery: What it Mary and Joseph had sex and Mary had no other children? How about that? Could be possible and as possible at everything else everyone is emotionally tossing around here.

 

[Irishgal49]

Did Mary then lie to Gabriel? She vowed to be the handmaid, or bond slave, of the Lord. No ending date on her promise. You will please note that she was with Jesus, and vice versa, from virgin womb to virgin tomb.

Doesn’t need to be an ending date–the ending date is the birth of the one forecast. The POINT of the angel coming was about Jesus–the other children aren’t the reason for the visit. Jesus was to be unique, that’s why no mention. There is no virgin tomb–have no idea where you invented that.

Why was Mary so surprised to hear that she would bear a child? So surprised that she had the presence of mind to ask God’s angel *how on earth * she was going to have a child. Think of what the angel’s appearance did to the **soldiers ** in Matthew 28:2-4 - his appearance was like lightning and they became like dead men.

Wouldn’t you be shocked if you were 14, engaged, not yet been fully married and wasn’t with your husband and an angel said you were having a baby? “how can I have a baby, I don’t have sex”. That makes sense since her and Joseph hadn’t been fully married. Even engaged couples had to divorce back then so this fits in perfectly with arguments both ways.

Besides, Gabriel said, “behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bear a Son” Singular. Not children. Not a family. We are talking the supernatural here. Joseph had to be commanded to take her as his wife. This was no normal family! Do we think as man does and not as God does?

OK let’s get this clear. The angel was not laying out Mary’s LIFE PLAN (on Tues you will levitate to the market and buy fruit). The angel was talking about Jesus. There is no need to mention other children as that is not the POINT or PURPOSE of the message. I am not going to come talk to you about your other 5 children when I want to talk about your oldest, am I? This makes no sense at all.

Mary existed first as an idea in the Divine intellect. Then, to take flesh for our salvation, her future Son saw to it that she was conceived in her mother’s womb so that, in turn, she could give her flesh to Jesus for the salvation of the world. Jesus chose, then created His own mother!

OK and how does this change her having sex? She might have had sex and not had other children. That is entirely possible too right?

Lastly, name one other “son”, “daughter”, or “other children” of Mary. Can’t. Be careful here about reading into scripture what is not there.

I have seen several names given to Jesus’ siblings. Not cousins, not “relatives” SIBLINGS, which may explain why the leadership of his home town doubted him. Is he not just one of Joseph’s family?

 

[Irishgal49]

No, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest - it is totally irrelevant to my relationship with God. It would also simplify all the meaningless rationalizations people wrestle with trying to smooth out all the issues that don’t really make sense.

Isn’t it funny that people do this whole “dance”? If you have to manipulate tradition, scripture, and common sense to slam that square peg into a round hole, then maybe you’re wrong??? I totally agree with your point about it not making a darned bit of sense. The more dancing the church does, the less I believe it. If it’s fact simply state the evidence—people get all emotional and boo hoo and pull out stuff that doesn’t pertain to it at all. Scripture is CLEAR, there were siblings. Deal with it as Joseph’s kids or whatever, but I’m sure they were sexual…that’s part of a Jewish marriage. Obviously not part of a Catholic marriage from the repressed stuff I hear on here, but Jews had no issue with sex. Heck they downplay Peter being married and cough and sputter when that’s mentioned. Too bad, they don’t have to go with these ideas, but people will continue to leave the Church in droves. Sad when it’s not even something they can prove.

I will say I love the Blessed Mother. I honor her as the virgin mother of God. I think she was extraordinary in all of creation. But that doesn’t mean she was a virgin all her life. It’s like the Catholic Church just flat out hates sexuality. If you are sexual, then you are debased somehow. Why? She was married.

I really truly have no problem with her not remaining a virgin. She did was she was supposed to do in that regard. Joseph did too “UNTIL” she was born. That word is very telling and watch the Church ignore and dance around that word. I say it failed to prove it’s point in that regard.

 

[TimothyH]

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims or assertions here. This is speculation, theologizing and your opinion. Mary was to be kept pure until the birth of Jesus. Saying that her being a wife and mother and having appropriate and allowed relations with her own husband is somehow “damaging” her or making her impure doesn’t say much for all the holy wives and mothers (many of whom are saints) that are part of our faith.

