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

[Irishgal49]

I don’t see the big deal. She was a virgin engaged to Joseph. Before they were married she was found to be pregnant, Joseph wanted out of the deal. He had a dream where God explained the plan and he accepted her as his wife and agreed not to have sexual relations until after Jesus was born.

He did that…what happens after that is conjecture and speculation. It could even be possible that Mary and Joseph never had any other children but still had a husband/wife relationship. Who knows? I know what Jewish tradition teaches about marriage and family. I fully believe she may have raised children Joseph had since women frequently died in childbirth. She may very well have had other children. This is not a life breaking deal.

As long as you are not disputing the Immaculate Conception or Assumption it’s really opinion and Bible twisting to suit your ideas. This arguing really doesn’t prove anything. I don’t personally believe she remained a virgin but her giving birth as a virgin is an amazing miracle. Would that we could know what happened all those years Jesus was growing up and Mary and Joseph were a married couple. Who knows what we would find? I think she did have other children and there I said it. That didn’t change a thing and is probably a waste of time worrying about it. It’s all done and over with now and there are things that really matter, like people struggling with things that can make a difference between heaven and hell.

If everyone’s so determined to debate things that have no answer, how about other arguments like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” I think theologians broke into a fist fight over this one, if my memory serves me correctly. Has the Church set a number on this? First we have to determine what kind of angels and then what kind of dancing would each type of angel do, the type of pin, and then go from there.

I’ll go first: I vote for 100 seraphims doing the twist on a hat pin.

 

[panevino]

I don’t see the big deal…

PV of Mary points to the divinity of the Father and therefore the Son.

 

[Erich]

PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy! You can’t have it both ways

That Mary was conceived without Original Sin is precisely what the Immaculate Conception refers to!

Even Wikipedia gets it right: “The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin and was filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism.”

Just as no one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment (Mark 2:21), and no one puts new wine into old wineskins (Mark 2:22), so too no one puts anything pure into an impure vessel expecting it to remain pure.

Ever hear of fetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal cocaine exposure? While those are not perfect analogies, perhaps they will help you understand why it is that Mary had to be conceived without Original Sin. After all, Mary was the servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38) and was dubbed “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and “blessed among women” whom “all generations will call blessed”(Luke 1:48). Of course Christ comes first, He’s the only reason she is special at all. Christ received his human nature from Mary, so it had to be sinless for Him to be an acceptable sacrifice.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What in the world does this have to do with Mary having a normal marriage that included a sexual relationship with her spouse? She was/is the Immaculate Conception. That talks about a grace given to her in preparation for her being the Mother of Jesus. It has nothing to do with her having a sexual relationship with her spouse.

If you are willing to accept the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, why do you reflect the dogma of Mary’s perpetual Virginity?

Even Martin Luther believed in her as ever Virgin.

So too do our Orthodox brothers and sisters, like Catholics, the ‘oldest’ Christians. . .

All Christians believed until some MEN a couple of centuries ago decided they could not ‘accept’ such a teaching.

Do you believe that God, knowing Mary would go on to have a ‘sexual relationship’ with Joseph, would “use her” as an incubator and then throw her back? That Christ was conceived not in a union of God and human (Mary), but in a type of in vitro "God and vessel’, and once Jesus came forth, the vessel could go on as if NOTHING had happened?

And you are ignoring Scripture. In Luke, Mary doesn’t say, "Gee, I’m going to conceive and bear a son! Which of course if I were expecting to marry Joseph and have relations with him, I’d EXPECT to have children! So he and I --after all, Joseph is of the House of David where we know the Messiah is coming from–are going to be the parents of the Messiah! How cool!!!:. . .

She says, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

She KNOWS how ‘babies get borned’, LOL. She knows that according to Jewish betrothal, even though she and Joseph are not yet living together, they COULD have sexual relations and not be fornicating. And remember, the angel doesn’t say, “You’re going to conceive this minute!”. . .

So WHY would she say she doesn’t know man?

UNLESS as Sacred Tradition tells us, and this verse clearly corroborates, she never INTENDED to have sexual relations in the first place.

