Nevertheless, renaissance art often depicts Mary as a nubile young woman and Joseph as an old man on a crutch, with the implication that their union might not be a sexual one.
I have an ex that considered gift giving foreplay. Does that count?
<<Sex is God’s idea and there is nothing wrong with it when property practiced within the bounds of marriage.>>
I’m pretty sure this will get me flamed and/or banned but (sigh), here goes…
According to the Urantia Book (which can be read for free online), Jesus did indeed have several siblings.
Jesus was the eldest of 9 children from Mary and Joseph.
Below are each of Mary & Joseph’s children’s name, birthdate and relevant Paper (section) from the UB…
(I won’t reprint the passages here but there’s nothing preventing you from reading them yourself.)
Jesus: born August 21, 7 BC (UB 122:8.1)
James: April 2, 3 BC (born when Jesus was 4) (UB 123:1.5)
Miriam: July 11, 2 BC (born when Jesus was 5) (UB 123:2.3)
Joseph (junior): March 16, 1 AD (born when Jesus was 7) (UB 123:4.9)
Simon: April 14, 2 AD (born when Jesus was 8) (UB 123:6.7)
Martha: September 13, 3 AD (born when Jesus was 9) (UB 124:1.7)
Jude: June 24, 5 AD (born when Jesus was 11) (UB 124:3.4)
Amos: January 9, 7 AD (born when Jesus was 13; died when Jesus was 18) (UB 124:5.2 and 127:3.13)
Ruth: April 17, 9 AD (born when Jesus was 15) (UB 126:3.2)
To paraphrase Adrian Monk (“Mr. Monk and His Biggest Fan”): where are they getting these names? Heck, far as I know Jesus’s name wasn’t Jesus; it was the solution to what we’d currently call “The L. Ron Hubbard Problem.”
I had never heard of the Urantia Book before, but after looking into it a little I am curious as to why anyone would take it for anything but a pseudoscientific/religious/philosophical work of imagination.
According to a Roman Catholic guy I spoke to, Jesus on the cross giving Mary to John (Woman, behold thy son. Son, behold thy Mother) would not have been right if Mary had other children.
I had never heard of the Urantia Book before. If you’re going to claim that we know names and exact dates, I would suggest that you rely on evidence that’s a wee bit older than that.
I can see how that circumstance could be used to support that theory, but it’s actually evidence that Joseph was dead by that point. As the oldest son, Jesus would then have been the head of the family, and if he wanted to place Mary into John’s care, that presumably would have been his prerogative.
It seems a bit unfair since he’s not here to defend himself, but to respond to this quickly, from Diogenes the Cynic:
*The primary meaning of the Greek word, adelphos (or adelphes for “sister”), is “brother” in the sense of a blood sibling. This word had a range of figurative meaning as well, just as it does in English, but its main meaning is of a blood sibling. The literal meaning of the words a delphos is “from the (same) womb.” Sometimes this was used to designate descendants of a common ancestor but such a use would be clarified by context. It could also be used (just as it is in English) to designate more symbolic relationships but a plain reading of Matthew 13:55-56 implies no such context or use. Take a look.
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
If you were talking to someone in English and they said, “Hey, isn’t that Bob, the plumber’s kid? And isn’t that his mom, Mildred? And aren’t those his brothers and sisters?,” you would not assume that he was talking about lodge brothers or cousins but siblings. It’s no different in Koine. Just because something can have a symbolic meaning doesn’t mean that a symbolic meaning should be preferred over a literal meaning if context doesn’t suggest it.
Incidentally, if Matthew had meant cousins, he could have said cousins. The Greek word would have been anepsios. *
Um, no, I hear people say “brothers” to mean “cousins” when speaking English, all the time, including my family members. This is because they are from a culture where there is no specific term for ‘cousin’, so they use ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ and import that usage into English. That might seem like a curiosity but it isn’t, because the initial circle around Jesus was from exactly such a culture. The early Christian texts were written in Greek, but they were written by people who were native Aramaic speakers (well not Luke, but he relied on testimony from Aramaic speakers), so it’s plausible that they imported an Aramaic usage into Greek the same way that my family members import a Tamil idiom into English.
The whole business of ‘no textual support for the perpetual virginity of Mary’ is weak because, 1) the churches who believe in the Perpertual Virginity of Mary don’t subscribe to sola scriptura and don’t found the doctrine on the Bible, they found it on tradition and on the councils, 2) there’s in any event no biblical evidence against the perpertual virginity, and the supposed evidence against it is easy to dismiss, and 3) there are extrabiblical documents asserting Mary’s perpetual virginity from probably 150-170 years after the birth of Christ. While that’s later than any of the Gospels, it’s still relatively close to the events by the standards of a lot of other religious texts and a lot of classical history.
Resurrecting a thread from the dead has rarely been more appropriate. 