I assert nothing. These are not my assertions but the teaching of the 2000 year old Catholic Church. Nor am I theologizing but simply reading from the Bible.

Mary had one husband, and that was the Holy Spirit. For mary to have then had children by another would make her an adulterer, and that would make the Savoir of Mankind the son of an adulterer. .

-Tim-

 

[JRKH]

Actually it seems only those who tout the perpetual virginity have a faith challenge. It doesn’t change the Blessed Mother for me at all.

Well - I don’t “tout” the PV but I do accept it because it is a dogma of the Church - a decree of my King Jesus Christ. I see no reason to question His decree issued the Church to which
He Himself gave the authority to bind and loose…

Here’s a monkey wrench for the machinery: What it Mary and Joseph had sex and Mary had no other children? How about that? Could be possible and as possible at everything else everyone is emotionally tossing around here.

Certainly it could have been possible - and really there is no “monkey wrench” at all because if Mary and Joseph were to have other children together everything else would align with that pre-ordained fact.

You see that is the problem with questions like these. A person changes one item and then everyone else tries to make sense of it without recognizing how that one change would effect other things.
First and foremost there simply would not have been a widely held tradition from the earliest days saying that Mary remained a virgin. The proof would have been walking around in the persons of Mary and Joseph’s children. Lineages were important to Ancient peoples…This would have been widely known.
Likewise with the various OT prophesies etc…Whatever was going to be would be properly prophesied…So - there would be no problem.

So - If one asks the question “would it matter” if Mary and Joseph had other children. The answer is NO because if that had been a part of God’s Plan then He would have fitted everything else properly around it…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t it funny that people do this whole “dance”? If you have to manipulate tradition, scripture, and common sense to slam that square peg into a round hole, then maybe you’re wrong??? I totally agree with your point about it not making a darned bit of sense. The more dancing the church does, the less I believe it. If it’s fact simply state the evidence—people get all emotional and boo hoo and pull out stuff that doesn’t pertain to it at all. Scripture is CLEAR, there were siblings. Deal with it as Joseph’s kids or whatever, but I’m sure they were sexual…that’s part of a Jewish marriage. Obviously not part of a Catholic marriage from the repressed stuff I hear on here, but Jews had no issue with sex. Heck they downplay Peter being married and cough and sputter when that’s mentioned. Too bad, they don’t have to go with these ideas, but people will continue to leave the Church in droves. Sad when it’s not even something they can prove.

I will say I love the Blessed Mother. I honor her as the virgin mother of God. I think she was extraordinary in all of creation. But that doesn’t mean she was a virgin all her life. It’s like the Catholic Church just flat out hates sexuality. If you are sexual, then you are debased somehow. Why? She was married.

I really truly have no problem with her not remaining a virgin. She did was she was supposed to do in that regard. Joseph did too “UNTIL” she was born. That word is very telling and watch the Church ignore and dance around that word. I say it failed to prove it’s point in that regard.

In all Love, I must say that I begin to have a problem when posts like this start showing up from someone who claims to be “Catholic with no adjectives”.
You slam the Church for what you seem to think is it’s ignoring or “dancing” around Scripture, but then you seem to ignore the very real, very clear and very comprehensive authority given to her by Jesus Christ Himself. The Authority to Bind and Loose - Whatever…(Mt 18:18) and our obligation as subject of our Lord and King to “Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17)
The Church, after many centuries and much prayerful consideration, has “bound” that Mary was Perpetually a Virgin. Thus it is Bound in Heaven. So says Christ our King.

So we must ask those who would deny such things - how do you “dance around” this? Why do you presume to teach or to publicly hold a position in opposition to that which is bound in heaven?

Something worth prayerfully considering.

Irishgal - I do not intend the above to be a personal attack. You are certainly not the only one I have ever seen on these boards expressing such views. It is just that yours is the post that clearly states the position that I have a problem with…

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

Yes whenever the Catholic Church gets backed into a corner it always falls back on “we aren’t sola sciptura” in order to avoid dealing with troublesome Bible passages. That argument is great if something isn’t in the Bible, you aren’t supposed to use it to contradict sacred scripture. Sorry, but that doesn’t hold water here.