If she never INTENDED to have sex with Joseph, then INDEED she would ask HOW this could happen. ’

Was God telling her that her vow of virginity was rejected and she should have sexual relations with Joseph because God wanted the two of them to procreate to produce the Messiah?

Or, since by tradition Joseph had agreed not to engage in sexual relations with Mary, was God telling Mary that she would have to BREAK her engagement and marry somebody else?

THESE would explain her question. Her being ready to marry Joseph and have ‘normal sex’ would NOT in any way explain her question.

And can you PICTURE the woman who was going to have the responsibility to care for the SON OF GOD saying, "yeah, right. I gave birth to him, now I’m going to have kids from my REAL husband.’

And all the little siblings, none of whom are God, or even ‘half god’.
“Rebecca, hang up your clothes. JESUS never leaves HIS things hanging around.”
“Joses, chew with your mouth closed. JESUS never makes a pig of himself.”
“James, just LOOK at these grades. JESUS never brings home anything less than an A”. . .

Oh yeah, what a great and holy family and what a wonderful experience for those kids. . .no WONDER we never hear anything about them later in Scripture. They never had a chance NOT to hate Wally Cleaver. . .I mean Jesus. . .

Of course, if there are no other children (and again, one never hears of them except in the oft-quoted passages which have been proven countless times, using Scripture itself, to show that EVERY CHILD MENTIONED has a mother OTHER THAN Mary, mother of Jesus). . . then instead of a distracted mother, angry siblings, and a total lack of continuity with the Old Testament, we have the sustained teaching of Christendom for 2000 years.

I look at the ‘fruit’ of those who want to believe in this ‘new teaching’ and what is it? A great many of them also voice support of gay marriage, divorce, abortion, fornication, adultery, denigration of motherhood, neglect of children, disrespect of fathers. . .and that’s just for starters.’

Why wouldn’t they think like this though? If Mary was just a vessel, then Christ wasn’t a real PART of humanity. He took his DNA from an INCUBATOR, and that was it. She didn’t care for Him; she was busy raising 120 siblings or so. Joseph wasn’t a foster father, he was busy fathering his OWN kids. God didn’t have a spousal relationship with Mary; He ‘rented a womb’.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t see the big deal. She was a virgin engaged to Joseph. Before they were married she was found to be pregnant, Joseph wanted out of the deal. He had a dream where God explained the plan and he accepted her as his wife and agreed not to have sexual relations until after Jesus was born.

He did that…what happens after that is conjecture and speculation. It could even be possible that Mary and Joseph never had any other children but still had a husband/wife relationship. Who knows? I know what Jewish tradition teaches about marriage and family. I fully believe she may have raised children Joseph had since women frequently died in childbirth. She may very well have had other children. This is not a life breaking deal.

As long as you are not disputing the Immaculate Conception or Assumption it’s really opinion and Bible twisting to suit your ideas. This arguing really doesn’t prove anything. I don’t personally believe she remained a virgin but her giving birth as a virgin is an amazing miracle. Would that we could know what happened all those years Jesus was growing up and Mary and Joseph were a married couple. Who knows what we would find? I think she did have other children and there I said it. That didn’t change a thing and is probably a waste of time worrying about it. It’s all done and over with now and there are things that really matter, like people struggling with things that can make a difference between heaven and hell.

If everyone’s so determined to debate things that have no answer, how about other arguments like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” I think theologians broke into a fist fight over this one, if my memory serves me correctly. Has the Church set a number on this? First we have to determine what kind of angels and then what kind of dancing would each type of angel do, the type of pin, and then go from there.

I’ll go first: I vote for 100 seraphims doing the twist on a hat pin.

Do you REALLY think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church --meaning that it is NOT REQUIRED belief?

