"Brothers" of Jesus

[JohnR77]

But here ya go. See Post #21- Why it makes more sense to me that Joseph was a consecrated virgin like Mary, and

**Post #26 **- Why the “Big-Stepbrothers”/“Jesus’s Blended Family” theory does not make sense and why it does not make sense to me that Joseph had two different but overlapping vocations instead of just the one very important one that he will be remembered for for all time.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038

.Also Post #34- Where was Jesus’ giant, bustling step-family at the cross?

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987204&page=3

…

Thanks. I really enjoyed reading [**Post #21 ** (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038)above .

It makes sense that he was a consecrated virgin, because only that fits well with what we can reasonably conclude was also Mary’s calling, as only that makes sense of Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel. See

Luke Chapter One implies that Mary had taken a vow of virginity.
Read more at
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Was Implied

In [Post #11 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13499927&postcount=11), I had already partially explained why the idea of an older previously married Joseph was problematic to begin with.

Related article about Joseph, with Church Fathers comments at the end of this link

** JOSEPH A JUST MAN**

• When Mary was found to be pregnant, did Joseph suspect her of immoral behavior ?
  Not in my opinion.

.

 

[Eliza10]

Did you read Prodomos’s post?

Or did you even read my friend Patrick’s post?

I am wondering if you read my post.

Prodomos’s post might as well be yours. If you read my posts referenced above you will see what I think of Prodomos’s ideas which are only the very exact things you have already said I already commented on. Yes, I responded to your friend Patrick’s posts in that thread. Didn’t you read them? Because you asked, and that’s why I provided them for you.

 

[Eliza10]

Actually, the Protoevangelium of James was an early attempt at recording the Tradition regarding the birth and early life of Panagia. You’ve got it backwards.
Early icons of the flight into Egypt show a young James (son of Joseph) accompanying Mary, Jesus and Joseph. All ancient icons show Joseph as an elderly man.

I go with the icons and paintings of the vast majority of Christians over these centuries who show only the Holy Family going into Egypt. No spares. It fits better with scripture. Scripture said that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem of Judea where Jesus was born. Not James, too, as a blended-family excursion. Nope. Just unborn Jesus, Mary, Joseph - the Holy Family. And soon after arrival, Jesus was born, and after the departure of the wise men, the angel did not appear to any James. No. He appeared to Joseph. And the angel said:

“Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.”

I think its unlikely that Joseph woke Mary and told her, “The angel said you and me and Jesus should go to Egypt and stay there until he brings us word. But I have a better idea! Let’s bring James, too!” :nope:

Also I do not agree with TimothyH’s theory in this thread on page 1 that families commonly lived as blended families because they could not afford their own place, nor could they afford to build a wall between their dwellings so that they would live as separate families, but instead Jewish husbands lived with their own wives plus their brothers’ wives and their brothers all in one big happy commune. I don’t buy that. I have read scripture a lot in my life and I do not see any examples of various wives and husbands milling around in the same house blending their children in their everyday life. So, I am not buying this unsubstantiated theory.

Actually, the Protoevangelium of James was an early attempt at recording the Tradition regarding the birth and early life of Panagia. You’ve got it backwards.

For anyone reading this thread and wondering why the Protoevangelium of James is important to this argument, you should wonder! Yes, being the words of James it sounds important! So does a Latin term like Protoevangelium! But you know what? Its not. Its a great big fake.

I’ll quote from my post#56 linked above, here below, so you can see some of what is in this Protoevangelium of James that keeps being mentioned as some “authority!”. It will quickly become perfectly clear to you why the Holy Catholic Church does NOT consider it *any *authority at all.:

Protoevangelium of James???