Very unusual.

 

[PJM]

=po18guy;9565879]Did Mary then lie to Gabriel? She vowed to be the handmaid, or bond slave, of the Lord. No ending date on her promise. You will please note that she was with Jesus, and vice versa, from virgin womb to virgin tomb.

Why was Mary so surprised to hear that she would bear a child? So surprised that she had the presence of mind to ask God’s angel *how on earth * she was going to have a child. Think of what the angel’s appearance did to the **soldiers ** in Matthew 28:2-4 - his appearance was like lightning and they became like dead men.

Besides, Gabriel said, “behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bear a Son” Singular. Not children. Not a family. We are talking the supernatural here. Joseph had to be commanded to take her as his wife. This was no normal family! Do we think as man does and not as God does?

Mary existed first as an idea in the Divine intellect. Then, to take flesh for our salvation, her future Son saw to it that she was conceived in her mother’s womb so that, in turn, she could give her flesh to Jesus for the salvation of the world. Jesus chose, then created His own mother!

Lastly, name one other “son”, “daughter”, or “other children” of Mary. Can’t. Be careful here about reading into scripture what is not there.

VERY WELL DONE MY FRIEND, THANK YOU!
pat/PJM

 

[PJM]

=po18guy;9568422]Jean Calvin, among the three prime reformers, cautioned against “impious speculation” regarding Mary’s virgin state. Probably the best advice he ever gave.

AND HE WAS ans IS WRONG!

One ought NOT discount the Powers of God to do any GOOD thing!

Mary “Ever virgin” is a DOGMATIC Teaching of the CC inspired by God and warranted by Christ to be true…John 17:15-19]. It CANNOT be in error!

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[po18guy]

AND HE WAS ans IS WRONG!

One ought NOT discount the Powers of God to do any GOOD thing!

Mary “Ever virgin” is a DOGMATIC Teaching of the CC inspired by God and warranted by Christ to be true…John 17:15-19]. It CANNOT be in error!

God Bless,
pat/PJM

What Calvin did was to counsel against the apparently growing distrust in the ancient belief about Mary. However, by his own disobedience, he opened the door to that very questioning of revealed truth. I see Calvin’s statement as a necessary response to the theological reductionism that the rebellion engendered. He was trying to force the door closed, after having pried it open in the first place.

 

[po18guy]

Yes whenever the Catholic Church gets backed into a corner it always falls back on “we aren’t sola sciptura” in order to avoid dealing with troublesome Bible passages. That argument is great if something isn’t in the Bible, you aren’t supposed to use it to contradict sacred scripture. Sorry, but that doesn’t hold water here.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

 

[TimothyH]

What Calvin did was to counsel against the apparently growing distrust in the ancient belief about Mary. However, by his own disobedience, he opened the door to that very questioning of revealed truth. I see Calvin’s statement as a necessary response to the theological reductionism that the rebellion engendered. He was trying to force the door closed, after having pried it open in the first place.

Isn’t it funny that Luther and Calvin were challenged by the same challenges with which they challenged the Catholic Church?

The same thing happened in England after the English Civil War in the middle 1600’s. People saw that the ruling authority could be challenged and so when the challengers to the king took power, they themselves became the challenged, and had to oppose their challengers with the same opposition with which the king opposed them.

The anti-establishment becomes the establishment and is then opposed by the new ant-establishment du jour. The cycle continues.

-Tim-

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know the funny thing is that the arguments for Mary having ‘other children’ weren’t around for the first 1500 years of Christendom. Why? There were plenty of people who read or heard those words just as we do today. Were they STUPID? Why are the same people who accept the dogmatic teaching of the Church that only the books in the Bible are authentic God-breathed scripture, to the point where they hold up the BOOK as an authority, the ones who dismiss the Church’s authority anywhere else? It seems strange to me that people will accept all kinds of man-made modern theories, “Jesus was married, Jesus went to India, Mary and Joseph had other children, the first Christians didn’t do ‘anything’ the way the Catholic Church does, Jesus was not really God but was a good man whom God worked through, Jesus is half-God, half-man like Hercules, the first apostles made up a ‘passover plot’, the Ark of the Covenant will appear as a holy weapon, Tribulation is going to occur literally as it is 'written in Revelation” etc. etc. . .