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

 

[IanGE]

Mat12:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

In all my Bibles, in Matthew 12:12 Jesus says its OK to do good on the sabbath, The NIV has Jesus replying to those sarcastically questioning His new divorce laws (“if this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry!”) in Matthew 19:12: “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by man and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.” In the Greek it is “have made themselves eunuchs” but I am one who wondered how that answer related to morality in marriage or how could women make themselves eunuchs back then (if panevino suggests Mary was a eunuch???). Origen, a father of the church, read that verse and castrated himself; many female saints refused marriage to the point of death rather than break their vows of virginity. But Mary agreed to marry Joseph: had she made a vow of virginity she would told Joseph to wind his neck in.
Mary said “I know no man”, poor innocent child, that was the truth. But Matthew says, "they had no union UNTIL AFTER her son was born. Either Matthew was telling a porky pie or church dogma is: make your mind up, folks, the Word of God or the doctrine of man.
In all of this, writers keep missing the difference between the Immaculate Conception of JESUS (which MUST be true or else throw away Christianity) and Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, which is truly unimportant,as Irishgal iterates (, except perhaps to celibates.
BTW What does OP stand for?

 

[JerryZ]

So now the question becomes, does this mean that Mary (mother of Jesus) and Joseph were not exactly married in a traditional sense, but rather Joseph made sure she was cared for. Was Joseph married to this other Mary and had a traditional family with her? If he was not married to this other Mary, was Joseph sinning by having relations with this other woman?

You need to understand the culture, it’s a fact that a woman with child and no husband would have been stoned to death. Don’t judge please just accept the fact that sexual relations outside of matrimony where a big no no in their culture.

So if GOD had not arranged for Joseph to be Jesus Step-father we would have never been able to be saved.

 

[Irishgal49]

Do you REALLY think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church --meaning that it is NOT REQUIRED belief?

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

It’s not a dogma. It’s tradition. People on here like everyone to think they are going to hell and that everything that comes out of the Church’s teachings are dogma but they are not. I am not going to be bullied . The question is not did Mary have other children? The question is would it change the way you see her? No it would not and I think she probably did have other children. The proof of what the Church teaches in regards to dogma is on the one asserting it not the one denying it.

 

[Elsa1]

I am willing for the sake of argument to accept the ancient tradition that Our Blessed Lady remained ever-virgin, but I think it’s a great mistake to suggest that it HAD to be that way. If God in His good pleasure had decided to give other children to Mary and Joseph, born in the natural biological manner, I doubt Christianity and the Church would be very different from the way they are now.

In both the Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, it seems that some Catholics are very quick to take the TRUTH of a thing and then somehow extrapolate the NECESSITY of that same thing. And I highly disagree with that attitude. God acts because He loves us and wills to do great things for our redemption, not because He is bound by some rules of propriety and logic.

Wonderfully said! God is not limited in anything and I tend to believe that whatever we think we know about Christ’s life, including Mary and Jospeh, based on centuries of clerical interpretation, is not exactly the way it was.

 

[Irishgal49]

Oh yeah, what a great and holy family and what a wonderful experience for those kids. . .no WONDER we never hear anything about them later in Scripture. They never had a chance NOT to hate Wally Cleaver. . .I mean Jesus.

More dramatic emotion and your own opinion.

Of course, if there are no other children (and again, one never hears of them except in the oft-quoted passages which have been proven countless times, using Scripture itself, to show that EVERY CHILD MENTIONED has a mother OTHER THAN Mary, mother of Jesus). . . then instead of a distracted mother, angry siblings, and a total lack of continuity with the Old Testament, we have the sustained teaching of Christendom for 2000 years.

Actually they were there with their mother because they were worried about Jesus. It was believed he was “losing his mind” because of the things he was saying so they came to see if he was all right. That sounds perfectly normal to me. They wouldn’t understand and his mother probably came to help the rest of the family.

You also can consider that the siblings could have been Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. Women dying in childbirth was very common and that would totally contradict your whole theories about Mary being “just” a housewife. A mother loving children who lost their mother–becoming their mother. Wow that almost sounds like the Mary we honor doesn’t it?

I look at the ‘fruit’ of those who want to believe in this ‘new teaching’ and what is it? A great many of them also voice support of gay marriage, divorce, abortion, fornication, adultery, denigration of motherhood, neglect of children, disrespect of fathers. . .and that’s just for starters.’

