W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Cool, just signed up for the daily emails! I like that!
Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?
- Status
E
Erich
Guest
Not to mention the inferiority complex any (hypothetical) blood siblings of Jesus would surely have had growing up, due to their inability to live up to the example set by their older brother.
Why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?
He never gives us a moments trouble.
He always makes his bed.
He always picks up his toys.
He is never a minute late for curfew.
He always brings Dad’s camel home clean.
He never talks back.
He even cleans the ring out of the bathtub and hangs up his clothes.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
In much of the world today, those from your same nation, or locality, are still referred to as brothers or sisters. A Dominican Priest from Nigeria taught this at a bible study - a study in which my objection to Marian doctrine suddenly vanished. I summarized it in this post.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.
E
Erich
Guest
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2734460/posts (the first one in the thread)
Also, this link explains how the belief in Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is closely intertwined with the belief in her perpetual virginity.
J
JRKH
Guest
I may be off on this…so correct me if I’m wrong…
In the Muslim world there are two main groups, the Sunni and the Shi’ite.
This came about because, at the death of the Prophet, there was a split on leadership with one group saying it should follow “bloodline” and the other saying it should follow “qualification”.
God prevented any such problem in Christianity be removing the “bloodline” argument…
Like I said - I could be wrong on the particulars of this…it was something I read a long time ago…
Peace
James
In the Muslim world there are two main groups, the Sunni and the Shi’ite.
This came about because, at the death of the Prophet, there was a split on leadership with one group saying it should follow “bloodline” and the other saying it should follow “qualification”.
God prevented any such problem in Christianity be removing the “bloodline” argument…
Like I said - I could be wrong on the particulars of this…it was something I read a long time ago…
Peace
James
po18guy
Well-known member
Makes perfect sense. This same disagreement occurred after the death of Joseph Smith…
I
Irishgal49
Guest
Interesting…I for one don’t care if she had other children or not. It doesn’t matter. She was a virgin when he was born…the Bible does clearly mention siblings and Joseph didn’t have relations “UNTIL” Jesus was born.
I for one think Jesus did have siblings. I think they were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. He was an older man, according to many traditions, so it wouldn’t be a shocker if he had other children. That’s how I resolved it and that way you don’t have to dance with those passages. That would also explain why Jesus asked John to care for Mary since the other “siblings” were not obligated to do so.
Lorrie
R
RobbyS
Guest
What does " God was in Christ? “ mean? And so what if you believe it? If I believe he was an alien who arrived on a space ship and than like Klatu just flew away, or was beamed up to the Mothership. What is this but a fanciful tale? Not impossible. just as it is possible that somewhere in this world is a 2000 year old human being.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Protestants are ignorant when they say Mary’s lack of perpetual virginity won’t affect their faith. Part of the prophesy of the Messiah is that he is born of a virgin. Not a virgin at the time of his birth, but a virgin for all time. If that is not fulfilled, then Jesus is not the Messiah, then there is no Christianity today.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
How about having a PERFECT wife who was never wrong and never made a mistake? While you did make mistakes…whoa, talk about a tall order. He was a truly Godly man to willingly live that life.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
Actually virgin can be translated as young maiden. So…technically they CAN assert that. It’s a faith statement. It can’t be proven and the only prophecy was a virgin shall give birth, not a virgin will be a virgin for the rest of her life.
R
RobbyS
Guest
That is the story in the Protogospel of St. James. which was written a few generations later.
po18guy
Well-known member
Luther rejected the “until” argument. So did Jean Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. The assertion of “other children” - itself unbiblical - is a modern, man-made invention which attacks the purity of the mother of the Church - God’s chosen mother! Think about it: Mary declared herself to be the handmaid or bond slave of the Lord - her own Son. She could not fulfill this obligation, vowed before God, if she had a family.
The bible, as written tradition, was never intended to be used alone - apart from the Apostolic Tradition. Those who wrongly use it apart from that which was handed down along with it are blind leaders of the blind. Avoid that pit!
What matters is the truth of Church authority. If the Church is wrong on this, then the Church is just as wrong on the bible. The faith crumbles.
Attacks against all that is good and holy have but one source - and it is not from above.
What the devil has happened to protestantism in the past 495 years?
T
TimothyH
Guest
Mary is prefigured by the ark of the covenant, and any man who touched the ark died immediately.
As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretched out his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he died there in God’s presence, because he had laid his hand on the ark. (1 Chronicles 13:9-10)
No man was to touch the ark. No man was to touch Mary.
God kept Mary for himself, to be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and guarded her jealously, just as he did the ark.
