B
BartholomewB
Guest
We had a whole thread about the various meanings of monogenes just a few days ago:
Monogenēs translated wrong John 3:15 Sacred Scripture
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
That is, historically, the oldest interpretation of the “brethren” passages in the NT, that they were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. It remained unchallenged for three centuries until Jerome proposed an alternative, that they were cousins.Who claims that Jesus had older siblings?
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Which demonstrates the inconsistency of the identity of who these “brothers” were, even in the early church, even among Doctors of the Church, like Augustine and Jerome who disagreed with each other. And Augustine’s view of older step-brothers was based on an anonymously written late second century false “gospel” (the Protoevangelium of James), which is “claimed” be be authored by James the Just, even though he had been DEAD for 100-150 years. Earlier Christian sources, like Hegesippus, believed they were young half-siblings. It wouldn’t be until sometime in the third century before ECFs began to espouse to the older step-brothers belief, most likely influenced by Proto-James.That is, historically, the oldest interpretation of the “brethren” passages in the NT, that they were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. It remained unchallenged for three centuries until Jerome proposed an alternative, that they were cousins.
Last edited:
B
bookshelf
Guest
Such reasoning eventually leans towards one struggling with questions like: how many angels were present at the tomb, conflicting resurrection details, what was the right inscription on the cross, who were the authors of Sacred Scripture and was Christ ever truly a living being.Which demonstrates the inconsistency of the identity of who these “brothers” were, even in the early church, even among Doctors of the Church, like Augustine and Jerome who disagreed with each other. And Augustine’s view of older step-brothers was based on an anonymously written late second century false “gospel” (the Protoevangelium of James), which is “claimed” be be authored by James the Just, even though he had been DEAD for 100-150 years. Earlier Christian sources, like Hegesippus, believed they were young half-siblings. It wouldn’t be until sometime in the third century before ECFs began to espouse to the older step-brothers belief, most likely influenced by Proto-James.
Even if St. Hegesippus, St. Augustine and St. Jerome disagreed, they were closer to the source than we are, and more importantly one must keep in mind that the cultural context at their time had already changed, compared to the time of the Holy Apostles or even earlier. Their testimonies can be viewed as harmonious, and yet disagreeable from a modern lens, if one takes into account the culture and context in the East where Christ lived.
The distinctions of uterine, non-uterine, biological or non-biological parents are modern makings. This has led to modern Western society considering a family unit as parent and sibling. In the East where Christ was born and raised, and even till this day, a non-biological and/or non-uterine mother and/or a non-biological father are still considered a father and mother. Likewise cousins, are also considered as brothers and sisters.
A person in the East can easily understand that one’s country is a mother, even though the country is not a biological mother. But in the West, that nuance and understanding has long been forgotten, and has become lipspeak.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Since when are Catholics believing that both Mary and Joseph were virgins? I have never in my life heard someone refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her husband, the Blessed Virgin Joseph.St. Joseph was a virgin, not a widower as per St. Jerome.
I had heard that Joseph was a widower. Why would it be scandalous, or bad, or iconoclastic, or sacrilegious to say that Jesus had half-brothers on Joseph’s side? That would fit with the translation of aldophos.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Because if they were half-brothers on Joseph’s side, that would mean Joseph was his natural father, and Mary was not his biological mother, which conflicts with Scripture that said she bore a Son. I think you meant to say step-brothers, not half-brothers. Even if we grant the older step-brothers argument:Why would it be scandalous, or bad, or iconoclastic, or sacrilegious to say that Jesus had half-brothers on Joseph’s side?
- there isn’t a shred of historical evidence outside of the late second century false “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James that Joseph was married before & had children from an alleged previous marriage, until at least the third century - and then only by a writer who is not considered an ECF in Catholicism; and
- “if” Joseph was a virgin when he married Mary (as postulated by Jerome), there would be no way he could have had children before her married her & she had Jesus.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Since this issue affects official Catholic Marian dogmas, I wouldn’t say it compares the frivolous questions like how many angels were at the tomb.Such reasoning eventually leans towards one struggling with questions like: how many angels were present at the tomb
Since Hegesippus believed Jesus’ brothers were children of Joseph & Mary, while Augustine & Jerome believed they weren’t, I don’t know how they could all “harmonize” on this issue, since they disagree with each other on whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin or not. BTW, Hegesippus was much “closer to the source” (second century) than either Augustine & Jerome were (fourth century).Even if St. Hegesippus, St. Augustine and St. Jerome disagreed, they were closer to the source than we are…Their testimonies can be viewed as harmonious, and yet disagreeable from a modern lens.
