Where was Joseph?

[ServingHim]

I hope I am not your enemy and am for certain that I dont count you as mine, I was just pointing out to you that in order to be a half brother of Christ they would have needed to be born of Mary, otherwise they would be step brothers.

oh, no, absolutely not, dear friend...I have no enemies, and I love you and everyone else even if we NEVER agree on this issue... being a 'step' or a 'half' brother is fine...NEITHER, though, are mentioned either in the Scriptures, just as it is neither mentioned that Mary gave birth to ANYONE else. But you are most certainly welcome to your opinion....and I (I hope) am welcome to what I've come to know and believe through scriptural study.

Now as far as defending the bible and telling the truth, that has yet to be established, however, I do believe you are sincere in speaking your belief.

yes, my intent is sincere...thank you for respecting me.

But I understand the truth of the matter differently, in that Mary was a virgin up until the birth of Christ and afterwards consumated her marriage to Joseph and had other sons and daughters. This can be backed by the scriptures.

again, no one has shown this to be so...and no where does it speak of Mary and Joseph 'consumating' their marriage with a 'fruit' of another child.

Also to say that Joseph was married and had other children is pure speculation and it dosent even give a hint of evidence in the scriptures. It may be a teaching of the catholic church, This cannot be backed by scripture.

yes, perhaps it is, but it is ALSO pure speculation to say that Mary INDEED gave birth to many more children, boys and girls, when NO WHERE in scripture is this noted....I wonder if those close to Mary at that time ever wrote down anything about her and her life? I'm going to look into that, for since the Scriptures ALONE don't discuss this, then NONE of us really know for sure WHAT HAPPENED...and all of our 'opinions' then are pure 'speculation', right? I personally trust the Church in what happened since there is 'tradition' that has been handed down for 2000 years, but since I know that all don't rely on 'tradition' taught by the apostles and handed down through the centuries, then we're going to just have to disagree ... hope that's okay ...

I do appreciate your gentle spirit and your sincerity and I enjoy reading your post.

thank you so much, JIG2! :il:

[stevehut]

He seems earlier to have been widowed and apparently had children by a former marriage (see Brethren of the Lord).

Very interesting hypothesis here, but with much speculation, methinks.

I've heard this part before, about Joseph being previously married. Generally, in my experience, this has been a Catholic doctrine that desperately attempts to support their view that Mary was the eternal virgin.

But I checked out the nesbitt website, and the guy is definitely not catholic.

Hmmm...

[tsth]

It seems to me, that for Jesus to be the Son of God, He would not have need for an earthly father, when He was to reach the age of accountability (which would have been around 12 or so). It just simply seems to me that for Him to be mentioned in the Scriptures with an "earthly" father, just wouldn't have seemed right. That's just my thoughts of course. It makes perfect sense for Joseph to no longer be in the picture, and for authority sake, I think Joseph must have died, to give proper focus on God THE Father, in regard to those learning from the Word. There cannot be 2 positions of Authority for Jesus in regard to the Father. ( Just my opinions and thoughts on the matter )

In His Love,

Suzanne

[stevehut]

Mary was a virgin up until the birth of Christ and afterwards consumated her marriage to Joseph and had other sons and daughters.

no where does it speak of Mary and Joseph 'consumating' their marriage with a 'fruit' of another child.

Matthew 1:24-25

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

If Joseph had no union with his wife until she gave birth, then seems to me that he did have a "union" with her afterward.

Serving Him, are you familiar with the Gnostics?

[ServingHim]

Matt. 28:29 says "Lo, I am with you "until the end of the world." Are you saying then according to how you read the word 'until' in Joseph's & Mary's verse that in THIS verse, Jesus will NOT be not with us after the end of the world?

In Luke 1:80, "And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel." So, this doesn't conclude necessarily that John "was in the desert after" his manifestation, for if we read INTO the text as you're interpretation of Mary's 'until' verse, then that would have to be the case here as well...

I'll ignore your 'gnostic' comment, and I'll refrain from saying what I'd really like to say...for it would not build up our Lord in this discussion. In fact, I am bowing out, as this topic is really useless...the main question was where was Joseph, and it's turned into varying 'opinions' of what truly did happen. God knows, Christ knows....it doesn't reduce any of us to not know truly what DID happen. Blessings and good day from this thread. Carry on...

[stevehut]

the main question was where was Joseph, and it's turned into varying 'opinions' of what truly did happen.

Well, the Bible doesn't say what happened to Joseph. What else can we say but our opinions?

[nebula]

No, they were possibley half-brothers, sons of Joseph from another marriage...NO WHERE does it say that MARY gave birth to ANYONE ELSE...

Nor does it indicate anywhere that Joseph was previously married, nor that he had children during the time Jesus was born and when the family fled to Egypt.

I it seems as if your reading into the text....

Well, to be honest, I can just as easily say the same for what you are doing....

I understand now that we were talking about 2 different things...you were defending possible 'HALF-BROTHERS' and I agree that this MIGHT be so, but not with Mary as their birth mother...but possibly Joseph as their birth father.

Again, where is your evidence that this is so??

Matt 1:25 says that Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. If you're trying to PROVE by this verse that Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son, then it is weak, IMHO.    It would be reading into the text because "not until" does not ALWAYS mean "did not...until after." Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son.  This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus.

I completely agree: Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

But, ""not until" does not ALWAYS mean "did not...until after."" is jumping to what you want it to believe, IMO.

You see, if joseph never had sexual relations with Mary, would the text just not say, "Joseph knew her not even after she bore a son"?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

All I hear, really, is a Catholic refusing to believe that Mary was anything other than what Catholic doctrine says she is.

[irishcowboy]

sorry you are bowing out,

i have been waiting for the answer you said you had.....

you have yet shown anywhere that says Joseph had a wife prior to Mary....

the fact remains, that it is nothing more then an assumption that Joseph had a wife prior to Mary.....

and if Jesus had any "half" brothers..... they would either have to have been from God, or from Mary...... not from Joseph...... as Joseph was not a birth father as you put it.....

I have yet received any actual answer that was factual to Joseph having been previously married......

mike

[stevehut]

For any who might be interested:

The Gnostics were a "Christian" sect that emerged in the 2nd (3rd?) century. They believed that salvation was to be gained through special knowledge (Greek: gnosis) that was not revealed to other Christian groups. For them, Man was created by an inferior god who was not the same as the father of Jesus. All material things (including the Earth) are inherently evil, and therefore must have been created by this lesser, evil deity. Hence, the righteous Jesus could only have been a spirit, without a physical body, and his followers simply observed a type of shared hallucination.

Since the flesh (to them) is inherently evil, then it naturally follows that they had many superstitious hangups about sexuality. Over time the Gnostics infiltrated the church at large, and many of their doctrines got intermingled with "orthodox" beliefs.

This, in large part, is the reason why Catholic doctrine has so many rules and regulations. And it's ultimately the reason (or at least part of the reason) why Catholic doctrine has evolved to the point where eternal virginity for Mary is so vitally important.

[ServingHim]

No, they were possibley half-brothers, sons of Joseph from another marriage...NO WHERE does it say that MARY gave birth to ANYONE ELSE...

Nor does it indicate anywhere that Joseph was previously married, nor that he had children during the time Jesus was born and when the family fled to Egypt.

so I guess we're in a quandry...