Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[Church Militant]

I used to post there but decided it was a waste of time. The moderation there is some of the worst I've ever seen, allowing incredible lack of charity. I now maintain a permanent boycott of it. No point in doing anything at all that might in any way support 'em.

I can only imagine what some of those people's efforts at evangelism must be like. If you're that nasty, how in the name of God do you expect to win souls?

None of it looks like what St. Peter describes in 1st Peter.

[8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
[9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
[10] For "He that would love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking guile;
[11] let him turn away from evil and do right;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
[12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil."
[13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
[14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong.

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by Church Militant

I used to post there but decided it was a waste of time. The moderation there is some of the worst I've ever seen, allowing incredible lack of charity. I now maintain a permanent boycott of it. No point in doing anything at all that might in any way support 'em.

I can only imagine what some of those people's efforts at evangelism must be like. If you're that nasty, how in the name of God do you expect to win souls?

None of it looks like what St. Peter describes in 1st Peter.

[8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
[9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
[10] For "He that would love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking guile;
[11] let him turn away from evil and do right;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
[12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil."
[13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
[14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong.

Amen!!

[TomFromMD]

I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If "I" is Christ, and we take the rest literally, "my brothers" could merely be "my relatives", but "my mother's sons" would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as "mother"?

Any other thoughts?

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by TomFromMD

I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If "I" is Christ, and we take the rest literally, "my brothers" could merely be "my relatives", but "my mother's sons" would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as "mother"?

Any other thoughts?

Remember the Psalm is primarily a Psalm of David, that is it deals with the life of David and his emotions. God then uses this to show us his Son. Literally this Psalm says that David's brothers rejected him and were estranged from him.

The betrayals on a superficial level have to do with betraying King David, but on a deeper level have to do with betraying the real King par excellence, King Jesus.

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by TomFromMD

I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If "I" is Christ, and we take the rest literally, "my brothers" could merely be "my relatives", but "my mother's sons" would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as "mother"?

Any other thoughts?

I had something in one of the posts. You'll find it if you search each page of the thread for my username.

Essentially, every prophesy has 2 meanings: one meaning is a current one to the time in which it was written. The other is a spiritual (not literal in most cases), future meaning.

David wrote the psalm about a time when he was on the lam. It was either early in his life during one of the times when Saul was trying to kill him or it was later when war forced him out of Jerusalem (e.g. when Absalom attempted his coup).

It may have been that David's actual relatives would have nothing to do with him at the time because they feared for their lives or wanted greater position in his absence.

The future, spiritual meaning, however, does not require blood relatives. The Apostles (who were as close as brothers for years) fulfilled it adequately when they abandoned Jesus in the garden. Alternately, the Jews fulfilled it adequately when they demanded His crucifixion.

[panevino]

Originally Posted by TomFromMD

I was trying to keep track of the whole discussion, and I think everything was refuted except Psalm 69:8.

"I am a stranger to my brothers,

an alien to my own mother’s sons"

Did anyone have anything to say about that?

The Psalm certainly can be taken to be prophecising the crucifiction. If "I" is Christ, and we take the rest literally, "my brothers" could merely be "my relatives", but "my mother's sons" would still be my literal brothers, or my half brothers by my mother.

Is Isreal ever referred to as "mother"?

Any other thoughts?

I gave it a try in post #244
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=244

[TomFromMD]

Excellent point on 69:5.

[panevino]

Yes, and
the brethren/mothers children of ps69:8 and thier identification in the NT seems clear in John 2:16-18 given the OT quote / fullfillment bolded

Psalm 69: 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

John 2: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. 18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

[panevino]

For those interested see Papias fragment x
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

"..(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands..."

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by Sandalwood

what is CARM? I've seen it mentioned several times on this forum

I'm not certain, but it might be the Christian Alliance of the Radically Misled. Checking....

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by po18guy

I'm not certain, but it might be the Christian Alliance of the Radically Misled. Checking....

[kellerk]

Originally Posted by panevino

For those interested see Papias fragment x
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

"..(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands..."

Thank you for the link!!! This will be a wonderful addition to my studies of the early Fathers of the Church!

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Sandalwood

what is CARM? I've seen it mentioned several times on this forum

Their anti-Catholic attitudes made me less than charitable but I spoke the truth ... and got booted from their website and havent gone back. They don't like it when you use Jesus' own words to make your point, a real problem when they only believe in what the bible says. They all remind me of the Baptist preacher in the Pacwa debate from the 1980s with some Jimmy Swaggert thrown in to boot. Best thing is to leave them alone. They are not interested in learning, only debating. Let them debate themselves as they don't agree with each other outside of their hatred of the Pope, the Catholic church and Catholics. They don't really like the Lutherans either. I do pray for them...

