Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joseph

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joseph

    I was wondering........

    There are some who believe Jesus' brothers were Joseph's children from a previous marriage and Mary remained a virgin. Of course, the other view is Joseph and Mary had more children after Jesus was born.

    So, my question is: If Joseph had other children at the time Mary was pregnant with Jesus, why did they not accompany them to Bethlehem for the census?

    I realize the Bible would not have to mention the children traveling with them. However, In Luke 2:5 it says,..."in order to register, along with Mary who was engaged to him, and was with child". Luke is pretty specific here and given that most of his writing is detailed I find it odd that children (if present) would not be mentioned.
    Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; my hope comes from Him.
    Psalm 62:5
    sigpic

  • #2
    I opt for the latter view, that Joseph had children with Mary after Jesus was born.

    The claim that Joseph had children from a previous marriage is used to support the claim that Mary was a virgin for her entire life. The problem is that it is completely unsubstantiated by Scripture: there's simply no evidence for Joseph having been previously married, nor is there any evidence that the children were another woman's. (Likewise for the claim that Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were actually his "cousins".) Not to mention that, as you pointed out, they're never mentioned until after Jesus is born.

    The gospel of Matthew outright shows us that Joseph did have "relations" with Mary after Jesus was born (Matthew 1.25). It's easy to see that Joseph and Mary had children.
    To This Day

    Comment


    • #3
      Only problem with your view Mark is that there is no historical proof for it. All of early Christianity confirms what the church has been teaching. Mary remained a virgin. So unless you can prove otherwise, I believe the church over your biblical understanding.

      Comment


      • #4
        Matthew 1:24-25-"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not 'till"she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."


        NIV says:
        "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."


        New American Standard says of the same verse:
        "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.



        I believe the children born were from both Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born.
        .................The message of the cross divides the human race." ~MW~

        ........ ... " LORD, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant..."
        .................................................. .................................................. ...Nehemiah 1:11a



        Comment


        • #5
          Who needs "historical proof" when the text of the Gospels are clear that Joseph has sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RabbiKnife View Post
            Who needs "historical proof" when the text of the Gospels are clear that Joseph has sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born?
            I don't see that as clear. Since scripture is your only proof, where are other scriptures to support such a claim.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Moxie View Post
              I was wondering........

              There are some who believe Jesus' brothers were Joseph's children from a previous marriage and Mary remained a virgin. Of course, the other view is Joseph and Mary had more children after Jesus was born.

              So, my question is: If Joseph had other children at the time Mary was pregnant with Jesus, why did they not accompany them to Bethlehem for the census?

              I realize the Bible would not have to mention the children traveling with them. However, In Luke 2:5 it says,..."in order to register, along with Mary who was engaged to him, and was with child". Luke is pretty specific here and given that most of his writing is detailed I find it odd that children (if present) would not be mentioned.

              I suppose the only reason one would care if Mary remained a virgin or not would be to support the claim that she was "holier" than others, and thus worthy to be "adored" as she is in some circles. However, the Bible does declare that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt 1:25). So, even if she didn't have anymore children, she clearly was not a virgin.
              "Unto you therefore which believe, He is precious" (1 Peter 2:7)


              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Teke View Post
                Only problem with your view Mark is that there is no historical proof for it.
                The historical citations in the gospels give much convincing proof against the perpetual virginity of Mary, and that she had other sons and daughters.

                No historical citations in the gospels give any proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin.



                Originally posted by Teke View Post
                All of early Christianity confirms what the church has been teaching. Mary remained a virgin.
                "All" isn't true either. There were some who early on spoke out against the perpetual virginity of Mary/other children/siblings.

                Hegesippus circa 110 A.D.
                Tertullian circa 160 A.D.
                Victorinus circa 260 A.D.
                Jovinian circa 360 A.D.
                Bonosus circa 360 A.D.
                Helvidius circa 380 A.D.
                Antidikomarianites circa 367 A.D.

                All of these early historians/groups opposed the perptual virginity of Mary, and/or believed that Mary and Joseph did have other children later.

                That the RCC supressed this teaching for over a thousand years is undoubtable; but that it didn't exist until recently and wasn't held within early Christianity is false. The NT being the primary source of truth regarding this subject.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Teke View Post
                  Only problem with your view Mark is that there is no historical proof for it.
                  There's no "historical proof" for God having stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua. Except the testimony of Scripture. The testimony of Scripture says that Joseph had "relations" with Mary only after Jesus was born. The testimony of Scripture says that Jesus had brothers and sister. The testimony of Paul says that Jesus' brother James was a leading figure in the Jerusalem church.

