Help, I'm in an apologists worst nightmare

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Guest
As an apologist, I love to think of “what if counter arguments” then refute them myself. However, i worked myself into a corner. Even if Jesus had step brothers, and not real brothers, why did he not give his mother to one of his step brothers. If you say “well then it could be adelphos means family” then that would prove wrong the Protoevangelium, saying he had step family. And if you said “well they abandoned him” then you’d be proving wrong one of the most used verses to prove the perpetual virginity, since regular brothers could do that too. I am a Catholic and this troubles me.
 
Are you holding to the possible belief that the siblings mentioned in the Gospels are Joseph’s from a previous marriage?
 
Jesus certainly had other family members, whether they were relatives of St. Joseph or His Mother. The fact that he entrusted His Mother to St. John the Apostle does not reflect on them, it reflects the close relationship that they had with St. John. Mary had no other children. This has been the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
Well yes, it’s said in the Protoevangelium of James, although being non-canonical it is still used.
 
As with anything else that made it into Scripture, there’s more going on than what we get at face value. Jesus didn’t give His Mother to John (and John to His Mother) only to ensure her earthly wellbeing. If this was the case, it wouldn’t have been recorded. Everything in Scripture has a deeper meaning- it’s not all recorded just to describe earthly facts. Rather, it was put in to present a spiritual reality.

In this case, Jesus gave Mary to John and John to Mary to stress her importance in our own spiritual lives. Perhaps John’s own biological mother was still living? It’s not recorded but remains a possibility, so let’s assume that she was: why would Jesus give Mary to John as “his mother” if his own mother were still around? Because Mary isn’t meant to replace our earthly mother, but to be our spiritual mother. Who could be a greater spiritual mother than the Blessed Theotokos, Jesus’ own mother?

Yes, Scripture only explicitly states that Jesus gave His mother to John, but she is our mother as well. Anyone who does the Will of the Father is Jesus’ mother, brother or sister, and we are related to each other in this same way. Jesus is our brother and the King of Kings, and Mary is the Mother of Mothers.
 
I understand this,but that would fall under catagory 2, meaning the argument gets disproved when we say the argument.
 
Meanimg our argument gets disproved when we use the “it was a spiritual thing”, because then he could have done that if he did have actual brothers to. Meaning we can no longer quote this.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said:
As an apologist, I love to think of “what if counter arguments” then refute them myself.
Click to expand...
Huh, I thought I was the only one. Awesome!
However, i worked myself into a corner. Even if Jesus had step brothers, and not real brothers, why did he not give his mother to one of his step brothers.
Click to expand...
As you rightly point out, one option involves the Protoevangelium being wrong, and another option takes away an optional apologetics argument against Protestants. Nonetheless, these are both still options. The Protoevangelium can be wrong about stuff; what it says is evidence, but not infallible evidence. And you don’t have to accept a particular apologetics argument just because it’s popular; so feel free to abandon it if you think it’s weak.

On the other hand, might there not be a third option? Perhaps Jesus did have step brothers, but He did not give Mary to them they were only step-brothers, and it was not an insult to them to give Mary to someone closer than a step-brother.
And if you said “well they abandoned him” then you’d be proving wrong one of the most used verses to prove the perpetual virginity, since regular brothers could do that too.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. At least two of the adelphoi, James and Jude, returned to Jesus and became Apostles, according to the New Testament. Tradition says that so did the other two adelphoi, Simon and Joseph, who were among the 70 disciples. So “they abandoned him” might not be a serious objection, whether or not they were step brothers, since this abandoning lasted hardly any time at all, no more than the other Apostles.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said:
Meanimg our argument gets disproved when we use the “it was a spiritual thing”, because then he could have done that if he did have actual brothers to. Meaning we can no longer quote this.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t have made sense if He had entrusted His mother to a brother (knowing what we know) because the spiritual element would be lost.
 
Last edited:
dmar198 said:
As you rightly point out, one option involves the Protoevangelium being wrong… The Protoevangelium can be wrong about stuff; what it says is evidence, but not infallible evidence.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t see it that way. The cultural norm was that the son of a widow took care of her, not her second husband’s family. Strictly speaking, they had no blood ties to her, and were not obligated to care for her. So, even if there were step brothers (and that’s one reasonable argument to make), neither would they be obligated to care for Mary nor would Jesus be under any cultural expectation to make them take her. (In fact, given that they weren’t there at the cross and John was, it makes even more sense that Jesus – who, at that point, has to ensure his mother is taken care of, right? – would look at John and say “behold your mother.”
, and another option takes away an optional apologetics argument against Protestants.
Click to expand...
Hmm… not sure what this “other option” you’re referencing is… 🤔
 
Father Pacwa on EWTN says that there was no word in their language at that time for “first cousin” so the word “brother” was used. He said that if you did not refer to your first cousin as your brother then that meant you had had a falling out and were not on good terms. Calling your first cousin brother signaled familial affection and closeness. This is the explanation I heard Father Pacwa give. He never mentioned the protoevangelium of James.
 
