Blood Brothers and Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bballer32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bballer32

Guest
So, i was doing a bit of research on this when i came across this on a Wikipedia. Now, i understand that Wikipedia isn’t always reliable, but it has sources and i think it’s pretty accurate. When i find disturbing is that they say that the Orthodox and the RC hold different beliefs on where the “brothers” came from.

Thoughts and comments about the article would be nice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni

My question is, why do some of the early Church have different views that what we have today? And also, are the letters by these people (you will see their names in the article: Hegesippus and Sextus) credible and are they acceptable?

I know the basic defense against this claim so please don’t teach me that. I’d like to here the more complex side of this situation.

One more thing. BRING ON THE POPCORN 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿

You guilty of this practice know who you are ;)😃
 
I’m not aware of the Church having any dogmatic position on “whom” the brothers in Scripture are. So I don’t see how there can be a contradiction with some Orthodox. We do know both Apostolic Churches teach her perpetual virginity, however.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I’m not aware of the Church having any dogmatic position on “whom” the brothers in Scripture are. So I don’t see how there can be a contradiction with some Orthodox. We do know both Apostolic Churches teach her perpetual virginity, however.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Really, it shouldn’t bother us that the East and West have different suppositions on who exactly the “Brothers of the Lord” are. What should really speak loudly to non-Catholics is that, despite all our differences, East and West agree on who they are not. Specifically, that they are not children of Mary.
 
To say Wikipedia isn’t always accurate would be an understatement.

In essence, there are 3 explanations of the “brothers”:

1). They were our LORD’s younger half-brothers by Mary and Joseph (the Protestant interpretation).

2). They were older sons of S. Joseph by an earlier marriage (stepbrothers to our LORD).

3). They were our LORD’s cousins, the Aramaic words for that and for “brother” being the same.

As Catholics, we reject version 1, as inconsistent with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But although most Catholics hold to version 3 (and some EOs to version 2), either 2 or 3 is acceptable to Catholic theology.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
They were older sons of S. Joseph by an earlier marriage (stepbrothers to our LORD).
Click to expand...
I like this answer. I assume Joseph’s first wife died during the birth of Simon or one of the sisters leaving Joseph a widower. He was much older than Mary which explains why Joseph is not mentioned later in the Gospels because he passed away. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but John the Baptist is never mentioned as a brother of Jesus. Then there is the literary standpoint, since his brothers were mentioned with his mother there is a direct correlation between Jesus’ mother and brothers. If those brothers were actually cousins the writers probably wouldn’t have mentioned them with the mother of Jesus.
 
mikeeh said:
I like this answer. I assume Joseph’s first wife died during the birth of Simon or one of the sisters leaving Joseph a widower. He was much older than Mary which explains why Joseph is not mentioned later in the Gospels because he passed away. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but John the Baptist is never mentioned as a brother of Jesus. Then there is the literary standpoint, since his brothers were mentioned with his mother there is a direct correlation between Jesus’ mother and brothers. If those brothers were actually cousins the writers probably wouldn’t have mentioned them with the mother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I also favor this version, although it is at best a minority viewpoint among Catholics.

The sudden disappearance of S. Joseph from the Gospels only makes sense if he were an old man who died expectedly.

ICXC NIKA
 
SonCatcher said:
Indeed. Really, it shouldn’t bother us that the East and West have different suppositions on who exactly the “Brothers of the Lord” are. What should really speak loudly to non-Catholics is that, despite all our differences, East and West agree on who they are not. Specifically, that they are not children of Mary.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Bballer32 said:
So, i was doing a bit of research on this when i came across this on a Wikipedia. Now, i understand that Wikipedia isn’t always reliable, but it has sources and i think it’s pretty accurate. When i find disturbing is that they say that the Orthodox and the RC hold different beliefs on where the “brothers” came from.

Thoughts and comments about the article would be nice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni

My question is, why do some of the early Church have different views that what we have today? And also, are the letters by these people (you will see their names in the article: Hegesippus and Sextus) credible and are they acceptable?

I know the basic defense against this claim so please don’t teach me that. I’d like to here the more complex side of this situation.

One more thing. BRING ON THE POPCORN 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿

You guilty of this practice know who you are ;)😃
Click to expand...
The Church does not state who they are. The Church states who they are not - i.e. they are not blood siblings.
 
mikeeh said:
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but John the Baptist is never mentioned as a brother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
No, but then again, they don’t say that Mary and Elizabeth were sisters, either: they were ‘kinswomen.’ So, if ‘kin’ may specify a different type of relation than ‘brother/sister’ or ‘cousin’, then it follows that you wouldn’t necessarily call the son of a kinswoman your brother… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
No, but then again, they don’t say that Mary and Elizabeth were sisters, either: they were ‘kinswomen.’ So, if ‘kin’ may specify a different type of relation than ‘brother/sister’ or ‘cousin’, then it follows that you wouldn’t necessarily call the son of a kinswoman your brother… 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought, for some reason Mary and Elizabeth were cousins…
 
Bballer32 said:
40.png
cheezey:
Yeah, I thought, for some reason Mary and Elizabeth were cousins…
Click to expand...
Same here… I thought they were cousins
Click to expand...
The Greek word used here is συγγενίς (‘suggenis’, pronounced soon-gen-ees). Although it’s typically translated in Luke 1:36 as ‘cousin’, it also appears in many other places in the Scriptures, and is translated there as ‘relative’ (in fact, look at Luke 1:58 – it’s the same word, and it’s translated as ‘relatives’ or ‘kinsfolk’ there).

So, projecting contemporary family relationship connotations on the word in Luke 1:36 is a bit unfair to the text. Was Elizabeth Mary’s ‘cousin’, in the way we think of it today? Perhaps – but the text doesn’t tell us that explicitly.
 
cheezey said:
Yeah, I thought, for some reason Mary and Elizabeth were cousins…
Click to expand...
In the Bible it refers to them as relatives, but it doesn’t say how they are related. Of course genetics tells us all humans are cousins. I can’t remember if I read it or I heard it in a class, but I remember that everyone in Galilee was related through blood or marriage. In those days marrying outside your community was frowned upon.

“And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.”
Luke 1:36-37
 
Gorgias said:
The Greek word used here is συγγενίς (‘suggenis’, pronounced soon-gen-ees). Although it’s typically translated in Luke 1:36 as ‘cousin’, it also appears in many other places in the Scriptures, and is translated there as ‘relative’ (in fact, look at Luke 1:58 – it’s the same word, and it’s translated as ‘relatives’ or ‘kinsfolk’ there).
Click to expand...
Interesting. I did not know that. But this comment below can be very misleading.
40.png
Gorgias:
but the text doesn’t tell us that explicitly.
Click to expand...
 
Bballer32 said:
Interesting. I did not know that. But this comment below can be very misleading.
40.png
Gorgias:
but the text doesn’t tell us that explicitly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hmm… could you elaborate? The text says συγγενίς (and not ἀδελφος), and therefore doesn’t make the nature of the relationship explicit; why is my comment misleading, then? :confused:
 
Gorgias said:
Hmm… could you elaborate? The text says συγγενίς (and not ἀδελφος), and therefore doesn’t make the nature of the relationship explicit; why is my comment misleading, then? :confused:
Click to expand...
Whoops my bad 😊

Should of clarified a bit more.

I meant that this comment can be misleading because not everything that we believe is squared up directly in the Bible (i.e. Mary’s perpetual virginity). I’m not saying that this is misleading to me since i understand where you are coming from, but to a lot of misunderstanding people, this comment can be taken and used against you in certain debates.

Just thought i would help you on that 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top