Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[BreadOfLife]

I agree 100%. Written documentation is not required.
I accept oral tradition. If it is original with the apostles. (That's always the question, isn't it?) But you and I have different tests for whether oral tradition is really that old. I like to have verification from secondary sources.

No – that is not the question.
It is NOT for each individual to decide what they think Tradition ids.

Jesus gave supreme earthly Authority to His Church – that whatever it declares on earth will be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:). He said that whoever listens to or rejects His Church – they listen to or reject HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 19:16).

YOUR rejection of Oral Tradition based on documented “proof” is a rejection of Christ (Luke 19:16).

It does not. Rather, it states that at age 12 Mary was betrothed to Joseph by the high priest Zacharias. Had she been a consecrated virgin of the Temple by eternal vow, Zacharias could never have done that.

YES, it does.

Froom paragraph 9 pf the Protoevangelium:
"And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord."

Had she been a consecrated virgin of the Temple by eternal vow, Zacharias could never have done that.

And I’ve just shown you that he did just that, according to the document.

Joseph was chosen by lot to enter into an unconsummated marriage with Mary as a guardian.

 

[Johann]

WRONG.

The Protoevangelium’s claim that Mary was a consecrated servant/virgin of the Temple is not without precedent.

Samuel was dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11) to serve in the Temple. The prophetess Anna, who was a widow, also lived and served at the Temple (Luke 2:35-40). This way of life is what Paul is talking about as a more excellent wat of serving God (1 Cor. 7:27-28; 32-35).

Wrong-

Samuel's Dedication to the Temple (1 Samuel 1:11)
Samuel's dedication by his mother Hannah involved a unique vow as part of her prayer for a child. While Samuel served under Eli at the Tabernacle in Shiloh:

Samuel was a male, and his service as a child was in line with priestly and Levitical customs, where males of a certain lineage were eligible for service.

No evidence exists of this practice being extended to females, especially as priestly functions in the Tabernacle/Temple were reserved exclusively for men.

Hannah’s act was a personal vow (a nazarite-like dedication), not indicative of a systemic practice for consecrating children (male or female) to the Tabernacle.

2. Anna the Prophetess (Luke 2:36-37)
Anna is described as a widow who “did not depart from the Temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.”

Anna was not a virgin but a widow, and her presence in the Temple was as a devout worshiper, not as part of an institutionalized consecrated order.

There is no suggestion in the text that she had taken a lifelong vow of celibacy in her youth or that her presence reflects a larger practice of women living as consecrated virgins in the Temple.

3. Paul’s Teaching on Celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:27-35)
Paul advocates for celibacy as a way to serve God without distraction but:

This is a general recommendation for devotion to God, particularly in light of the "present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26). It applies to men and women and is not tied to Temple service or institutionalized practices.
Paul’s teaching belongs to the Christian era, after the destruction of the Second Temple, and reflects the early Church's focus on consecrated life, which differs from first-century Jewish Temple practices.

4. The Protoevangelium of James
The claim that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin is derived primarily from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal text written in the second century. While it provides a narrative about Mary's early life:

This account is not corroborated by Jewish traditions or canonical Scripture.

It reflects theological developments and piety in early Christianity, blending Jewish ideas with Greco-Roman notions of virginity and asceticism.

The Protoevangelium lacks historical credibility as it introduces practices (e.g., Temple virgins) that are foreign to documented Jewish customs.

5. Absence of Evidence for Temple Virgins in Jewish History
The Jewish priestly and Levitical systems, as outlined in the Torah and practiced during the Second Temple period, do not include any provision for consecrated virgins serving in the Temple:

Women participated in Temple worship as laypersons but did not have roles akin to male Levites or priests.

Historical Jewish sources, such as the Mishnah and Josephus, do not mention any practice of consecrated virgins serving in the Temple.
The argument from silence is significant here: if such a practice existed, it would have been noted in extensive Jewish legal or historical texts.

And that's that.

J.

 

[RedFan]

Joseph was chosen by lot to enter into an unconsummated marriage with Mary as a guardian.

