S
- Status
A
aquabatix
Guest
After the first century stone ossuary of James was discovered, the inscription “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” made people wonder the same thing. Was James the brother of Jesus by Mary? But this was easily refuted when one looks at the history of Christianity.
"While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James “the brother of the Lord” were Jesus’ cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.
The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James’ death (A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.
The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord’s public ministry began."
Full answer: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14965
This answer, in light of this and all the arguments stated above, makes the most sense to me.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
I see no reason why the Protoevangelium and St. Jerome can’t both be right. There are examples and evidence for both theories in their proper context, scripturally.After the first century stone ossuary of James was discovered, the inscription “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” made people wonder the same thing. Was James the brother of Jesus by Mary? But this was easily refuted when one looks at the history of Christianity.
"While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James “the brother of the Lord” were Jesus’ cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.
The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James’ death (A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.
The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord’s public ministry began."
Full answer: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14965
This answer, in light of this and all the arguments stated above, makes the most sense to me.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Ok that is your opion and I have mine. Is that so hard to understand. I noticed one thing on this site. No one looks a others points of views. I noticed that on this site the Catholics have to be right all the time and if you don’t agree with their views then you are treated like ****. I’m not pushing my views on anyone these are my opions, you can accept them or not I don’t care, but don’t try to convert me because the only thing you are doing is reaffering why I left the Catholic faith in the first place. Life is full of different views and opions yours aren’t the only ones, why is it so hard to accept that. You have your faith and
I have mine so accept it. Stop pushing so hard.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Kevin, this is a Catholic apologetics site. What we do here is explain the Catholic faith. I am not giving you my opinions or my faith about anything. I am explaining the Catholic faith and Catholic dogma to you, the unchangeable, immutable truth as revealed by God. I am not pushing you to do anything, nor am I treating you like any expletive. And I am not Catholic… yet. I’m trying to explain to you why the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints holds that Mary’s “marriage” to Joseph was not one consummated in sex, as her “vessel” status was that of God-bearer. This is not a point-of-view issue, nor is it up for debate, according to the Catholic church. Why do you think I am brow-beating you? What incentive would I have to do that? You’re quoting scripture at me, and I’m responding with what the Catholic church teaches.
Peace and strength to you, Kevin.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I understand that this is a Cathlic forum. This is a non-Catholic religion thread. So you would think thay would understand the different points of views from other religions. See your religion has different beliefs then a baptist, then a Jew, that a protistandt, or any other religion. You say that this is not a point of view issue nor is it up for debate according to the Catholic church. Well I don’t belong to the Catholic faith and I believe everything is up for debate, thats how we learn. Have you ever heard there is not stupid question except the one that is never asked. On the otherhand you said that you are giving me the Cahtolic dogma, the unchangable, immutable truth as revealed by God. So we cant do the same thing about our religion. Seems if someone from another religion trys to point out their religious views they don’t want to hear it but they expect you to listen and adhear to their beliefs and yours don’t count. Don’t seem too fair to me. Seems pretty one way. Seems they won’t tollarate anyother view. Seems to me to be pretty wrong.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
You’re mistaken about toleration and acceptance. The Catholic Church tolerates many different points of view about things that are not doctrinal. The Catholic Church accepts as absolutely true what has been revealed as doctrine to the Church. The perpetual virginity is doctrinal, and is not optional. This is because it is part of the deposit of “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It is unchangeable not because we are closed minded, but because we do not have the authority to change it. The Catholic Church chose the books of the New Testament because they witnessed to the Faith of the Church. The Church did not read the Bible and base its Faith off of it. The Faith preceded the New Testament. God bless.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Sorry that has not been my experance here. I have commented on several issues and have been treated like I said. I stand by my beliefs just as strong as you stand by yours.
I stand by my view that EVERYTHING NO MATTER WHAT ITS IS, is up for debate. I wish you could understand that, but you won’t, ya’ll expect us to accept your. Seems kinda one way and very unfair. None of my bibles have Jude 3 only 1 and 2. Is it a different bible you are using.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
I’m sorry if it offends you, but I’m not here to debate my own “views” or “beliefs” versus yours. This is the Catholic Answers forum, and I’m simply doing my best to provide Catholic answers to the topics posted about. We have “one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism.” (Ephesians 4:5). I’m willing to listen to what you have to say, but you shouldn’t expect anyone here to “accept” it, or to refrain from contrasting and/or refuting your claims with Catholic teaching. That’s what this place is about.
As for the Jude reference, Kevin, there’s no need to jump to conclusions about “different bibles.” There’s only one chapter in Jude, no matter what Bible you’re using. 3rd verse.
Pax et bonum.