All these THEORIES are considered to be MORE truthful than the teachings, the REAL teachings of Christendom, which Christ gave to His Church to proclaim until the end of time.

Didn’t Scripture have passages saying people would have ‘itching ears’, reject the truth and seek out ‘a different gospel?’ Funny, isn’t it, that ‘anything goes’ provided the person proclaims it as 'just as POSSIBLE because the Bible doesn’t say in King James English that it did NOT happen, so it MIGHT HAVE", but they don’t permit Catholic Christians who hold to the orthodox teachings to POSSIBLY be right!!!

Things are either true or not.

Anything which attempts to either deny the truth or to make the truth into something that is ‘conditional’ (only for certain people, or certain times) is a force of destruction. It is evil because it attempts to paint as ‘true’ something which is NOT true, and to deny what is true.

Now, people can do evil things without realizing it, in which case they are either duped or honestly confused, but while we can understand that the people are not evil in themselves, in spreading the evil (unwittingly) they are still causing evil, and they are bound (as are we all) to be seeking the truth and, if finding themselves in opposition, they are bound to conquer that opposition, to reject the evil and to embrace the truth, which with God’s help they can do.

 

[po18guy]

You know the funny thing is that the arguments for Mary having ‘other children’ weren’t around for the first 1500 years of Christendom. Why? There were plenty of people who read or heard those words just as we do today. Were they STUPID? Why are the same people who accept the dogmatic teaching of the Church that only the books in the Bible are authentic God-breathed scripture, to the point where they hold up the BOOK as an authority, the ones who dismiss the Church’s authority anywhere else? It seems strange to me that people will accept all kinds of man-made modern theories, “Jesus was married, Jesus went to India, Mary and Joseph had other children, the first Christians didn’t do ‘anything’ the way the Catholic Church does, Jesus was not really God but was a good man whom God worked through, Jesus is half-God, half-man like Hercules, the first apostles made up a ‘passover plot’, the Ark of the Covenant will appear as a holy weapon, Tribulation is going to occur literally as it is 'written in Revelation” etc. etc. . .

All these THEORIES are considered to be MORE truthful than the teachings, the REAL teachings of Christendom, which Christ gave to His Church to proclaim until the end of time.

Didn’t Scripture have passages saying people would have ‘itching ears’, reject the truth and seek out ‘a different gospel?’ Funny, isn’t it, that ‘anything goes’ provided the person proclaims it as 'just as POSSIBLE because the Bible doesn’t say in King James English that it did NOT happen, so it MIGHT HAVE", but they don’t permit Catholic Christians who hold to the orthodox teachings to POSSIBLY be right!!!

Things are either true or not.

Anything which attempts to either deny the truth or to make the truth into something that is ‘conditional’ (only for certain people, or certain times) is a force of destruction. It is evil because it attempts to paint as ‘true’ something which is NOT true, and to deny what is true.

Now, people can do evil things without realizing it, in which case they are either duped or honestly confused, but while we can understand that the people are not evil in themselves, in spreading the evil (unwittingly) they are still causing evil, and they are bound (as are we all) to be seeking the truth and, if finding themselves in opposition, they are bound to conquer that opposition, to reject the evil and to embrace the truth, which with God’s help they can do.

Every Goober with a thrift store bible is now smarter than 2,000 years of the greatest theologians the world has ever known. I need some tylenol… uch:

 

[Prieldedi]

You have no proof of this assertion and having sexual relations WAS required as part of marriage. A wife could ONLY sue for divorce if a man deprived her of sex. Sex was not a hangup or problem in Jewish culture like it seems to be with Catholics. This would not have been seen as “lowering” her stature.

You don’t have proof either that they did. We have 2000 years of Tradition that they didn’t, and Tradition is THE WORD OF GOD. Sex is not a hangup problem with Catholics, celibacy was practiced by the Virgin Mary, Jesus, St. Peter (after he knew Jesus), all the Apostles, St. Paul, the Early Church Fathers, priests and nuns to this day. There have been dispensations at times, specially in the early years of the Church when many converts who became priests and bishops were already married.

so if I disagree with your opinion I’m against God’s will? So be it. Too many have touted God’s will in this world.

