Was Mary an only child?

[marymary1975]

“brother of Jesus according to the flesh,” simply means that they were blood relations. Other types of brothers are such as those who are members of the Knights of Columbus (they refer to each other as “Brother Knight”). These are not brothers of the flesh.

So Thomas might be a brother of Jesus (not of the flesh) in that he looked like Jesus (hence called Dydamus, the Twin).

But James may be from the same tribe or clan, and thus be a “brother of the flesh”.

I know , but there is a huge number of linguistic experts and historians that argue that what they meant in arameic, as there was no words to describe family relations, is that according to the flesh meant through the birth mother. Jerome makes clear that James has a blood relationship with Jesus, in consequence what makes James a “brother” is not being in the same tribe, but being Joseph’s nephew. The fact that Jerome doesn’t refer to James as brother according to the flesh, while acknowledging that James had a blood relation with Jesus, but it does it with Jude, (which is the argument used heavily by protestants and people who.want to argue that the Virgin had other children) shows that James and Jude were related in different ways, meant probably they were not siblings. However, most of the consensus seems to indicate Jude was the son of Mary’s cousin (the people that argue that Mary had a sister say that Jude was the son of Mary’s.sister) which would explain why Jerome makes.a differentiation between James and Jude.

But still my point is, the protoevangelium is in direct contradiction with both the church and historians of the time.

 

[Steveabrous]

I don’t think the protoevangelium is a reliable source. It has many contradictions with catholic teaching and contradictions with historians. In this case it says that James was the son of St Joseph, that st Joseph was an elderly man who was a widower with children who marry Mary and James, Joses, Jude and Simon were his sons, therefore brothers of Jesus. Besides the point that the teaching of the church is that Jesus was an only child, two historians Jerome and Eusebius report that St James and Joses were the sons of clofas, brother of st Joseph, and that st Jude was “brother of Jesus according to the flesh,” which meant his relationship to Jesus was through Mary, this makes the entire story of the protoevangelium wrong.

I am not awarer the church says Joseph had no other children just Mary

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Thank you all for your informative responses.

Basically the short answer is we don’t know for sure and there is no formal Church Teaching on this.

 

[Mike30]

I was unaware that the above referenced work was considered to be a reliable source of information in this regard.

I did not say it was either. I merely stated that I was unaware it was considered to be a reliable work on the subject. After all, it did not make it into scripture for whatever reason or reasons and some of the things it describes could best and most generously described as highly legendary.

 

[Steveabrous]

I don’t think the protoevangelium is a reliable source. It has many contradictions with catholic teaching and contradictions with historians. In this case it says that James was the son of St Joseph, that st Joseph was an elderly man who was a widower with children who marry Mary and James, Joses, Jude and Simon were his sons, therefore brothers of Jesus. Besides the point that the teaching of the church is that Jesus was an only child, two historians Jerome and Eusebius report that St James and Joses were the sons of clofas, brother of st Joseph, and that st Jude was “brother of Jesus according to the flesh,” which meant his relationship to Jesus was through Mary, this makes the entire story of the protoevangelium wrong.

the tract on Catholic answers.com called “Mary ever-virgin” cites as proof of her ever viriginity almost exclusively The Protoevangeluim of James:

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

And no the church does not teach Joseph did not have other children, only that Mary had no other children, As far as " Brothers of Christ" either view is acceptable.

So the Protoevangelium is not considered Historically inaccurate, irrelevant, and “against church teaching” by the Church as you are saying.

 

[KrazyKat]

the tract on Catholic answers.com called “Mary ever-virgin” cites as proof of her ever viriginity almost exclusively The Protoevangeluim of James:

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

And no the church does not teach Joseph did not have other children, only that Mary had no other children, As far as " Brothers of Christ" either view is acceptable.

So the Protoevangelium is not considered Historically inaccurate, irrelevant, and “against church teaching” by the Church as you are saying.

Many good works were not included in the Bible.

 

[marymary1975]

the tract on Catholic answers.com called “Mary ever-virgin” cites as proof of her ever viriginity almost exclusively The Protoevangeluim of James:

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

And no the church does not teach Joseph did not have other children, only that Mary had no other children, As far as " Brothers of Christ" either view is acceptable.

