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

[Don9of11]

I appreciate everyone’s comments but I think the best answer by far is to put yourself in Joseph’s shoes. He learns that Mary is pregnant and decides to divorce her quietly. He then receives a message in a dream that it is OK to take Mary as his wife and the angel tells him why. So Joseph new full well the child in Mary’s womb was the Son of God.

I think we all agree that Mary is the Mother of God. So if you were Joseph, would you after Jesus was born and now living as a family say to Mary “come to me” as a husband might say to his wife. I don’t think so. Would you as Joseph have lustful desires in your heart for the Mother of God? Mary being the Mother of God, also is the Mother of God to Joseph.

Joseph was chosen to be the guardian of Mary and Jesus and so willingly sacrificed the marriage embrace and thus Mary remains a virgin her entire life.

 

[po18guy]

I appreciate everyone’s comments but I think the best answer by far is to put yourself in Joseph’s shoes. He learns that Mary is pregnant and decides to divorce her quietly. He then receives a message in a dream that it is OK to take Mary as his wife and the angel tells him why. So Joseph new full well the child in Mary’s womb was the Son of God.

I think we all agree that Mary is the Mother of God. So if you were Joseph, would you after Jesus was born and now living as a family say to Mary “come to me” as a husband might say to his wife. I don’t think so. Would you as Joseph have lustful desires in your heart for the Mother of God? Mary being the Mother of God, also is the Mother of God to Joseph.

Joseph was chosen to be the guardian of Mary and Jesus and so willingly sacrificed the marriage embrace and thus Mary remains a virgin her entire life.

In Matthew 1:19-20, it can be argued that Joseph was actually commanded to take Mary as his wife. He was told what was to happen, and being a just man, he obeyed, as did Mary.

As to Joseph’s perspective, Mary was not only his own God’s mother, but she had already vowed to be the handmaid/bond slave of Joseph’s Lord. Therefore, she could not serve Joseph as wife, but rather, as the mother of Joseph’s Lord.

It is amazing how shallow the arguments are against not only Mary’s purity, but also her honesty!

 

[Mystophilus]

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.

Staying on at the Temple when everyone left, and his explanation of why he did so, could count as being late and talking back, however (depending upon how tired his parents were after hiking all the way back up the hill to get him).

 

[Don9of11]

In Matthew 1:19-20, it can be argued that Joseph was actually commanded to take Mary as his wife. He was told what was to happen, and being a just man, he obeyed, as did Mary.

As to Joseph’s perspective, Mary was not only his own God’s mother, but she had already vowed to be the handmaid/bond slave of Joseph’s Lord. Therefore, she could not serve Joseph as wife, but rather, as the mother of Joseph’s Lord.

It is amazing how shallow the arguments are against not only Mary’s purity, but also her honesty!

Are you saying that my comment on St. Joseph’s perspective is disrespectful of the Blessed Mother?

 

[gus]

Are you saying that my comment on St. Joseph’s perspective is disrespectful of the Blessed Mother?

If the church felt that the refrence to brothers and sister was at all probablematic they had ample opportunity to delete them from. the gospels. All the copies we have were made by the Church.

 

[po18guy]

Are you saying that my comment on St. Joseph’s perspective is disrespectful of the Blessed Mother?

Not at all. I was referring to those who claim that Mary was just a normal, sinful woman who had lots of other kids. I should have been clearer. My bad.

 

[tabycat]

Staying on at the Temple when everyone left, and his explanation of why he did so, could count as being late and talking back, however (depending upon how tired his parents were after hiking all the way back up the hill to get him).

But, He was 12 at the time and at the point of being considerd a ‘Man’ in the religionis sense.

 

[JRKH]

But, He was 12 at the time and at the point of being considered a ‘Man’ in the religionis sense.

Yes -

I once asked this question for just this reason - because his staying behind was could certainly be seen as a sin against the 4th commandment.
Of course in Catholicism we recognize that small children are not “culpable” until the age of reason - so I asked about this in Jewish law and custom. It appear that Jesus was just shy of that point…the Bar-Mitzvah (sp?)…and so did not sin.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

Yes -

I once asked this question for just this reason - because his staying behind was could certainly be seen as a sin against the 4th commandment.
Of course in Catholicism we recognize that small children are not “culpable” until the age of reason - so I asked about this in Jewish law and custom. It appear that Jesus was just shy of that point…the Bar-Mitzvah (sp?)…and so did not sin.

