Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

Tam,

Nice try, but this has already been establish. No Catholic is arguing that "the mother" is Jesus' Mother, Mary. No one is arguing that they confused Jesus Mother for the other Mary.

That has not been argued, so you're arguing against a brick wall.

What HAS been stated is that while Jesus is the son of Mary, the text does not say that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the sons and daughters of Mary.

 

The reference there implies this so strongly that it might as well come out and state it bluntly were it not for your willful unbelief.

Matthew 13:55-57 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Look again and notice these facts:
1. Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter's son," that is Joseph's son.
2. His mother is called Mary.
3. It is established then that there is a family unit being spoken of here: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
4. The family unit continues to expand, as the brothers of Jesus are clearly set forth and named:
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas.
5. In context, not only are these the brothers of Jesus, they are the sons of Mary and Joseph.
6. "And his sisters, are they all not with us?" They certainly were. It was a declaration that Jesus's sisters were right there. These were the daughters of Mary and Joseph. There is no other possible rendering of this passage. It is clear that this is speaking of the physical and immediate family of Joseph and Mary. The context demands it.
7. Because they knew his immediate family: Joseph--a simple carpenter, Mary--a humble Jewish woman, Jesus's younger brothers and sisters, having no exceptional talents or powers, they are astonished and ask the question:

Whence then hath this man all these things?

In light of the presence of his immediate family, or the knowledge of his immediate family, this question makes no sense whatsoever.
DHK

 

"James the less is not he same as the James mentioned in Matt. 13-55:"

How do you figure? Because one says James and one says "james the less"? Kind of like saying George (referring to George bush isn't the same as George Bush I think. Prove it.

"Joses and Salome? This is indeed a different Mary,NOT the mother Jesus Christ!!"

Thank you for making my point so clearly!! I agree that is exactly my point and you haven't proven that Joses is not the Joseph spoken of in Matt 13:55 of which the James and Joses of Mark 6:3 is speaking of the very same incident. Further if the Mary was a relative of Jesus mother it would not have been unusual for them to be traveling together. By the way, are you saying that the woman, Salome is the daugher of the Mary in Mark 16?

 

Analytical Bible Dictionary

 

DHK,

But Jesus isn't the son of Joseph (excepted in an adopted manner). He is not literally his son. So why must His "brothers" literally be His brothers?

 

GraceSaves:

Let's reason here. Mary was betrothed to Joe.
Why do two healthy Jewish people get betrothed to each other?

The perpetuation of the line; the joining of two familes; love maybe...

You are thinking like a "Roman Catholic": nuns, monks, priests, bishops, cardinals, archbishops, monsignors, popes, etc...

Jews all married for all the natural reasons and didn't practice celibacy among their clergy. Sex was a great thing WITHIN the boundaries of the MARRIAGE vows. Sex was something to celebrate----see the Song of Solomon.

NOTHING CHANGED BETWEEN JOE AND MARY. JOE only was instructed to wait until MARY birthed Jesus. Then they were free to have all the sex they looked forward to prior to their union.

The whole celibacy thing about MARY, I feel strongly was to make the ROMAN CATHOLIC clergy feel good about the TRADITION a pope soft-soaped them with. Mary became the "perpetual example";
otherwise, the nuns and monks, etc... might say, "I got needs and desires, too. God made a help meet for me and not just Adam."

This is why you have so much trouble getting girls and boys to become nuns and monks, today. They've NOW seen that many never believed, don't believe, and will not believe that MARY was a virgin after Jesus' birth. The cat is out of the bag and it will not go back inside...

Get over it and accept 6 day Creationism, the Flood, and Moses as LITERAL revelations from GOD. Discard this silly tradition designed by man.

 

"Jesus doesn't have to have brothers and sisters UNLESS you want to follow the BIBLE which is the word of GOD, which I and a lot of others choose to do."

Now that would be a significant point if all of you Protestants on this board agreed with one another on everything else. That you all agree on Mary and Joseph's sex life doesn't move me much since the vast majority of you see no value in it (i.e. everybody I know who is baptist focuses on getting married if they are single) event though the Bible clearly places a value on it "Then it is better not to be married." Jesus said that this was given to some. Also 1 Cor 7 makes it pretty clear that celibacy is of value. Further, Mary bore God in her womb. I put myself in Joseph's place and I would just be in awe of that. Mary had God's child. Of course as Protestants your so limited by our unbound reading of the Bible that limits you to your own human understanding that you cannot think on these matters. I am so glad my Bible reflections are guided by the tradition of the Church. It frees me for much deeper understanding of the scriptures.


Blessings

 

Celibary does have a value---OUTSIDE of marriage!
To marry someone and remain celibate isn't marriage in the Biblical sense. In fact it's honest grounds for an annulment (even by the Roman Catholic church standards).