It’s not my opinion. It’s the Church’s opinion:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16

If you reject what the Church says, then you know who you are rejecting.

The marriage between Mary and St. Joseph was arranged so She could have a person (a man) to give her shelter, food, clothing. She was to be a virgin-for-life and as such needed for someone to take care of her. The custom was to “marry” that someone who would be a guardian, not a regular husband. That’s why Mary reacts to the annunciation with “How can this be?” She didn’t think of having a family. We know this from Tradition.

The fact that it was not argued does not mean it didn’t occur. You are putting how YOU would argue it onto a group of learned men who relied on sacred writings and tradition to determine who the Messiah was…remember there were many who claimed to be the Messiah and Jewish tradition believed that he would be born of a family, in the natural way, there was little understanding of the concept of a “virgin birth” as all men were required to be married in order to be “good Jews”

How do you know it was not argued? Because I said so? Do you accept my statement that it was not argued? Thanks!

I don’t remember anyone in the OT saying he was the Messiah. Do you know who were the many who claimed to be the Messiah? In my Bible the word Messiah doesn’t appear in the Old Testament, only in the New Testament. We know Jesus said:

“Many will come, claiming my title and saying: ‘I am the Messiah,’ and they will mislead many people.” (Matthew 24:5)

The many you talk about are in the future according to Jesus.

Why would she? Jesus was the one the prophecy concerned? The other children were not important to the plan of salvation. Just because I didn’t mention I have two siblings doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The written tradition is very clear there were other children. Whether they are Mary’s children or Joseph’s from a prior marriage we do not know. I tend to think the latter because they are not responsible for caring for Mary and Jesus takes on that task, but children often died and very few people lived to old age so that doesn’t mean anything either. The fact they aren’t mentioned doesn’t mean a lot, especially when it comes to women, who are often never named and/or mentioned.

Why wouldn’t She? When you say the others were not important it’s only your opinion. How many lessons would’ve Jesus give us about family relations, love among brothers and sisters if in fact He would’ve had siblings? We know how brothers behaved in the OT… Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Joseph’s brothers… this was an opportunity to show us how to be good brothers and erase the bad examples from the OT, but He didn’t. In fact, as a good brother He should have left the Church in care of one of His brothers instead of Peter.

The Church tells us they were not Mary’s sons and daughters, she knows for a fact they were not Mary’s children. In the Bible they are never called “sons and daughters of Mary”, are they?

If women, as you say, were especially left out, not named or mentioned, what’s the importance of the prophetess named Anna? You believe the brothes were not important, but you can’t claim that Luke and John thought they were not important, you can’t speak for Luke and John, THE CHURCH CAN.

continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

What in the world does cutting of someone’s ear have to do with anything? We’re talking about Jesus’ family. Why does the Bible mention a youth who ran away naked and never mentions his name (tradition knows him to be Mark)? Isn’t that slightly important too? The Bible never ever said Mary had no other children, and, in fact with the statement “Joseph didn’t know her UNTIL she brought forth a son” seems to lend credibility to her and Joseph being a normal married couple. The idea that this is somehow dirty and repugnant shows the Church’s continued hatred toward sexuality and hang ups in that regard. No wonder society thinks we’re repressed.

A lot. Because the NT is about Jesus, and EVERYTHING about Him is important. Everything, which includes His “brothers and sisters”.

Do you know why some names were given in the NT? Because if you were a reader of the Gospels in the First Century you could go, find and talk face to face with that individual who was most likely still alive, and corroborate what the Gospels said. They were witnesses of event described in the Gospel.

The writers of the Gospels didn’t identify themselves by name in their own Gospels. But witnesses knew it was the writer of Mark who ran naked, as well as readers new it was John the young Apostle (described in John’s Gospel) who got to the empty tomb ahead of Peter.

Jesus is who they are considering. If I’m on trial for a crime do they mention my sister and brother? Of course not–it’s not part of the legal debate? They didn’t have last names and social security numbers, everyone was identified by father and mother. So they were merely mentioning Jesus as son of these two because Jesus was a common name and they needed to state who it was they were speaking of…no need to mention siblings. That again, proves nothing.

