Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Something that I can’t seem to find a good explanation on is indulgences. What are they exactly?[/quote]

Indulgence is the kindness and mercy of God to release a debt or temporal punishment for sin.[/quote]

Basically it was tradition in the early Church to do temporal punishment for a certain amount of time for your penance so as not to bring temporal punishment in the afterlife. This was a community effort thing, basically you would stand up in front of the Church, confess your sins, and the priest would absolve you. The priest would issue you a temporal punishment. This involved the whole community in this temporal punishment, say you stole something. So, for penance you were to pay back or give back what you stole, make right with the person you directly hurt and to eat bread and water for 100 days, well the whole community was involved. They worked as a community to save each other, they didn’t want you to go to infernus, or even to spend time in purgatorio, so for a 100 days during your penance no one would feed or sell you anything besides bread, and if someone saw that you were not doing your penance they would tell the priest and he’d do his thing. However, there was some problems, not everyone is nice about such things and there was a low turn out rate for confession.

Well, the Church in her mercifulness came up with a way for people to do their temporal punishment either partially or all together, anonymously, if they wished. So, when you see a partial indulgence, it’ll say 100 days, 6 months, 3 years, 5 years, or whatever it may say. That indulgence will release you from that temporal punishment that you would have to do if the the confession and penance was public. So, if you do a partial indulgence for a 100 days, and your penance would be 100 days, you would not owe penance after doing the indulgence. There is plenary indulgences as well, these are what you would use to do all your penance all at once. So, say you have been particularly bad and have 15 years penance, you can do the plenary indulgence and all your penance that you are required to do is taken care of as long as you fulfill the rest of your obligations.[/quote]

This whole system sounds like it was invented to be corrupt.
Question: Is it Biblical or did the RCC make it up?

[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

We are talking about the system regarding indulgences and how it works. I asked if it was Biblical or if the RCC made it up? I honestly don’t know the answer. It’s an innocent question.

102

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Something that I can’t seem to find a good explanation on is indulgences. What are they exactly?[/quote]

Indulgence is the kindness and mercy of God to release a debt or temporal punishment for sin.[/quote]

Basically it was tradition in the early Church to do temporal punishment for a certain amount of time for your penance so as not to bring temporal punishment in the afterlife. This was a community effort thing, basically you would stand up in front of the Church, confess your sins, and the priest would absolve you. The priest would issue you a temporal punishment. This involved the whole community in this temporal punishment, say you stole something. So, for penance you were to pay back or give back what you stole, make right with the person you directly hurt and to eat bread and water for 100 days, well the whole community was involved. They worked as a community to save each other, they didn’t want you to go to infernus, or even to spend time in purgatorio, so for a 100 days during your penance no one would feed or sell you anything besides bread, and if someone saw that you were not doing your penance they would tell the priest and he’d do his thing. However, there was some problems, not everyone is nice about such things and there was a low turn out rate for confession.

Well, the Church in her mercifulness came up with a way for people to do their temporal punishment either partially or all together, anonymously, if they wished. So, when you see a partial indulgence, it’ll say 100 days, 6 months, 3 years, 5 years, or whatever it may say. That indulgence will release you from that temporal punishment that you would have to do if the the confession and penance was public. So, if you do a partial indulgence for a 100 days, and your penance would be 100 days, you would not owe penance after doing the indulgence. There is plenary indulgences as well, these are what you would use to do all your penance all at once. So, say you have been particularly bad and have 15 years penance, you can do the plenary indulgence and all your penance that you are required to do is taken care of as long as you fulfill the rest of your obligations.[/quote]

This whole system sounds like it was invented to be corrupt.
Question: Is it Biblical or did the RCC make it up?

[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

We are talking about the system regarding indulgences and how it works. I asked if it was Biblical or if the RCC made it up? I honestly don’t know the answer. It’s an innocent question.
[/quote]

That’s a little bit of a False Dichotomy isn’t it? Either it’s in the Bible…or the Catholic Church made it up from thin air…third option, tradition/biblical.

