Huh?
Yet, something as profound as her perpetual virginity is something considerably remarkable. And since Jesus’ family descendants were still alive into the early second century, it would seem odd that they would not know for certain “who” - specifically - the brothers of Jesus who were mentioned by name in the gospels were. Why the uncertainty, since they would have known? And why is the subject virtually silent until after the anonymously written false “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James was published in the mid-to-late second century?
Absolutely, since all the Reformers were Catholic, and the dogma had been been solidly set for centuries by then. But that dogma wasn’t the issue with the Reformation - the abuse of indulgences were (which was swiftly abolished after that, BTW). So, to point to Reformers doesn’t take into consideration they were Catholics. So, you expect them to believe in it, since that wasn’t their issue. Calvin, BTW, was on the fence about it, but that’s another story.
Couldn’t agree more!
I understand that you are giving a protestant perspective. I understand that this is what many protestants believe but in the Catholic church it is called Helvidianism and it is considered a heresy and a depravity.
Yes, it is God breathed, absolutely but when protestants look to Scripture for identity and read Scripture in all different kinds of ways, they all identify different, so that isn’t even a good argument. .
(Parenthetical addition mine for contextual purposes.)
RaisedCatholic?
If you have a copy of Eusebius’ Church History, both Eusebius and Hegesippus who he cites, is in Book 3.19 and 3.20. There are other places in the Church History, but these are two.
Just to clarify, the list of ECFs did not all agree with each other on the identity of who Jesus’ brothers were, including ECFs who believed in the PVM like the Doctors of the Church like Augustine and Jerome but came to different conclusions to their identity, as well as others who didn’t believe in it, like Hegessipus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the later Helvidius. My question was, if the PVM was passed down from the apostles, why did these second century ECFs, including at least one canonized saint, reject it, and none of them knew the identity of these named brothers of Jesus, since their descendants were still alive then? Shouldn’t they have known since they knew them?
Again, my point is that it’s incorrect to view “Protestantism” in the same way we view “Catholicism.” Just as there are Catholics, like Doctor Augustine and Doctor Jerome who disagree and get things wrong, so do Protestants, because these particular Protestants are NOT basing their view of the identity of Jesus’ brothers on Scripture, but THEIR traditions. IOW, even they are not truly using sola scriptura here either.
(Parenthetical addition mine for contextual purposes.)
RaisedCatholic?
I went to 3:19 (I’ve read them all before and have posted about this on the old CAF).
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
Here St. Paul (from the Tribe of Benjamin) uses that SAME phraseology referring to himself and his fellow Israelites!
It is perhaps clearer in the American King James Version (here) . . .
Hopefully you don’t think St. Paul’s mom delivered all the people of Israel herself!
None of the Early Church Fathers denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary RaisedCatholic.
Bold mine.
When Paul used it in that particular verse, in context, he was referring to the Jewish nation who were all related to each other through Jacob. So the term “according to the flesh” can extend to that. However, in the context of Hegessipus’ and Eusebius’ quotes, they were addressing the “brothers” of Jesus, who were “of the family of David.” This is a more intimate use of the term “according to the flesh,” similar to when Paul referred to Jesus being related to David “according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). Here, Paul is more than merely describing kinship, but a direct biological relationship with David. Hegessipus’ use to describe Jesus’ brother “according to the flesh” is used in the same way to say Jesus’ brother was not mere kinship, but a directly literal biological brother (“according to the flesh”). Of course Hegessipus would not have said “uterine,” since this was the second century. To emphasize biological brother, a Jew like Hegessipus would have said “according to the flesh” like Paul did between David and his biological descendant Jesus.
I agree with you here.
Bold mine.
Your thesis, is NOT what Eusebius wrote!
If Hegessipus was simply trying to convey Jude was just a “brother” - using it just as a more general term to describe them as mutual relations to Israel, he woukd have just said “brother.” But his added use of “according to the flesh” here was to add emphasis that it was more than mere Israeli relation, but biological relation to each other, specifically BROTHERLY relation “His brother according to the flesh.” If he just meant the more general kind of relation, the more specific terminology would be unnecessary, and he could have just said “Jude (said to have been a brother)”…PERIOD. But Hegessipus goes out of the way, as not to confuse his readers that he meant His “brother” was a biological brother, just as Paul said Jesus was a biological descendant of David. Paul could have just said Jesus was related to David, by sharing the same relation through Israel. But to convey He was a direct biological ancestor, like Hegessipus, Paul added “a descendant (Seed) of David According to the flesh.” This last Part is necessary to emphasize a more direct biological lineage through Mary, who was their biological mother, and also a direct descendant of David.
They ARE “biological relations to each other”.
Where are you getting this from?
He would have called them both sons of the same mother.
Do you think you could ask me without the sarcasm? Again, it is based on the fact that if he was just trying to convey affiliation to Israel, there would be no need to add “according to the flesh” after “brother.” It is redundant and unnecessary. I thought this was clear.
Yet, even in the NT a biological brother is not always used with that affiliation, like Peter the BROTHER of Andrew, rather than sons of the same mother. Again, I was asking how the phrase would be worded differently to convey Hegessipus was saying Jude was Jesus’ biological brother. Bringing up they had the same mother is not what I am asking.
Says you.
First, calm down. Second, let’s stick on the topic rather than go off on Red Herrings about sola scriptura which is not the topic being discussed. Third, I never said Mary’s virginity wasn’t “necessary.” That is a straw man. Fourth, I am not questioning the PVM, but discussing a quote from Hegessipus. Fifth, I said it would be redundant for Hegessipus to say Jude was Jesus’ brother “according to the flesh” if he was trying to convey Jude was merely a non-uterine brother (ie: kinsman, cousin, other relative, Non-related Israelite). By using “according to the flesh” AFTER “brother,” Hegessipus is being specific what kind of “brother” he believes he is. Sixth, you still did not answer my question what additional word Hegessipus would have used to convey biological brother in the particular verse. Again, saying they were Mary’s children isn’t answering the question I am asking.
Um…that was kind of my point I was making why Hegessipus used that term after “brother.” Perhaps you didn’t quite get my intention.
With regard to older step siblings that of course comes from the Protoevangelium of James:
In all charity it does appear that you are questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity and wanting others to also based on one quote from one person. For Catholics, believing Mary’s perpetual virginity is essential for their faith. It is dogma. It was decided and affirmed by the Church. That’s it. There are plenty of responses to your question already in this thread and also can be found at Catholic apologetics websites.
I said that in the context of your denial.