It has everything to do with the topic because only the RCC teaches that Jesus had no siblings
This thread's topic is about the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, not the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, to discuss the latter here would be off-topic and thus a violation of forum rules. If you'd like to discuss Mary's perpetual virginity with me, create a thread about it or wait until I do. Thank you.
...scriptures plainly state that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary (his wife) until after Jesus was born, (Matt 1:25)...
..."till".....which means that Mary and Joseph had a blessed marriage and more children as was expected in Jewish families of that time.
1 : to
2 → used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a
specified time stayed until morning, e.g., stayed
until morning
3 : before sense 2, e.g., not available
until tomorrow; we don't open
until ten
: up to the time that
: up to such time as, e.g., play continued
until it got dark;
never able to relax
until he took up fishing; ran
until she was breathless
You claim that Scripture "plainly states" in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse and more children
until after Mary gave birth to Jesus, but it doesn't; rather, it states they didn't have intercourse "
until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "
until" has multiple definitions, not only the one you're inferring by your
insertion of the word "
after." For the sake of argument, say the word "
until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth, that in itself wouldn't prove Mary bore more children because, for example, having vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation for some men and women. Sometimes the woman is barren or the man is sterile, etc. Your interpretation that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 6+ more kids," at the end is quite random. It also isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And
she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For
he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold,
a virgin shall be with child and
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife.
And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."
The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse
the virgin who
conceived the Savior of mankind
by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth,
to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph
didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "
until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph
didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.
Luke 2:7 also states that Mary "gave birth to her son, the firstborn...
How does Jesus having been called "firstborn Son" show that He had siblings?
Matt 13:54-56...
"After coming into his home territory, he began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said: “Where did this man get this wisdom and these powerful works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did he get all of this?”
This is a clear statement about the family of Joseph ("the carpenter")...
The words
"brother" and
"sister" have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman," etc. The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 does show the meaning "kinsman," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, etc., applies to Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters. However, information needed to determine the
type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen is lacking in those same verses and others.
That's why I've provided evidence that
confirms Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, and
shows that the type of kinship between them and Jesus was that of cousins, not siblings as you believe. This was accomplished primarily by identifying James. See opening post.
"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."
His "brethren" and his disciples are spoken about separately.....so if it states that these "brothers" did not yet put faith in him, how does this scripture make sense? (John 7:2-5)
"After this he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother, and his
brethren, and his
disciples: and they remained there not many days" (Jn. 2:12). The brothers in Jn. 2:12 were two of Jesus's four cousins, James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, and the disciples were Peter and Andrew, all of whom, who at that time had not yet been elected apostles, accompanied Jesus and His mother to Capernaum. (
The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, ch. 51, pp. 160-161)
"As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his
brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him" (Matt. 12:46). Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. (
The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)
"And his
brethren said to him: 'Pass from hence, and go into Judea; that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou dost. For there is no man that doth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world.' For neither did his brethren believe in him" (Jn. 7:2-5). Jesus's brothers speaking in vv. Jn. 7:3-4 were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, who at that time were unbelievers, though they later came to believe. (
The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. IV, ch. 476, pp. 249-253)
Whether you accept the source linked above or not, the context in Jn. 2:12 and Matt. 12:46 shows that Jesus's brothers in those verses were His kinsmen, e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, etc. However, kinship isn't limited to siblings, and information that can help determine the
type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen is lacking in those same verses and others. Do you have evidence that shows the type of kinship that applies in those verses is that of siblings?