[BornAgainRN]

Thought I'd give this another shot. After taking the time to review some of the replies from my OP & some followup comments, & despite the fact of providing relevant Scripture, & creating a 'Jesus Family Tree' based on those Scripture passages, I see that there is still a lot of confusion to who the 'brothers & sisters' of Jesus are in Matthew Ch.12 & 13. So, I thought I'd address a few comments that some people have made:

1. "He's confusing 'John' the brother of James, with John the Baptist, as Jesus' cousin."

This is based on the belief that since Mary & Elizabeth were cousins (Luke 1:36), then their sons were also cousins. However, Scripture doesn't directly come out & say that John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. It actually tells us that Elizabeth was a close 'relative' (Gr: 'syggenis') of Mary (Luke 1:36). This Greek word means 'relative' or 'kinswoman,' not 'cousin,' & is only used once in the Bible. However, some translations use the Greek word ('syggenes'), which 'can' be translated either, 'of the same kin, related by blood, of the same nation, a fellow countryman, kinsfold, or COUSIN.' This is why some Bibles use the English word 'cousin,' rather than 'relative' to describe Elizabeth's relationship to Mary, which would also make John the Baptist & Jesus 'cousins.'

However, 'if' they were cousins, I am not confusing John the Baptist with John the Beloved disciple of Jesus. As mentioned before, John the Baptist was a cousin of Jesus, because their mothers were cousins. Likewise, James & John - Jesus' disciples, were also His cousins, because their mothers - Mary & Salome - were sisters, by looking at Matthew, Mark, & John's accounts of the women at the cross, which I graphed out in the 'Jesus Family Tree,' based on those passages. Also, it was James & John's MOTHER who went to Jesus to ask about placing her sons on either side of Him in His Heavenly Kingdom (Matthew 20:20-21). Salome was hoping that her 'familial influence' might help.

2. "If Jesus had half-siblings, why did He leave His mother in the care of a non-related disciple?"

He didn't. As previously mentioned, Jesus left His mother in the care of His beloved disciple AND blood-related COUSIN, John. His half-brothers weren't at the cross, because John 7:5 tells us that they didn't "believe IN HIM." In order to be a disciple of Christ, you have to believe in Jesus. Another ward, you can't have a 'unbelieving believer.' Likewise, the rest of His disciples weren't at the cross (they were hiding behind locked doors), & it is presumed that Joseph was dead, otherwise, Jesus would not have needed to entrust His mother to anyone. So, since Jesus' 'spiritually-believing' AND 'blood-related unbelieving' brothers weren't at the cross, the only man for Jesus to entrust the care of His beloved mother in was His ONLY, truly, faithful disciple AND cousin - John.

3. "If Jesus had half-brothers who came to Christ later (Acts 1:14), then why didn't Jesus later entrust Mary to one of them?"

This really begs the question. Being omniscient, obviously, Jesus knew that His half-brothers were going to eventually believe in Him. However, they, like His disciples, weren't there. So, knowing He was about to die, He needed to place His mother in the care of a trustworthy & faithful man. John was the only one there, so He placed her in the care of John, who was also His COUSIN. There would be no need to 'change His mind' later, since she was in the care of a close & faithful FAMILY member.

4. "If Jesus had younger siblings, then why aren't they mentioned in the caravan in Luke, when Jesus stayed behind at the Temple?"

The simple answer is that they were simply not mentioned, but were included 'among His relatives & acquaintances' (Luke 2:44). The fact Jesus was 12, it is not uncommon in Scripture for younger siblings, who were 'not of age,' to not be mentioned by name. In fact, the 'unnumbered sisters' of Jesus in Matthew Ch.13 aren't mentioned by name either, despite His brothers being mentioned by name. The same question could be asked, "If Joseph had children from a previous marriage (who would have been OLDER than Jesus), then why aren't THEY mentioned in the caravan, or with Mary & Joseph when they find Him at the Temple? Why aren't they mentioned during Mary & Joseph's trip to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:4-5)? Or their trip to Jerusalem (Luke 2:22)? Or during their escape to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-14)? Or during their return to Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-21)?

5. "If Mary & Joseph's children weren't born yet when Jesus was left behind at the Temple, then James would have been too young to be leader of the Jerusalem Church."

