Mary's virginity ?

[Mintaka]

Eusebius, Church History, Book 1, Chapter 7 (cont.)

1. "For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: 'Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
2. " ‘And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs.’ These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
3. "But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
4. "'A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
5. “Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”

And at the end of the same epistle, [Africanus] adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begot Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”

1. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

*If *Joseph had a previous/overlapping marraige vocation before God called him to his next vocation that was to overlap with his first vocation (hence the term: Bi-Vocation), and his second vocation having nothing to do with his first vocation, and, assuming it was a normal marraige and so he had children with a former wife, then he, being a just man worthy to be Our Lord’s father on earth, obviously he would have enjoyed perfect marital relations with his wife, and loved her perfectly and chastely and fruitfully.

But I am not going with that. I believe he had only* one* kind of chaste vocation. Just one. The *unusual *kind. Being the only husband to ever live on the Lord’s earth whose child was God.

Nope, I do not believe Joseph was Bi-Vocation, and I do not believe Jesus grew up in a Big Blended Family. I think the Holy family looked more like this, which we know, and love, which just feels right and true. (Because, it is.):

http://www.ccr.littleway.ca/HolyFamily219.jpg

http://washingtoncatholicradio.com/...11/Icon-of-the-Holy-Family-e1414933879298.jpg

But many holy people in the OT had “Bi-Vocations” like Moses, or Samuel. The prophet Isaiah had a wife of his own!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And no one has a precise seating arrangement for His last supper.
You also said o micros often means younger in scripture.

No, I didn’t make any reference to how it is specifically used in scripture.
I said that relative size tends to imply age in LITTLE children.
The distinction generally does not apply in adults.

If you bother to do a google search among scholars, you will find that the assertion I am making is commonly held by scholars who agree on little else. Micro is generally understood to refer to James’ size, not his age.

As to seating arrangements at the last supper, we do know where John sat relative to St. Peter because of who could see Judas and who could not. That’s why some of the apostles were asking questions as to who it was that dipped their hand into the dish – eg: they couldn’t see.

In Jewish tradition, the family is arranged around the table according to age and importance; eg: the eldest and youngest are generally seated next to the father, one on the right and the other on the left. They were the ones most tied to the father for various reason. The eldest, who was given the double portion of inheritance to care for his brothers and as a sign of his father’s strength; Then is the the youngest who needed the guidance of the father the most and is a symbol of his continuing virulency. For example, there are references to this idea with Reuben and Joseph in the Old Testament.

At the last supper, Jesus himself is acting as the “father” of the covenant family. He is constituting a new Israel with himself acting as a new Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. So, he has obviously chosen to follow the tradition of the patriarchs for symbolic reasons.

John and James (the Greater), are brothers of the same father and mother. (Zebedee’s son’s); and so they act as a group, together; for they have the same social status. If they are not twins, then I would argue James to the be the older based on several inferences found in scripture. However, they would be seated together/very near each other, as they are the same in stature.

Please notice: their mother, Salome, asks Jesus in connection with the last supper (the same topic were discussing); to CHANGE the seating arrangement so that her sons occupy both the left and the right seat next to Jesus. Her request is not a coincidence. She is effectively asking that Peter be replaced with James the Greater, so that he would act as eldest at the table and have the higher social status.

Where one sits at table is determined by a person’s social status. Jesus even explicitly mentions this idea in his parables when he says “choose the lower seat” so that the master of the house will ask you to “move up” rather than down…

 

[prodromos]

*If *Joseph had a previous/overlapping marraige vocation before God called him to his next vocation that was to overlap with his first vocation (hence the term: Bi-Vocation), and his second vocation having nothing to do with his first vocation, and, assuming it was a normal marraige and so he had children with a former wife, then he, being a just man worthy to be Our Lord’s father on earth, obviously he would have enjoyed perfect marital relations with his wife, and loved her perfectly and chastely and fruitfully.

But I am not going with that. I believe he had only* one* kind of chaste vocation. Just one. The *unusual *kind. Being the only husband to ever live on the Lord’s earth whose child was God.

Nope, I do not believe Joseph was Bi-Vocation, and I do not believe Jesus grew up in a Big Blended Family. I think the Holy family looked more like this, which we know, and love, which just feels right and true. (Because, it is.):

http://www.ccr.littleway.ca/HolyFamily219.jpg

http://washingtoncatholicradio.com/...11/Icon-of-the-Holy-Family-e1414933879298.jpg

Guess what? Many people don’t ‘feel’ the same way as you and would rather determine truth from what has been handed down than from pious speculation.The tradition of Joseph’s former marriage is well attested in the West with 12th century frescoes depicting James accompanying Joseph, Mary and Jesus on the flight into Egypt.

