Jesus & Sons - A family business since AD36

why Jesus would not have a wife (and children) would be in Luke 14:33 and all the surrounding context.

There's other reasons too, such as tripping all up and down Israel, the fact that he says "you cannot go where I am going", etc. Why would he step up a family for a fall like that when he knew perfectly well what was going to happen?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

What do you think the source was for? I didn't put it there for my health.

It's not Jewish teaching.

Did you read what I typed?

Luke 14: "And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."

And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. Being married and being accepted has NOTHING to do with being a Rabbi. You must be married to lead the worship portion of the congregation which is left to the Chazzan and the Shaliach Tzibbur who are NOT Rabbis. He could teach as a Rabbi all he wanted and not be married though Jews are commanded to marry. Let me recap. Teaching is not the same as leading. Those leading were doing so in prayer and song and thus had to be married.

Yes? I notice most of the Bible doesn't go "He was black, he was Jewish oh that fellow over there he is a Hindu" etc, etc...

Hmmm maybe because in the Tanakh, there are only two "races"....Jews and Gentiles.

but if you would go and do some research you'd find out Magdala and the Lake of Tiberias was/is a heavily Jewish area with the Jewish population going there(Tiberias) after the Second Revolt in 135 AD. (Bar Kokhba's revolt)

Here is what my research shows me.

www.ancientroute.com...

The population of Tiberias were mostly Greeks and Romans, and it would have been difficult for a Jew to observe the many special laws, dietary, work, etc.

With the population heavily mixed and generally non-Jewish, they finally submitted to Vespasian without resistance and the Romans did not destroy the city. The Jews were given a special section of the city where they could be alone, without pagans, Christians or Samaritans, and left in peace. By the middle of the second century, with the temple in Jerusalem destroyed, the Jewish Sanhedrin [supreme court] was looking for new headquarters. They settled on Tiberias; a school of Jewish studies was later opened, and Tiberias became a center of Jewish learning. Many important scholars studied and taught in Tiberias, and the tombs of several are located in the necropolis to the west, still venerated as shrines.

en.wikipedia.org...

During Herod's time, the Jews refused to settle there; the presence of a cemetery rendered the site ritually unclean. However, Antipas forcibly settled people there from rural Galilee in order to populate his new capital.

Following the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem after 135, Tiberias and its neighbor Sepphoris became the major centers of Jewish culture.

Ok so considering that Mary M would have had to have lived BEFORE 135, again, who's to say she was Jewish?

The evangelists refer to the synagogues of Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2; Luke iv. 16) and Capernaum (Mark i. 21; Luke vii. 5; John vi. 59) as places where Jesus taught. There are but few details given in traditional literature concerning the other synagogues of Palestine, although mention is made of those in Beth-shean (Scythopolis; Yer. Meg. 74a), Cæsarea (Yer. Bik. 65d; see above), Kefar Tiberias (Pesiḳ. R. 196b), Kifra, or Kufra (Yer. Ta'an. 68b; Meg. 70a), Lydda (Yer. Sheḳ. v., end), Maon (Shab. 139a; Zab. 118b), Sepphoris (Pesiḳ. 136b [the great synagogue]; Yer. Ber. 9a; Yer. Shab. 8a [the Synagogue of the Babylonians]; Yer. Ber. 6a [the Synagogue of the Vine]), Tiberias (Ber. 8a, 30b [thirteen synagogues]; Yer. Ta'an. 64a [the Synagogue of the βουλή]; 'Er. x. 10), and Ṭibe'in (Tosef., Meg. ii.).

There had to be Jewish people for Jesus to go there and use the Synagogues. I'll get back to the other bits when I can be bothered to go in my attic and get the books down.

Great discussion! Thanks to all of you.

I'm not as scholarly but, here's an honest question:
Hasn't the idea that there was a synagogue in Nazareth (at the time we're discussing) been thoroughly debunked?

Please don't let me take you all off your main line of discussion. I am trying to keep up and read all the sources.