103

We are talking about the system regarding indulgences and how it works. I asked if it was Biblical or if the RCC made it up? I honestly don’t know the answer. It’s an innocent question.
[/quote]

That’s a little bit of a False Dichotomy isn’t it? Either it’s in the Bible…or the Catholic Church made it up from thin air…third option, tradition/biblical.[/quote]

I’m no Bible expert, but I don’t recall ever coming across indulgences in the Bible. So, you’re saying, its in the Bible and then the RCC expanded upon it and made it a tradition?

104

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I’m no Bible expert, but I don’t recall ever coming across indulgences in the Bible. So, you’re saying, its in the Bible and then the RCC expanded upon it and made it a tradition?[/quote]

Yes, most people don’t see it. Purgatorio is in the Bible, indulgences are related to purgatorio through the temporal punishment, and the Bible teaches that tradition is taught to the Apostles by Jesus, and they hand it down to to other Apostles.

105

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If B is the one mediator between A and man, and XYZ speaks of man in different worlds. If X can pray to B directly, and Z can pray to B directly, why can’t X ask Z to pray to B for X, and maybe even Y.[/quote]

Where is this chart located in the Bible? Okay, I’m being funny but again there is nothing of this in the Bible just the quote to Timothy by Paul. [/quote]

It doesn’t say anything in the Bible about who wrote The Gospel According to Mark or the proper way to get married.[/quote]

Nor does it tell you how to start your car on a cold winter morning - So what?
[/quote]

Exactly that, some things just aren’t in the Bible, even the Bible says so.

John 21:25, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

To think that all the instructions of Jesus are in Bible is limiting Jesus is my point.[/quote]

I’m going to have to call logical fallacy on that one my friend. You are claiming that BECAUSE certain things are not in the Bible then it’s okay to add things. Also, when there is clear instruction as in the case of there being only ONE mediator between God and man (Jesus) there is certainly no good reason to add anything to that.[/quote]

Um…no. You’re coming from the idea that the Bible was written and then the other stuff came about. When in fact it’s the other way around, we had the teachings and some of them went into the Bible and we still have the other stuff.[/quote]

I’m not saying that it’s not okay to follow traditions that you may have in your church. I’m simply saying that you can’t rationalize them with the Bible. Especially in the case of having one mediator between God and man. And asking dead people to intercede with prayer? Um…Okay, but we both know that it’s not Biblical.[/quote]

But, I’m not asking dead people to intercede with prayer, I’m asking the living saints in Heaven, that is the communion of Saints. Interesting because I don’t know anything you just said, The Revelation of Saint John says something about these “dead” living saints in Heaven, “when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with gold bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Sounds like the “dead” living people in Heaven are offering up our prayers to the Lamb.[/quote]

I’m familiar with that scripture and no where does it say or even imply that those dead people can, or should intercede in human affairs on earth. Again, the Bible clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Have you ever asked another living person to pray for you or prayed for someone else? This is the same thing as asking one of the saints to pray for you (ie they are alive just like you and I although not on earth).

Ooops sorry, already covered. I got hasty and posted this before I read the whole thread.

106

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If B is the one mediator between A and man, and XYZ speaks of man in different worlds. If X can pray to B directly, and Z can pray to B directly, why can’t X ask Z to pray to B for X, and maybe even Y.[/quote]

Where is this chart located in the Bible? Okay, I’m being funny but again there is nothing of this in the Bible just the quote to Timothy by Paul. [/quote]

It doesn’t say anything in the Bible about who wrote The Gospel According to Mark or the proper way to get married.[/quote]

Nor does it tell you how to start your car on a cold winter morning - So what?
[/quote]

Exactly that, some things just aren’t in the Bible, even the Bible says so.