So the Protoevangelium is not considered Historically inaccurate, irrelevant, and “against church teaching” by the Church as you are saying.

What you are saying is not correct. The protoevangelium of st James is NOT canonical and is classified by the catholic church as apocryphal, which means it has very little accuracy, or no accuracy at all, may contradict church teachings and most importantly was not written by the person who purports to be the written. In this case it was not written by st James but by second century Christians with little knowledge about jesus’ earlier life who tried to write something to explain their vision of Jesus. While they are not condemned as they give us interesting facts, the church states they are inaccurate which means they are unreliable.

Even since the early church with st Jerome, the position of the catholic church has been the perpetual virginity not only of Mary but of Joseph. Even st Augustine also support the position of the perpetual virginity of st Joseph, so the idea of st Joseph being an elderly widow is not catholic, instead is an idea coming from the eastern churches.

Probably you should read this to understand better:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9298

 

[KrazyKat]

What you are saying is not correct. The protoevangelium of st James is NOT canonical and is classified by the catholic church as apocryphal, which means it has very little accuracy, or no accuracy at all, may contradict church teachings and most importantly was not written by the person who purports to be the written. In this case it was not written by st James but by second century Christians with little knowledge about jesus’ earlier life who tried to write something to explain their vision of Jesus. While they are not condemned as they give us interesting facts, the church states they are inaccurate which means they are unreliable.

Even since the early church with st Jerome, the position of the catholic church has been the perpetual virginity not only of Mary but of Joseph. Even st Augustine also support the position of the perpetual virginity of st Joseph, so the idea of st Joseph being an elderly widow is not catholic, instead is an idea coming from the eastern churches.

Probably you should read this to understand better:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9298

Knowing that St. Joseph had children, was a widow, shows that he would know how to raise a child. That he married Mary with the knowledge that She was to remain a virgin shows his love for God.

 

[RyanBlack]

What you are saying is not correct. The protoevangelium of st James is NOT canonical and is classified by the catholic church as apocryphal, which means it has very little accuracy, or no accuracy at all, may contradict church teachings and most importantly was not written by the person who purports to be the written. In this case it was not written by st James but by second century Christians with little knowledge about jesus’ earlier life who tried to write something to explain their vision of Jesus. While they are not condemned as they give us interesting facts, the church states they are inaccurate which means they are unreliable.

Even since the early church with st Jerome, the position of the catholic church has been the perpetual virginity not only of Mary but of Joseph. Even st Augustine also support the position of the perpetual virginity of st Joseph, so the idea of st Joseph being an elderly widow is not catholic, instead is an idea coming from the eastern churches.

Probably you should read this to understand better:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9298

Including the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches. Furthermore, there is no binding, official Church teaching on the perpetual virginity of St. Joesph.

 

[marymary1975]

Knowing that St. Joseph had children, was a widow, shows that he would know how to raise a child. That he married Mary with the knowledge that She was to remain a virgin shows his love for God.

The problem.with that theory is that it doesn’t make sense in the context of.the Bible. First, as you can read in the link I gave, st Joseph being an elderly widow presents the problem that he wouldn’t be able to fulfill the role of protector of the virgin as it would have raised questions of adultery and illegitimacy. The virgin’s dignity would have been at stake which was exactly what st Joseph was supposed to protect. Then raises questions as.where were his other kids when Jesus got lost in the temple? If he actually had other children would be highly irresponsible of st Joseph to left his other children alone who knows where. Then where were his other children when he had to go to Bethlehem for the census? He had orders of going to register with all his family. Had he actually have had other children, they would have had being with them but there is no mention of them in the scripture. Where were them when Jesus was born? If Jesus was the messiah and James’ and Jude’s younger brother , why the only ones who went to adore him were shepperds, the kings and Mary and Joseph? That doesn’t sound like very good attitude coming from brothers, little less the brothers that became his apostoles. If we accept the widower position basically st Joseph was a deadbeat dad that didn’t care about his kids which goes totally against what we know of him. Also you can add that if they were actually brothers, why they had such little knowledge of the kingdom of God and as Jesus as God, didn’t they were too in the same household as Joseph and Mary? Then there is an age problem. If that was true that means that at least five of Jesus ’ apostoles were elderly men very likely in their 60’s or 70’s which doesn’t make any sense if put together with what is known from the apostoles and the times of their martyrdom and deaths. While Catholics are not bound to believe it because it is not a dogma, the position of Joseph as a widower has been rejected by most church fathers and theologians because it doesn’t make any sense and it is the kind of.situation that for trying ti answer one question creates a thousand more.