Town in Galilee, situated in a valley to the north of the plain of Esdraelon. It is about 1,200 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Nazareth first appears in the New Testament as the place where Jesus passed his boyhood (Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; ii. 4, 39, 51; John i. 46 et seq.; Acts x. 38). It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, or in Josephus or the Talmud (though Eleazar Ḳalir [8th and 9th cent.] in the elegy "Ekah Yashebah" mentions the priestly class of Nazareth [ = "Mishmeret"], doubtless on the basis of some ancient authority). This has led Wellhausen ("Israelitische und Jüdische Gesch." p. 220) and Cheyne (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") to conjecture that "Nazareth" is a name for Galilee. Such an inference is in the highest degree precarious. It is evident from John i. 46 that Nazareth was an obscure place. During the Biblical period Japhia was the important town of the locality and attracted to itself all the notice of historians.

Nazareth is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome in the "Onomasticon" as 15 Roman miles eastward from Legio (Lajjun). Epiphanius ("Hæres." i. 136) says that until the time of Constantine, Nazareth was inhabited only by Jews, which statement implies that in his day some Christians lived there. Toward the close of the sixth century it became a place of pilgrimage, for Antoninus the Martyr visited it and saw there an ancient synagogue and a church. It is said to have been almost totally destroyed by the Saracens, but after the establishment of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem it was rebuilt, and the bishopric of Scythopolis was transferred to it. The population is estimated at about 10,000—3,500 being Mohammedans, and the rest Christians.

Bibliography: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 146 et seq., 233 et seq.;
Robinson, Researches, ii. 133-143;
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 432 et seq.;
Buhl, Geographie des Alten Palästina, pp. 215 et seq.;
Neubauer, G. T. p. 190.S. G. A. B.
__________

From what I can find it had a large Jewish Population so should have had a form of a Synagogue

There had to be Jewish people for Jesus to go there and use the Synagogues.

I'll get back to the other bits when I can be bothered to go in my attic and get the books down.

That doesn't mean that Mary M was Jewish. And there is no certainty that Nazareth existed. It's not mentioned in the Tanakh, the Talmud or even by the ever so used Josephus. He said that he'd never heard of the place.

Town in Galilee, situated in a valley to the north of the plain of Esdraelon. It is about 1,200 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Nazareth first appears in the New Testament as the place where Jesus passed his boyhood (Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; ii. 4, 39, 51; John i. 46 et seq.; Acts x. 38). It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, or in Josephus or the Talmud (though Eleazar Ḳalir [8th and 9th cent.] in the elegy "Ekah Yashebah" mentions the priestly class of Nazareth [ = "Mishmeret"], doubtless on the basis of some ancient authority). This has led Wellhausen ("Israelitische und Jüdische Gesch." p. 220) and Cheyne (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") to conjecture that "Nazareth" is a name for Galilee. Such an inference is in the highest degree precarious. It is evident from John i. 46 that Nazareth was an obscure place. During the Biblical period Japhia was the important town of the locality and attracted to itself all the notice of historians.

Nazareth is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome in the "Onomasticon" as 15 Roman miles eastward from Legio (Lajjun). Epiphanius ("Hæres." i. 136) says that until the time of Constantine, Nazareth was inhabited only by Jews, which statement implies that in his day some Christians lived there. Toward the close of the sixth century it became a place of pilgrimage, for Antoninus the Martyr visited it and saw there an ancient synagogue and a church. It is said to have been almost totally destroyed by the Saracens, but after the establishment of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem it was rebuilt, and the bishopric of Scythopolis was transferred to it. The population is estimated at about 10,000—3,500 being Mohammedans, and the rest Christians.

I highlighted the important lines.

From what I can find it had a large Jewish Population so should have had a form of a Synagogue

You're going on information based on a 4th century writer. That's not good information. As shown above, it was not mentioned in the Talmud, the Tanakh, or by Josephus. Paul mentions Jesus but doesn't even bother to call him Jesus of Nazareth or even using the word Nazareth.

Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Dated to between: A.D. 60 and A.D. 85.

Luke 4:16
"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read."

Dated between: A.D. 40 and A.D. 130

I quote books, I quote the Old and New T, it's hard to show any other way since we have very few records of the time. That took me 2 minutes to find, instead of "doubting" everything I write why not read the Bible? The Qu'Ran? etc, etc...

Originally posted by saint4God
why Jesus would not have a wife (and children) would be in Luke 14:33 and all the surrounding context.

There's other reasons too, such as tripping all up and down Israel, the fact that he says "you cannot go where I am going", etc. Why would he step up a family for a fall like that when he knew perfectly well what was going to happen?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

Luke:13

33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

So you are claiming this displays Jesus' not having a wife? How?
He tells them to give up everything they "have"(has) which would be objects they own. Maybe Jesus just didn't think of his wife as a possession but an equal? Just because the majority of Roman Catholics (over History) have treated women as an object does not mean Jesus would have. He should have treated everyone as an equal - should he have not? Or do you think Jesus was pro-slavery? Since a woman as an object and your wife as one is just that.

Matthew 4:23 Luke 4:16

Ok let me clarify. Until the early church fathers in the 4th century, you have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. That's it. Paul writes about half of the NT and yet he doesn't mention it.

I quote books, I quote the Old and New T, it's hard to show any other way since we have very few records of the time. That took me 2 minutes to find, instead of "doubting" everything I write why not read the Bible? The Qu'Ran? etc, etc...

You quoted only the NT. Nazareth is NOT in the Tanakh. There are records existing from that time period and even before. It's called the Tanakh. The Talmud doesn't mention the place nor does it mention Jesus. And I should read the Quran when it is dated further than the early church fathers?

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by saint4God
why Jesus would not have a wife (and children) would be in Luke 14:33 and all the surrounding context.

There's other reasons too, such as tripping all up and down Israel, the fact that he says "you cannot go where I am going", etc. Why would he step up a family for a fall like that when he knew perfectly well what was going to happen?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

Luke:13

33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

So you are claiming this displays Jesus' not having a wife? How?
He tells them to give up everything they "have"(has) which would be objects they own. Maybe Jesus just didn't think of his wife as a possession but an equal? Just because the majority of Roman Catholics (over History) have treated women as an object does not mean Jesus would have. He should have treated everyone as an equal - should he have not? Or do you think Jesus was pro-slavery? Since a woman as an object and your wife as one is just that.

How about hitting the reverse button and looking at the verses before the one I'd mentioned at Luke 14:25 (the cost of being a disciple)? As I said, surrounding context. I also find your objectification of women disrespectful and distasteful, but such is the pattern around here. This verse is not about possessions, sorry.


[edit on 31-5-2005 by saint4God]

I went through Luke 12 to 16, that line is about what someone: has.

Luke: 14-33 "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "

Has: Third person singular present tense of have.


To be in possession of: already had a car.
To possess as a characteristic, quality, or function: has a beard; had a great deal of energy.
To possess or contain as a constituent part: a car that has air bags.
To occupy a particular relation to: had many disciples.
To possess knowledge of or facility in: has very little Spanish.
To hold in the mind; entertain: had doubts about their loyalty.
To use or exhibit in action: have compassion.

To come into possession of; acquire: Not one copy of the book was to be had in the entire town.
To receive; get: I had a letter from my cousin.
To accept; take: I'll have the peas instead of the spinach.

To suffer from: have defective vision.
To be subject to the experience of: had a difficult time last winter.

To cause to do something, as by persuasion or compulsion: had my assistant run the errand.
To cause to be in a specified place or state: had the guests in the dining room; had everyone fascinated.
To permit; allow: I won't have that kind of behavior in my house.
To carry on, perform, or execute: have an argument.