This is true. Those who disagree with Mary’s post-Christ birth virginal status simply use these “modern” terms to clarify who they believe these “brothers” were, since the English translations simply use “brother,” which have numerous meanings in the Greek, as they do in English.The distinctions of uterine, non-uterine, biological or non-biological parents are modern makings.
Z
Zach
Guest
Is it not much ado about nothing whether or not they were Joseph’s children from another marriage? The importance is Mary’s virginity of which there is nothing in scripture that indicates was compromised by her birthing other children. They aren’t mentioned when Jesus was a youngster and was lost while the family visited Jerusalem. it seems unlikely they would not bring other children along if they had any. Also if she had other children it seems Jesus would entrust his mother to them upon his death rather than to John.
Last edited:
B
bookshelf
Guest
Why stop at the Marian dogma? Why not go further? When questions like how many angels were at the tomb become frivolous, why not question if St. Hegesippus, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose wrote the actual texts that we depend on to show supposed discrepancies? Or does that need a modern scholar’s validation to be authenticated?Since this issue affects official Catholic Marian dogmas, I wouldn’t say it compares the frivolous questions like how many angels were at the tomb.
In the East, it was and still is fairly common for cousins to be called brothers and sisters. And since St Hegesippus was born in the East, he would have had no problem understanding that term, even if we in modern West might.Since Hegesippus believed Jesus’ brothers were children of Joseph & Mary, while Augustine & Jerome believed they weren’t, I don’t know how they could all “harmonize” on this issue, since they disagree with each other on whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin or not. BTW, Hegesippus was much “closer to the source” (second century) than either Augustine & Jerome were (fourth century).
Maybe the future Bible versions might use the word ‘bro’, and our descendants will wonder what the word ‘brother’ actually meant.This is true. Those who disagree with Mary’s post-Christ birth virginal status simply use these “modern” terms to clarify who they believe these “brothers” were, since the English translations simply use “brother,” which have numerous meanings in the Greek, as they do in English.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Step-brothers, then. Not half-brothers.
Regardless, I’ve never seen anyone anywhere refer to Joseph as a virgin, and it makes no difference whether he was or not.
Regardless, I’ve never seen anyone anywhere refer to Joseph as a virgin, and it makes no difference whether he was or not.
D
dochawk
Guest
“false”?And Augustine’s view of older step-brothers was based on an anonymously written late second century false “gospel” (the Protoevangelium of James), which is “claimed” be be authored by James the Just, even though he had been DEAD for 100-150 years.
That book whoever wrote it, although it didn’t make the cut, is the source of much of what we know/believe about Mary . . .
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
It is “false” because it is not one of the canonical gospels and is written extremely late.false”?
That book whoever wrote it, although it didn’t make the cut, is the source of much of what we know/believe about Mary . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
Still an odd term, given that it doesn’t cover the same material as the gospels . . . and “not canonical” and “false” have no general relation to one another . . .
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
There is some Catholic tradition that has said that Joseph was had also made a vow of virginity.Since when are Catholics believing that both Mary and Joseph were virgins? I have never in my life heard someone refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her husband, the Blessed Virgin Joseph…
Also, an approved apparition of St. Joseph with Our Lady of America, he states he too was a young virgin.
I don’t necessarily think it was scandalous but IMHO a young St. Joseph would have been better able to make the journey to Bethlehem with a pregnant woman than an elderly man.I had heard that Joseph was a widower. Why would it be scandalous, or bad, or iconoclastic, or sacrilegious to say that Jesus had half-brothers on Joseph’s side? That would fit with the translation of aldophos.
B
bookshelf
Guest
So if a book is written extremely late, it is to be considered false? Who gets to decide this? Should it be a scholar from the 19th, 20th, 21st century or later?It is “false” because it is not one of the canonical gospels and is written extremely late.
Modern scholars are debating whether any of the ancient works (e.g. Plato) or even relatively recent works (e.g. Shakespeare) were written by the authors to whom those works are credited.