-Tim-
P
Prieldedi
Guest
It does matter, because it was God’s plan. Saying it doesn’t matter is rejecting God’s will, which was to have a Virgin-for-life as the Mother of His son. She was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus birth. St. Joseph didn’t have relations with Her.
The Sanhedrin would have used the fact that Mary had other children to argue before all the Jews that Jesus was just ONE MORE of the sons of St. Joseph and the Virgin. They didn’t because they knew He was an ONLY SON. The Sanhedrin got Him killed because He had said He was the Messiah, presenting the other sons and daughters would’ve been the most devastating proof that Jesus was an ordinary man. After the resurrection they would’ve hammer over and over again on this fact to stop the spreading of the news that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn’t because they knew He was an only Son. The Sanhedrin new the “brothers” were not sons of the Virgin Mary.
When Jesus was 12 and got lost at the Temple the family is a family of three. Next time at the Cana wedding the family is a family of two. Evangelicals say that there were at least 4 brothers and 2 sisters. How do you explain that St. Luke and St. John left them out of these two FAMILY events? St. Luke got from the Virgin Mary all the facts of Jesus early life. She described to him the annunciation, the birth of Jesus, the trip to and from Egypt, the visit at the Temple… From Mary in Luke’s Gospel we know of Zechariah and Elizabeth, She tells us their son is John the Baptist; we also know from Her about Simeon, a devout man… She names also a prophetess named Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher… and not a single word of Her supposed sons and daughters from Her OWN MOUTH?
St. John wrote this:
“Simon Peter had a sword; he drew it and struck Malchus, the High Priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.” (John 18:10)
Why would he mention Malchus and leave the brothers and sisters out? It doesn’t make sense, specially when we know the Virgin Mary lived with him for the rest of Her earthly life. Just imagine their conversations! When writing his Gospel, John leaves Her “other children” nameless, why? This Apostle, the one who spent more time with Mary, is silent regarding Her “other children”.
Look now at this passage:
“And they said, “This man is the son of Joseph, isn’t he? We know his father and mother. How can he say that he has come from heaven?”” (John 6:42)
This is similar to Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3, however there is no mention of the “brothers and sisters” here. If these individuals KNOW “his father and mother”, why didn’t they mention their other children? John’s Gospel and not Matthew’s or Mark’s should be the one with reference to the brothers and sisters since John was the Apostle closest to the Virgin Mary. Strangely, you wont find the names of any of Her other “sons and daughters” in his Gospel. These names do not appear in John’s Gospel: James (neither the Great nor the Lesser), Joses, Judas (Tadeus), Simon (Zealot).
John mentions Simon Peter and Simon Iscariot (Judas Iscariot’s father). He mentions Judas Iscariot. He mentions St. Joseph and Joseph of Arimathea. He doesn’t mention James at all.
No explanation can justify why Luke and John didn’t mention Mary’s other sons and daughters in their Gospels, having been both of them very close to the Virgin. This silence in both Gospels is deafening.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
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
Irishgal49
Guest
It does matter, because it was God’s plan. Saying it doesn’t matter is rejecting God’s will, which was to have a Virgin-for-life as the Mother of His son. She was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus birth. St. Joseph didn’t have relations with Her.
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.
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.
The Sanhedrin would have used the fact that Mary had other children to argue before all the Jews that Jesus was just ONE MORE of the sons of St. Joseph and the Virgin. They didn’t because they knew He was an ONLY SON. The Sanhedrin got Him killed because He had said He was the Messiah, presenting the other sons and daughters would’ve been the most devastating proof that Jesus was an ordinary man. After the resurrection they would’ve hammer over and over again on this fact to stop the spreading of the news that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn’t because they knew He was an only Son. The Sanhedrin new the “brothers” were not sons of the Virgin Mary.
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”
When Jesus was 12 and got lost at the Temple the family is a family of three. Next time at the Cana wedding the family is a family of two. Evangelicals say that there were at least 4 brothers and 2 sisters. How do you explain that St. Luke and St. John left them out of these two FAMILY events? St. Luke got from the Virgin Mary all the facts of Jesus early life. She described to him the annunciation, the birth of Jesus, the trip to and from Egypt, the visit at the Temple… From Mary in Luke’s Gospel we know of Zechariah and Elizabeth, She tells us their son is John the Baptist; we also know from Her about Simeon, a devout man… She names also a prophetess named Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher… and not a single word of Her supposed sons and daughters from Her OWN MOUTH?
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.