To place at a disadvantage: Your opponent in the debate had you on every issue.
Informal. To get the better of, especially by trickery or deception: They realized too late that they'd been had by a swindler.
Informal. To influence by dishonest means; bribe: an incorruptible official who could not be had.

To procreate (offspring): wanted to have a child.
To give birth to; bear: She's going to have a baby.
To partake of: have lunch.
To be obliged to; must: We simply have to get there on time.
To engage in sexual intercourse with.
__

My girlfriend has a Masters in English language, she says that's the possesive. So I'm going to take her word for it. So if you use that line and those around it to justify him not having a wife then you must agree women are objects as they had to be given up. I never said I did, I'm openly a women's rightist. Furthermore, how do you "give" something up which you do not own? Unless it was stolen? Was Jesus a thief?

I'm talking about Luke 14:25, which preceeds this statement in order to get correct context. Basically saying if you wanted to truly be his disciple as the large crowd did, they'd have to leave their family and follow him while he walked and talked. Why would Jesus have attachments and then say that? This is what does not make sense.

Who started anything about possessions and thievery? I can guarentee you it wasn't me. Dissect the English all you want, the Bible wasn't originally written in English. Sometimes you have to read the whole chapter, or better still, the whole book within the Bible to understand what's going on. Take any single line from a parable Jesus said, I'm sure you'll be quite confused without reading the whole chapter. I'm not going to quote half a page. I got yelled at for doing that before.


[edit on 31-5-2005 by saint4God]

I almost hit the quote button myself, Saint.

The many parables Jesus speaks today is taken much out of context by many that call themself "Christian". They are greatly open to individual interpretation as long as one gets the "jist" of what the Lord was trying to say. However, in this day and time many twist these parables to fit an agenda I consider very unChristlike.

Jesus was in all likelyhood a high priest cum Rabbi. The evidence may not be clear from the gospels, but itis certainly made clearer when reviewed in the context of the infancy gospel apocrypha.

Zacharias was mentioned by Jesus as the priest who was murdered between the temple and the altar. This account is also found in the infancy gospels.

Zach was the high priest who convinced Jospeh to marry Mary. Mary was the cousin to Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, her husband and his father was Zacharias. That makes Jesus and John cousins as well.

Jewish tradition holds that inheritance of the Hebraic right is through the mother, while the tribal lineage is through the father. As a high priest, Zacharias had to have been a Levite, since, such rights were conferred only on that tribe. This allowed John his stature of prophet.

Mary therefore was not of the house of David, but of the house of Levi, since she was the niece of either, Elizabeth's mother or father, who, like Zacharias, would have had to have been a Levite also. The two gospel genealogies provided are rife with fabrication and go to great lengths to associate Jesus with David through a man whose DNA apparently was not even in his makeup.

Jesus ventured in and out the synagogues, freely preaching his doctrine. Such is not afforded any layman. It is not at all clear that the temple from which he drove the money-changers was in fact the great temple, whichever it was, he could not have done so and walked away. The Jews were granted the right to prosecute any Jew not in compliance with Torah law, and it is extremely doubtful, that anyone would be allowed to get away with such tactics unless he in fact held a high position himself. The Zacharias/Levite connection supports the fact he was therefore a high priest/Rabbi, and in all likelyhood would have been married by a very early age. His wife does indeed seem to be Magdalena.

The gospel story of Jesus when analyzed closely tells the tale of only a small number of people, the majority of whom are either related to Jesus, or to each other. There is no mystery therefore to who he was, and once that is removed, his solely human persona makes him no more different to any other Jew of that time when it comes to custom.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
I almost hit the quote button myself, Saint.

The many parables Jesus speaks today is taken much out of context by many that call themself "Christian". They are greatly open to individual interpretation as long as one gets the "jist" of what the Lord was trying to say. However, in this day and time many twist these parables to fit an agenda I consider very unChristlike.

Ya, it's wrong to make the Book fit our agenda. It's His agenda that we need to learn and get on-board with . So, let's read and discuss, because that'll get us closest to the truth. Oh wait a second, isn't that church?