Last edited:
Family bloodlines were extremely important and determinant in Jesus’ time and society. If the “brothers and sisters” were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage that was dissolved by the death of J’s first wife, they would not have been Mary’s children, technically. And since it is believed that from the time of Jesus’s death, Mary fell in with and lived and traveled with the apostles, giving Mary to John makes a little more sense.
It’s an interesting question, but one that really is superfluous when considered faith in the Church. Letting something like a question like this create problems with the faith is foolish.
 
I think that you should probably approach the issue from Mary’s point of reference instead of Jesus’s to being to get a good understanding of the situation.

In Jewish culture, Mary was a persona-non-grata. Period. Full stop. As horrifying as it may seem to us today, this was the case. The only thing that kept her from being stoned to death (as is also testified to in the protoevangelium by her trial of spirit, although her innocence was only revealed to the priests of the Temple of the time), was Joseph’s marrying her despite her appearance of infidelity. If you read Matthew 13:56 carefully, it only states that the sisters (that is, step-sisters through Joseph’s first marriage) reside in Nazareth. The people of Nazareth say they know Mary, but do not say that she lives there. It is most likely that she fled from Nazareth once Joseph passed away and, with him, his protection of Mary from the cruelty of the townsfolk. This seems to be the case, as some traditions have her either living with Mary, Martha and young Lazaras in Bethany or in Jerusalem in the same vein as the prophetess Anna, spending her days and nights in the Temple. She is seems to be outside of Nazareth when she and Jesus’s brothers are found outside the door and seek entrance (also note that the sisters aren’t there, reinforcing that this is not Nazareth).

Only unmarried women or widows without children were welcomed back into their maiden families. She was both a widow and had a child. As such, it was Joseph’s family who were required to take care of her. The sons of Joseph did not abandon her. It was just that, by Jewish law and custom, her status as a Widow with children would not allow them to take her into their homes. We know that James, the brother of Jesus was around, for he is identified as the apostle James, son of Alphaeus, the Lesser, also called the Just, second bishop of Jerusalem.

John, however, was a special case. He was young and most likely unmarried. He was not the eldest son (as James the Greater was still alive at this point) and as such did not have responsibilities to his own mother if something were to happen to his father. The acceptance of the care of Mary was wholly within his ability and it would have been allowed by Jewish custom as an act of compassion to take an unattached widow into his home as his mother.
 
It is like how Christians use the word except they use it to refer to relatives.
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
If you read Matthew 13:56 carefully, it only states that the sisters (that is, step-sisters through Joseph’s first marriage)
Click to expand...
This is off-topic but I would not conclude that St Joseph had a previous marriage. Those sisters may easily be cousins. St Joseph is called the just and the chaste by St Louis de Montfort.
 
The existence of a previous marriage of Joseph was attested to in the Protoevangelium of James, which Tradition says was based off of the oral biography of Mary which James the Lesser, the “Brother of Jesus”, the Just, the second Bishop of Jerusalem after James the Greater was beheaded, transmitted to the Church in Jerusalem. It was eventually written down in 150 AD. From this, we get many details and symbols we take for granted today: the name of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna; that Mary was raised in the Temple until the age of fifteen; that Mary’s parents were extremely old when she was born; that Joseph, too, was old by the time he came to marry Mary. Even the universal symbolism of depicting St. Joseph with a rod topped with a flower/dove comes directly from this work. The early Church Fathers agreed that he was a widower before marrying Mary, even going so far as to name his former wife Salome.
Dan_Defender said:
St Joseph is called the just and the chaste by St Louis de Montfort.
Click to expand...
Joseph could have had children and still remain perfectly chaste. You seem to be confusing chastity with celibacy. Celibacy is the refraining from sexual relations. Chastity is the restriction of sexual relations to your state of life: single or married. Joseph was chaste before his first marriage: he was celibate. He was chaste during his marriage: he only had relations with his wife. He was chaste after his first marriage: he was celibate again. He was also chaste during his marriage to Mary. He did not have any sexual relations with anyone other than his wife, but he also chose not to have sexual relations with his wife in addition to this in deference to Mary’s perpetual virginity.
 
Last edited:
The long and short of your question is, we don’t know. The Hebrew word for brother is the same as brethren. Is it possible that brethren is a term used for associates from step brothers to simple neighbors. All the Jewish residents of his town were his brethren in a general sense. And look at the way the word brother is used in the African American community today. Referring to the “brothers” is a simple term for all men of African American descent. Not saying that is how the word is used here, but language can be used in various ways at various times.
What we believe is that Mary had no other children except Jesus. As to his “brothers and sisters” that is way up in the air. Being overly concerned about it is a waste of time IMO. Just believe the constant 2000 year old teaching of the church and move on.
 
An apologist’s worst nightmare is someone who says “OK, but I just don’t care.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top