 

[speters33w]

Our tradition regarding Joseph and Mary does not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but rather, much of the Protoevangelium comes from Church Tradition. No one would ever claim that the information recorded in the Gospels was unknown in the Church until Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote down their accounts. Neither were details of the lives of Joseph an Mary unknown, although it was primarily at Jerusalem where that knowledge was maintained.

@prodromos

I’m a little late coming back to this thread, and it’s gone well beyond this, but you are right.

I stand corrected.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

errata: I made a type in my last post, that should be that James and John his brother are of the same “status” not stature. eg: They come from the same family, have the same character traits, and are generally found treated equally in scripture; being chosen for the same tasks by Jesus, given the same nickname, etc.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Stuff from Eusebius’ Church History about St. James the Just:

Book 2, Chapter 1:

1. Then James… 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, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” (Matthew 1:18) as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Thanks for looking that up Mintaka. Eusebius is somewhat helpful.

Prodomos and JB Brother 4446 are very strong on the opinions, but they have been very evasive about citing sources and reasons for their opinions. It’s making the discussion difficult…

Eusebius, I think, writes in the 3rd century. That makes him an even older source than St. Jerome (4th/5th century). The sources that Eusebius would have spoken with are likely within one generation of Jesus’ time; which means I would give him more credit than later writers.

The phrase you have bolded, (assuming the translation in English is not flawed) , doesn’t give us the reason why people considered him a “son” (eg: legal adoption/covenant vs. biological patrimony) etc. From what is quoted, I notice that Eusebius doesn’t even mention if Joseph even had a prior marriage, and to whom.

That leads me into the other comment you point out.

Stuff from Eusebius’ Church History about St. James the Just:

1. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people…

[The implication here is that he was a Levitic priest, even though Joseph was a Davidic guy. So probably James was closely related to Zechariah and Elizabeth and John, and not so closely related to Joseph.]

That would put James in a similar situation to Mary; someone who was given to Joseph as his ward; eg: possibly after their father’s death.

So, James is either related by blood to Elizabeth and Zecharias, or perhaps he was given to an another Aaronite priest as a consecrated child (like Samuel.) That would make him part of a priest’s family by covenant. The permanent Nazirite vow (from the womb?) is also an indication that he was a consecrated/dedicated man.

In order for that to fit with scripture, however, I would think James had to be susbstantially older than Mary. He would necessarily have been old enough to have lived on his own, apart from Joseph, by the time Mary came into the family.

Eliza10’s comment that the scriptures are silent on Joseph having any other child at Bethlehem is fairly important. The omission of a male’s name, or presence, on that trip and into Egypt is fairly significant. Women might be glossed over in a narritive like that, but significant males generally are not. I have a difficult time understanding the scriptural silence unless Jame’s true parents are dead, and he his old enough to be on his own.

For James, as a consecrated man, would not be considered part of the tribe of Judah.
Priests families (as a rule from Moses) were not supposed to own land, and the census treated them differently.

Mary who was considered a pregnant “wife” of Joseph would have a reason to go, in spite of consecration; But James would not.

Jame’s consecration explains the scriptural silence on his presence in a way that I find reasonable. Thank you.

 

[Eliza10]

Guess what? Many people don’t ‘feel’ the same way as you and would rather determine truth from what has been handed down than from pious speculation.The tradition of Joseph’s former marriage is well attested in the West with 12th century frescoes depicting James accompanying Joseph, Mary and Jesus on the flight into Egypt.

Oh, dear, I used the “feel” word with you guys! Just pretend I didn’t say it!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Hmm, a young James - often proposed by posters in this forum to be 16 or 17? - accompanying Grandpa Joseph [most of the advocates of this theory in this thread explain that Joseph’s sons would be off married and with children of their own when he was betrothed to the 14 year old virgin Mary -the more common guess at her age of betrothal, which was recently supposed in this thread said to be 12?*)] and the 15 year old Mother and the Child into Egypt. We can only assume Grandpa brought James along because when the angel came to him in a dream and told him,

" Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

and Joseph did NOT just arise and take them, as the angel instructed. Instead, Joseph said to Mary: "Wait! I have a better idea! Lets bring James along, too!" And Mary also thought it would be good to add to the angels instructions [because for some reason their alarm at the possibility of Jesus being harmed did not prevent them from creative thinking]. And so, The Holy Family AND young James - who was quite closer to Mary’s own age than her own husband - accompanied them, and there they all lived, in exile in Egypt, in a close, humble little home, strangers in a strange land, together, the four. And so Jesus grew, with his three parents.

