Where was Joseph?

[ServingHim]

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.

if you recall, I am Catholic, and an in full communion with the Teaching Magisterium...but try to not bring that up...I'm NOT gnostic...thank God for that!!!

[stevehut]

I'm NOT gnostic...thank God for that!!!

Yes, I understand that. But it appears you didn't understand what I said.

Over the course of history, the original pure apostolic Christianity has been corrupted by many pagan influences. This much, I'm sure you already know.

The influence of the Gnostics, in particular, has been very profound. They had many taboos regarding sexuality. If you examine history, many otherwise "orthodox" Christians were led astray. Hence, monasticism, clerical celibacy, eternal virginity of Mary, etc.

A few generations later, pagan influences were so closely woven into the belief system that few people could know the difference.

The Gnostics were not the only ones. But they're probably the most prominent of the bunch.

[ServingHim]

sorry you are bowing out,

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

I don't have all the answers...this is discussion...

[irishcowboy]

These were half brothers - the sons of Mary.

No, they were possibley half-brothers, sons of Joseph from another marriage...NO WHERE does it say that MARY gave birth to ANYONE ELSE...I it seems as if your reading into the text.... I can accept that possibly those were his 'half' brothers, by fathership of Joseph...the whole point I was trying to make was the Mary did NOT give birth to ANY of these people (except Jesus of course)...and NO WHERE IN scripture does it allude that SHE GAVE BIRTH to ANYONE OTHER than Jesus. I belive that JESUS was HER ONLY CHILD...her FIRSTBORN SON, and HER ONLY SON. 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.

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. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that": Matt 28:29 Jesus says "I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world. And in Luke 1:80, John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation. And in Luke 2:37, Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old. And in Luke 20:43, Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool. In 1 Tim. 4:13, it says "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come. And lastly for now, in Gen 8:7,- the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

So, thanks for a good discussion...I'll stick with what I believe and that is that Jesus was the ONLY SON of Mary, and perhaps he DID have half brothers from his much older father, Joseph...from perhaps a previous marriage in which their mother might have died...we don't know though...the scriptures don't expound on the issue...just as they don't say that Mary gave birth to ANYONE OTHER than our Beloved Savior of the World, Jesus Christ! :il:

if those that are considered Jesus' half brothers, are indeed his half brothers ( cant not be full or whole brothers cause God was Jesus' Father ).... they would be half brothers born to Mary.... if they were born to Joseph, they would not be his brothers at all....

mike

[ServingHim]

and if they were born to Mary, then wouldn't they be depicted so in the scriptures? I think that NONE of us can truly know FOR SURE...but someday we will.

[JesusisGod2]

and if they were born to Mary, then wouldn't they be depicted so in the scriptures? I think that NONE of us can truly know FOR SURE...but someday we will. 

I personally think that the scriptures are pretty clear on it.

Matthew 1:25

[Lit and was not knowing her] but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

I think this verse is pretty clear that Joseph kept her a virgin until She gave birth to Christ, this is strong implication that he did have relations with her afterwards.

I mean lets be real in our thinking, was Joseph also to become celebate after before and after the birth? He wasnt called to be a Nazerite nor an eunich

[Guest LCPGUY]

and if they were born to Mary, then wouldn't they be depicted so in the scriptures? I think that NONE of us can truly know FOR SURE...but someday we will.

Right on Sis

Sure glad this isn

[stevehut]

and if they were born to Mary, then wouldn't they be depicted so in the scriptures?

Oh, but they are. In a few places.

In any event, if your brother was the Messiah, I can see very easily how the historians of the world might overlook you.

[Guest charlie]

I think Joseph was dead by the time Jesus started His ministry.

I don't think Joseph had other children. I don't think the Blessed Virgin had other children; imo, she remained a virgin all her life. I'm finally able to say that after all these years. I was raised Church of Christ; attended Independent Baptist (I've spend my entire life as a protestant) neither believe that, or teach that, but they do refer to each other (or they did when I went) as "brother" and "sister". Brother so-and-so how are you today?, sister so-and-so did you look up those scriptures I was talking about? No biological connection there unless you go all the way back to Adam and Eve. Language matters, language AND culture are important.

Many middle eastern families lived together under the same roof in Jesus' era. Yes they did refer to each other as "brother" and "sister".

It amazes me that people accept the fact that Mary was virgin who gave birth to a baby, but they just can't believe she could remain a virgin all her life, or that a husband would go along with this. On an earthly level, I don't think I'd be "turned on" by a woman who gave birth to God (I'd feel guilty) but none of this, the birth of our Savior was entirely earthly or carnal. This was a spiritual thing that took place and God imo created both the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph for a special purpose...end of story. Both were sinners..true, but they just were not your average run of the mill worthyboard poster either.

Remember Jesus did ask St. John to care for His mother. If there'd been other biological brothers and sisters this obligation would have fallen to them, unless they were all dead, along with Joseph.

Also, check your concordances, there were several woman named Mary, it can get very confusing.

No, it's not a salvation issue. When we get to heaven which of us is gonna go up to the Virgin Mary and ask her if she did the deed with Joseph. I'm not.

[stevehut]

It amazes me that people accept the fact that Mary was virgin who gave birth to a baby, but they just can't believe she could remain a virgin all her life

I don't have a problem with the possibility. What bothers me sometimes, is that many people (mostly Catholics) have constructed an entire theology around this idea of eternal virginity. They teach it with dogmatic certainty, and that is the thing I have a problem with.