Yes, that is church. However, when I hear what many "churches" now preach I run the other direction. Definitely not what Christ intended. Yes, I'm sure there are many good ones out there. However, many would be embarrassed and have me arrested when I stood up to protest what they were saying. Can't stand being arrested too many times. They label people ya know?

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Yes, that is church. However, when I hear what many "churches" now preach I run the other direction.

Admittedly, I remember we'd talked about it before and was a friendly poke.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Definitely not what Christ intended. Yes, I'm sure there are many good ones out there. However, many would be embarrassed and have me arrested when I stood up to protest what they were saying. Can't stand being arrested too many times. They label people ya know?

I do know some churches do label people. I've heard it. Here's what I think a lot of people are forgetting. We as people choose where we go and who we listen to. Not only that, we choose to accept or reject what we're being taught. And finally, as church encourages, we choose to read the Bible on our own to determine if what is being taught is in alignment. This is a great time and place to be alive. Now, if all that isn't enough, one can always talk to God. Go straight to the source, that's what the Book says. *nodnods* (James 1:5 of the places it says to do so)

As far as outspokeness I'm all for it, but I can understand if someone is teaching a lesson and somebody keeps interrupting everyone else's ability to listen. After all, there are a lot of people who go to learn stuff, not hear a debate all the time. Sunday school, house church, and inquirer's groups are great for debates. It's all about understanding your forum and audience. If I went to Star Wars III and stood up yelling about things that didn't make sense, I'm sure I'd be arrested too.

Side-note: I've heard my pastor say on a number of occasions, "Now before you go home and e-mail me, hear me out..." . I've been told by the admin he gets a few hundred per week.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 1-6-2005 by saint4God]

The "Family Business" of the House of David goes back a long way before AD36...

As has been previously stated there are many biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David, other relatives of Jesus prominent in the early Christian Church were his brother James the Just, 1st bishop of Jerusalem, and his cousin Simeon (Josephs brother Cleopas' son) 2nd bishop of Jerusalem. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 chapter 12 part 11)

Part 12 of this same chapter refers to how the Emperor Vespasian sought to capture and kill any of the family of David so that none would be left of the Jews who was of royal lineage.

Also mentioned by Eusebius in Book 1 Chapter 7 of Ecclesiastical History is an account of the relatives of Jesus keeping private secret records of their lineage, they refered to themselves as the Desposyni...

Eusebius' work differs hugely the style of the Bible or that of Flavius Josephus, his work is very scholarly and is referenced and cross referenced to that research material available to him around 340AD, which includes a great many works which no longer exist, but of which the quotes in his history are the last extant copy.

The lack of records of the Jews during the period of the life of Christ is entirely consistent with what we should expect from this period, as Eusebius records wave after wave of death destruction and martyrdom of the early Christians.

Ecclesiastical History is a bit of a heavy dull book in style but is well worth a read, the discussions and disagreements of this forum have been going on since the first days of the church, from Sabellius to Arius, there has always been disagreement about, whether Jesus was Cosubstantial or born of man and woman, was he a man or a god. The sad reality of the Church is that by 340AD at the time of Eusebius the poor Christians had been so demoralised that they were prepared to go along with anything the Romans wanted of them to end the persecution, the early history details the most incredible arrays of torture, destruction and death that little or none of the recorded history of the jews of this period remains.

Originally posted by Flange GasketAs has been previously stated there are many biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David, other relatives of Jesus prominent in the early Christian Church were his brother James the Just, 1st bishop of Jerusalem, and his cousin Simeon (Josephs brother Cleopas' son) 2nd bishop of Jerusalem. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 chapter 12 part 11)

Which came first Josephus in the late 1st century, or Eusebius a late 3rd century arrival? And who actually knew more about the situation in Palestine, a Jewish high priest and general who lived there in the first century, or a 3rd to 4th century Christian living in Palestine? Eusebius, a Christian, would have been relying on the lineage as per the gospels, so his statements on same is hardly proof of anything. So both mother Mary and her sister, Mary had sons named Simon. Cute little royal attribute in serfdom.