 

Yes, I think it's possible, and probable, but it is not difinitive.

The word for "brother" in New Testament Greek is adelphos. But the word does not always refer to a relationship of uterine brotherhood. Aadelphos can, depending on context, be used to mean brother, near kinsman or relative, one of the same nation or nature, one of equal rank and dignity, an associate, or even a member of the Christian community.

In Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt. 13:55), the people of Nazareth ask, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude, and Simon?". There is adequate context to imply that these are literally brothers as we know it.

On the other hand, in Mark 15:40 (cf. Matt. 27:56), standing near the cross with Mary Magdalene and Salome is a certain Mary, who is the mother of James the less and Joses. A bit later, in Mark 16:1 (cf. Luke 24:10), this same Mary is referred to more simply as "Mary [the mother] of James." Similarly, in Matthew 27:61 and Matt. 28:1, this same Mary is referred to as "the other Mary," to distinguish her from Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So what's the point? Look at John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." In these verses, it can be inferred that two of the brothers, James the less and Joses, were cousins.

Now, as far as Jude, (the same Jude who wrote the Epistle of Jude) Jude 1 records that Jude is the brother of James. If James is Jesus' brother, then Jude, too, is Jesus' brother. But if James is Jesus' cousin, the Jude, too, is Jesus' cousin.

So, to conclude, is it possible that Jesus had siblings? Yes, it's possible, but it's not biblically difinitive.

 

Johnv

Very well done.

 

(John bows low, doffing his hat)

 

It is not only possible, but very probable, and the only natural reading of the passage. Let me state again that in hermeneutics one takes and uses the primary meaning of the word (in this case "adelphos") and uses it, unless context demands otherwise. There is no possible reason that the context of Mat.13:55 would demand or warrant any other definition of adelphos than that of "brother." The entire passage is speaking of the immediate family of Joseph and Mary. To take a secondary or minor meaning of a word and force it into a passage where the primary meaning would make perfect senes is to grave injustice to the Scripture. It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth." It is "wresting the Scriptures to one's own damnation," as Peter states it. When the primary meaning of the word fits, use it.
DHK

 

DHK,

And they could not be Joseph's children from a previous marriage, because...?

 

Because we do not read into Scripture things that are not there. This is what I was speaking of on the other thread Grace. We must determine Biblical doctrine from the Scripture, otherwise we fall into the trap of believing anything we want to.
Here the liberal contends that Jesus was born of a German soldier. Well maybe we could say that the brothers of Jesus were born of German soldiers. Spiritualize, allegorize, read into Scripture things that are not there, and you can make the Bible say anything you want to.

The fact is, Mat.13:55 refers quite clearly to the "carpenter's son." It gives no indication that he is dead. One cannot assume that he was dead. If you give so much value to Mary being a virtuous woman, a virgin, held in great esteem, why would she marry a divorced person which by many is considered a horrible sin?
DHK

 

Umm, wives can die. Simple answer. One does not have to be divorced to marry a second time.

 

So now your implication is that Mary died and Joseph lived on. Hardly. Mary was at the foot of the cross. The brothers of Jesus were younger than Him. Mary still would not have married someone of a previous Mary. Get real! What kind of woman do you think Mary was. She was a virgin. Jesus was born of a virgin. Don't you think she would also marry a virgin?? You are straining at a gnat.
DHK

 

What ARE you talking about? I've never seen someone who would willfully misread me over and over and over again.

I was speaking of Joseph being a widower of a previous wife.

And nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus had YOUNGER brothers and sisters.

 

Yes, you are speaking of Joseph being a widower. I fully realize that. I also fully realize that you give such adoration to Mary that she is almost in the category of deity. Given such importance to Mary in the Catholic theology of Mariolotry, Do you really think she would marry a widow, a previously married man, rather than one who was never married before.
I believe that Mary, a virgin, giving birth to Christ as a the virgin Mary, would have married a virgin--Joseph. I don't believe there would have been any reason for her to marry a widow, except for you to find a way to have a door open for your pre-conceived theology. Demonstrate to me through Scripture that Joseph was a widower.

Demonstrate that John was a widower.
Demonstrate that his brother, James was a widower.
Demonstrate that Thomas was a widower.
Demonstrate that Peter was a widower.
Demostrate that Barnabas was widower.
Demonstrate that Bartholomew was a widower.
Demonstrate that Matthew was a widower.
And demonstrate that they were all widowers before they got married.
If you are unable to, and if there is no reason to, then why would there be any reason to demonstrate that Joseph was a widower except for the reason of propping up your own man-made theology of the perpetual virginity of Mary??

Secondly, Matthew 13:55 specifically speaks of Jesus's younger brothers, or half-brothers to be specific. Please go back and read my posts on this subject so I don't have to repeat everything here.
DHK