This one is disgusting. Anyone can read this online and see it is VASTLY different from anything you read in the gospel or the catechism. Its a whole 'nother kind of book!! It will tickle the ears of the inquiring minds, though! Wow, you can read a GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION of how the alleged Salome! A midwife! came to see the baby, heard he was born of a virgin, and this just got to her sensibility as a midwife! So she just HAD to invade a MOST private part of Our Lady’s body, after the birth of Jesus, because she just could not believe Mary could still be a virgin, and she needed to check! and make sure! to satisfy her curiosity! So she did! This was apparently fine with the Blessed Mother and just St. Joseph, who apparently had nothing else to do just after the birth of Our Lord except to satisfy vain curiosities. Really, sick. And, drat! Why is there no icon for throwing up?

My husband refers to this as “a prurient, unwholesome interest in the anatomy of Mary and gives no glory to God.”

Yes.

The idiotic drivel continues, when later, on the way to Egypt, Our Lady and Our Lord had many miracles to do! Including helping the 3 crying woman! Who had a MULE dressed in silk! In their living room! With an ebony collar! And the mule was their brother! Who had met some giddy women, who did this to him! Yes! They changed him into a MULE! Mary felt SO SORRY for the crying woman that she immediately put baby Jesus on the mule’s back! And she asked baby Jesus to change the mule back into their brother! And baby Jesus instantly did! [he must have then fell on the floor!]. And now their brother was a person again! And not a mule!

:crying:Would you use this drivel as a reference? Yeah. Me neither.
.
.
.

 

[Eliza10]

Thanks. I really enjoyed reading [**Post #21 ** (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038)above .

It makes sense that he was a consecrated virgin, because only that fits well with what we can reasonably conclude was also Mary’s calling, as only that makes sense of Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel. See

Luke Chapter One implies that Mary had taken a vow of virginity.
Read more at
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Was Implied

In [Post #11 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13499927&postcount=11), I had already partially explained why the idea of an older previously married Joseph was problematic to begin with.

Related article about Joseph, with Church Fathers comments at the end of this link

** JOSEPH A JUST MAN**

• When Mary was found to be pregnant, did Joseph suspect her of immoral behavior ?
  Not in my opinion.

.

I am so glad you liked it and it just seems right to me and it does not surprise me when other faithful Catholics say it seems right to them, too. That’s for the links. I apprecdiate what you had to say there in post #11. Thanks. As to Joseph’s reaction, I imagine he was in total shock, precluding him from thinking further, like that this could be the Messiah. Yes, he was good and likely did not go hunting for evidence but was just mostly in shock and wondered what was the right thing to do…

 

[prodromos]

I am wondering if you read my post.

Prodomos’s post might as well be yours. If you read my posts referenced above you will see what I think of Prodomos’s ideas which are only the very exact things you have already said I already commented on. Yes, I responded to your friend Patrick’s posts in that thread. Didn’t you read them? Because you asked, and that’s why I provided them for you.

You claim Joseph would have been a consecrated virgin because he was a just man?
Noah is described as a just man, and he was married with children. Job too is described as a just man and he too was married with children.

I also find it odd that it is perfectly acceptable fpr Catholics to hold conflicting beliefs on this subject. Only one can be true, so how can the Catholic Church be the “pillar and ground of truth” when false beliefs are acceptable?

 

[prodromos]

The idiotic drivel continues, when later, on the way to Egypt, Our Lady and Our Lord had many miracles to do! Including helping the 3 crying woman! Who had a MULE dressed in silk! In their living room! With an ebony collar! And the mule was their brother! Who had met some giddy women, who did this to him! Yes! They changed him into a MULE! Mary felt SO SORRY for the crying woman that she immediately put baby Jesus on the mule’s back! And she asked baby Jesus to change the mule back into their brother! And baby Jesus instantly did! [he must have then fell on the floor!]. And now their brother was a person again! And not a mule!

