Jesus brothers were more likely sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. The doctrine of Mary’s virginity was belived by Iraeneus, a contemporary of Polycarp, a contemporary of John. You know, the John who took Mary into his home after Jesus died?The bible also says he had sisters…
I don’t recall the bible saying Joseph was married before Mary.
From what reliable source are you getting this information?
I think this doctrine was developed over time and there wasn’t a consensus about this until the 4th Century or so.
Early “church father” Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach or believe the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
Neither did Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus, writers from the 4th Century.
.
The brothers and sisters of Jesus could also be the children of any sister or brother of St. Joseph just as easily. It also does not destroy the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph as your conjecture does.Jesus brothers were more likely sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. The doctrine of Mary’s virginity was belived by Iraeneus, a contemporary of Polycarp, a contemporary of John. You know, the John who took Mary into his home after Jesus died?
Oh man…we’ve been at this already! There is more patristic support for the idea that the brothers were sons of Joseph than the Hieromonian theory!The brothers and sisters of Jesus could also be the children of any sister or brother of St. Joseph just as easily. It also does not destroy the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph as your conjecture does.
Jesus committed His mother to a perpetual virgin from the cross, (as tradition tells us) and I am sure the Holy Family also had a perpetual virgin as the head of the household, the foster father of Jesus and the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A virginal Trinity on earth, reflecting the Heavenly one.
Read my link, it’s Patristic.Oh man…we’ve been at this already! There is more patristic support for the idea that the brothers were sons of Joseph than the Hieromonian theory!
The only relative of Jesus that was called a cousin of His was Simeon, not James. The word adelphos can mean stepbrother but not cousin. Read Bauckman.
Guess I’m going with the East.Read my link, it’s Patristic.
What of Eusebius of Caesarea?Read my link, it’s Patristic.
The idea of Jesus having half-siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage originates from an oral tradition which in and of itself is fallible and thus liable to being erroneous. In the Catholic Collection of Prayers in the Liturgy of the Saints, St. Joseph is invoked by the faithful as a virgin. The sacred Liturgy is a monument of sacred Tradition, which is infallible, since it belongs to the deposit of faith along with sacred Scripture. Joseph did not have any children from a previous marriage. If he remained a virgin, the most likely explanation is that he personally devoted his life to studying the Torah.Oh man…we’ve been at this already! There is more patristic support for the idea that the brothers were sons of Joseph than the Hieromonian theory!
21The sons of Merari; Mooli, and Musi: the sons of Mooli; Eleazar, and Kis. 22 And Eleazar died, and he had no sons, but daughters: and the sons of Kis, their brethren, took them. 23 The sons of Musi; Mooli, and Eder, and Jarimoth, three.The only relative of Jesus that was called a cousin of His was Simeon, not James. The word adelphos can mean stepbrother but not cousin. Read Bauckman.
DaddyGirl, this is Eusebius quoting from several other fathers like Hegessipius and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian eventually became a heretic and Helvidius got bashed by Jerome.What of Eusebius of Caesarea?
“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James…After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”
See? Brother, not cousin.
From Eusebius again: “Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ.”
See? James the Just was Joseph’s son.
The union between Mary and the Holy Spirit was not just a metaphor. It was reminiscent of an actual marriage between a man and a woman, but in a spiritual and mystical sense, which carried with it all the moral implications of a physical marriage between a man and a woman in light of the Divine law. The early Latin and Greek Fathers of the Catholic Church implicitly perceived Mary to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit in two fundamental ways which reflect the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal love. First of all, they portrayed Mary as having been spiritually united with the Holy Spirit and having something supernaturally in common with Him by her interior disposition. Further, Mary was perceived to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit by not only having begotten Jesus together with Him through supernatural means, but also by having cooperated with Him in providing spiritual life to the human race. They cooperated as all husbands and wives do in giving life to their children. By consenting to conceive and bear Jesus through the activity of the Holy Spirit, Mary brought the living Source of all grace into the world. The early Church Fathers perceived Mary to be the new Eve, the spiritual “mother of all the living,” through whose pure womb we are regenerated unto God through the merits of her divine Son. Hence, the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit was a personal one redolent of a marriage. It wasn’t something metaphorical, but essentially actual in its aspectual form of a marriage. I would agree with you if Jesus did not have a human nature and we couldn’t call him our “brother” (Rom.8:29).Marriage can only occur between individuals sharing a human nature. The Holy Spirit is a Person, but with a Divine Nature. Marriage is not in His nature, although it is a useful metaphor to describe the unique blessings and status of Mary.
The Bible also says King Solomon had a “sister”, but this woman was his spouse.The bible also says he had sisters…
He wasn’t.I don’t recall the bible saying Joseph was married before Mary.
Andra ou ginosko (I know not man) - Luke 1:34I think this doctrine was developed over time and there wasn’t a consensus about this until the 4th Century or so.
In my view the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph is redolent of the Divine dispensation in the Blessed Incarnation. I understand WHY many of the Early Fathers offered St. Joseph’s children as an argument; mainly to protect the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. But in this age, when it is a defined dogma of the Church, and there is no question of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, it is high time that we re-examined those early arguments which impugned the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph.Guess I’m going with the East.