John 21:25, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

To think that all the instructions of Jesus are in Bible is limiting Jesus is my point.[/quote]

I’m going to have to call logical fallacy on that one my friend. You are claiming that BECAUSE certain things are not in the Bible then it’s okay to add things. Also, when there is clear instruction as in the case of there being only ONE mediator between God and man (Jesus) there is certainly no good reason to add anything to that.[/quote]

Um…no. You’re coming from the idea that the Bible was written and then the other stuff came about. When in fact it’s the other way around, we had the teachings and some of them went into the Bible and we still have the other stuff.[/quote]

I’m not saying that it’s not okay to follow traditions that you may have in your church. I’m simply saying that you can’t rationalize them with the Bible. Especially in the case of having one mediator between God and man. And asking dead people to intercede with prayer? Um…Okay, but we both know that it’s not Biblical.[/quote]

But, I’m not asking dead people to intercede with prayer, I’m asking the living saints in Heaven, that is the communion of Saints. Interesting because I don’t know anything you just said, The Revelation of Saint John says something about these “dead” living saints in Heaven, “when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with gold bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Sounds like the “dead” living people in Heaven are offering up our prayers to the Lamb.[/quote]

I’m familiar with that scripture and no where does it say or even imply that those dead people can, or should intercede in human affairs on earth. Again, the Bible clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Have you ever asked another living person to pray for you or prayed for someone else? This is the same thing as asking one of the saints to pray for you (ie they are alive just like you and I although not on earth).

Ooops sorry, already covered. I got hasty and posted this before I read the whole thread.[/quote]

Don’t worry, they’ll never believe it until the realise that there is Tradition and that Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist.

107

I kind of like this quote and I think it explains some things, so I am going to post it…

…in the Catholic Church tradition is not something other than Holy Scripture and added to it, but rather the entire living transmission of the truth, whose central organ is the inspired Scripture. Scripture is not illuminated or completed by tradition as by something foreign to it and superadded. On the contrary, we must insist, Scripture keeps its true and complete sense only when it remains a vital part of that living tradition of the Church in which the inspired writers actually composed it, making it, as it were, the essential deposit of this tradition. The Word of God is communicated to the Church and directs her through Holy Scripture, but through Scripture linked to all those things that make us see it as the deposit of a Word which is and will always be the word of life, which cannot be preserved apart from the life it itself creates and sustains.

108

It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.

I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.

109

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.

I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]

I don’t find this shocking at all. Of course you are looking for the one true church, because you believe there is truth, that much I can tell even without tracking down all your posts. I don’t want to ask too much, but could you tell me three things that you find “simply wrong to flatly blasphemous” about Catholic teaching? Also, I am assuming you read my above post. What did you think of that?

110

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.
[/quote]

2 Peter 1:20 says, “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.”

Commentary from the Douay-Rheims Bible: “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise."

1:20 one’s own interpretation: The Holy Ghost that divinely inspired the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible is the only one able of interpreting them. Man’s reasoning faculties can not obtain their proper interpretation without the divine help of the Holy Ghost. This is not implicitly stated, but it is implied, Peter didn’t ID those who are authorized to find the proper meaning of Scripture. One side contends that every believer who possess the Holy Ghost is automatically qualified, but that begs the question…Why in the Protestant world is there so many different interpretations?

No such thing is taught, that every believer possessed with the Holy Ghost can properly interpret the Scriptures, in the New Testament, fortunately for Protestants. However, we do learn from other passages that the Holy Ghost guides the Church into all truth through her apostolic leaders and their successors (Jn 14:26; 16:13), who serve as teachers and guardians of the Christian faith (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; 2:2). This explains why Peter, being an apostle, expects readers to accept his teaching on Scripture as authoritative and reliable, whereas the false teachers among them are denounced for twisting its meaning (2 Pet 3:15-16) (CCC 104, 109-14).