This is not from the Protoevangelium of James. I have no idea where you got this from but it is sad the lengths people will go to to discredit something.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I am so glad you liked it and it just seems right to me and it does not surprise me when other faithful Catholics say it seems right to them, too. That’s for the links. I apprecdiate what you had to say there in post #11. Thanks. As to Joseph’s reaction, I imagine he was in total shock, precluding him from thinking further, like that this could be the Messiah. Yes, he was good and likely did not go hunting for evidence but was just mostly in shock and wondered what was the right thing to do…

What you think may not be what actually really happened, as you are not one of those who witnessed the story.

And where do we get the idea that Mary was a consecrated virgin. From the Protoevangelium!

Where do we get the names of Mary’s parents? From the Protoevangelium!

Instead of judging others beliefs on your own (name removed by moderator)ut, respect other people’s beliefs!

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Oh, wow, JB Brother, you also slipped in your other favorite theory into this thread, too! The “James the Just” one! You really seem to be quite fixated on these pet theories - theories that you support with the ridiculous and officially forever-rejected “Protoevangelium of James”! :ehh:

That’s easy. I wrote about it in your “James the Just” thread for one. I am so surprised you ask this, and that you forgot we had this conversation so recently, on the same subject.

But here ya go. See Post #21- Why it makes more sense to me that Joseph was a consecrated virgin like Mary, and

**Post #26 **- Why the “Big-Stepbrothers”/“Jesus’s Blended Family” theory does not make sense and why it does not make sense to me that Joseph had two different but overlapping vocations instead of just the one very important one that he will be remembered for for all time.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038

.
.

Also Post #34

 

[Eliza10]

You claim Joseph would have been a consecrated virgin because he was a just man?

No, you were not reading carefully what I said. I took the time to make it plain. I am not claiming that he would have been. I am claiming that that is the theory that makes sense to me in every respect. I explained exactly why it makes sense to me in that link you are responding to, but it certainly looks like you didn’t read it. The other theories, like the Joseph’s Bi-Vocation and the Holy Family being “One, Big Blended Family” instead of “Jesus-Mary-Joseph” does NOT make sense to me; nor does it feel consistent with scripture and tradition to me.

Noah is described as a just man, and he was married with children. Job too is described as a just man and he too was married with children.

Like JB Brother, you have not read my posts before responding to them. Nowhere did I imply that being married makes one not a just man. Or not a holy man. That would be stupid.

I also find it odd that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to hold conflicting beliefs on this subject. Only one can be true, so how can the Catholic Church be the “pillar and ground of truth” when false beliefs are acceptable?

Well the Holy Mother Church lets us know what we absolutely need to hold true. That’s Dogma. I suppose She is not like a authoritarian parent who micro-manages everything Her children think and do, but instead lets them know what is important to hold fast, and gives them a little room to think.

 

[Eliza10]

This is not from the Protoevangelium of James. I have no idea where you got this from but it is sad the lengths people will go to to discredit something.

I’ll research it later. (My searches run very slow on this computer which badly needs updating so I am not rushing to spend long periods of time researching for something - unless I can get to the library, which I what I do from time to time when I have to research a thing. But we begin taking Christmas tomorrow and it takes a bit of time.)

 

[Eliza10]

What you think may not be what actually really happened, as you are not one of those who witnessed the story.

And where do we get the idea that Mary was a consecrated virgin. From the Protoevangelium!

Where do we get the names of Mary’s parents? From the Protoevangelium!

No, and no. I get it from the Apostles who held fast to the traditions handed down to them, who held them fast wit the help of the Holy Spirit.

Instead of judging others beliefs on your own (name removed by moderator)ut, respect other people’s beliefs!

I see what is wrong with judging others, which I am glad you did not accuse me of because I did not. However, it don’t understand not judging other’s beliefs. Especially in a discussion about extra-scriptural beliefs. I mean, why would you not? And you are judging your theories to be so important as to have several threads going here in Catholic Answers explaining and re-explaining them, and even stating things as given historical facts that I see as very questionable. Why would I not judge it? People are coming here for Catholic answers and if things are presented in the forum that don’t seem Catholic then why would I not judge it?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I need to do some more reading on this. Eusebius is not authoritative on this. But this is for another time and place. But that does sound reasonable.
… but it is likely that during time of the Roman Empire in the Holy Land, Brothers both meant Blood brothers and relational brothers. I was told by my friend from Kenya it is typical that they call their cousins brothers.