Actually, the word used was γυνη (wife).

 

[Johann]

YES, it does.

Froom paragraph 9 pf the Protoevangelium:
"And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord."

Wrong-

The Protoevangelium is Theologically Motivated, Not Historically Reliable
The Protoevangelium of James was written in the second century, well after the events it describes, and reflects theological embellishments rather than historical facts:

It aims to promote Mary’s purity and unique role as the mother of Jesus but does so using imagery and concepts influenced by later Christian ascetic traditions and Greco-Roman ideas of virginity.
It cannot be treated as an authoritative historical source for Jewish Temple practices during the Second Temple period.

5. The Role of Zacharias Does Not Prove Lifelong Vows
In the Protoevangelium, Zacharias is depicted as overseeing Mary’s betrothal to Joseph. However:

Zacharias’ role as high priest in the narrative reflects the author’s theological purpose to emphasize Mary’s sanctity rather than a historical account of his actual actions.

The text does not explicitly state that Zacharias’ actions violated an eternal vow, nor does it provide evidence that such vows existed in Jewish Temple practices.


While the Protoevangelium refers to Mary as “the virgin of the Lord,” this title reflects her purity and special status rather than proof of an eternal vow of consecrated virginity. The text itself describes her betrothal to Joseph, aligning with Jewish customs of guardianship and marriage, which would not occur if she were bound by an irrevocable vow.

The Protoevangelium’s theological agenda and lack of historical corroboration undermine the claim that Mary was part of a formal institution of Temple virgins.

Thanks.

J.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong-

Samuel's Dedication to the Temple (1 Samuel 1:11)
Samuel's dedication by his mother Hannah involved a unique vow as part of her prayer for a child. While Samuel served under Eli at the Tabernacle in Shiloh:

Samuel was a male, and his service as a child was in line with priestly and Levitical customs, where males of a certain lineage were eligible for service.

No evidence exists of this practice being extended to females, especially as priestly functions in the Tabernacle/Temple were reserved exclusively for men.

Hannah’s act was a personal vow (a nazarite-like dedication), not indicative of a systemic practice for consecrating children (male or female) to the Tabernacle.

2. Anna the Prophetess (Luke 2:36-37)
Anna is described as a widow who “did not depart from the Temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.”

Anna was not a virgin but a widow, and her presence in the Temple was as a devout worshiper, not as part of an institutionalized consecrated order.

There is no suggestion in the text that she had taken a lifelong vow of celibacy in her youth or that her presence reflects a larger practice of women living as consecrated virgins in the Temple.

3. Paul’s Teaching on Celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:27-35)
Paul advocates for celibacy as a way to serve God without distraction but:

This is a general recommendation for devotion to God, particularly in light of the "present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26). It applies to men and women and is not tied to Temple service or institutionalized practices.
Paul’s teaching belongs to the Christian era, after the destruction of the Second Temple, and reflects the early Church's focus on consecrated life, which differs from first-century Jewish Temple practices.

I never stated that Mary’s service to the Temple was a “priestly” function.

As for Anna being a widow and not a virgin, a vow of chastity can be made at ANY point in a person’s like. Just as a widow can become a nun and take that vow – so could Anna.

Again – you keep insisting that I am arguing for an “institutionalized” practice.
I never made this claim.

Finaly – Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before the destruction of the Temple, so it applied to the Church PRIOR to this event - as well as after.

4. The Protoevangelium of James
The claim that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin is derived primarily from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal text written in the second century. While it provides a narrative about Mary's early life:

This account is not corroborated by Jewish traditions or canonical Scripture.

It reflects theological developments and piety in early Christianity, blending Jewish ideas with Greco-Roman notions of virginity and asceticism.

The Protoevangelium lacks historical credibility as it introduces practices (e.g., Temple virgins) that are foreign to documented Jewish customs.