As far as determining the truth from what has been handed down, I am not sure why you said this, as that is what I am doing. St. Jerome knew about the existence of the Blended Family Theory in the 2nd century and he had considered the whole idea and all the evidence for that problematic theory and decided that he did not believe that idea. I go with him and the Catholic Church’s esteem of his scholarly and highly enlightened opinion. Which goes along with the tradition that MOST people adopt: The Holy family is THREE. Not four. Not 6, 8, 10, 12, what have you.

But, if you were Catholic, you would be allowed to believe what you believe as you say here. It does not go against Dogma. Its not the generally accepted opinion, and there is very little art to depict the Big Blended Family theory, having not enjoyed the same popularity of the traditional Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, Joseph. Like the beautiful stained glass window I sit near in church. But, you are allowed to believe it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

---

The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.
.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No, I didn’t make any reference to how it is specifically used in scripture.
I said that relative size tends to imply age in LITTLE children.
The distinction generally does not apply in adults.

If you bother to do a google search among scholars, you will find that the assertion I am making is commonly held by scholars who agree on little else. Micro is generally understood to refer to James’ size, not his age.

As to seating arrangements at the last supper, we do know where John sat relative to St. Peter because of who could see Judas and who could not. That’s why some of the apostles were asking questions as to who it was that dipped their hand into the dish – eg: they couldn’t see.

In Jewish tradition, the family is arranged around the table according to age and importance; eg: the eldest and youngest are generally seated next to the father, one on the right and the other on the left. They were the ones most tied to the father for various reason. The eldest, who was given the double portion of inheritance to care for his brothers and as a sign of his father’s strength; Then is the the youngest who needed the guidance of the father the most and is a symbol of his continuing virulency. For example, there are references to this idea with Reuben and Joseph in the Old Testament.

At the last supper, Jesus himself is acting as the “father” of the covenant family. He is constituting a new Israel with himself acting as a new Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. So, he has obviously chosen to follow the tradition of the patriarchs for symbolic reasons.

John and James (the Greater), are brothers of the same father and mother. (Zebedee’s son’s); and so they act as a group, together; for they have the same social status. If they are not twins, then I would argue James to the be the older based on several inferences found in scripture. However, they would be seated together/very near each other, as they are the same in stature.

Please notice: their mother, Salome, asks Jesus in connection with the last supper (the same topic were discussing); to CHANGE the seating arrangement so that her sons occupy both the left and the right seat next to Jesus. Her request is not a coincidence. She is effectively asking that Peter be replaced with James the Greater, so that he would act as eldest at the table and have the higher social status.

Where one sits at table is determined by a person’s social status. Jesus even explicitly mentions this idea in his parables when he says “choose the lower seat” so that the master of the house will ask you to “move up” rather than down…

I agree that John was the youngest. But James could be six years older than John and John was very close to Jesus.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Oh, dear, I used the “feel” word with you guys! Just pretend I didn’t say it!

http://images.niceartgallery.com/image/data/1333/1333546.jpg

Hmm, a young James - often proposed by posters in this forum to be 16 or 17? - accompanying Grandpa Joseph [most of the advocates of this theory in this thread explain that Joseph’s sons would be off married and with children of their own when he was betrothed to the 14 year old virgin Mary -the more common guess at her age of betrothal, which was recently supposed in this thread said to be 12?*)] and the 15 year old Mother and the Child into Egypt. We can only assume Grandpa brought James along because when the angel came to him in a dream and told him,

" Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

and Joseph did NOT just arise and take them, as the angel instructed. Instead, Joseph said to Mary: "Wait! I have a better idea! Lets bring James along, too!" And Mary also thought it would be good to add to the angels instructions [because for some reason their alarm at the possibility of Jesus being harmed did not prevent them from creative thinking]. And so, The Holy Family AND young James - who was quite closer to Mary’s own age than her own husband - accompanied them, and there they all lived, in exile in Egypt, in a close, humble little home, strangers in a strange land, together, the four. And so Jesus grew, with his three parents.

As far as determining the truth from what has been handed down, I am not sure why you said this, as that is what I am doing. St. Jerome knew about the existence of the Blended Family Theory in the 2nd century and he had considered the whole idea and all the evidence for that problematic theory and decided that he did not believe that idea. I go with him and the Catholic Church’s esteem of his scholarly and highly enlightened opinion. Which goes along with the tradition that MOST people adopt: The Holy family is THREE. Not four. Not 6, 8, 10, 12, what have you.