Eusebius apologizes for the genealogy thusly:

whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

Yet, it was just an apology and a very weak one at that, for had he and all other church fathers performed due diligence they would have found the following: his genealogy per matthew shows Roboam; Abia; Asa; Josaphat; Joram, which were not sons of the previous but all sons of Solomon, therefore a forced lineage; Ammon was considered evil by god II Kings 21:2 next in line was Jechonias who was not the son of ammon but his grandson, therefore a purposeful attempt to mislead, and he too was cursed; two generations later we have Zorobabel whose heritage cannot be determined in that his supposed father Salathiel, died childless; Achim, Eluid are unknown characters. Luke has its own issues also; Elmodam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi and Neri are unknowns; Salathiel in Matthew is represented as the son of Jechonias, and in Luke as the son of Neri; see also Salathiel and Zorobabel above; Joanna is female not male where the line was recorded by the male side; The Matthias lines strongly resemble the Josephus genealogy with a number of unknowns tossed in for good measure.

As much as Christians go to extreme measures to provide Jesus, God himself supposedly, who needs no genealogy, with a Davidic lineage through Joseph a man who God created and a man who had no say in the creation of said Jesus, they still fall short of proving their case, as with the listing above.

Part 12 of this same chapter refers to how the Emperor Vespasian sought to capture and kill any of the family of David so that none would be left of the Jews who was of royal lineage.

And this proves Jesus' lineage how exactly? The issue the Romans would have had with the house of David was the same as with all Jews. I highly suspect there were hundreds of thousands from the house of David. Did Vespasian mention he was only after the descendants of Jesus?

Eusebius' work differs hugely the style of the Bible or that of Flavius Josephus, his work is very scholarly and is referenced and cross referenced to that research material available to him around 340AD, which includes a great many works which no longer exist, but of which the quotes in his history are the last extant copy.

His works are actually more telling when compared to the likes of Josephus than Christians wish to acknowledge. For while he claimed Herod burned the genealogical registries, he unwittingly and truthfully links Jesus and all of his characters to those in Josephus’ works. But that is for those who are interested in research to find on their own. Further, there were no private records kept.

The lack of records of the Jews during the period of the life of Christ is entirely consistent with what we should expect from this period, as Eusebius records wave after wave of death destruction and martyrdom of the early Christians.

There you go. Claim the records were detsroyed, but 3,760 years of same were stored in the minds of a working class family. How much of your genealogy was actually handed down to you that you can either recall from memory, or have taken the time to diligent record? And you have pen and paper or computer for ease of record, not stone or papyri and reeds.

…the discussions and disagreements of this forum have been going on since the first days of the church, from Sabellius to Arius, there has always been disagreement about, whether Jesus was Cosubstantial or born of man and woman, was he a man or a god….

And the masses are far more acquainted today with works forbidden to those only in the position to make the decisions. We undoubtedly lack many, but we are not the uneducated serf in the field who is made to appear in church and told to accept what is read to us and what is forbidden to us to read.

The sad reality of the Church is that by 340AD at the time of Eusebius the poor Christians had been so demoralised that they were prepared to go along with anything the Romans wanted of them to end the persecution…

Poor them! They had a history of all of three hundred years, and they whined like banshees, where the very culture from which they absconded with their status, had already been persecuted for a known 500 years. They certainly made up for that prosecution, those poor Christians, the barbarism they showed to non-Christians to this day is not overlooked.

One thing that Eusebius did in fact get correct was this:

Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

Yet, when it comes to Simon, Judas, Joses/Joseph/Jesus and James, they are quick to claim these brethren of Jesus were from a previous marriage of Joseph, and in no way could have been from the virgin queen, for she was obviously content to stay a virginal widow for the rest of her born days, however long they were.