111

I haven’t read this entire thread, the subject matter interests me (Catholic beliefs interest me), but I ran across something and I was wondering if the Catholic bros on this site could confirm or deny:

Did Jesus have any brothers? I seem to recall something about Mary being ‘sinless’, via the emaculate conception idea, however I read something recently that suggested that she was always a virgin (at least with regard to humans). In otherwords, Jesus would not have had any flesh and blood brothers (or half brothers). It’s my understanding that the emmaculate conception refers to Mary’s being sinless prior to Jesus’s birth. Does this extend after his birth?

112

According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:
According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.[/quote]

Maybe, I’m just trying to get confirmation that this is an actual Catholic belief. I know that the emmaculate conception came later - and I thought I knew all that the EC entailed, but perhaps not.

Frankly speaking, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I mean, what would be wrong with supposing that Mary was sinless, had Jesus, and then had other children? Seems like a reasonable position. Mary was married, so these wouldn’t be children of sin. You could keep the EC position and contend that Mary remained sinless. I mean, if this was not the case, then why did Mary get married to Joseph at all?

Heh, seems like punishment for Joseph to me - a ‘look but don’t touch’ kind of thing… :wink:

114

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
I haven’t read this entire thread, the subject matter interests me (Catholic beliefs interest me), but I ran across something and I was wondering if the Catholic bros on this site could confirm or deny:

Did Jesus have any brothers? I seem to recall something about Mary being ‘sinless’, via the emaculate conception idea, however I read something recently that suggested that she was always a virgin (at least with regard to humans). In otherwords, Jesus would not have had any flesh and blood brothers (or half brothers). It’s my understanding that the emmaculate conception refers to Mary’s being sinless prior to Jesus’s birth. Does this extend after his birth? [/quote]

Yes, it extended after his birth.

I have a exegesis of Yeshua’s brothers…but, honestly I’ll tell you what I believe. The brothers are either step-brothers of Yeshua or cousins of Yeshua as “ana” (word for brother in Aramaic) was in common use for both step-brothers and cousins.

115

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.[/quote]

Maybe, I’m just trying to get confirmation that this is an actual Catholic belief. I know that the emmaculate conception came later - and I thought I knew all that the EC entailed, but perhaps not.

Frankly speaking, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I mean, what would be wrong with supposing that Mary was sinless, had Jesus, and then had other children? Seems like a reasonable position. Mary was married, so these wouldn’t be children of sin. You could keep the EC position and contend that Mary remained sinless. I mean, if this was not the case, then why did Mary get married to Joseph at all?

Heh, seems like punishment for Joseph to me - a ‘look but don’t touch’ kind of thing… ;-)[/quote]

Not to mention that Joseph had impossibly big shoes to fill :wink:

116

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

Let’s call it a “bridge” for clarity purposes. There is only one bridge between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. Why would you or anyone try to communicate with those who have passed on instead of simply praying through Christ? Is this just church dogma - Like long ago when the Catholics would not eat meat on Friday? [/quote]

Okay, there is one Bridge to the Father. Still not seeing a problem.[/quote]

Did you forget a line between other men, the Pope and the Saints?[/quote]

The father and the son are one in the same, to know one is to know the other. You either believe that or you don’t. Jesus isn’t a bridge to the the Father he is in the Father and the Father is in him.
Faith is the bridge, or Jacob’s ladder if you will.

117

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It may shock some of you people, but I could buy the whole apostolic succession/tradition thing if it weren’t for the utter condemnation of everything Rome has become in the pages of the very scriptures that she did indeed canonize. Oh the irony. It is the church herself that screams at me “SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!” for if not? Look what we get. An endless tsunami of abomination that ranges from simply wrong to flatly blasphemous. One day it just might sink in that I wish there WERE something like the RCC that was indeed the “one true and holy apostolic” church. I do. It’s not that there can’t be a succession of authority from the first century apostles or even that, gasp, there could not ever be additional revelation by a-priori definition. For me it’s not primarily any of that. It’s that if there is? The RCC ain’t it.
Whatever that thing in Rome is it ain’t the body and bride of the Jesus I find either in the new testament or in my prayers.