But you contradict yourself. You say their names are not important and that’s why John left them out, yet Matthew and Mark mention these UNIMPORTANT individuals. Which is it, are they important or not? Wasn’t it enough for Matthew and Mark to have stopped at who the father and mother of Jesus were, like John did? If there was no need to mention UNIMPORTANT siblings, why Matthew and Mark did it?

John was very stuck on himself. Most of tradition backs that up. He always referred to himself as “the disciple Jesus loved” and downplayed everyone else. Everyone has their faults and John is well known for leaving others out. The fact that he doesn’t mention James is actually MORE credence to my argument than yours. John always “sized up the competition” and left them out of his accounts quite obviously. Matthew was a Jew and to him family and lineage were much more important.

I really don’t see the problem here. So say Mary was a wife and mother isn’t an insult unless you think that is somehow a bad thing. I don’t.

Very stuck on himself? Who told you this? He didn’t even mention His own name! How do you know it was him who wrote that Gospel? Why do you believe it was John who wrote that Gospel? You believe it was him because THE CHURCH tells you it was him.

You’re telling us that we have a Gospel written by an selfish Apostle. The Word of God tainted with egoism! You say Matthew was a Jew, and I ask you, wasn’t John another Jew? You say most “tradition” backs that up. Well, “Tradition” doesn’t… can you tell the difference between "t"radition and the Church "T"radition?

You don’t understand that God uses celibacy as an outward manifestation from and individual to confirm his/her total dedication to Him. My sister in law is a nun, she dedicates 24 hours a day to God’s call. No husband to care for, no children to raise, no family events to attend, no social life, just her dedication to care for the poor of her community. If my sister in law can do it, and she does it for love of God, how more meaningful that the MOTHER of the SON of God did it too for love of God and for love to the Son of God?

Genesis 16:11, "Then the angel of Yahweh said to her, “Now you are with child and YOU WILL HAVE A SON, and you shall name him Ishmael, for Yahweh has heard your distress.”

Genesis 18:10, “And the visitor said, “At this same time next year I will return and Sarah by then WILL HAVE A SON.””

Judges 13:3, "The Angel of Yahweh appeared to this woman and said to her, “You have not borne children and have not given birth, but see, you are to conceive and GIVE BIRTH TO A SON.”

Luke 1:13, "But the angel said to him, “Don’t be afraid, Zechariah, be assured that your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth WILL BEAR YOU A SON and you shall name him John.”

Luke 1:31, “You shall conceive and BEAR A SON and you shall call him Jesus.”

What do these birth have in common? All were announced by angels, all said “you’ll have A SON”, all had “ONE SON”.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

Actually it seems only those who tout the perpetual virginity have a faith challenge. It doesn’t change the Blessed Mother for me at all.

Here’s a monkey wrench for the machinery: What it Mary and Joseph had sex and Mary had no other children? How about that? Could be possible and as possible at everything else everyone is emotionally tossing around here.

There is in Jewish tradition continence in marriage to serve a higher purpose - God’s glory.

ewtn.com/library/answers/talmud.htm

 

[mangy_dog]

The Gospel reading today Mt 12:46-50 says Jesus was speaking to the crowds when someone came and told Him that his mother and brothers are standing outside to see you. Some use this passage to argue that Jesus had siblings which implies that the Blessed Mother had other children thus compromising her eternal virginity. But I ask, if Jesus had brothers where were they when He was crucified. Why was only his Mother, Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife Clopas and John at the foot of the cross? If he had brothers why did he entrust the care of his mother to John.

I try to read the readings for the day and post on FB with a meaningful reflection. This time I left it open. My brother ask, and hence the title of this thread - Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

I am reading thru Chapters 14, 15 of The Essential Catholic Survival Guide and The Life of Christ - Chapter 10, pg 142 where Bishop Sheen is talking about “brethren of the Lord” in an effort to try and answer this question in a sound & meaningful manner.

Three sources: Sacred Scriptures; Magisterium of the Church or Tradition and Divine Revelation.