Peace
James

I see this perhaps as testing them (“Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”), in a similar vein to John 2:4, when Jesus asks Mary at the wedding feast “What do I have to do…?” This verse was well translated by Luther, actually. In his 1545 bible, he renders it as Jesus asking Mary “Woman, what do I have to create with you” I think that our Lord was testing her faith in His abilities, just as He might have been testing Mary and Joseph.

 

[Bran_Stark]

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.

 

[Mintaka]

You’re right. God isn’t bound by rules of propriety and logic.

God IS propriety and logic – the Logos!

It is no different than to believe that God could possibly act unlovingly when He is Love. He is Justice, also, and the Word that is the order and logic of all things, and Uprightness and Faithfulness. God always chooses the best possible, perfectly perfect way to do things, because He is Perfection.

Mary, who loved God more than any human ever (except for how Jesus loved the Father and the Spirit) gave all of herself to God’s service when asked. She wasn’t going to take back any of it, and Joseph wasn’t stupid or cruel enough to ask her to be his alone, as a wife tied to her husband by one flesh should be.

Or to put it another way, Joseph cared for Mary and Jesus like his namesake cared for the people put in his charge in Egypt.

“And Joseph found favor in the sight of his master, and ministered to him: and being set over all by him, he governed the house committed to him, and all things that were delivered to him. And the Lord blessed the house… for Joseph’s sake, and multiplied all his substance, both at home, and in the fields.”

The patriarch Joseph, a true geek guy, doesn’t realize his good looks are being noticed until he’s outright sexually harassed by his master’s wife. Falsely accused of rape and thrown into prison, the Lord takes care of him even there, and the jailer gives Joseph power to run the prison for him.

“But the Lord was with Joseph, and having mercy upon him, gave him favor in the sight of the chief keeper of the prison, who delivered into his hand all the prisoners that were kept in custody; and whatsoever was done was under him. Neither did he himself know any thing, having committed all things to him. For the Lord was with him, and made all that he did to prosper.”

The most obvious parallel between the two Josephs is that both were involved with dreams, and both could interpret them correctly because the Lord helped them. But we should also notice that the patriarch Joseph wasn’t called out of prison for a good two years, until Pharaoh had a dream and the chief butler remembered Joseph. This is similar to the years that the Holy Family spent in Egypt before God called them back to Israel by giving Joseph a dream.

And Pharaoh, the King, the Great House, said to his court after Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream, "And he said to them, ‘Can we find such another man, that is full of the spirit of God?’ He said therefore to Joseph, ‘Seeing God hath shewn thee all that thou hast said, can I find one wiser and one like unto thee? Thou shalt be over my house, and at the commandment of thy mouth all the people shall obey. Only in the kingly throne will I be above thee.’ "

And that is just how God set Joseph over His House of David, and over Himself and His Queen Mother and His little house at Nazareth, in everything, except that God still ruled the universe and Jesus was still Messiah and King.

But Pharaoh doesn’t give Joseph one of his wives or his own queen-mother to sleep with. Joseph gets his own wife. Keeps the succession tidy. (And “Joseph and Aseneth” get all kinds of big love story action, both in Jewish and Christian traditions. The Middle English “Aseneth” is all kinds of good stuff. Hotcha-cha-cha!)

Generally, there’s a lot more parallels drawn between Jesus and the patriarch Joseph, because Joseph suffered, and because Pharaoh called Joseph “savior of the world,” and because Joseph “came back to life,” as far as his father was concerned.

But in his own way, and through his obedience and upright behavior, Joseph was just as much a part of God’s plan of salvation as Mary was. If Mary was the gate of the Lord that only the Lord can pass through, Joseph was the gatekeeper and guardian. He was the Lord’s faithful steward, and that helped save the world. Because caring for Pharaoh’s grain is like caring for the Bread of Heaven.