A
avflf
Guest
And my Bible only has 1 chapter for Jude and I’m sure that what he was referring to is verse 3 “… exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Frankly the answer to the question is probably forever unknowable. As has beens said by some, from early days, certain assumptions were made, and an entire theology has now been built around Mary that makes it now unseemly to believe that she had other children. There is certainly no proof of any kind, and likely never will be.
Once one theological guess is placed upon another, upon another, upon another, it becomes hard to untangle without toppling the entire thing.
Certainly we know that the norm of that time was that families were large for obvious reasons. There are clear references to 'brothers and sisters and specific reference to James, the brother of Jesus which appears more singularly set out that would be normal if it was meant in the general sense.
Clearly brothers and sisters could mean cousins, since that is allowed by the translation. Mary did say that she had not known a man, which I take to speak of her past and not necessarily anything to do with the future, and it would be utterly unseemly for a woman of her time to declare a vow of chastity and then agree to marry. I’ve never frankly heard of such a case historically.
In the end, I think it is purely a matter of belief, and frankly, I see nothing wrong intrinsically with either side. Believing either seems to have no impact on anything of importance. I ahve a mild, an I do mean mild belief that Mary is over emphasized, and I’ve seen some who seem to ignore virtually everything other than her. But on par I think devotion to Mary is helpful for some persons, especially those who have had issues with males in their lives. Why it is important that she be virginal for all time, is of no great import I don’t think. It changes nothing as I have said as far as I can see about Jesus.
Once one theological guess is placed upon another, upon another, upon another, it becomes hard to untangle without toppling the entire thing.
Certainly we know that the norm of that time was that families were large for obvious reasons. There are clear references to 'brothers and sisters and specific reference to James, the brother of Jesus which appears more singularly set out that would be normal if it was meant in the general sense.
Clearly brothers and sisters could mean cousins, since that is allowed by the translation. Mary did say that she had not known a man, which I take to speak of her past and not necessarily anything to do with the future, and it would be utterly unseemly for a woman of her time to declare a vow of chastity and then agree to marry. I’ve never frankly heard of such a case historically.
In the end, I think it is purely a matter of belief, and frankly, I see nothing wrong intrinsically with either side. Believing either seems to have no impact on anything of importance. I ahve a mild, an I do mean mild belief that Mary is over emphasized, and I’ve seen some who seem to ignore virtually everything other than her. But on par I think devotion to Mary is helpful for some persons, especially those who have had issues with males in their lives. Why it is important that she be virginal for all time, is of no great import I don’t think. It changes nothing as I have said as far as I can see about Jesus.
F
freedomwriter
Guest
Here we go again. Same old stuff. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the Word of God to be true. If so then why try to add something to it that isn’t there. Jesus had brothers and sisters theres no going around it. Its in the Word of God
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
No she didn’t. So me in Scripture where these so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus as being referred to as “sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph.” The so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus are merely his cousins. Even Lot is called brother by Abraham in the OT, and we know Lot is nephew of Abraham.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
The Word of God is Jesus Christ. I believe Him to be true. And the Church which he started, the Church which gave us the Bible, tells us Mary is ever-Virgin. Do you believe the Word of God to be true? I’ve not added anything to the Bible. You are attempting to limit the deposit of Faith to the Bible, which was written long after the Faith came to be.
A
awantz
Guest
Are you asking if I believe Jesus had siblings or if Mary remained a virgin after birth?
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
Now that we have established that Jesus had brothers and sisters, blood related that is. Now what about Jesus being married??? Let’s jump on that one.
J
JordanSRT
Guest
The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is (almah), which undisputedly means ‘young woman’, with no implication of virginity. If ‘virgin’ had been intended (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word ‘maiden’ illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The ‘mutation’ occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into … (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel’ (Authorised English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give ‘young woman’ in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave ‘virgin’ in Matthew, since there they are translating from the Greek.
This does not say that she was not a virgin, only that she was called a virgin in the bible.
J
Janet1983
Guest
First you declare that one needs to make sure that the appropriate meanings of the words are known and then you then leave it out of context… why?
Janet1983 said:
A
awantz
Guest
The church is the bride of Christ. He didn’t marry when He was on earth.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I didn’t leave out of context. Mary did not have any other children. I already explain to you as well as other Catholics, who refuted your claims. You just ignore it. The ECF got it right and they live in an age much closers to the Apostles, and you expect me to believe that Mary had other children?
You still have not explain why Jesus gave John Mary at the foot of the cross, instead if his supposed “siblings.”
and the lack of evidence, in Luke that Mary and Joseph seeking Jesus showed that there were NO OTHER children. Mary remain a virgin, before, during, and after the birth of her Son.
And there is no Scripture in the passage that addresses, them, “Joses, James, as Sons of Mary and Joseph.”
- Status