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

[po18guy]

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?”

Matthew 12:46 “While he was still speaking to the crowds his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him.”

Yes, it is entirely possible we are talking half siblings, but scripture does not clarify that these were not Mary’s children either.

We cannot rely on scripture alone! That is the devil’s tactic to deceive us with twists and turns. The only assurance of a virgin birth, as required by prophecy, is virginity after the birth. There is zero scriptural mention of other children of Mary (OCOM). If God sent an angel from His throne to tell you, in the 1st century, that you were chosen to bear his son, would you even contemplate having a 21st century marriage and other children? There is no mention of 'OCOM" when Jesus remained behind in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52). No mention of OCOM at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-2). No mention of them at the cross (John 19:26-27). In fact, Jesus gave Mary to John, whose own mother was also there! Those “brothers and sisters” must have been complete outcasts from Jewish society! If we were stumbling in the dark, as bible Christians do, you would be justified in believing them. But, just as the bible is written tradition, we have also the oral Apostolic Tradition. It is 100% solid and consistent that she was ever virgin. You should hear some of the incredibly lame “bible Christian” explanations for this. Pretzel logic. Listening to some of these alone might just confirm Mary’s perpetual virginity for you. To summarize:

The Church has spoken on the bible.

The Church has spoken on Mary’s virginity.

Deny one, deny both.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Yes it does. Scripture tells us who the mothers of these 4 are, and they are not the BVM.

Okay, can you point me where?:newidea:

 

[zz912]

It does matter in several ways. One way is that if Mary and Joseph had relations, then Joseph would have entered through the gate that God passed through. Read some of the OT and reflect on the fact that this is NOT done.

 

[po18guy]

Here is a Coptic Orthodox view. Note that they are definitely not Catholic but are just as old and stem from the same Apostolic root. Orthodox devotion to Mary puts some Catholic devotion to shame - yet no one dares attack the Orthodox Churches! Only the big, bad, corrupt, man-made Catholic Church. Why is that?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

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?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Good article BTW.

 

[po18guy]

Seriously, I do not think that God Almighty would plan for a “normal” marriage for His only Son. A normal marriage produces a normal son.

Joseph had to be commanded to marry. It was not only arranged, but enforced. God really meant it!

Another twist: during exorcisms, demons (and, by extension, their master) never attack the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yet, they hate not only her holiness, but also her purity. What do they do, since they are too cowardly to attack her? Encourage, entice, and lure well-meaning bible Christians to corrode her image for them. Remember that not one of the protestant transformers held any view about Mary different from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. All held to her perpetual virginity.

What has happened to protestantism since the rebellion of disobedience?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It definitely is important to consider that all of the early Christians held to her perpetual virginity. The one other thing I wonder if God was okay with Joseph having children with another woman (this woman appears to still be alive in the Gospel). Or are we talking most likely cousins that Jesus as an only child referred to as his “brothers”.

 

[PJM]

=Don9of11;9564659]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.

Of course it would

It would oppose God’s Will as well as Mary’s perpetual vow of Chasity and Virginity

It would raise questions of Jesus being “the ONLY Son of God”

“Brethern of the Lord” [Sheen is my favorite Catholic Author outside of the Bible] uses the term “brethern” as a general reference to ALL [both genders included] who follow Christ; which is also a common and correct undertanding of the term in the NT

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[trogiah]

I think the best answer to what really matters is found at the end of the gospel reading that started this discussion.

“Whoever does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to me.”

You and I and anyone else can be a “full blooded relative” of Jesus in the way that most matters.

All we have to do is seek God’s kingdom before we seek anything else.

Jim

 

[JRKH]

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?

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

 

[zz912]

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?

1. Joseph and Mary had a real, but celibate marriage. They were already married before the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. (i.e. that is why Joseph originally decided to divorce Mary, you can’t divorce someone you aren’t married to). Jewish marriages then were two part, the first part you were married, but the wife did not enter the husband’s home until some time later, and consumate the marriage, which was the second part. Mary and Joseph were in the first part of their marriage.
2. What other Mary are you believing Joseph was married to or had children with? Where is the basis for this belief?

 

[zz912]

Okay, can you point me where?:newidea:

*Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question–they might even be relatives more distantly removed–but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children. *

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

Towards the bottom of the article, but the article has great information on this whole topic.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

1. Joseph and Mary had a real, but celibate marriage. They were already married before the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. (i.e. that is why Joseph originally decided to divorce Mary, you can’t divorce someone you aren’t married to). Jewish marriages then were two part, the first part you were married, but the wife did not enter the husband’s home until some time later, and consumate the marriage, which was the second part. Mary and Joseph were in the first part of their marriage.
2. What other Mary are you believing Joseph was married to or had children with? Where is the basis for this belief?

Mary, mother of Joseph, James, and Salome.

 

[po18guy]

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

Peace
James

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

 

[po18guy]

We cannot omit here that Abraham, in Genesis 13:8, referred to Lot as a brother, even though it is explicit from scripture that Abraham was Lot’s uncle (Genesis 11:27).

Also, in Tobit 7:1-6, Raguel identifies the young Tobit’s father first as a cousin, then as his brother. Of course, protestants neither have the book of Tobit, nor consider it inspired, so they form their downgraded opinion of Mary based essentially upon two single verses from all of scripture. Interpretive error is unavoidable.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

That is what I’m most inclined to believe in this case is that these could not have been biological brothers. If the brothers mentioned had not mother to speak of, it would be plausible that Joseph was older than Mary (mother of Jesus) and had a first wife who died. Since the other Mary is mentioned, it makes more sense that this is an aunt and cousins or simply a good family friend. I would have a very hard time believing that St. Joseph had a mistress.

And yes, Calvin’s advice is good. Some of the details are kind of irrelevant.

 

[zz912]

Mary, mother of Joseph, James, and Salome.

That Mary is the wife of Clopas. See my post just above yours.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Yes, and that is likely their biological father. The question was just coming up as to how they are Jesus’ “brothers”, but it seems to be the general accepted thing is that the term is being loosely. Just like we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[po18guy]

That is what I’m most inclined to believe in this case is that these could not have been biological brothers. If the brothers mentioned had not mother to speak of, it would be plausible that Joseph was older than Mary (mother of Jesus) and had a first wife who died. Since the other Mary is mentioned, it makes more sense that this is an aunt and cousins or simply a good family friend. I would have a very hard time believing that St. Joseph had a mistress.

And yes, Calvin’s advice is good. Some of the details are kind of irrelevant.

If you read the lives of the Saints, (a daily email available here), you see that, throughout history, many married couples have vowed to maintain their virginity. Here is but one example. And, they received no visitation from Gabriel.

Let us also remember our Lord’s words in:

Matthew 19:12

“For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”

Could He have been speaking of his own foster father? Yes.