"For God sent me before you into Egypt for your preservation… And God sent me before, that you may be preserved upon the earth, and may have food to live. Not by your counsel was I sent hither, but by the will of God: who hath made me as it were a father to Pharaoh, and lord of his whole house… "

And after the whole story, after Israel/Jacob is buried, he repeats, " ‘Fear not. I will feed thee and thy children.’ And he comforted them, and spoke gently and mildly."

 

[po18guy]

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.

Except that He revealed this to the faithful as it is. Truth matters, no matter how unfashionably “Catholic” it might appear. Why do we second-guess God for the sake of denominational pride and separation? No one bangs on the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches for having even greater devotion to Mary than the Catholic.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Which is a greater sign for Israel? A consecrated temple virgin (for life) supernaturally with child or a woman who has had many natural children with her husband but claiming that her first is the Son of God?

Many people want Mary to be more like them. That is why they claim she is a sinner and that she had more children. They can not believe that God would make his mother so special as to have her set apart for himself, unique in history. They prefer to believe she was a sinner like everyone else.

“Ask for a sign from the Lord, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! … Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
(Is 7:11-14)

 

[Bran_Stark]

Except that He revealed this to the faithful as it is. Truth matters, no matter how unfashionably “Catholic” it might appear. Why do we second-guess God for the sake of denominational pride and separation? No one bangs on the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches for having even greater devotion to Mary than the Catholic.

I’m afraid that I really do not understand your criticism here. I’m not speaking out against the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. I am merely pointing out that there is a large difference between a thing being true and a thing having to be true. I respect the Church’s teaching about Mary (although I do not happen to believe in all of it myself). But I find it much harder to respect the insistence that these teachings are not merely true but NECESSARILY true (an attitude which seem to be overzealous popular piety, since I don’t recall ever reading it in any official Church teachings.)

To use an example of an article of faith shared among all Christians, we all firmly believe that the Son of God went by the name of “Jesus” during His mortal sojourn on earth… and this is quite true in our own “timeline”, to use the science-fiction term. But I think it’s rather silly to insist that the Son of God HAD TO have been named “Jesus” - and that God could not have chosen another name, such as Bob, had He been so inclined. Now I must emphasize that I’m not a radical revisionist liberal theologian claiming that Our Lord’s real name was possibly actually Bob - I’m just saying that although God did indeed pick the name Jesus, He was under no obligation so to do.

I’ll pass aside for now the more difficult question of whether God could have become incarnate as a woman instead of a man.

 

[po18guy]

Which is a greater sign for Israel? A consecrated temple virgin (for life) supernaturally with child or a woman who has had many natural children with her husband but claiming that her first is the Son of God?

Many people want Mary to be more like them. That is why they claim she is a sinner and that she had more children. They can not believe that God would make his mother so special as to have her set apart for himself, unique in history. They prefer to believe she was a sinner like everyone else.

“Ask for a sign from the Lord, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! … Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
(Is 7:11-14)

Amen! So many today, for the sake of opposing the Catholic Church, think as man does and not as God does. Compare the words of Isaiah with those of Gabriel at the annunciation:

Isaiah 7:14
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Luke 1:31
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

Do we forget that Mary was so surprised to hear that she would bear a son that she had the temerity to ask Gabriel how this was to happen? (Luke 1:34) Why would a woman, about to be married, and who knew that children came from knowledge of man, be so surprised to hear that she would bear a child?

Do we forget that Mary vowed before God’s angel that she was, with no ending date, the bond slave/handmaiden of the Lord? (Luke 1:38)

Do we forgetr that the Lord is her own Son? (Luke 1:43)

Do we forget that Mary and Jesus were inseparable from virgin womb (Luke 1:26-27, 38) to virgin tomb? (Matthew 27:60, Luke 23:53)

No one has ever named the “other children” of Mary, because such is not in the bible. It is not in the Apostolic Tradition (Luke 1:1-4) that produced the bible. To assert that she had “other children” like a common woman, insults the truthfulness and purity of Jesus’ choice of His own mother.

 

[Mystophilus]

But, He was 12 at the time and at the point of being considerd a ‘Man’ in the religionis sense.

A Jewish male becomes an adult at the *end *of the thirteenth year, not at the beginning (jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2473-bar-mizwah, see especially the reference to this very passage) and, as Mary’s question in Lk 2:48 demonstrates, his parents did not originally consider his behaviour to be appropriate.