Perhaps 20 years from now, because of anonymity on this forum, someone will reject that our posts were written by us and not a ‘bot’.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
So the question is whether or not Joseph had other children prior to the birth of Jesus. The question isn’t whether or not Mary and Joseph had children together. In other words, Mary’s perpetual virginity is not in question. Both Catholic and Orthodox believe and hold firmly to the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is one of the four dogmas referring to Mary and is a very essential part of our faith.It is because of these meanings why Protestants & other non-Catholics believe Jesus’ “sisters” were younger half-siblings,
It is a possibility that Joseph was older and had other children from a previous marriage but it is just an easily a possibility that they were cousins or other relatives.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
What makes it “late” is it was written nearly 100 years AFTER the apostolic age ended & the NT was completed. So, it has nothing to do with “who gets to decide” it was “considered false.” It has to do with discerning when the NT canon (& more specifically the Biblical canon) closed. And since it closed at the end of the first century, the context of a writing nearly a century later needs to be carefully discerned what is Biblically & historically accurate to the NT events. And Proto-James is written far too late to assume that everything in it is historically authentic.So if a book is written extremely late, it is to be considered false? Who gets to decide this? Should it be a scholar from the 19th, 20th, 21st century or later?
You can’t really compare uninspired works to the Word of God, which is not only God-breathed & inerrant, but is also more reliable than any other historic work.Modern scholars are debating whether any of the ancient works (e.g. Plato) or even relatively recent works (e.g. Shakespeare) were written by the authors to whom those works are credited.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
That only addresses that Catholics & Orthodox “agree” on the four dogmas, but has nothing to do with “why” Protestants don’t believe in them, or “why” they disagree to the identity of Jesus’ brothers & sisters.The question isn’t whether or not Mary and Joseph had children together. In other words, Mary’s perpetual virginity is not in question. Both Catholic and Orthodox believe and hold firmly to the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is one of the four dogmas referring to Mary and is a very essential part of our faith.
Except that the Greek word for “sisters” used in the NT (“adelphe”) only has TWO meanings in the Greek: 1) uterine sister; 2) female believer. So, while “brother” (“adelphos”) has multiple meanings in the Greek, “adelphe” does not. It is not merely the “feminine tense” of “adelphos” & therefore has multiple meanings in the Greek as “adelphos.” Rather, it has only TWO meanings. Therefore, Jesus’ “sisters” could not have been “cousins or other relatives.” The Greek simply does not allow for it. And as far as older step-sisters from an (alleged) previous marriage of Joseph, again STEP-sisters is not an option, since step-sisters are not uterine. Plus, there is not a shred of evidence either in the Bible, nor in the first two centuries of the church that Joseph was married before Mary, before Proto-James in the mid-to-late second century…nearly 100 years after the (alleged) author - James was DEAD.It is a possibility that Joseph was older and had other children from a previous marriage but it is just an easily a possibility that they were cousins or other relatives.
That, at least, is why Protestants reject the identity of Jesus’ “sisters” (and by extension brothers) were anything but younger & uterine.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I understand you are referring to the Greek. I am not a Greek scholar but I trust God and His Church. From what I understand, the Church teaches that the problem arises with Hebrew and Aramaic. There is no word for biological brother in either Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, or in Hebrew. The same applies for sister. We see this in 1 Chronicles 23 where the sons of Kish married their “sisters” but they actually married their cousins.Except that the Greek word for “sisters”…
And then in regards to brothers, even the people who saw Jesus after His resurrection were referred to as brothers, all 500 of them but Mary did not give birth to 500 sons.
But the most important way we know that Mary was a perpetual virgin is because of the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic church.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide his Church and preserve her from error. Without that promise of Christ, we can go farther and farther from Truth, losing our way altogether through false teachings and so called interpretations. Many times arising out of pride.
So from the earliest days of Christianity, the Church has believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and Jesus had no biological brothers or sisters. That makes it settled.
In the words of St. Jerome referring to Mary not being a perpetual virgin, he says this is a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.”
Last edited:
K
knightfall
Guest
It did? Could I get a source for that please?It has to do with discerning when the NT canon (& more specifically the Biblical canon) closed. And since it closed at the end of the first century …
- Status
- Not open for further replies.