I think that’s more than likely, it’s demonstrated fairly often in Jewish texts of the time.
So, you have it exactly right – it means both blood brothers, and those in relationship (covenant).

That’s why, when Jesus institutes the Eucharist and shares his “blood”, he then calls all of us “brothers” and “sisters” and “mothers”; all Christians enter his covenant.

That also means that there is some risk that the word “brothers” changes with respect to whom is and is not a brother of the Lord as the scripture narrative progresses.

 

[Eliza10]

This is not from the Protoevangelium of James. I have no idea where you got this from but it is sad the lengths people will go to to discredit something.

Okay, the pruriently curious midwife Salome can be found here in this copy of the “Protoevangelium of James” in Chapter 20 here in New Advent Encyclopedia. This is not edifying and I do not recommend anyone read it.

Obviously the author of this fantasy alleged to come from James would not agree with St. Augustine that as light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary’s womb.

The man who was turned into a mule with the ebony collar might not be from alleged James writing. I found this just now on a quick look: orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/infancy1.htm and you can read it Capter 7: starting verse 11 on that page. Maybe that is helpful.

 

[Eliza10]

No, you were not reading carefully what I said. I took the time to make it plain. I am not claiming that he would have been. I am claiming that that is the theory that makes sense to me in every respect. I explained exactly why it makes sense to me in that link you are responding to, but it certainly looks like you didn’t read it. The other theories, like the Joseph’s Bi-Vocation and the Holy Family being “One, Big Blended Family” instead of the long-held tradition of “Jesus-Mary-Joseph” does NOT make sense to me; nor does it feel consistent with scripture and tradition to me.

Like JB Brother, you have not read my posts before responding to them. Nowhere did I imply that being married makes one not a just man. Or not a holy man. That would be stupid.

Well the Holy Mother Church lets us know what we absolutely need to hold true. That’s Dogma. I suppose She is not like a authoritarian parent who micro-manages everything Her children think and do, but instead lets them know what is important to hold fast, and gives them a little room to think.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Remeber in John 7:1-5 when Jesus’ brothers advise him. In Jewish culture, you could not speak to your brothers that way unless you were older.
Also during the council of Jerusalem, James was the last person to speak. In Jewish culture the eldest person would speak last. This would have been a testament to James’ age at the time of Jesus birth.

I take it you mean, James the Less; not James the brother of John, correct?

The seating arrangements at the last supper, according to Jewish custom, would have the eldest recline behind Jesus; for Jesus was acting as the “patriarch” of the table; Therefore the youngest are on the other side. That means Peter was the eldest at table of All apostles, and both James and John (the greater) were the youngest. As those three were closest to Jesus.

Also: When Jesus selects people to go with him to special events, he takes the eldest and youngest as a sign of the whole group. eg: Peter, James, and John, are the trio that he usually selects.

I have never heard that the John spoken of at the transfiguration was the eldest, but always understood that was John the Great; the youngest of the apostles.
If that’s the case, John the Less can not be seen as being older than Peter.

However, I do see part of your point; for the council of Jerusalem, has a debate – followed by Simon/Simeon Peter standing up and telling everyone that the Gentiles are not to be placed under a yoke which was not bearable by even the Jews. See Acts, 15:7-10 usccb.org/bible/acts/15

And it is after Peter, that three people consecrated by Peter, James the (great) and John; Namely, Paul and Barnabas, and James the Less (or James the Just), speak.
They do not, however, speak on their own.