St. John wrote this:
“Simon Peter had a sword; he drew it and struck Malchus, the High Priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.” (John 18:10)
Why would he mention Malchus and leave the brothers and sisters out? It doesn’t make sense, specially when we know the Virgin Mary lived with him for the rest of Her earthly life. Just imagine their conversations! When writing his Gospel, John leaves Her “other children” nameless, why? This Apostle, the one who spent more time with Mary, is silent regarding Her “other children”.
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.
Look now at this passage:
“And they said, “This man is the son of Joseph, isn’t he? We know his father and mother. How can he say that he has come from heaven?”” (John 6:42)
This is similar to Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3, however there is no mention of the “brothers and sisters” here. If these individuals KNOW “his father and mother”, why didn’t they mention their other children? John’s Gospel and not Matthew’s or Mark’s should be the one with reference to the brothers and sisters since John was the Apostle closest to the Virgin Mary. Strangely, you wont find the names of any of Her other “sons and daughters” in his Gospel. These names do not appear in John’s Gospel: James (neither the Great nor the Lesser), Joses, Judas (Tadeus), Simon (Zealot).
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.
John mentions Simon Peter and Simon Iscariot (Judas Iscariot’s father). He mentions Judas Iscariot. He mentions St. Joseph and Joseph of Arimathea. He doesn’t mention James at all.
No explanation can justify why Luke and John didn’t mention Mary’s other sons and daughters in their Gospels, having been both of them very close to the Virgin. This silence in both Gospels is deafening.
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.
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.
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.
The Sanhedrin would have used the fact that Mary had other children to argue before all the Jews that Jesus was just ONE MORE of the sons of St. Joseph and the Virgin. They didn’t because they knew He was an ONLY SON. The Sanhedrin got Him killed because He had said He was the Messiah, presenting the other sons and daughters would’ve been the most devastating proof that Jesus was an ordinary man. After the resurrection they would’ve hammer over and over again on this fact to stop the spreading of the news that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn’t because they knew He was an only Son. The Sanhedrin new the “brothers” were not sons of the Virgin Mary.
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”
When Jesus was 12 and got lost at the Temple the family is a family of three. Next time at the Cana wedding the family is a family of two. Evangelicals say that there were at least 4 brothers and 2 sisters. How do you explain that St. Luke and St. John left them out of these two FAMILY events? St. Luke got from the Virgin Mary all the facts of Jesus early life. She described to him the annunciation, the birth of Jesus, the trip to and from Egypt, the visit at the Temple… From Mary in Luke’s Gospel we know of Zechariah and Elizabeth, She tells us their son is John the Baptist; we also know from Her about Simeon, a devout man… She names also a prophetess named Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher… and not a single word of Her supposed sons and daughters from Her OWN MOUTH?
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.
St. John wrote this:
“Simon Peter had a sword; he drew it and struck Malchus, the High Priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.” (John 18:10)
Why would he mention Malchus and leave the brothers and sisters out? It doesn’t make sense, specially when we know the Virgin Mary lived with him for the rest of Her earthly life. Just imagine their conversations! When writing his Gospel, John leaves Her “other children” nameless, why? This Apostle, the one who spent more time with Mary, is silent regarding Her “other children”.
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.
Look now at this passage:
“And they said, “This man is the son of Joseph, isn’t he? We know his father and mother. How can he say that he has come from heaven?”” (John 6:42)
This is similar to Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3, however there is no mention of the “brothers and sisters” here. If these individuals KNOW “his father and mother”, why didn’t they mention their other children? John’s Gospel and not Matthew’s or Mark’s should be the one with reference to the brothers and sisters since John was the Apostle closest to the Virgin Mary. Strangely, you wont find the names of any of Her other “sons and daughters” in his Gospel. These names do not appear in John’s Gospel: James (neither the Great nor the Lesser), Joses, Judas (Tadeus), Simon (Zealot).
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.
John mentions Simon Peter and Simon Iscariot (Judas Iscariot’s father). He mentions Judas Iscariot. He mentions St. Joseph and Joseph of Arimathea. He doesn’t mention James at all.
No explanation can justify why Luke and John didn’t mention Mary’s other sons and daughters in their Gospels, having been both of them very close to the Virgin. This silence in both Gospels is deafening.
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.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
I am tickled how you take YOUR opinion and description of Mary, find some totally unrelated and out of context old testament passage and then use it to apply to Mary. That is so funny I don’t even think this merits a response. Good luck with that. Most theologians would laugh so hard they wouldn’t respond either.
Lorrie
I
Irishgal49
Guest
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.
- Status