The conclusions reached through the centuries of the Catholic Church concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and Divine Maternity are firmly believed and understood.

Use only one source (sola scriptura) and you fall into error for the simple reason that the entirety of the deposit of faith is in all three sources and ultimately in the Catholic Church.

 

[gus]

The eternal virginity of Mary is is central to the Jesus as God.
If Mary was ever virgin or the new ark of the covenent. There no way a serious 1St century Jew could violate the Ark.
If the opponents of Christ could prove this violation Christainity becomes another philosophy. There are many people salvating at this prospects. So called Christains should guard against alliance with these people.

 

[Ben_F]

Yes it would really matter. Yes, it would change, in a word, everything.

Either something is true or it isn’t.

We have been told, as a dogmatic truth, that Mary was ‘ever virgin’. That teaching goes back to the 2nd century AD; it isn’t something recent.

Let me give you an example. In 1899 my husband’s grandmother, on a visit in Europe, met her grandmother, aged at that time 100. IOW, the grandma’s grandma was born in 1799. And the story was told to me in 1987 when my husband’s grandmother also turned 100.

So, I was talking with a woman whose own memory encompassed talking with a woman who would remember Waterloo, the war of 1812, and as an elderly woman, the U.S. Civil War. This woman was born at the time George Washington died.

So let’s picture the 2nd century AD which is the years 101-199 or so. Let’s say Jesus died in AD 33, St Peter in AD 66. A person born in AD 33 could live to be 100 in AD 133. That person could have a 12 year old granddaughter born in AD 121 who lived to be 100 in AD 221 --which is the THIRD CENTURY AD. So that grandchild by the middle of the SECOND CENTURY would have had first hand knowledge from somebody born around the time Jesus died, who would have been an adult when St., Peter died.

IF Mary had had other children, there would be enough witnesses in the SECOND CENTURY AD (and even the early THIRD) who would have known people (probably grandparents or great aunts, uncles, or cousins) who were alive when Jesus died and rose from the dead, and who personally knew the apostles AND who knew the whole family connection, etc. There would have been plenty of oral stories about Jesus’s ‘uterine brothers and sisters’ too. Nobody could HOPE to go around making up stories about ‘perpetual virgin’ if Mary had NOT been one–there were too many people who ‘knew the truth’ and who made DANG SURE the truth got told. Anybody who has studied the early Church Fathers knows that even the slightest tinge of UNTRUTH got addressed ASAP.

But instead, we have loads of uncontested teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. And we have absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that she had any other children than JESUS.

Why does it matter? Because TRUTH MATTERS. ANY LIE is an offense against truth. . .an offense against God. And a lie which by its nature attacks God by stating that He is NOT who He is (and arguing that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is an attack which indeed states that Christ is NOT who He is) is the worst lie of all.

It matters, It matters very much.

And no, I’m not saying sex is bad between ‘married people’. But tell me, when did God divorce Mary so that she would be ffree by Jewish law to marry and have children by somebody else than God?

I mean, God is the Father of Christ, right? So either God cuckolded Joseph, just like all the ‘other’ gods, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptiansm etc, to make a ‘half god’ like Hercules. . .

Or God really thinks of women as not being ‘human’, being property, so that He can ‘use’ Mary and then turn her back over to her ‘owner’ Joseph. . .

or else God really enters into a true marriage, physical and spiritual, with Mary. . .in which case by Divine Law, which Jesus later brings up with the Pharisees, would make Joseph an adulterer if he had relations with Mary after Jesus was born. . .but would be NO PROBLEM AT ALL if Joseph and Mary never INTENDED to have relations but that he intended to protect her as women in that society were not permitted to function without a living male relative as guardian.

You see, people who leap at the 'after ’ and think Mary and Joseph were just your normal everyday couple who happened to have a half-god in the family, and then had the ‘normal kids’ later, really ARE implying that God USED Mary as an incubator, and that He then threw her as an unwanted ‘leftover’ to Joseph (who apparently didn’t CARE that she was now the mother of a half-god and just wanted to have lots of his OWN rugrats. . .)

Cool. I am inspired. You made my day. I love Mary for what she is. Mother of God. God bless:thumbsup: