Mary's perpetual virginity

[JB_Brother_4446]

The word ‘brother’ can refer to older male relatives in general in Jewish parlance. We’ve already discussed that. There is no reason for John to give his readers any reason to assume that they are or aren’t.

Then how come i read a post saying they are a different group of guys?
Good Fella;13978005:

That the name James might have been common is not enough to go on. Again, do you suppose it was common for a person to have not only the same name as someone, but also younger brothers who went by the same names of those of someone else with the same name as his? (Mk. 3:13-18; 6:3). That’s quite a coincidence.

I have John 7:5 to bank my beliefs on.

Here’s something for you to chew on, since you’re Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox. The Council of Trent finally and infallibly defined the Canon of Scripture. There is no further room for debate.

Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures

"Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle**, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle**.

Testamenti Novi: Quatuor Evangelia, secundum Matthaeum, Marcum, Lucam, et Ioannem; Actus Apostolorum a Luca Evangelista conscripti; quatuordecim epistolae Pauli Apostoli: ad Romanos, duae ad Corinthios, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, duae ad Thessalonicenses, duae ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos; Petri Apostoli duae; Ioannis Apostoli tres; Iacobi Apostoli una; Iudae Apostoli una et Apocalypsis Ioannis Apostoli.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church."

PAX

:heaven:

Seriously, how much can you condescend? I’ve been telling you there were apostles outside the Twelve! And since when has any bishop made an anathema declaration on who the writers were? The link I posted was on the brothers of Jesus. Did you even look at it?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I actually gave in to the belief that James the Just was a totally different person from James the Less because of arguments concerning Peter’s primacy. I mean, seriously, how can a person who wasn’t even that active in Jesus ministry and didn’t even believe in him boss around Jesus’ chief Apostle?

And yes, there were relatives of Jesus among the twelve, but the strongest case can be made for James and John.

There are even those who believe in four Jameses:

Here are some deductions:

1. James the Less( of the foursome, James/Joseph/Judas/Simon) is identified with Mary of Clopas. There are some that postulate that Clopas and Alphaeus is the same person. . If this James is identified to be James of Clopas/Alphaeus, then there would be 2 James of Alphaeus, one of which is an Apostle. Mark 6:1-3. This James is not an apostle as Jesus was with his disciples when he was teaching in the synagogue and the crowd was identifying his foursome adelphoi.
2. James the Just is not James the Less. Clopas is identified as the brother of Joseph, father of Jesus. Eusebius, quoting Hegesippusi says James the Just is permitted to enter the Holy of Holies in the temple. Only Levites priests are permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.
3. John 7:5 disbelieving adelphoi are unnamed.

Summary, there are 4 James.

James Zebedee - Apostle
James Alphaeus - Apostle
James Clopas - not apostle Mark 6:1-3
James the Just - Levite - not apostle 1 Cor 15:5,7

 

[Good_Fella]

Then how come i read a post saying they are a different group of guys?

Speculation.

I have John 7:5 to bank my beliefs on.

Circular reasoning and wishful thinking. The word ‘brothers’ isn’t exactly specific.

Seriously, how much can you condescend? I’ve been telling you there were apostles outside the Twelve! And since when has any bishop made an anathema declaration on who the writers were? The link I posted was on the brothers of Jesus. Did you even look at it?

How obstinate can you be? The Council of Trent means from among the twelve apostles. This is an infallible declaration of an ecumenical council under the Pope in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. All Catholics are bound to accept it without dissent.

I skimmed through the article and found the same weak arguments that I’ve heard before.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Circular reasoning and wishful thinking. The word ‘brothers’ isn’t exactly specific.

I repeat: John doesn’t give a reason to specify why the brothers in John 7 are totally different from the ones in Mark 6. Since we don’t have affirmative proof on who the brothers were, all we can do is speculate.

The Council of Trent means from among the twelve apostles. This is an infallible declaration of an ecumenical council under the Pope in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. All Catholics are bound to accept it without dissent.

I skimmed through the article and found the same weak arguments that I’ve heard before.

They didn’t give an anathema declaration on who wrote the books. And it’s Catholic scholars who dispute wrote the books.

You skimmed through the article? I’m not surprised.

Weak arguments? I could say the same for yours.

 

[Good_Fella]

I repeat: John doesn’t give a reason to specify why the brothers in John 7 are totally different from the ones in Mark 6. Since we don’t have affirmative proof on who the brothers were, all we can do is speculate.

I repeat, there is no reason for John (the Apostle) to specify who they are. His readers at the time understood what he meant. .

They didn’t give an anathema declaration on who wrote the books.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities, it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church."

And it’s Catholic scholars who dispute wrote the books.

The Church has had its share of some dissenting or apostate scholars. But so what. It’s for the Magisterium of the Church to determine who wrote the books. The Council of Trent infallibly ratified the three Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Jude as “sacred and canonical” only because of their apostolic authorship. It’s final decision certainly wasn’t based on any assumption that these books might have been written by men who belonged to the 70 disciples. The only list of names we have in the Gospels are those of the Twelve, in which we have John the Evangelist (who also wrote the Gospel and the Book of Revelation), James the Less/Just, and his younger brother Jude. Luke was a companion of Paul, Mark a companion of Peter.

You skimmed through the article? I’m not surprised.

Why should you be? It would help if you directed my attention to which arguments I’m supposed to find. I don’t have time to read the entire thing in PDF format. Providing links isn’t much of an argument on your part to begin with. I’m having a debate with you, not with the author of that article.

Weak arguments? I could say the same for yours.

If you cross-reference Mark 6:3 with the list of the Apostles, which people neglect to do, you should see that you have not much of an argument. At least I don’t pull characters out of thin air. You can only presume that there were more than two James and more than one Jude who were “apostles”. Peters name is mentioned 70+ times in the NT. Do you suppose there was more than one Peter? That there was also another one who belonged to the 70 disciples? (Gal.1:18-19).

So do you believe that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage who went by the names James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon and ranked from eldest to youngest as three of the Twelve and the sons of Alphaeus did? You still haven’t answered my question. I suppose my argument isn’t as weak as you claim it is.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I repeat, there is no reason for John (the Apostle) to specify who they are. His readers at the time understood what he meant./

If you cross-reference Mark 6:3 with the list of the Apostles, which people neglect to do, you should see that you have not much of an argument. At least I don’t pull characters out of thin air. You can only presume that there were more than two James and more than one Jude who were “apostles”. Peters name is mentioned 70+ times in the NT. Do you suppose there was more than one Peter? That there was also another one who belonged to the 70 disciples? (Gal.1:18-19).

So do you believe that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage who went by the names James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon and ranked from eldest to youngest as three of the Twelve and the sons of Alphaeus did? You still haven’t answered my question. I suppose my argument isn’t as weak as you claim it is.

PAX

:heaven:

I don’t see “James brother of the Lord, son of Alphaeus” on that list. Judas Thaddaeus is the son of a totally different James from the two mentioned in that list. Seriously. The three persons named James, Simon, and Jude weren’t related to Jesus in any way. James son of Alphaeus was stoned in Jerusalem, Jude and Simon were missionary partners. Jude was clubbed and Simon sawed in half. James the Just got thrown off the same place Jesus was when Satan tempted Him and his brains were bashed out with a fuller’s club, Simeon was crucfied at the age of 120. We know nothing of the fate of Joses and Simon, but we also hear of the fate of Jesus’ grandnephews James and Zoker sons of Jude brother of the Lord. Eastern Catholics have been around longer than we have. I guess you think the beliefs of our brothers in the faith are unorthodox.

Ephiphanius is a saint in the Catholic Church. I guess his opinion is invalid.

He explains it better than me.

The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the ranks of king and high-priest for two reasons. The rank of king from our Lord Jesus Christ, also in two ways: because he is descended from King David physically, and because, in Godhead, he is in fact a greater king from all eternity. But the rank of priest because Christ is high priest and chief of high priests - since Jame, called the brother and apostle of the Lord, was made the first bishop immediately. Actually he was Joseph’s son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord’s brother because they were reared together. For James was Joseph’s son by Joseph’s wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with clarity, in many other place. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic decent because he was Joseph’s son, that he was born a nazirite - for he was Joseph’s first-born, and hence consecrated. (Panarion 29.3.8-4.2)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

As an aside, even though there is no word for cousin in Aramaic script, there is in Greek. In fact, that is even the word used to describe Barnabas’ relation to Mark. Both were Hebrews.

*There have been attempts to identify them with the apostles known as James son of Alphaeus and Jude Thaddeus.

However, this is implausible, because John’s Gospel unambiguously indicates that Jesus’ “brothers” were not disciples during his ministry, stating, “even his brothers did not believe in him." It is thus scarcely likely that two of them were among the apostles that followed him during his ministry.
Jimmy Akin, a notable Catholic scholar, posted this. Is he any less Catholic for doing so?

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t see “James brother of the Lord, son of Alphaeus” on that list. Judas Thaddaeus is the son of a totally different James from the two mentioned in that list. Seriously. The three persons named James, Simon, and Jude weren’t related to Jesus in any way. James son of Alphaeus was stoned in Jerusalem, Jude and Simon were missionary partners. Jude was clubbed and Simon sawed in half. James the Just got thrown off the same place Jesus was when Satan tempted Him and his brains were bashed out with a fuller’s club, Simeon was crucfied at the age of 120. We know nothing of the fate of Joses and Simon, but we also hear of the fate of Jesus’ grandnephews James and Zoker sons of Jude brother of the Lord. Eastern Catholics have been around longer than we have. I guess you think the beliefs of our brothers in the faith are unorthodox.

Ephiphanius is a saint in the Catholic Church. I guess his opinion is invalid.

He explains it better than me.

What makes a person a saint is his sanctity. But no saint is infallible. Plato called opinion the greatest lie.

There is more than one tradition about Jude and Simon, so why should we put our faith in one and not the other?

The church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul in the first century, so I fail to see how Eastern Catholics have been around longer than us.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

What makes a person a saint is his sanctity. But no saint is infallible. Plato called opinion the greatest lie.

There is more than one tradition about Jude and Simon, so why should we put our faith in one and not the other?

The church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul in the first century, so I fail to see how Eastern Catholics have been around longer than us.

PAX
:heaven:

The main reason Rome is the headquarters of the Church is because Peter and Paul died there. There were Christians living in Rome even before Peter came. It is also known Peter took residence in Antioch and that there were Christians living in Ethiopia. So yeah, it went from the East to the West.

Jude and Simon are regarded in Latin tradition to have spread the gospel as partners. Why do you think Jude is always portrayed with a club and Simon with a saw?

Ultimately, your supposition is an opinion.

 

[Good_Fella]

As an aside, even though there is no word for cousin in Aramaic script, there is in Greek. In fact, that is even the word used to describe Barnabas’ relation to Mark. Both were Hebrews.

*There have been attempts to identify them with the apostles known as James son of Alphaeus and Jude Thaddeus.

However, this is implausible, because John’s Gospel unambiguously indicates that Jesus’ “brothers” were not disciples during his ministry, stating, “even his brothers did not believe in him." It is thus scarcely likely that two of them were among the apostles that followed him during his ministry.
Jimmy Akin, a notable Catholic scholar, posted this. Is he any less Catholic for doing so?

You’re not making any sense. I’m not identifying these brothers with the apostles James and Jude. Nor is Mr. Akin suggesting that these brothers of Jesus are Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage who haven’t yet come to believe in Jesus, which you presume is the case. John’s audience was comprised mostly of Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine, so they would have been acquainted with the Hebrew-Aramaic idiomatic usage of the term ‘brothers’.

Haydock’s Bible Commentary (John 7:5)

“Neither did his brethren believe in him; by his brethren here, we are to understand his kindred, his townsmen or countrymen, at or about Nazareth.” (Witham)

You still haven’t answered my question.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You’re not making any sense. I’m not identifying these brothers with the apostles James and Jude. Nor is Mr. Akin suggesting that these brothers of Jesus are Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage who haven’t yet come to believe in Jesus, which you presume is the case. John’s audience was comprised mostly of Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine, so they would have been acquainted with the Hebrew-Aramaic idiomatic usage of the term ‘brothers’.

Haydock’s Bible Commentary (John 7:5)

“Neither did his brethren believe in him; by his brethren here, we are to understand his kindred, his townsmen or countrymen, at or about Nazareth.” (Witham)

You still haven’t answered my question.

PAX
:heaven:

Later in the article he makes hypotheses on their ages based on the Ephiphanian tradition.
*Since the time of St. Jerome, it has been common in Western Catholicism to propose that the brethren of the Lord were cousins. If so, we have no way of telling whether they were older or younger cousins (or both). We would know only that they were of the same generation as Jesus, which we could have determined anyway.

However, the earliest proposal for who the brethren of the Lord were—a proposal that dates to the A.D. 100s, making it older than either of the above views, and which has always been the view maintained in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Christianity—is that they were Jesus’ step-brothers, that is, children of Joseph by a prior marriage. As an elderly widower, Joseph was not seeking to begin a family and thus was willing to serve as the guardian of a consecrated virgin like Mary.
Either way, however, the brethren would have been significantly older than Jesus, which may explain their attitude of disbelief during Jesus’ ministry. As Jesus said, a prophet has no honor in his own family.

From their perspective, Jesus was the much younger son of their father’s second wife, and it took the miracle of the Resurrection to convince them that he was the Messiah.*

I repeat: Is any Catholic less Catholic for believing James and Jude were separate from the men in the Twelve with the same name or that they were Jesus’ stepbrothers?

Is there any reason to believe that the brothers in Mark 6 were all three of those things? This is a pretty weak argument.

What question? I answered that long ago.

 

[Good_Fella]

Later in the article he makes hypotheses on their ages based on the Ephiphanian tradition.
Since the time of St. Jerome, it has been common in Western Catholicism to propose that the brethren of the Lord were cousins. If so, we have no way of telling whether they were older or younger cousins (or both). We would know only that they were of the same generation as Jesus, which we could have determined anyway.

Jerome could very well have been acquainted with another early oral tradition that we don’t find in any extant document. What we do know is that Jerome rejected the Nativity Gospel of James, since it wasn’t written by the Apostle.

However, the earliest proposal for who the brethren of the Lord were—a proposal that dates to the A.D. 100s, making it older than either of the above views, and which has always been the view maintained in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Christianity—is that they were Jesus’ step-brothers, that is, children of Joseph by a prior marriage. As an elderly widower, Joseph was not seeking to begin a family and thus was willing to serve as the guardian of a consecrated virgin like Mary.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

According to the visions which the Venerable Mary of Agreda received through the Blessed Virgin Mary, Joseph was a 33 year old bachelor who made a vow of chastity at the age of twelve. He was chosen from among a group of young eligible bachelors because he had consecrated himself to God after deciding never to marry. The Talmud records the story of a rabbi who never married so that he could better devote himself to the study of the Torah. So, however rare, there were exceptions to the norm.

michaeljournal.org/espousal.asp

Do you believe that Joseph had three sons from a previous marriage who not only had the same names of three of the Apostles, but also ranked accordingly by age from eldest to youngest? Could it have actually been a coincidence? I don’t recall any answer to my question. This is what makes your assumption dubious.

PAX
:heaven:

I’ll accept your belief once you show me verses explicitly stated that James and the other brothers of the Lord were cousins.

Indeed Judas is before Simon in Matthew and after him in Mark. James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Jude Lebbaeus Thaddeus weren’t related at all. Do Mark or Matthew go as far as calling them brothers? No they do not.

I find it hard to believe that I am regarded dubious for getting opinion from the traditions of the Fathers while you get yours from private revelations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’ll accept your belief once you show me verses explicitly stated that James and the other brothers of the Lord were cousins.

Indeed Judas is before Simon in Matthew and after him in Mark. James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Jude Lebbaeus Thaddeus weren’t related at all. Do Mark or Matthew go as far as calling them brothers? No they do not.

I find it hard to believe that I am regarded dubious for getting opinion from the traditions of the Fathers while you get yours from private revelations.

Good Fella can also claim that his opinions are justified by the ECFs here: It is an ANCIENT tradition (especially in the West --our beloved Latin Church-- which has never fallen into heresy or schism) that St. Joseph too, was a perpetual virgin. How many ways does this makes sense? It is hard to count the many ways that this seems an appropriate part of God’s plan of Salvation and why there was an earthly virginal trinity to complement the Heavenly one. Sorry it doesn’t mesh with your own favorite errors.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

How many ways does this makes sense? It is hard to count the many ways that this seems an appropriate part of God’s plan of Salvation and why there was an earthly virginal trinity to complement the Heavenly one.

Hardly errors. Why must one be a virgin in order to be just? And what if God didn’t want Joseph to be a perpetual virgin? Who are you to question Him?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hardly errors. Why must one be a virgin in order to be just? And what if God didn’t want Joseph to be a perpetual virgin? Who are you to question Him?

One doesn’t NEED to be a virgin in order to be just, nor did anyone imply it.

The Perpetual Virginity of St. Joseph is an ancient tradition. I learned it myself as a child in elementary school back in the 50’s.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

**One doesn’t NEED to be a virgin in order to be just, nor did anyone imply it.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of St. Joseph is an ancient tradition. I learned it myself as a child in elementary school back in the 50’s.

Read the rest of my post. And yeah you pretty much implied that Joseph and Mary couldn’t have a real marriage if the stepbrother situation was the case through that link.

The tradition that Joseph was NOT a perpetual virgin and was a widower with kids is also an ancient tradition. It also makes sense if you read it in the context of Scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Read the rest of my post. And yeah you pretty much implied that Joseph and Mary couldn’t have a real marriage if the stepbrother situation was the case through that link.

The tradition that Joseph was NOT a perpetual virgin and was a widower with kids is also an ancient tradition. It also makes sense if you read it in the context of Scripture.

Whatever. Both traditions can not be true. BTW, both traditions may appear to have a foundation in the Bible, but it depends on the interpretation.

You are also trying to put words in my mouth since I NEVER implied “that Joseph and Mary couldn’t have a real marriage if the stepbrother situation was the case through that link” That is your own inferral, but not a fact. Better yet prove I implied it! Although you hedge your bets and say I “pretty much” imply blah blah blah. IOW, I didn’t really imply it, but in your view I may as well have.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Whatever. Both traditions can not be true. BTW, both traditions may appear to have a foundation in the Bible, but it depends on the interpretation.

You are also trying to put words in my mouth since I NEVER implied “that Joseph and Mary couldn’t have a real marriage if the stepbrother situation was the case through that link” That is your own inferral, but not a fact. Better yet prove I implied it! Although you hedge your bets and say I “pretty much” imply blah blah blah. IOW, I didn’t really imply it, but in your view I may as well have.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Whatever. Both traditions can not be true. BTW, both traditions may appear to have a foundation in the Bible, but it depends on the interpretation.

You are also trying to put words in my mouth since I NEVER implied “that Joseph and Mary couldn’t have a real marriage if the stepbrother situation was the case through that link” That is your own inferral, but not a fact. Better yet prove I implied it! Although you hedge your bets and say I “pretty much” imply blah blah blah. IOW, I didn’t really imply it, but in your view I may as well have.

The link.