But, if you were Catholic, you would be allowed to believe what you believe as you say here. It does not go against Dogma. Its not the generally accepted opinion, and there is very little art to depict the Big Blended Family theory, having not enjoyed the same popularity of the traditional Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, Joseph. Like the beautiful stained glass window I sit near in church. But, you are allowed to believe it.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Christmas/home1.jpg

---

The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.
.
.
.

Is the truth really that Joseph took a vow of virginity as well? Cause I don’t see that in Sacred Scripture OR Tradition.

 

[Eliza10]

Is the truth really that Joseph took a vow of virginity as well? Cause I don’t see that in Sacred Scripture OR Tradition.

Are you really asking me if I said this? Did you not read any of my posts? I mean, the ones you responded to?



And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and remain there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."

• Matthew 2:13

---

The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.

.

 

[SnoopSword]

Is the truth really that Joseph took a vow of virginity as well? Cause I don’t see that in Sacred Scripture OR Tradition.

I believe I have come across this in Mariology teachings.

Mary was a Virgin, Jesus was a virgin, and why would the Tri-unity get broken by Joseph? What good can come out of this?

And that’s not even going into the other virginal things of the New Testament.

 

[Eliza10]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Are you really asking me if I said this? Did you not read any of my posts? I mean, the ones you responded to?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/62/25/fe/6225feba31f8b46ebe180302c667eaa9.jpg

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and remain there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."

• Matthew 2:13

---

The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.
.
.
.

But as prodomos stated you have only sentiments. He has provided evidence to back his beliefs up.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I agree that John was the youngest. But James could be six years older than John and John was very close to Jesus.

This is just another bald assertion about James…


Most of the questions I have asked of you and prodomos, you have ignored. Rather, you are merely nitpicking everything I say without any counter-examples drawn from scripture, or clear information taken from church fathers. I have almost no idea why you think the things you do…

I have told you why I think they are approximately the same age or social status.
I can discuss it more detail, but I have no idea why you think James is six years older.

Random assertions hardly qualify as logical apologetic. It’s more like pure speculation.

Look at what mintaka did; THAT was at least helpful in me gaining some insight.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

This is just another bald assertion about James…


Most of the questions I have asked of you and prodomos, you have ignored. Rather, you are merely nitpicking everything I say without any counter-examples drawn from scripture, or clear information taken from church fathers. I have almost no idea why you think the things you do…

I have told you why I think they are approximately the same age or social status.
I can discuss it more detail, but I have no idea why you think James is six years older.

Random assertions hardly qualify as logical apologetic. It’s more like pure speculation.

Look at what mintaka did; THAT was at least helpful in me gaining some insight.

So is yours.

 

[Eliza10]

But as prodomos stated you have only sentiments. He has provided evidence to back his beliefs up.

C’mon, JB, do you just like to argue? Prodomos didn’t say that.

Why don’t we try to find something to agree on, instead of you poking, poking all the time?

---

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners,
nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

But his delight is in the law of the Lord;
and in His law doth he meditate day and night.

And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
that bringeth forth his fruit in his season;
his leaf also shall not wither;
and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

• Psalm 1:1-3

.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

C’mon, JB, do you just like to argue? Prodomos didn’t say that.

Why don’t we try to find something to agree on, instead of you poking, poking all the time?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fe/ee/8a/feee8af6e1f655cf0dcbc6c6754dd5fa.jpg

---

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners,
nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

But his delight is in the law of the Lord;
and in His law doth he meditate day and night.

And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
that bringeth forth his fruit in his season;
his leaf also shall not wither;
and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

• Psalm 1:1-3

.
.
.

Well, we can agree that Mary’s PV is fact.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

But many holy people in the OT had “Bi-Vocations” like Moses, or Samuel. The prophet Isaiah had a wife of his own!

Eliza?

 

[Eliza10]

Re: JB wrote:

But many holy people in the OT had “Bi-Vocations” like Moses, or Samuel. The prophet Isaiah had a wife of his own!

Eliza?

Sometimes I don’t write back right away if it seems you are just arguing, that’s all.

Do you see how Mary’s and Joseph’s both are incomparable vocations? To be the Holy Family, to have GOD HIMSELF as your son, to be the Mother of God and to be the guardian of the Mother of God are so far beyond every vocation.

I don’t know how to explain it so that I can be understood by you.

Imagine Moms in heaven comparing their great sons. This is really silly, but bear with me. “My son was President of the US.” “My son was King of England.” “My son cured cancer.” “My son is God.” Well, that last one will stop the conversation.

Of course Mary wouldn’t do that. She would simply say something like:

"My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. For He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden…For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name."

http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/060/688/iFF/virgin-mary-baby-jesus.jpg?1387806209