 

[KrazyKat]

The problem.with that theory is that it doesn’t make sense in the context of.the Bible. First, as you can read in the link I gave, st Joseph being an elderly widow presents the problem that he wouldn’t be able to fulfill the role of protector of the virgin as it would have raised questions of adultery and illegitimacy. The virgin’s dignity would have been at stake which was exactly what st Joseph was supposed to protect. Then raises questions as.where were his other kids when Jesus got lost in the temple? If he actually had other children would be highly irresponsible of st Joseph to left his other children alone who knows where. Then where were his other children? He had orders of going to register with all his family. Had he actually have had other children, they would have had being with them but there is no mention of them in the scripture. If we accept the widower position basically st Joseph was a deadbeat dad that didn’t care about his kids which goes totally against what we know of him. Then there is an age problem. If that was true that means that at least five of Jesus ’ apostoles were elderly men very likely in their 60’s or 70’s which doesn’t make any sense if put together with what is known from the apostoles and the times of their martyrdom and deaths. While Catholics are not bound to believe it because it is not a dogma, the position of Joseph as a widower has been rejected by most church fathers and theologians because it doesn’t make any sense and it is the kind of.situation that for trying ti answer one question creates a thousand more.

His other children were older and on their own, possibly with families of their own. Our God is an awesome God who has no limitations .!!

 

[marymary1975]

Including the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches. Furthermore, there is no binding, official Church teaching on the perpetual virginity of St. Joesph.

As I said, it is not a dogma, therefore it is not a binding teaching if the church but by far most theologians, doctors and fathers of the church agree with the perpetual virginity of st Joseph. Adopting the position of him.as a widower creates more problems and questions than the one it meant to resolve.

 

[marymary1975]

His other children were older and on their own, possibly with families of their own. Our God is an awesome God who has no limitations .!!

Which means that st Joseph would have been quite elderly when the angel visited Mary, which would have raised serious suspicious as to Mary commiting adultery and which means that Jesus apostoles would have been elderly men who started their mission around 70 years old. Take st James for example, this means he would had been seventy something years old when he walked all the way from Jerusalem to Spain. And that at the time of his martyrdom he could have been easily an elderly 90-100 years old. This, besides the fact that doesn’t seem to fit the general description of the apostoles, contradicts Jesus’ words as he said that the only one who would reach older age was st john. So it just doesn’t make sense. Accepting Joseph as a widower creates many contradictions and every possible explanation given ti this theory just raises more and more and questions. That is why most theologians reject this position and go with them.as cousins.

 

[KrazyKat]

Which means that st Joseph would have been quite elderly when the angel visited Mary, which would have raised serious suspicious as to Mary commiting adultery and which means that Jesus apostoles would have been elderly men who started their mission around 70 years old. Take st James for example, this means he would had been seventy something years old when he walked all the way from Jerusalem to Spain. And that at the time of his martyrdom he could have been easily an elderly 90-100 years old. This, besides the fact that doesn’t seem to fit the general description of the apostoles, contradicts Jesus’ words as he said that the only one who would reach older age was st john. So it just doesn’t make sense. Accepting Joseph as a widower creates many contradictions and every possible explanation given ti this theory just raises more and more and questions. That is why most theologians reject this position and go with them.as cousins.

I have no problem accepting the fact that Joseph was older. Mary was but a very young lady.

 

[Steveabrous]

What you are saying is not correct. The protoevangelium of st James is NOT canonical and is classified by the catholic church as apocryphal, the church states they are inaccurate which means they are unreliable.

