Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[stoplooklisten]

Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19​

Jesus entrusted his mother to John’s care from the cross because she had no other children​

Proof of Mary's Perpetual Virginity in John 19 | Catholic Answers Magazine

If the “brothers of the Lord” (Matt. 13:55) were Mary’s biological children, so the Catholic argument goes, Jesus wouldn’t have entrusted Mary into John’s care. The duty to care for Mary would have belonged to Jesus’ brothers. But since Jesus entrusts Mary into John’s care, it follows that Jesus’ “brothers” were not Mary’s biological children.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

I know it is a daunting especially when you look at the next verse:

Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

But you have to look at the first part of Matt 13:55:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The question being asked is of those beyond the writer of Matthew. They have made the assumption that Jesus is “Jesus BarJoseph”. Those asking the question don’t have a clue that Jesus is “Joseph BarGod”. Therefore incurring the same mis-association of his step-sisters as true sisters and maybe possibly his step-brothers true brothers as well.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

And keeping with “Brethren” and the book of Matthew we find several references to Brethren that does not mean blood kin.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Matthew has 6 references to the name James:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Only 2 references to Joses:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

9 references to Simon: ( Note Simon the Cyrene and Simon the Leper are defined )
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And finally 8 references for Judas
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hodos]

The question being asked is of those beyond the writer of Matthew. They have made the assumption that Jesus is “ Jesus BarJoseph ”. Those asking the question don’t have a clue that Jesus is “ Joseph BarGod ”. Therefore incurring the same mis-association of his step-sisters as true sisters and maybe possibly his step-brothers true brothers as well.

The problem with this entire theory is that it assumes a narrative from a non-canonical, pseudoepigraphical source whose claims are at odds with the canonical gospels. The idea that Joseph had other children comes from the Infancy Gospel of James, a mid- to late- second century document that proposes the following narrative. Mary was known by the temple authorities as having been special, conceived without sin, etc. When she became pregnant she was pledged to be married to a relatively elderly Joseph who may or may not have already had children from a previous marriage, drawn by lot. This doesn’t square with Matthew’s account that Joseph and Mary were already pledged to be married when Mary became pregnant, and it was only Gabriel’s visit to Joseph that allayed Joseph’s concern and plan to quietly divorce Mary. Then of course you have the portion of Matthew 1 that states that Joseph did not know his wife until she gave birth to a Son, and the use of Jesus’ actual brothers and sisters and mother as a contrast for those who would be considered as brothers and sisters and mother to Jesus who obey his word. It also doesn’t square with the fact that the same temple authorities who pledge Mary to Joseph later reject Jesus and crucify him. This speculative interpretation of John 19 creates far more issues than it resolves.

 

[paperwight]

The question being asked is of those beyond the writer of Matthew. They have made the assumption that Jesus is “ Jesus BarJoseph ”. Those asking the question don’t have a clue that Jesus is “ Joseph BarGod ”. T

I’m sure you just mistyped but for the sake of clarity, that should read ‘Jesus Bar God’ not Joseph Bar God) as Bar means ‘son of’.’

 

[RidgeSprinter]

some texts run the two together. the separation is believed to be a modern adaptation.

IE from the KJV:

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Act_13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:

DRB it is hyphenated:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Same with RV and others:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

It is not a theory as you suggest.

Otherwise, Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son?. presents it own quandary. Somebody(s) is asking the question.

If we take the answer to the question in the same manner we take answer to all questions that are asked in the new testament, than it is very problematic IE 1Co_10:16 is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

So therefore, I feel comfortable asserting that the “askers of the question” did not know the true lineage of Jesus, therefore make the erroneous assertions also that the those women and men accompanying Mary were also his true flesh and blood brothers and sisters.

 

[Hodos]

So therefore, I feel comfortable asserting that the “askers of the question” did not know the true lineage of Jesus, therefore make the erroneous assertions also that the those women and men accompanying Mary were also his true flesh and blood brothers and sisters.

Except that the gospel of Matthew wasn’t written by unbelievers. It was written by believers. So if I report the statement that an unbeliever made, that isn’t a contradiction. If I act as the narrator of how Christ came, and how Christ refers to his family, that is the true condition as being presented by the apostle. I think it is a mistake for you to conflate these statements.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Except that the gospel of Matthew wasn’t written by unbelievers.

True.

It was written by believers.

True

So if I report the statement that an unbeliever made, that isn’t a contradiction.

The 3rd party(s) asking the questions, believe Jesus to be the actual blood son of Joseph. They believe Jesus to be actual blood kin of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.

Matthew does not provide any narrative to explain their misunderstanding.
Nor does Jesus for that matter. Jesus continues to let them believe that he is the blood son of Joseph and the blood kin James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.

Matter of fact, not one person tries to correct their misunderstanding of his true nature, not even Mary, not Joses, not James, not Simon, not Judas and not the woman present whom they believe to be his Sisters.

It only takes a plain sense reading to understand what is going on. The 3rd party questioners don’t have a clue as to the true nature of Jesus. Once had a Bishop give a homily on his favorite biblical character and he said the best way to understand what you are reading is to place yourself there.

 

[Hodos]

The 3rd party(s) asking the questions, believe Jesus to be the actual blood son of Joseph. They believe Jesus to be actual blood kin of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.

Matthew does not provide any narrative to explain their misunderstanding.
Nor does Jesus for that matter. Jesus continues to let them believe that he is the blood son of Joseph and the blood kin James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.