That is not the topic, not going there. But the fact you are beginning to rant and become angry shows me that this is not about a theological discussion its about you being “ticked off” because someone can see the Blessed Mother differently than you do. If you disagree you can but to say that I will affirm all these other things is rude and disrespectful.

This is part 2 as it was too long:

Why wouldn’t they think like this though? If Mary was just a vessel, then Christ wasn’t a real PART of humanity. He took his DNA from an INCUBATOR, and that was it. She didn’t care for Him; she was busy raising 120 siblings or so. Joseph wasn’t a foster father, he was busy fathering his OWN kids. God didn’t have a spousal relationship with Mary; He ‘rented a womb’.

Mary is not JUST anything. She is a person, set apart of a purpose. You probably need to see a priest or counselor. I’m sorry that you are so upset. I find when I get like that it’s time to take a break from the forum. These last comments have nothing to do with Scripture, Experience, Tradition, or even your own Reason. These are rantings and upsets. So you are answering the OP’s question that if Mary had other children that would destroy your whole view of her? That’s pretty sad but you’re entitled to your feelings.

 

[Irishgal49]

Do you REALLY think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church --meaning that it is NOT REQUIRED belief?

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

I don’t need to–it was a tradition that was attached to an infallible dogma but not considered dogma itself.

 

[Irishgal49]

Mat12:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Eunuchs? Really? Obviously some people don’t know what’s physically involved to be a eunuch which can only be a male.

 

[Elsa1]

Do you REALLY think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church --meaning that it is NOT REQUIRED belief?

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

It’s not a dogma. It’s tradition. People on here like everyone to think they are going to hell and that everything that comes out of the Church’s teachings are dogma but they are not. I am not going to be bullied . The question is not did Mary have other children? The question is would it change the way you see her? No it would not and I think she probably did have other children. The proof of what the Church teaches in regards to dogma is on the one asserting it not the one denying it.

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

 

[BroomWagon]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

Creative interpretations?

Some of it may be traditional beliefs handed down.

St. Francis spoke of the Immaculate Conception back when he lived.

If the dogma came later on, perhaps the Church only wished to keep teachings Christ centered which is the correct thing to do.

 

[zz912]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

This is just completely false. In the whole history of Christianity, the Church only moves to define things to correct those who begin to challenge certain beliefs. It does NOT mean those beliefs were not taught and not believed prior to those declarations. They were believed, but had not been laid out formally because they were accepted and not argued against yet by people who thought they knew better than the Church.

But let’s back up a moment, and investigate your claims to know infallible knowledge about Mary and her virginity up to the birth of Jesus. Where do you claim this perfect knowledge, that has no possiblity of being wrong? Why is this not a tradition of yours?

I’m going to assume that you accept the Bible as the infallible and inerrant word of God. Is this correct? Well my question is why? How do you know this? Who made this determination? Who told you the Bible is God’s word? I’ll give you a hint, it was the Catholic Church. So you accept their Tradition, and infallible authority to proclaim what books belong in the Bible. And yet you reject the Church’s teaching authority on Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How bizarre.

 

[BroomWagon]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

Hmmm? According to wiki, Muhammad actually taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well.

According to Blunt’s Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, Muhammad taught the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, saying: “There is not one of the sons of Adam, except Mary and her Son, one born but is touched by the Devil at the time of his birth, and the child makes a loud noise from the touch.”[67] Writers such as George Sale have said that Mary’s immaculate conception is taught in the Qur’an,[68][69] but at least in some cases this is due to misunderstanding “immaculate conception” to mean “virginal conception”.[70][71][72]]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Islam

 

[zz912]