And those plausible explanations were developed by Jerome.In my view the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph is redolent of the Divine dispensation in the Blessed Incarnation. I understand WHY many of the Early Fathers offered St. Joseph’s children as an argument; mainly to protect the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. But in this age, when it is a defined dogma of the Church, and there is no question of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, it is high time that we re-examined those early arguments which impugned the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph.
Let us ask if it is a small thing to deny the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, if it is in fact the Truth, for the sake of preserving old arguments that were mainly aimed at protecting the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. There is ancient testimony for the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph as well, which has been increasing with each succeeding age. It is a very commonly held belief by the faithful today, that St. Joseph was also a perpetual virgin. So before we reduce this question to a matter of whose lexicon we side with, maybe it would be better to include the justice and righteousness of the Divine plan for the Holy Incarnation and other such theological matters as crucial to our argument AGAINST the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph. Especially considering that there are so MANY other, just as plausible explanations, for the brothers and sisters of the Lord.
GoodFella and AmbroseSJ, here is this to chew on.What of Eusebius of Caesarea?
“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James…After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”
See? Brother, not cousin.
From Eusebius again: “Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ.”
See? James the Just was Joseph’s son.
Scripture doesn’t indicate that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, or was Immaculately Conceived.Scripture does indicate that Mary took a vow of virginity, but not Joseph.
Just because St Joseph was older than Mary doesn’t mean that he was that old. Joseph could have been in his early 40s. And if he was old that would automatically explain why Joseph died. Do you have a problem with the earliest belief about the PVM? I provided patristic sources but you seem intent to malign them. Just because a person isn’t a perpetual virgin doesn’t mean they aren’t holy. Your argument is based on straw.Scripture doesn’t indicate that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, or was Immaculately Conceived.
We do KNOW that St. Joseph AT LEAST took a vow of Chastity BEFORE Marrying the BVM. Can you posit some motive for him marrying a young virgin under that condition. Perhaps you prefer the Eastern Fathers, because you also subscribe to their implication of an old grizzled St. Joseph who was on death’s door step and who had no interest in a young virgin. Maybe he expected her to take care of him! That God chose this sort of man to head, support and protect the Holy Family, and not a strong, young man (a carpenter) of incredible virtue, holiness and yes, a perpetual virgin, is utter nonsense to me.
IOW, I am arguing in favor of an ancient and growing tradition that exists today. You are not just opposing a couple of internet posters here. There is considerable number of the Faithful that feel as I do. By Faithful I mean Saints, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Bishops, Priests and Laity.
GoodFella, AmbroseSJ, do you want to go against Eusebius? The only person called a cousin of Jesus by him is Simeon.What of Eusebius of Caesarea?
“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James…After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”
See? Brother, not cousin.
From Eusebius again: “Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ.”
See? James the Just was Joseph’s son.
Well what about the first few lines of the Hail Mary? Don’t they indicate Mary’s sinlessness? Aren’t they in Scripture?Scripture doesn’t indicate that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, or was Immaculately Conceived.
I don’t malign patristic sources at all. in fact they are also the foundation of the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph. Just different fathers. I also stated that the ECFs that were supposing the children of St. Joseph by a former wife, as doing so for the purpose of protecting the Virginity of the BVM. IOW, I agree with their purpose, but disagree with their method.Just because St Joseph was older than Mary doesn’t mean that he was that old. Joseph could have been in his early 40s. And if he was old that would automatically explain why Joseph died. Do you have a problem with the earliest belief about the PVM? I provided patristic sources but you seem intent to malign them. Just because a person isn’t a perpetual virgin doesn’t mean they aren’t holy. Your argument is based on straw.
There is a chance that James and the other brothers had families already. And according to the fathers, James died in his 80s-90s. Although this may not be factual, considering James was probably many years younger than Joseph, it is true that he was much older than his kinsman by law. The brothers of Jesus may have also not been considered liable to take care of Mary, since she was not their mother by blood. So since John was a second cousin/nephew/first cousin and a believer in Jesus, as opposed to most of the brothers, (excluding James), the responsibility fell to him. And as I said earlier, adelphos can mean brother, but not cousin. The earliest patristic source mentioning a cousin of the Lord is Hegessipius and it is Simeon not James.I don’t malign patristic sources at all. in fact they are also the foundation of the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph. Just different fathers. I also stated that the ECFs that were supposing the children of St. Joseph by a former wife, as doing so for the purpose of protecting the Virginity of the BVM. IOW, I agree with their purpose, but disagree with their method.
BTW, you still have not explained why your youngish 40 year old St. Joseph would enter into a marriage with a young virgin, and take a vow of Chastity, even though he was married before AND obviously (according to your theory) believed in conjugal relations, having already had offspring. Further, where were those offspring in Bethlehem? Egypt? Nazareth? CALVARY? Why did Jesus give His mother the BVM to St. John from the Cross and not to one of his own brothers and sister by St. Joseph?
John was the son of Zebedee. How do get “second cousin/nephew/first cousin.” Never heard that one before.So since John was a second cousin/nephew/first cousin and a believer in Jesus