5. Absence of Evidence for Temple Virgins in Jewish History
The Jewish priestly and Levitical systems, as outlined in the Torah and practiced during the Second Temple period, do not include any provision for consecrated virgins serving in the Temple:

Women participated in Temple worship as laypersons but did not have roles akin to male Levites or priests.

Historical Jewish sources, such as the Mishnah and Josephus, do not mention any practice of consecrated virgins serving in the Temple.
The argument from silence is significant here: if such a practice existed, it would have been noted in extensive Jewish legal or historical texts.

And that's that.

J.

In the end, my argument ALL along has been the validity of sacred Oral Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). The Protoevangelium simply bolsters the Tradition. It's not the only evidence for it.

Either you accept Oral Tradition or you don’t. intended to be the only

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong-

The Protoevangelium is Theologically Motivated, Not Historically Reliable
The Protoevangelium of James was written in the second century, well after the events it describes, and reflects theological embellishments rather than historical facts:

It aims to promote Mary’s purity and unique role as the mother of Jesus but does so using imagery and concepts influenced by later Christian ascetic traditions and Greco-Roman ideas of virginity.
It cannot be treated as an authoritative historical source for Jewish Temple practices during the Second Temple period.

5. The Role of Zacharias Does Not Prove Lifelong Vows
In the Protoevangelium, Zacharias is depicted as overseeing Mary’s betrothal to Joseph. However:

Zacharias’ role as high priest in the narrative reflects the author’s theological purpose to emphasize Mary’s sanctity rather than a historical account of his actual actions.

The text does not explicitly state that Zacharias’ actions violated an eternal vow, nor does it provide evidence that such vows existed in Jewish Temple practices.

Much or your argument is based on your opinions – not established fact.

The Protoevangelium doesn’t official declare some of the intentions or decisions of the characters involved. Granted – some of these things are implied – but they ARE implied, nonetheless. Some of what we beliueve about Scripture is implied.

While the Protoevangelium refers to Mary as “the virgin of the Lord,” this title reflects her purity and special status rather than proof of an eternal vow of consecrated virginity. The text itself describes her betrothal to Joseph, aligning with Jewish customs of guardianship and marriage, which would not occur if she were bound by an irrevocable vow.

Again – this is YOUR opinion.

The phrase, “the virgin of the Lord”, implies a vow.

The Protoevangelium’s theological agenda and lack of historical corroboration undermine the claim that Mary was part of a formal institution of Temple virgins.

Thanks.

J.

WHO said anything about a “formal institution of Temple virgins”??
The text doesn’t describe this as being a regular or norma situation.

NOTHING about the virgin birth was “normal”.

 

[Verily]

What if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary had other children with her own husband after Jesus Christ was born? Who would care that she did? And how would it affect anything as it pertains to the truth of the gospel by which we are saved in 1 Cr 15:3 And so who would care if she did not remain a married virgin? I for one certainly wouldn't.

It's far more important (and worth the argument) that Jesus Christ remained a virgin, especially since he would be an unmarried virgin (unlike Mary) and therefor much more detrimental if he was not. Because if he was not he could not save us from our sins if he was a fornicating sinner. Thankfully, its clear who wins the true ever virgin contest.

We have to start giving more props to Jesus in this area of things and less to Mary, who cares whether she remained a virgin, we should be celebrating Jesus remained one.

We should celebrate those which are not defiled with women and are virgins

Rev 14:14 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

 

[RedFan]

What if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary had other children with her own husband after Jesus Christ was born? Who would care that she did? And how would it affect anything as it pertains to the truth of the gospel by which we are saved in 1 Cr 15:3 And so who would care if she did not remain a married virgin? I for one certainly wouldn't.

I agree that Mary's post-partum sexual activity cannot matter to our salvation. Catholics assert her perpetual virginity for other reasons. For them it's not about the siblings. It's about the sex.

 

[LuxMundy]

Catholics assert her perpetual virginity for other reasons. For them it's not about the siblings. It's about the sex.

The perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is about Who She conceived: God Incarnate, and why She needed to be pure in body and spirit in order to conceive Him and be His Mother. Can it be admitted that She who was preordained to be the divine form for the Second Person to become flesh could accept the seed of a man in Her womb, which had been divinised by God taking form in it, and have a human son conceived in original sin through inheritance from Adam? How could the Immaculate have generated an impure son from Her womb? How could the eternal Virgin accept human intercourse after having known the embrace of God? She Who from eternity the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit thought of as "our dwelling" could only be of God. Only God Incarnate could be formed and born from the Most Holy Mary.

Jesus dictated the following to Maria Valtorta: "[...] She [Mary] in fact had Me through spiritual divine union, and let Me repeat it once again, She knew no other union, neither did She give birth to any other child: Inviolate Flesh, which even I did not rend, closed on the mystery of a tabernacle-womb, the throne of the Trinity and of the Incarnate Word". (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I)

Rather, it states that at age 12 Mary was betrothed to Joseph by the high priest Zacharias. Had she been a consecrated virgin of the Temple by eternal vow, Zacharias could never have done that.

In brief, Joachim and Anne brought Mary to the Temple to live as a temple virgin because She wanted to, and they supported Her in that decision. When Mary came of age, the High Priest informed Her it was time to marry, because the Law prescribed that each man be given a woman of his own stock (Lev. 21:14). Mary relayed to him that She was already consecrated to God, and He instructed Her to pray to God for a spouse who would understand Her vow. Then, at the request of the High Priest, many men of the race of David gathered in the Temple, and out of them all He appointed Joseph of Jacob of Bethlehem, a Nazirite (Num. 6), someone accustomed to taking vows of dedication for God, as Mary's spouse. When Joseph and Mary met, each expressed their vows, and these are their words to eachother:

Joseph: "I am a Nazirite"

Mary: "Also I am all of the Lord, Joseph. I do not know whether the High Priest told you..."

Joseph: "He only told me that You are good and pure, that You wish to inform me of a vow, and that I must be good to you. Speak, Mary. Your Joseph wants You to be happy in all Your desires. I do not love You my with body. I love You with my soul, holy girl given to me by God! Please see in me a father and a brother, in addition to a husband. And open Your heart to me as to a father and rely on me as on a brother..."

Mary: "Since My childhood I have consecrated Myself to the Lord. I know this is not the custom in Israel. But I heard a voice requesting My virginity as a sacrifice of love for the coming of the Messiah. Israel has been waiting for Him for such a long time!... It is not too much to forgo the joy of being a mother for that!"

Joseph gazes at Her as if he wanted to read Her heart, then he takes Her tiny hands which are still holding the branch in blossom and he says: "I will join my sacrifice to Yours and we shall love the Eternal Father so much with our chastity that He will send His Saviour to the world earlier, and will allow us to see His Light shining in the world". (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, ch. 12, pp. 36-39)

Mary at this time didn't know She was the prophesied Virgin. She only knew that God's will for Her was to be a virgin. She and Joseph obeyed the law regarding marriage, but both had chosen to remain chaste for God, and there was no law prohibiting that. God chose Joseph to be the spouse of the prophesied Virgin, the Mother of God Incarnate, for a reason.

 

[Matthias]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed yesterday (which I finally got around to checking a few minutes ago.)

”You should know this as Catholic

“

x.com

x.com

”And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

(Luke 1:43, NABRE)

For readers not acquainted with it, the NABRE (New American Bible, Revised Edition) is a Catholic Bible. I selected it on purpose, but other translations could certainly be quoted. Why I selected it will become clear to the reader in a moment.

What’s interesting to me about the Catholic (universal?) understanding of this verse is twofold:

1. Why do the Protestants who balk at it really balk at it? They, for the most part, believe that “my Lord” is referring to God (the second person of the Trinity).

2. When I read this passage in Luke, my mind instantly flashes to Psalm 110:1.

”The LORD says to my lord: Sit at my right hand, while I make your enemies your footstool.”