Partially True. What Matthew does provide is the birth narrative of Christ as I described it above, which does not include Joseph being a caretaker husband chosen by lot by the Temple authorities and having pre-existent children. He provides a narrative of Joseph already being engaged to Mary, and before they had come together, Mary was found to be with child. This prompted Joseph to consider annulling the engagement, when Gabriel appears in Joseph’s annunciation. As I stated before, Matthew, as narrator here is providing the actual situation, not a hypothetical situation assumed by Jesus’ detractors. And it is still in this light, that we get the statement that Joseph did not know his wife until she had given birth to a son. We also know that Jesus himself describes his brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, and uses it in a familial way to show a contrast to those who would be “brothers and sisters” by virtue of the fact that they obey his word. In other words, Jesus is not contradicting what Matthew has already described. Again, comparison between the gospel of Matthew’s birth account, and the Infancy Gospel of James shows stark contrasts between the two accounts that are not reconcilable. Which is why I described the idea that adopts the Infancy Gospel of James’ version of the birth narrative of Christ as speculation.

 

[Hodos]

And keeping with “Brethren” and the book of Matthew we find several references to Brethren that does not mean blood kin.

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

Yes, and in each of these uses, the non-literal meaning of the use of the term brethren is clear within the context of the author that the term is not in reference to genealogical relation. Notice however, that you demonstrated in Matthew 4:21 that John is James’ brother. Clear from the context because in the scriptures they are described as both being the Sons of Zebedee. This is the normative usage for the term brother, and it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why you would abandon the normative usage for an alternative usage. In this case, you appear to do so not at the behest of Matthew or John, but on the basis of accepting the Infancy Gospel of James as the canonical narrative.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Partially True.

Fully true. I am talking about a specific event. What is explained in Chapter 1 is irrelevant. The questioners have no knowledge of the events in chapter 1.

The Infancy Gospel of James does not even come into play. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

This is like when Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” came out. My brother, the Protestant Pastor asked “Where is Joseph?”

I replied “Where was Joseph after Jesus was brought to the Temple a second time? You claim to know the Bible like the back of your hand” CRICKETS.

 

[Hodos]

Fully true. I am talking about a specific event. What is explained in Chapter 1 is irrelevant. The questioners have no knowledge of the events in chapter 1.

Yeah, and I said that the point you were making with regard to that specific event is irrelevant given what the rest of the gospel says.

The Infancy Gospel of James does not even come into play. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

It’s completely relevant because the narrative you are providing regarding the caretaker nature of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, whether you realize it or not, pretty much comes from the Infancy Gospel of James.

 

[Pons]

According to the Protoevangelion of James, Mary wasn’t yet pregnant when she was pledged to Joseph. The priests found a husband for her before she had her first period, since it would defile the Temple.

 

[BartholomewB]

Belief in the perpetual virginity is said to date back to a very early period, though exactly how early is not clear to me. If Simeon, Jude and the other “brethren” were the children of Mary and Joseph, surely people would have known about that. It isn’t the kind of thing the children’s parents, or the children themselves, can keep secret. So it’s hard to see how the belief in the perpetual virginity could have arisen in the first place, and survived year after year, if people knew all about her four or five children.

Several times I have tried to pin down the earliest recorded date for the belief in the perpetual virginity. I have heard it said that it was before the end of the first century, but I have never found a source to substantiate that claim. Maybe somebody here today can help.

 

[Hodos]

I would say the earliest we can pin it to is based on the dating of the Protoevangel of James. So depending on how you date that, mid-to-late second century. But again, this belief wasn’t universally accepted. As we know even in the late fourth century we see the topic debated. You also have to remember that many incorrect ideas about Christ popped up early. So for example, we see hints of Docetism as early as Paul and John, because some of their letters address some of the tenets of Docetism. The gospel of Thomas, which most scholars date to originate somewhere between mid-first to early-second century has several sayings that are clearly incorrect teachings about Christ. Age doesn’t always mean they are apostolic. Irenaeus for example advances the theory that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified, because he believed that in order to be the redeemer of all mankind he had to experience humanity at every age. This too, while pretty old, is in conflict with the apostolic witness provided in scripture. My point is, we need to be skeptical about legendary material that cannot be traced to the apostles, particularly when scripture appears to conflict with a claim.

 

[Pons]

How does anyone know which gospels are correct and incorrect? Ultimately it’s because the Church said it, like all received truths. And that same Church was not bound to only written scripture. Is the Church infallible or not?

The idea of Mary bearing other children itself wasn’t really debated by the orthodox, who dismissed and condemned thinking otherwise as heterodox. The exact relation of the relatives to Jesus were. And debate is the wrong word too since it seems only Jerome really discussed it. He rejected the step-siblings idea, perhaps rashly, but he argued using the canonical gospels alone. Step-siblings was the far older tradition though it’s not in the canonical gospels. Origen said that this tradition was attested by the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelion of James. Even if these weren’t accepted as canonical, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have had bits of truth, just as the Gospel of Thomas has elements in common with the canonical ones. And again we only accept things are true because the Church has assured they are.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Belief in the perpetual virginity is said to date back to a very early period, though exactly how early is not clear to me.

Certainly stated in the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), but then reaffirmed by Origen in the 3rd century, and St Athanasius and St Jerome in the 4th century.

 

[Pons]

An indirect attestation for the belief could be in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not the Gospel of Thomas) also from the 2nd century. The story goes that Joseph sent “his son James” to gather wood and “the child Jesus” followed him. But James was bitten by a poisonous snake and “the child Jesus” healed him. The way Jesus is described seems to imply that James was not a child also, or at least not younger than Jesus. Then Joseph seems to send the older son on an errand, while the younger son follows. Now this is entirely my speculation, but this feels more natural to me than the younger son being told to do something while the older son follows, because the older son shoulders more of the responsibility. Anyone with siblings can relate, right?

This Infancy Gospel is thought to be independent from the one attributed to the same James.

 

[Maximian]

some texts run the two togethe

You missed the point, which is that it is Jesus, not Joseph, who is “bar” God