Notice that James the Just says “Simeon has said”, in order to qualify his judgment.
James the elder defers to Peter’s judgment, as a brother even older than himself.
James speaks only to ratify what Peter has said through experience.

Even though James the Just is elder than most of those assembled, he can not be oldest one there.

I would submit that shows, manners wise, that James the Just is recognizing the source of his consecration; eg: he recognizes only Simeon Peter as his elder for he quotes neither James the Great, nor John the Apostle – but only Simeon Peter (Cephas).

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I see what is wrong with judging others, which I am glad you did not accuse me of because I did not. However, it don’t understand not judging other’s beliefs. Especially in a discussion about extra-scriptural beliefs. I mean, why would you not? And you are judging your theories to be so important as to have several threads going here in Catholic Answers explaining and re-explaining them, and even stating things as given historical facts that I see as very questionable. Why would I not judge it? People are coming here for Catholic answers and if things are presented in the forum that don’t seem Catholic then why would I not judge it?

So it is not Catholic to say James was a stepbrother of Jesus?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I take it you mean, James the Less; not James the brother of John, correct?

The seating arrangements at the last supper, according to Jewish custom, would have the eldest recline behind Jesus; for Jesus was acting as the “patriarch” of the table; Therefore the youngest are on the other side. That means Peter was the eldest at table of All apostles, and both James and John (the greater) were the youngest. As those three were closest to Jesus.

Also: When Jesus selects people to go with him to special events, he takes the eldest and youngest as a sign of the whole group. eg: Peter, James, and John, are the trio that he usually selects.

I have never heard that the John spoken of at the transfiguration was the eldest, but always understood that was John the Great; the youngest of the apostles.
If that’s the case, John the Less can not be seen as being older than Peter.

However, I do see part of your point; for the council of Jerusalem, has a debate – followed by Simon/Simeon Peter standing up and telling everyone that the Gentiles are not to be placed under a yoke which was not bearable by even the Jews. See Acts, 15:7-10 usccb.org/bible/acts/15

And it is after Peter, that three people consecrated by Peter, James the (great) and John; Namely, Paul and Barnabas, and James the Less (or James the Just), speak.
They do not, however, speak on their own.

Notice that James the Just says “Simeon has said”, in order to qualify his judgment.
James the elder defers to Peter’s judgment, as a brother even older than himself.
James speaks only to ratify what Peter has said through experience.

Even though James the Just is elder than most of those assembled, he can not be oldest one there.

I would submit that shows, manners wise, that James the Just is recognizing the source of his consecration; eg: he recognizes only Simeon Peter as his elder for he quotes neither James the Great, nor John the Apostle – but only Simeon Peter (Cephas).

James the Less and James the Just are different men.

 

[prodromos]

No, you were not reading carefully what I said. I took the time to make it plain. I am not claiming that he would have been. I am claiming that that is the theory that makes sense to me in every respect. I explained exactly why it makes sense to me in that link you are responding to, but it certainly looks like you didn’t read it. The other theories, like the Joseph’s Bi-Vocation and the Holy Family being “One, Big Blended Family” instead of “Jesus-Mary-Joseph” does NOT make sense to me; nor does it feel consistent with scripture and tradition to me.

Like JB Brother, you have not read my posts before responding to them. Nowhere did I imply that being married makes one not a just man. Or not a holy man. That would be stupid.

I read your post. Your reasoning seems to amount to a bunch of ‘feels’. It appears to me to be more an appeal to emotion than a rational argument. Nonsense like your critique of what you call Joseph’s Bi-Vocation. There was no “Big Blended Family”, Joseph’s children were almost all adults by the time Mary was brought into his life, most being married and having children of their own.

 

[steve53]

Can’t we just say “Jesus be chillin’ with his homeboys” and let it go at that?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

James the Less and James the Just are different men.

If you want to know my position, you can find it in John 7:5 and Mark 3:21. Jesus’ relatives and those closest to Him actually thought He was crazy.