I have posted volumes of scripture that clearly contradict catholic teaching only to have the Catholics here stare at the screen and wonder what I’m talking about because they’ve been told by a horrifically corrupt and breathtakingly arrogant organization what to believe. It is the most successful deception of absolutely all time that something so manifestly anti Christian could be associated with the holy risen Christ by so much of the world for so long.[/quote]

No you haven’t. you have never posted any scripture that is contrary to Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is based on scripture.
Pick one Catholic teaching and then find the contrary passage in scripture, this ought to be good…Well, we’re waiting…

118

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
I haven’t read this entire thread, the subject matter interests me (Catholic beliefs interest me), but I ran across something and I was wondering if the Catholic bros on this site could confirm or deny:

Did Jesus have any brothers? I seem to recall something about Mary being ‘sinless’, via the emaculate conception idea, however I read something recently that suggested that she was always a virgin (at least with regard to humans). In otherwords, Jesus would not have had any flesh and blood brothers (or half brothers). It’s my understanding that the emmaculate conception refers to Mary’s being sinless prior to Jesus’s birth. Does this extend after his birth? [/quote]

The Immaculate Conception dogma was established in 1870 and was the last time an infallible declaration was made. The dogma basically states that the person who is to carry the son of God, must necessarily be sinless from all, including original sin. Meaning that Mary was born free of all that.
This came as a result of the apparitions to St. Bernadette in Lourdes. The apparitions were confirmed through several miracles that occurred there, the last of which is the creation of the miraculous spring that draws thousands of pilgrims every year. The spring was verifiably not there before 1853.

119

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
I haven’t read this entire thread, the subject matter interests me (Catholic beliefs interest me), but I ran across something and I was wondering if the Catholic bros on this site could confirm or deny:

Did Jesus have any brothers? I seem to recall something about Mary being ‘sinless’, via the emaculate conception idea, however I read something recently that suggested that she was always a virgin (at least with regard to humans). In otherwords, Jesus would not have had any flesh and blood brothers (or half brothers). It’s my understanding that the emmaculate conception refers to Mary’s being sinless prior to Jesus’s birth. Does this extend after his birth? [/quote]

The short answer is that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary’s womb only bore Jesus. If Jesus had any brothers, they would have been step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph. The confussion is with the translation of brother, cousin, township, etc. In Jesus’s time, it was not uncommon to refere to individuals from your same town as your brother. Hence why Jesus is often called Jesus of Nazareth.

When Jesus is on the cross and Jesus says woman behold your Son, the word he uses for Son in the untranslated version implies that he is the only male heir.

There was actually a game show on TV that asked for the names of Jesus’s brothers. The game show got thousands of calls from Catholics saying that Jesus didn’t have brothers.

120

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had 4 brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas). Maybe they were his half-brothers from a former marriage with Joseph, it’s not really clear.[/quote]

Maybe, I’m just trying to get confirmation that this is an actual Catholic belief. I know that the emmaculate conception came later - and I thought I knew all that the EC entailed, but perhaps not.

Frankly speaking, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I mean, what would be wrong with supposing that Mary was sinless, had Jesus, and then had other children? Seems like a reasonable position. Mary was married, so these wouldn’t be children of sin. You could keep the EC position and contend that Mary remained sinless. I mean, if this was not the case, then why did Mary get married to Joseph at all?

Heh, seems like punishment for Joseph to me - a ‘look but don’t touch’ kind of thing… ;-)[/quote]

Could you imagine being a blood brother of Jesus? “Why can’t you be more like your brother!? He never stole any candy!”

As a Catholic, we believe in “Mary ever virgin” as stated in the Nicene Creed. As for self thinker, I have no idea really. The word “brother” was used in many contexts in the bible, so it can go many ways.
Like you it’s not that big a deal to me either way, perhaps Joseph had other kids?? Perhaps, acting like a holy family the ‘adopted’ to help the less fortunate? They left a rather large 18 year gap in the gospel of Luke.