In all my Bibles, in Matthew 12:12 Jesus says its OK to do good on the sabbath, The NIV has Jesus replying to those sarcastically questioning His new divorce laws (“if this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry!”) in Matthew 19:12: “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by man and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.” In the Greek it is “have made themselves eunuchs” but I am one who wondered how that answer related to morality in marriage or how could women make themselves eunuchs back then (if panevino suggests Mary was a eunuch???). Origen, a father of the church, read that verse and castrated himself; many female saints refused marriage to the point of death rather than break their vows of virginity. But Mary agreed to marry Joseph: had she made a vow of virginity she would told Joseph to wind his neck in.
Mary said “I know no man”, poor innocent child, that was the truth. But Matthew says, "they had no union UNTIL AFTER her son was born. Either Matthew was telling a porky pie or church dogma is: make your mind up, folks, the Word of God or the doctrine of man.
In all of this, writers keep missing the difference between the Immaculate Conception of JESUS (which MUST be true or else throw away Christianity) and Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, which is truly unimportant,as Irishgal iterates (, except perhaps to celibates.
BTW What does OP stand for?

I’m sorry, but this is just a bunch of ignorant rubbish. In Jewish culture, there most certainly were celibate marriages that were allowed for consecrated virgins so that they could be protected by a man (it was a violent and harsh world that required much physical work to survive, and men were more adept at hard labor and farming) and the man could have help as well with tending the home.

And you are throwing out common sense in reading your own personal, fallible, errant opinion into the text of the Gospels. Look again. Mary, who was legally married to Joseph and was awaiting the time until she was to enter Joseph’s household. The angel tells her that she will bear a son. Now a woman awaiting to complete her marriage and would soon be in her husband’s home would be thrilled at this news, and would be under NO confusion about HOW she would be pregnant. But look at Mary’s response. She asks HOW this could happen.

Why don’t you explain this answer in light of your belief that she was about to complete her marriage to Joseph in a normal marriage. Your personal opinion lacks common sense and logic.

 

[Elsa1]

This is just completely false. In the whole history of Christianity, the Church only moves to define things to correct those who begin to challenge certain beliefs. It does NOT mean those beliefs were not taught and not believed prior to those declarations. They were believed, but had not been laid out formally because they were accepted and not argued against yet by people who thought they knew better than the Church…

I never said they were not believed or taught before they were declared as dogma. You are misinterpreting what I wrote.

But let’s back up a moment, and investigate your claims to know infallible knowledge about Mary and her virginity up to the birth of Jesus. Where do you claim this perfect knowledge, that has no possiblity of being wrong? Why is this not a tradition of yours?.

Not sure what you are talking about here. Where did I say I had infallible knowledge? No one has that. What I did write was that these beliefs that were declared as dogmas, were declared such centuries and millenia AFTER Mary lived. This is simply fact. In other words, the early Church had not recognized these concepts even if people believed them. Which tells me that they are interpretations of her life and role.

I’m going to assume that you accept the Bible as the infallible and inerrant word of God. Is this correct? Well my question is why? How do you know this? Who made this determination? Who told you the Bible is God’s word? I’ll give you a hint, it was the Catholic Church. So you accept their Tradition, and infallible authority to proclaim what books belong in the Bible. And yet you reject the Church’s teaching authority on Mary’s perpetual virginity…

Well, since the Bible and all its scriptures were written by mere men, I do not consider it infallible word of God. I consider it the INSPIRED word of God. Which is the Roman Catholic stance on the Bible. What you are describing is a purely Protestent position on the Bible.

I do not believe in Solo Scriptura, I believe in Prima Sciptura, but not an infallible scriptura.

How bizarre.

I take it you don’t engage in intellectual discussion much as these are not new concepts I have introduced here.

 

[Elsa1]

Hmmm? According to wiki, Muhammad actually taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well…

And…so? You’re point is?

 

[zz912]

I’m going to assume that you accept the Bible as the infallible and inerrant word of God. Is this correct? Well my question is why? How do you know this? Who made this determination? Who told you the Bible is God’s word? I’ll give you a hint, it was the Catholic Church. So you accept their Tradition, and infallible authority to proclaim what books belong in the Bible. And yet you reject the Church’s teaching authority on Mary’s perpetual virginity…

Okay, inspired. Who told it was inspired? The Church. So why do you reject the same Church’s teaching on the PV?