This response comes from the earlier question about "where were Jesus' siblings when He was left behind at the Temple?" The point of making the comment was to demonstrate that the fact they aren't mentioned 'by name' or 'by relationship' in Luke, that doesn't mean that they weren't there - it simply means they were there, but Luke didn't MENTION them, or it could just mean that they weren't born yet. We have to remember that Jewish women were considered 'adults' at 12, & had children by 13 back then. Also, there would be no reason to separate births by 2 years. They didn't have birth control back then, & since people didn't live as long as they do now, they started their families early & rapid, since they didn't live as old as they do now. So, if Mary was pregnant with James, when Jesus was 12, that would have put Mary at about 25, if she gave birth to Jesus at 13. Based on OT Law, Jesus would have went into public ministry at 30, & died at 33. This would have put James at around 21, & unlike today, back then a 21 year old man would have been an 'adult' for nearly 10 years. So, James would not have been 'too young' to be leader of the Jerusalem Church. Furthermore, I was NOT claiming that Jesus' half-brothers WEREN'T born yet - just that them not being born yet would not contradict Scripture, nor change it, in explaining where they were when Jesus was left behind at the Temple.

6. "The 'James & Joseph' who are 'brothers of Jesus' in Matthew Ch.13 are actually the 'James & Joseph' of Mary the wife of Clopas, & are Jesus' cousins."

These are 2 completely different 'James' & Joseph's.' First, the 'James & Joseph' in Matthew Ch.13 also have brothers named 'Simon' & 'Judas.' There are also unnamed/unnumbered sisters there. The 'James & Joseph' that are the sons of Alphaeus, have a mother named 'Mary.' This 'Mary' is described elsewhere in Scripture as 'the mother of Joseph' (Mark 15:47) & 'the mother of James' (Mark 16:1) but never 'the mother of Simon & Judas,' nor described as having 'daughters.' So, these are 2 completely different 'James' & Joseph's.'

If they were Jesus' cousins, Matthew would have either used the Greek word 'syggenis' (or 'syggenes') or 'anepsios' - which are found in the NT (see, Colossians 4:10 for 'anepsios'). Second, Scripture doesn't support that this 'James & Joseph' are Jesus' cousins. The brothers of Jesus in Matthew Ch.13 are grouped together in the same sentence with Jesus' mother & father - Joseph & Mary.

7. "Since Scripture doesn't specifically state that Mary & Joseph had 6 children, then then you can't say for certain they are His half-siblings."

If a person takes that position, then they have to take that position with EVERY example in Scripture. For instance, Scripture tells us that Peter was the son of John (John 21:15), however, it doesn't tell us that Peter's brother (adelphos), Andrew, was his full blood-brother, or if they had the same 2 parents. It is 'assumed' they had the same 2 parents. So, since 'Scripture doesn't specifically state that they had the exact same parents,' should we not believe they were full-blood brothers? Likewise, we know absolutely nothing about the parents of Martha, Mary, & Lazarus. Again, it is 'assumed' they had the same 2 parents. So, since 'Scripture doesn't specifically state that they had the exact same parents,' should we not believe they were full-blood brothers & sisters? If we apply this method of denying that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters for this reason, then in order to be consistent, we have to use this same method to deny that Peter & Andrew, as well as Martha, Mary, & Lazarus were blood-brothers & blood-sisters.

[CONTINUED ON NEXT POST]

[BornAgainRN]

[CONTINUED FROM LAST POST]

Also, keep in mind, in Mark 6:4, "Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown (ie: Nazareth) and among his own relatives ('syggenes' - 'close relatives or cousins') and in his own household ('oikia' - 'the inmates of a house, the family')." Jesus starts His complaint with His hometown's people (Nazareth), then narrows His complaint more specifically to His 'close relatives,' which would include His cousins, & then narrows it further to the members of His own 'household,' who would be His intimate family. Obviously, this excluded Jesus earthly mother & step-father. So, it more specifically refers to His half-brothers & half-sisters in His 'household,' which is the same Greek word in Matthew 29:19 & Luke 18:29, describing a household which includes blood-related mothers, fathers, sisters, & brothers.

Based on the relevant Scriptures I had provided in my OP & follow-up posts, the brothers & sisters of Jesus in Matthew Ch.12 & 13 are 'not' referring to Jesus' disciples, believing 'brothers,' cousins, or children from a previous marriage. Here is my OP of '"Jesus' Family Tree," with relevant Scriptures below for reference:



(a) Matthew 10:3
(b) Matthew 12:46-50
(c) Matthew 13:55-56
(d) Matthew 20:20
(e) Matthew 27:56
(f) Mark 10:35
(g) Mark 15:40 & 47
(h) Mark 16:1
(i) Luke 1:36
(j) John 2:12
(k) John 6:42
(l) John 7:3-5
(m) John 19:25-27
(n) Acts 1:13-14
(o) Acts 12:2
(p) Acts 15:13
(q) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
(r) Galatians 1:19
(s) Galatians 2:9
(t) James 1:1
(u) Jude 1:1
(v) Psalm 69:8

I also made a 14 minute video on YouTube that I'd like to post the link to here, if I can. Sometimes 'visuals' can be helpful in illustrating more clearly what it written.

In Christ,
Steve.