I never said it was canonical. Or that it was without error. I am however pointing out that many Catholic apologists refer to this writing as evidence for Marion doctrine. Therefore I believe it is incorrect to say that it is completely unreliable.

Even since the early church with st Jerome, the position of the catholic church has been the perpetual virginity not only of Mary but of Joseph.

this is incorrect. The position before Jerome was that the Brothers of christ were Joseph’s sons. Jerome proposed that they were cousins and that Joseph too had no other children. this is legitamate position to take but*** it is not the “position of the church***”. The church does not take a position as to whether Joseph had other children. So it is incorrect to say that it is the position of the church.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Could it be possible that Mary of Cleophas was married to cleophas who was Joseph’s brother? That would make the Blessed Virgin Mother and Mary of Cleophas sisters-in-law.

I believe that Cleophas–Joseph’s brother–died as well as Joseph and the children who many think are Jesus’ siblings are his cousins. What is the chance that the two Marys formed one combined household with Jesus being older than Mary of Cleophas’ children?

I can imagine maybe Cleophas dying first–then the families combining under Joseph and later on Joseph dying later.

What are the chances?

 

[KrazyKat]

Could it be possible that Mary of Cleophas was married to cleophas who was Joseph’s brother? That would make the Blessed Virgin Mother and Mary of Cleophas sisters-in-law.

I believe that Cleophas–Joseph’s brother–died as well as Joseph and the children who many think are Jesus’ siblings are his cousins. What is the chance that the two Marys formed one combined household with Jesus being older than Mary of Cleophas’ children?

I can imagine maybe Cleophas dying first–then the families combining under Joseph and later on Joseph dying later.

What are the chances?

Your guess is as good as any…

 

[marymary1975]

I never said it was canonical. Or that it was without error. I am however pointing out that many Catholic apologists refer to this writing as evidence for Marion doctrine. Therefore I believe it is incorrect to say that it is completely unreliable.

The church is the one that says is unreliable. Why would you use something that the church is teling you it has very little accuracy and is unreliable?

 

[Mintaka]

There’s trust and trust.

Say you’re living somewhere in Outer Bogdawinda, and you don’t have the Internet. People ask you about how the US started. So you look on your computer, and find that you’ve got some songs from the musical 1776, or the Disney movie of Johnny Tremain.

Now, are those sources going to be inspired by God? No.

Are they going to be absolutely accurate? No.

Are they probably to be trusted on Sam Adams and John Adams being related, and John Adams being married to a woman named Abigail, or on Paul Revere being a silversmith? Yes.

So those sources are largely fictional, yet composed of nonfictional elements; not historically accurate (no musical numbers in the Continental Congress) but not historically inaccurate, either. They’re stories set in history about history, not history itself.

Anyhoo… it’s likely that the NT is a little vague about who’s related to who because, at the time of the Gospels being written, the Romans were occasionally looking for potential Davidic kingdom heirs (and killing them), but most people in the Davidic families could recite huge amounts of genealogy from memory and tell you who was related to who and how many ways. (Hence the ability to have two Davidic genealogies with different relevant points and symbolic numbers of generations written down in the Gospels. If you were someone in the know, you’d know what was being left out and kept in, and what the message of what was used would be.) So if you really needed to know, you’d know, and if you didn’t need to know, you didn’t need to read it in the Gospels.

At a certain point after the Church spread out, this was no longer true (especially since a lot of Davidic-lineage Christians and Jews were dead without descendants). Then you start to get guys like Papias asking around for explanations from elderly Christians who might know the deal, and you get books like the Protoevangelium of James dramatizing the stories that were going around about who was related to who and what happened to them that didn’t get in the Gospels, or should have happened that would have been cool.

But everybody knew that Mary only had one son, and that Joseph was His foster-father, not his bodily father.

 

[Steveabrous]

The church is the one that says is unreliable. Why would you use something that the church is teling you it has very little accuracy and is unreliable?

If this is the case then you need to ask the Catholic answers apologists that question. Because they cite it often to support Marian doctrine as I have pointed out multiple times.

God bless