Jump to content

Bede

Members
  • Content Count

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Bede last won the day on January 19

Bede had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,535 Excellent

About Bede

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status
    Married

Denomination

  • Den
    Catholic

Country

  • Country
    England

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bede

    Hello Everyone

    Welcome Anupama. I hope you enjoy it here.
  2. Jesus is not the genetic child of Joseph. If Clopas was the brother of Joseph (as Hegesippus claims) then any of his children are not genetically related to Jesus. However they are related in a legal sense since Clopas would be Mary's brother-in-law. Whether that counts technically as cousins I do not know. The problem with all this is we do not know enough and can endlessly speculate. For example, since Joseph is not mentioned as living after the incident with the boy Jesus in the Temple, many suggest that Joseph died well before Jesus was a man. What happened to Mary and Jesus? Did Clopas look after them? Did another relative look after them? Did someone not related in the village look after them? In all these cases children growing up together could considered brothers and sisters. Let me summarise a bit. Catholics (and Orthodox) claim that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is scriptural evidence for that but no explicit statement to that effect. Opponents of this claim that Mary did not remain a virgin but had other children. There is scriptural evidence for that but no explicit statement. Catholics try to provide the evidence for their proposal but no-one is interested and the opponents just want to provide the opposing evidence to disprove those silly Catholics (Orthodox are not silly - they are just forgotten about). Catholics end up spending their time debunking these claims and the argument goes on and on. It end up in stalemate and most give up until the next time (a few stalwarts soldier on for a while). I think I'm reaching the stalemate phase.
  3. Origen you say: "Provide evidence from scholarly sources for this claim." Well we could ask the same of you. You may have studied a lot but we have no way of knowing whether you a right or not. I have looked at many Bibles and all translate heos in Mt 1:25 as until or til. It would seem, according to you, that all those expert translators used the wrong word in this context. As I mentioned before I have been told by a Greek speaking Orthodox that heos does not carry implications beyond the point that heos refers to. . I disagree.We cannot always prove something absolutely. We can give evidence and may have to make judgements on that evidence. There is no proof that the "brothers" of Jesus are Mary's children. We just have to provide the evidence and then make a judgement.
  4. That depends on how wide you use the term cousin. If they are the children of Clopas and his wife, and Jesus is the child of Mary then there is no genetic link at all.
  5. I've noticed that I failed to respond to this such has been the flurry of posts! My apologies - it wasn't intentional As with many issues it is a matter of judgement and what evidence there is. Since the angel has been speaking to Mary about the future it seems to me very likely that her response was also concerning the future. Also, as I suggested, as Mary was betrothed to Joseph and in the normal expectations of marriage would have entered into sexual relations, the promise of a future child should not have raised any questions. It would be pretty obvious as to "how can this be?". The raising of a question would therefore indicate that having a sexual relationship with Joseph was not her expectation. Hence her question addresses that future.
  6. Well you are the one that wanted those topics addressed. Can I take your non-answer to mean you agree with them?
  7. I think they are more likely to be the children of Mary, wife of Clopas. There is both scriptural and non-scriptural support for that.
  8. It was Diego that claimed they were children of Joseph. But it is a possibility - see my previous post. Personally I go with the other suggestions I posted.
  9. Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph. Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56) Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10) John says “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers. The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes "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." So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law. In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas. Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas. Then there is this text: "So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.” (Jn 7:3-4) If Mary had other children these “brothers” would be younger that Jesus. But in that culture to speak to an older brother in this way would be extremely rude. So it would seem likely they were older than Jesus and therefore could not have been Mary’s children. Finally there is the Protoevangelium of James. This is an early document which describes the early life of Mary. It is not canonical but seems to have been accepted by several early fathers as historical. In this Joseph, the husband of Mary, is described as an older man with children by a previous marriage. This is from Catholic Answers: "Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times." Papias (d. 163), fragment X The Exposition Of The Oracles Of The Lord. "(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands."
  10. They wouldn't be random strangers. I agree there must be some kind of relationship between Jesus and these "brothers". But to claim they are Mary's children is just not in the text.
  11. Hi Knotical, You haven't answered post #27 & #28. You were the one that wanted them.
  12. No, I wouldn't say that all those are possibilities in this case. But theophilus seemed to be claiming that the brothers must be children of Mary.
  13. The Bible doesn't plainly teach they had children other than Jesus. Nowhere does it say that Mary had other children. My comment, and post #34 was to show that the word adelphos (brothers) had very wide usage and was not reserved only for blood brothers. There are several possibilities for these brothers to be part of Mary & Joseph's extended family. I think Diego has already show some.
  14. See post #34 Also if a man with children marries a woman with children the various children will be considered as brothers and sisters even with no genetic relationship whatever.
  15. And what precisely are you claiming that it means? Perhaps that will answer my previous post.
×
Articles - News - Registration Terms