The Urantia Book is a doozy of a religious book-about two thousand pages that tie Christianity, history(past, present and future) and cosmology together in a massive missive sent directly from the “Celestials”, which means that it is its own cite. If you can get a copy, it is quite the read.
The book is out of copyright and is available at urantia.org. I’ve been poking through it and “doozy” is a great word. It reads like the notes of a guy who started creating a Dungeons and Dragons campaign and went way overboard on the background notes.
I sometimes wonder if Jerusalem had not been stomped on by the Romans whether Christianity would have gone the caliphate route like the Moslems. There’s some evidence that the relatives of Jesus controlled the early movement, with James taking over from his brother and Simeon, by some accounts a cousin of Jesus and James, succeeding him.
Of course there’s a strong possibility that if Jerusalem had remained at the heart of things it might have been Paul that was marginalized and Christianity might only be remembered if at all as a sect of Judaism and that where crucifixes now abound we might be seeing pictures of Mithras slaughtering a bull or statues of Isis. Not that I think the world would be much different. Which particular belief systems are dominant doesn’t seem to be as important as the fact that there are belief systems, whatever they be, to sustain that large part of humanity that find it difficult to live without them.
Brothers or not I think it’s a safe bet that both men would head for the nearest synagogue rather than the nearest church should they find themselves actually raised from the dead.
Why is it that Catholics can’t accept both that:
- Mary is ever-virgin
- Jesus had blood (half-)siblings from Mary and Joseph doing things the normal way.
I mean, it’s not like they don’t write off plenty of other contradictory stuff. How is this both a cracker and the literal body of Christ? The Mystery of Faith. How is God both a human-looking dude named Jesus and an eternal all-powerful being? The Mystery of Faith.
So Mary had sex with Joseph and remained a virgin. Big deal. If you really want, give Joseph a superpower that he can have sex with women without deflowering them.
It’s a stretch, so to speak. Lets leave it with the eighth-graders.
Bro, you need to die to get quoted in full. 
Good Lord, I miss that man. 
There is a difference between a man’s firstborn son, and a woman’s firstborn son. A woman’s firstborn son is literally a boy who was born (and by modern standards, vaginally) before any sisters or failed pregnancies. That boy, regardless of what other children his father might have, has religious obligations. A man’s firstborn son is the one who, regardless of sisters, even older ones, or other brothers, even older half-brothers by his mother only, are entitled to the extra portion.
FWIW, in case anyone is curious, a boy who is his mother’s first pregnancy (like my son) but is born by c-section, does not have the extra religious obligations. Sometimes they are called “non-rabbinic firstborns,” and so are firstborns who came after a miscarriage or abortion.
In countries where the law says that all children inherit equally, including adopted children, most Jews allow inheritance to fall that way. Few people make wills to give “extra portions” to a firstborn. It is generally held in rabbinic, diasporic Judaism that “the law of the land is the law.” This is why Jews have followed laws, from disallowing polygamy to Sunday store closings. If Jews are expected to actually deny HaShem, that wouldn’t be permitted, but on smaller issues, the law of the land where you are living generally prevails.
…which is why all I have are daughters and no property to argue over. I can die in peace.
Wait, if God could do that for Mary, why not for all of us? Why did He have to be born as a man and get Himself crucified if He had the power to just get rid of those awkward stains on the soul before birth?
That hardly requires a miracle, depending on your definition of “is”.
Although I suppose that would yield yet more questions about brothers and sisters.
She would still have had sex and the ideal woman can’t have done that anymore than the most pristine snow can have been trodden even once.
I disagree with this way of thinking as much as you do but I think that’s what’s motivating the insistence that Mary never had sex in her life. It’s the ultimate Madonna-whore complex. The disagreement lies at a psychological, neurotic level more than at a philosophical, reasoned one. One side is trying to use their neocortex, the other uses their monkey mind as Buddhists call it.
Does that imply that many mothers don’t have a “firstborn son” at all (i.e., any woman whose first pregnancy was a girl or a stillbirth)?
Which would follow from the Noahide commandment, no? Jews believe that all Jews, indeed all humans, are required to form courts and other stable social structures and to abide by them.
Maybe. But virginity always seemed to me more of a metaphysical property to Catholics than a literal description of someone that hasn’t had sex. It’s like everyone has a little flag in their object instantiation “is_virgin”, which starts off true and switches to false when they have sex. I suggest that Mary’s flag is glitched and stays true regardless.
I’m being a little tongue-in-cheek but this is almost exactly how the immaculate conception stuff works. Everybody starts with an is_sinner flag in the true state, except for Mary where it started off false because God poked around in the debugger. Even though the literal description of sinner is just someone that’s committed a sin, obviously to Christians it’s more metaphysical than that, since you can be a sinner just by virtue of existing.