(NABRE)

Is the “my Lord” of Luke 1:43 not the “my lord” of Psalm 110:1? It is a reference to the Messiah (Jesus) in both passages, in my understanding as a Jewish monotheist. (Note: not all Jewish monotheists believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I do. Theologically, I’m a Jewish Christian; not a Nicene Christian.)

NABRE contains this footnote on Psalm 110:1: “The LORD says to my lord: a polite form of address of an inferior to a superior, cf. 1 Sam. 25:25; 2 Sam. 1:10. The court singer refers to the king. Jesus in the synoptic gospels (Matt. 22:41-46 and parallels) takes the psalmist to be David and hence ‘my lord’ refers to the messiah, who must be someone greater than David.”

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 110:1-2 - New American Bible (Revised Edition)

Psalm 110 God Appoints the King both King and Priest - A psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand, while I make your enemies your footstool.” The scepter of your might: the LORD extends your strong scepter from Zion. Have dominion over your enemies!

www.biblegateway.com

Psalm 110:1, as rendered in two Protestant Bibles:

a. ”A declaration of Yahweh to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

(Lexham English Bible)

LEB and NABRE are really no different in identifying who the speaker is. The LORD = Yahweh. Both translations have the person being addressed as an unidentified person called “my lord”. God speaking to the Messiah. We find out in the NT that the unnamed “my lord” is the Messiah, Jesus.

b. “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

(King James Version)

KJV, NABRE and LEB all correctly identify the speaker as God. KJV renders the person spoken to as “my Lord” which fits with the NABRE rendering of Luke 1:43.

The Hebrew word for the person addressed by God in Psalm 110:1 is the non-deity title, adoni. The word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible. The correct English rendering of adoni is “lord”.

KJV, unlike LEB and NABRE, renders the actual Hebrew word incorrectly. IF the Hebrew word had been Adonai, the deity title, THEN the correct English rendering would be “Lord,” not “lord”.

 

[Verily]

Matthias is the gipe over a capital L for the WORD Lord 'adown in the KJV?

Why not stick with this and simplify it

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Just make the L the lower one. Would you prefer to use a lower case "g" for God here also?

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Psalm 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Like would it be lower case L for lord and lower case g for God there?

Or would it be just lower case L for lord but keep the upper case G for God there?

 

[Matthias]

Matthias is the gipe over a capital L for the WORD Lord 'adown in the KJV?

Why not stick with this and simplify it

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Just make the L the lower one. Would you prefer to use a lower case "g" for God here also?

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Psalm 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Like would it be lower case L for lord and lower case g for God there?

Or would it be just lower case L for lord but keep the upper case G for God there?

Thank you for reading my post.

We discussed this a couple of weeks ago. While considering how to reply to this post of yours, I recalled your posts, #796 and #799 in particular. In light of these facts, I’ve decided that the wise course for me at this time is “steady as she goes” with what I wrote in post #800.

 

[Verily]

Thank you for reading my post.

We discussed this a couple of weeks ago. While considering how to reply to this post of yours, I recalled your posts, #796 and #799 in particular. In light of these facts, I’ve decided that the wise course for me at this time is “steady as she goes” with what I wrote in post #800.

I didnt read the whole thing I browsed it and looked for what interested me. But in keeping it simple would be great. Little "L" for Lord and little "G" for God? Or no?

 

[Matthias]

I didnt read the whole thing I browsed it and looked for what interested me. But in keeping it simple would be great. Little "L" for Lord and little "G" for God? Or no?

No.

 

[Verily]

No.

Ok so, little "L" for Lord and big "G" for God? Yes?

 

[Matthias]

Ok so, little "L" for Lord and big "G" for God? Yes?

Have you ever noticed the signature at the bottom of my posts?

 

[Verily]

Have you ever noticed the signature at the bottom of my posts?

No, I have those turned off, sorry.

 

[Verily]

You dont have to give interpretation or commentary just the words, “Elohim” thy “Elohim” no?

 

[Verily]

Would that be capital E for the first “Elohim” and little e for the second “Elohim”?

Does E work better than G?

 

[Verily]

I gotta go to bed (thats with a little b) nitey nite Matthias