Yes, I think it would have sucked to have Jesus for a br0ther at time - constantly seeing him be perfect and all, I think that Jesus experienced what it truly means to be humble and submit to his parents. I don't think they truly understood, while he was growing up who He was. If they understood they would not have mocked him or thought he was an embarrassment
John 7:5 says
For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
No, i think that to his siblings, Jesus was just their big brother. We know Jesus submitted to Joseph and Mary. He did all the jobs and chores the oldest son was supposed to do. Instead of literally lording himself over others he served others.
To me the final nail in the coffin showing that Mary's perpetual virginity is dead and should be buried is the fact that Mary was Joseph's wife and she was obligated to give herself to him sexually. No way around that. I don't care how pious and humber Joseph was there are certain things a man demands of his wife.
He Lives: Mary, once a virgin always a virgin?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=94d44d10-2ada-475e-a985-523ad1010600)
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is one way or the other. I once heard a pastor even say that he wondered why Joseph abstained from having relations with Mary until Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25) since he could think of no reason for it. Even if you are of a theological bent that supports the idea of a sinless Mary (another even more questionable doctrine), it wouldn't be a sin for Mary to have sex with her husband.
ReplyDeleteActually, the only implication I can think of one way or the other argues against the concept of Jesus having half-brothers from a former marriage of Joseph: It would preclude Jesus being the royal heir.