Eusebius and this quote about Jude being a blood brother of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Superstar905
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Superstar905

Guest
Hi everyone, In Eusebius Church history, Chapter 20 Verse 1,

CHAPTER 20
The Relatives of our Saviour"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh."

This seems to imply that Jude was a blood brother, since it was according to the flesh, and not a “brother” by faith. I was thinking though, that this could equally mean he was his cousin, which would still be accurately referred to as a brother according to the flesh. Thoughts?
 
40.png
Superstar905:
Hi everyone, In Eusebius Church history, Chapter 20 Verse 1,

CHAPTER 20
The Relatives of our Saviour"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh."

This seems to imply that Jude was a blood brother, since it was according to the flesh, and not a “brother” by faith. I was thinking though, that this could equally mean he was his cousin, which would still be accurately referred to as a brother according to the flesh. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would agree that it could mean “cousin”. Also, the word “said” doesn’t carry a lot of weight: said by whom? A thousand years from now, people could say that it was “said” (by Dan Brown and devotees of his book) that Jesus was married.
 
I think that the wording “brother according to the flesh” simply means a kinsman, the same as when Jesus’ "brethern’ are mentioned in the Gospels. James the Apostle who became bishop of Jerusalem is also called “brother of the Lord,” yet he was the son of Alpheus.
 
My thoughts exactly, and given the overal patristic evidence of the universal belief of Mary being Perpetual Virgin, I would lean toward the cousin belief. Also, the comment “who is said” also must really be considered here, as not being real concrete that they were surely even related. If they were truly blood brothers, it would have been well known and certain in his writings and the writings of others.
 
Eusebius tries to reconcile the differences between the genealogy accounts in Matthew and in Luke. Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ by nature (meaning generation and uses the verbage “became the father of”), and Luke gives the genealogy on account of the law (Luke uses the verbage “son of”). In Israel one can be a Father through the law (son of) as well as through generation(became the Father of). For instance, in the 2 genealogies, Joseph is seen to have two Fathers.

In Eusebius, Book 1 chapter 7, it says about the genealogy:
*Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him. *

So where this is all going is that Jude is a brother in the flesh in the sense that he is not a brother according to the law, meaning that Jude is the biological Father of Joseph. To say brother in the flesh actually points to Jude’s biological Sonship to Joseph, not to the biological relationship between Jesus and Jude.

You may want to read the full portion of Eusebius book 1 chapter 7 for the full explanation.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P720_369820

Hope that makes sense.
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
Eusebius tries to reconcile the differences between the genealogy accounts in Matthew and in Luke. Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ by nature (meaning generation and uses the verbage “became the father of”), and Luke gives the genealogy on account of the law (Luke uses the verbage “son of”). In Israel one can be a Father through the law (son of) as well as through generation(became the Father of). For instance, in the 2 genealogies, Joseph is seen to have two Fathers.

In Eusebius, Book 1 chapter 7, it says about the genealogy:
*Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him. *

So where this is all going is that Jude is a brother in the flesh in the sense that he is not a brother according to the law, meaning that Jude is the biological Father of Joseph. To say brother in the flesh actually points to Jude’s biological Sonship to Joseph, not to the biological relationship between Jesus and Jude.

You may want to read the full portion of Eusebius book 1 chapter 7 for the full explanation.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P720_369820

Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Dan, you never cease to amaze me. WOW. Thanks 👍
 
*So where this is all going is that Jude is a brother in the flesh in the sense that he is not a brother according to the law, meaning that Jude is the biological Father of Joseph. To say brother in the flesh actually points to Jude’s biological Sonship to Joseph, not to the biological relationship between Jesus and Jude.
*

oops, got that backwards. what I meant to say is that Joseph is the biological Father of Jude.
 
Dan-Man916 said:
So where this is all going is that Jude is a brother in the flesh in the sense that he is not a brother according to the law, meaning that Jude is the biological Father of Joseph. To say brother in the flesh actually points to Jude’s biological Sonship to Joseph, not to the biological relationship between Jesus and Jude.

oops, got that backwards. what I meant to say is that Joseph is the biological Father of Jude.
Click to expand...

good job

noticed that your bio includes apologetics and target shooting… how appropriate that both are best done when hitting the bullseye with a single shot… as opposed to “protestant” apologetics which might be best combined with skeet… using a “scatter-gun” and hoping to hit something with a bb.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/14/14_6_12.gif
 
Dan-Man916 said:
So where this is all going is that Jude is a brother in the flesh in the sense that he is not a brother according to the law, meaning that Jude is the biological Father of Joseph. To say brother in the flesh actually points to Jude’s biological Sonship to Joseph, not to the biological relationship between Jesus and Jude.

oops, got that backwards. what I meant to say is that Joseph is the biological Father of Jude.
Click to expand...

ya, figured as much
 
now, the next logical problem with sola scriptura is that we have now asserted that Joseph had other children of the flesh, and yet assert that Mary and Joseph had no marital relations.

Yet nowhere in the bible does it say that Joseph was previously married or had other children. This is no problem for Catholics who understand that history and faith are in harmony.
But, it shows the falsity of sola scriptura, because adherents of that belief then implicitly deny any historical fact that relates to things of faith and morals if not explcitly spelled out in Scripture. As we have evidence of Joseph being married from extra-biblical sources, our belief system hangs together quite coherently while those of sola scriptura must do a lot of scriptural acrobatics to try to explain away Catholic belief.

To the believer in sola scriptura, this proof is not good enough because historical evidence from other texts is not admissable to help form their understanding of these things.
Why people don’t employ this historical evidence, i don’t quite understand as it stands against logic and reason, IMO.
 
Thank you, Dan. I just learned so MUCH…and I love to start my day like this…
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
As we have evidence of Joseph being married from extra-biblical sources, our belief system hangs together quite coherently while those of sola scriptura must do a lot of scriptural acrobatics to try to explain away Catholic belief.

To the believer in sola scriptura, this proof is not good enough because historical evidence from other texts is not admissable to help form their understanding of these things.
Click to expand...
Dan, would you terribly mind elaborating on the above statements? Specifically, where can I find these extra-biblical sources? These could help me greatly in sharing our Catholic Faith with my 1/2 Orthodox, 1/2 Protestant husband (long story)…

This is great stuff!!! 👍
 
Photini,

Have a look at this article. It is a bit long, but it may have the information you are looking for.
Granted that these are not “hard historical facts”. I’m not sure exactly if hard facts can be established from 2000 years ago. However, I don’t see any reason that one cannot have a pious belief that Joseph was previously married and was much older than the Blessed Virgin.

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/josmarried.htm

Now, to one pre-disposed to believe in the perpetual virginity, this is going to support our argument. However, one who flat out doesn’t believe it may not be swayed by this evidence.
This is why there is a facet of faith to everything we are talking about here.
 
Go ahead and check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on Jude - it has a good discussion on the whole issue - including a reference to the Eusebius quote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top