That said, this is far from being a violation of the fourth commandment, that being to honour, and not merely to obey, one’s parents: he *was *bringing honour to them, although they did not initially understand that.

 

[IanGE]

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?

There is also John 7:5: “For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.” Which would explain their absence at the foot of His cross. But then the apostles voted in Jesus’ brother James as Head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. Why not Peter? I’ve heard the apologist reply that Christians called each other brother, so why was Peter, a brother of Christ and nominated, apparently, by Jesus, elected to the boss-ship?
According to poor old Bernadette, Mary spoke of herself as “the immaculate conception”. One off? Or was poor old Joseph denied his conjugal rights forever? The Gospels suggest not. From one (absolutely certain) virgin birth, has the celibate church taken to prize virginity and condemn the God-given gift of the sexual conception miracle? I was born in 1936 in India, where infant deaths were common so babies were baptised at eight days old. My mother could not attend my baptism because she had to be “purified” and formally “churched” a month after childbirth. Is that horrid slur on women and childbirth still on the books?
My dear old Irish Catholic Mum told us we were not to sleep with our wives the night before communion. I, too, had this Catholic idea of any sex, marital or not, to be “dirty”. After I was Born Again I saw the sexual act as a precious, beautiful HOLY gift of God and “sleeping around” sullied both God’s Holy gift and the women or men used as chattels outside (or, for that matter, inside) Marriage.
I cannot even think of accepting a concept that Mary, after Jesus’ birth, “dirtied” herself by claiming HER conjugal rights with her patient, loving husband Joseph.

 

[mangy_dog]

There is also John 7:5: “For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.” Which would explain their absence at the foot of His cross. But then the apostles voted in Jesus’ brother James as Head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. Why not Peter? I’ve heard the apologist reply that Christians called each other brother, so why was Peter, a brother of Christ and nominated, apparently, by Jesus, elected to the boss-ship?
According to poor old Bernadette, Mary spoke of herself as “the immaculate conception”. One off? Or was poor old Joseph denied his conjugal rights forever? The Gospels suggest not. From one (absolutely certain) virgin birth, has the celibate church taken to prize virginity and condemn the God-given gift of the sexual conception miracle? I was born in 1936 in India, where infant deaths were common so babies were baptised at eight days old. My mother could not attend my baptism because she had to be “purified” and formally “churched” a month after childbirth. Is that horrid slur on women and childbirth still on the books?
My dear old Irish Catholic Mum told us we were not to sleep with our wives the night before communion. I, too, had this Catholic idea of any sex, marital or not, to be “dirty”. After I was Born Again I saw the sexual act as a precious, beautiful HOLY gift of God and “sleeping around” sullied both God’s Holy gift and the women or men used as chattels outside (or, for that matter, inside) Marriage.
I cannot even think of accepting a concept that Mary, after Jesus’ birth, “dirtied” herself by claiming HER conjugal rights with her patient, loving husband Joseph.

I’m with you on this one,

It’s unfathomable to me to even give thought to the (im) possibility.

 

[Erich]

Or was poor old Joseph denied his conjugal rights forever? The Gospels suggest not.

There are only four brothers of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[Mystophilus]

Rather than considering the issue of Mary not having had other children in theological terms, look at as an issue of history.

What we have, first, is an ambiguous term used in the Gospels for Jesus’ “brethren”. It could mean full blood siblings, or it could mean someone of your generation whom you played with as a child.

Second, we have a biography, produced within living memory of the people, stating that Jesus was Mary’s only child, and that his “brethren” were Joseph’s children from his previous marriage. It also says that Joseph was a very old man marrying a young teenager, whom he viewed as a child. That last factor, in addition to his own feelings regarding what he heard from the angel, from the shepherds, and from the magi, would have acted as a very effective brake upon his own desires. It also meant that he died long before she did, making her a widow for most of her life.

Third, we have repeated commentary from the Early Church on this having been true, a tradition which would have been impossible to maintain had any of the descendants of Mary’s alleged other children, or anyone who had known them, been able to stand up and say, “What about my great-great-grandma?!?”

In short, and this is coming from a non-Catholic, a merely historical consideration means that we would have to ignore most of the data which we now possess, if we wanted to claim that Mary had other children.