                  All of early Christianity confirms what the church has been teaching.
                  As David Taylor showed, this is outright false. Besides, regardless of whether "Church history" is unanimous of one teaching doesn't mean they're actually correct.
                  To This Day

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I might be stepping out on a limb here, but I don't think Joseph was all for being a perpetual virgin with Mary, either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                      I might be stepping out on a limb here, but I don't think Joseph was all for being a perpetual virgin with Mary, either.
                      haha, yes, good point
                      "Unto you therefore which believe, He is precious" (1 Peter 2:7)


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
                        The historical citations in the gospels give much convincing proof against the perpetual virginity of Mary, and that she had other sons and daughters.

                        No historical citations in the gospels give any proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin.



                        "All" isn't true either. There were some who early on spoke out against the perpetual virginity of Mary/other children/siblings.

                        Hegesippus circa 110 A.D.
                        Tertullian circa 160 A.D.
                        Victorinus circa 260 A.D.
                        Jovinian circa 360 A.D.
                        Bonosus circa 360 A.D.
                        Helvidius circa 380 A.D.
                        Antidikomarianites circa 367 A.D.

                        All of these early historians/groups opposed the perptual virginity of Mary, and/or believed that Mary and Joseph did have other children later.

                        That the RCC supressed this teaching for over a thousand years is undoubtable; but that it didn't exist until recently and wasn't held within early Christianity is false. The NT being the primary source of truth regarding this subject.
                        I believe there is some misunderstanding about the situation of the time and what the early writings do and don't present. I know the first two on your list, as well as Eusibus, and Origen wrote about Joseph and James, but all of the writings are in reference to the persecution that the house of Joseph suffered for being of the house of David.

                        Some will be familiar with the teachings which explain the brothers of Jesus as possible cousins. I believe this also is important in understaning how Mary came to her position with Joseph under the title of betrothed. Africanus and Hegesippus remind us of the custom of levirate marriage (not to be confused with the Levites).

                        Many early writings were ambiguous in the sense of revealing specifics about certain people for fear of persecution and death. As many of the Lord's kinsmen (aka the Desposyni) became undisputed leaders in the churches of Christianity, all being of the house of Joseph, Joseph being the titular head of the house of David. They were sought out and killed or persecuted by both Romans and Jews. This is what the early writings relate.

                        So the confusion of relationship could be likened to a witness protection plan. Whether James and others were actually brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph's or cousins of Jesus, I do not know. But I do believe they were all of the house of Joseph, who is also of the house of David. It was important in that era that Christianity not be seen as a reemergence of the house of David. Rome saw this as a threat. The Parthian Empire ( the Magi who sought Christ) sought the Davidic descendent as well. Anyway, it wasn't a good idea to mention the two together, Christianity and the house of David.

                        As for implications being raised about adoration of Mary. That is not the reason her virginity is of issue. To those not of the faith, it is of no concern one way or the other. But to those, such as the first Jewish Christians, she was seen as the ark which carried the new covenant of the Messiah to them. Just as they had an ark in the OT which carried a covenant.

                        The church furthered this thought (let's keep in mind that the Roman church doesn't rule the churches, never has as a matter of fact), with comparisons in like, such as that of the Jewish Christians, with traditional OT examples. Such as that of Eve being the mother of all living, Mary is comparable as the God bearer, God being the source of all life.
                        IOW in such a way as to relate the church as the virgin bride of Christ in spiritual understanding. The church being the mother of all living, and Mary being the first church.

                        Of course this doesn't mean that we are to worship Mary or the church as we worship God. But it does mean that we are to respect and understand that spiritual meaning.

                        It is not me to dispute, but the churches spiritual understanding.

                        Now would I say Rome went overboard with this. Yes.

                        I have tried to explain this as best I can in a manner you will understand. If it is of no use to you, then forget it. For me it is more than a casual reading of a verse of scripture. It is our Christian history.

                        In peace,
                        Eve

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I read this today from Lk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

                          Firstborn son, to me implies that she had more children after Jesus
                          The LORD is my Miracle

                          G_d was gracious He has shown favor


                          Hope is a seed
                          God plants in our hearts
                          to remind us
                          there are better things ahead.
                          -Holley Gerth

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                            I might be stepping out on a limb here, but I don't think Joseph was all for being a perpetual virgin with Mary, either.
                            And for me.... I don't understand what you are saying
                            The LORD is my Miracle

                            G_d was gracious He has shown favor


                            Hope is a seed
                            God plants in our hearts
                            to remind us
                            there are better things ahead.
                            -Holley Gerth

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teke View Post
                              I don't see that as clear. Since scripture is your only proof, where are other scriptures to support such a claim.

                              Jesus fulfilled this prophecy:

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

                              John 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

                              John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X