www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings GOSPEL OF MATTHEW CHAP 2 VS 18-25

and you enhaced it so well.

I am like a shot gun.

You - refocus it all.


-ray

Hello Rose,

"Finally, I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man would not even entertain the idea of having sexual relations with The Mother of God."

The idea of Mary as Mother of God is not original to the earliest tradition of Christian thought, probably not even the first or second century. The theology of the Theotokos is quite a bit later than the New Testament era.

Yes, the Tradition of the Theotokos goes back a long way, but it is not a thought that Joseph, as husband of the loveliest Mary, ever would have ever countenanced. If we think that, we are reading later tradition into the year dot. Joseph was righteous in that he did right by Mary, as God commanded: he didn't put her away as a woman of ill-repute, as an unwed pregnant teenager would have been viewed in that day.

"... no mention of other children tagging along."

Well, yes, you're right. At that point, none of the other brothers and sisters of Jesus had risen to any prominence. That early story of Him with the Elders in the Temple is about Him, not about relatively unimportant siblings.

"... there were no children for Joseph from a prior marriage."

This is where you and other Orthodox believers/theologians disagree. I'll leave that to you all to sort out, shall I?


Hello Stephanos I,

You are not speaking to a Biblically-ignorant Protestant, thanks! :-) Not knowing much Scripture, as a Protestant, may fit others, it doesn't fit me, OK.

The supposed siblings you refer to are designated cousins by the Tradition to which you hold. The family of Jesus preceded the T/tradition. That is not a safe assumption; it has to be true. We cannot deny that. Theotokos theology developed, then the Bible story was interpreted to fit the theology. That's what the thorough investigation discloses.

I'm not, God forbid, suggesting that the Tradition be scrapped, no! I only suggest the facts be recognised-- the family of Jesus came first, the Bible came later and the theology of the Theotokos came even later.

Theology follows story, not the other way round.

Theology makes of the story what it wants to make of the story.

The Greek text of St John 19.25 is not so easily understood as your post indicates, not when, as Biblical scholars, we take into consideration what St Matthew and St Mark say: 27.55f and 15.40, respectively. If St John's gospel is familially correct, we can make one assumption. If Sts Matthew and Mark are correct, we can make quite a different assumption. Taking all three (St Luke doesn't record this episode) we may determine that the John at the foot of the Cross (with the women, standing afar off in St Matthew and St Mark) is, in fact, a cousin... and perhaps the only near relation, brother, sister or cousin, who has chosen to follow Jesus.

I took 8 years of Spanish in elemtary school and high school, a year in college and conversational Spanish as an adult learner. I have traveled to Mexico and Spain. I speak to those for whom Spanish is their first language on a weekly basis. I know something of which you speak with regard to Hispanic families naming more that one child by the same name. I've not yet traveled to Greece, but I speak to Greek persons on a weekly basis as well.

I don't question the theology of the Theotokos to be mean or to instill doubt in anyone's mind or heart. I do so only with regard to taking the Scriptures seriously, as they stand... before layers of T/tradition were added. I respect the T/tradition, but I don't take it as seriously as I take the Scriptures.


Hello RayK,

I appreciate the way you approach the education of a fellow believer, one who is not steeped in Orthodox/Eastern Catholic T/tradition, thanks.


Hello Porter,

Good to see you here as well; you hit the nail on the head: "those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven"... are the family of Jesus. St Matthew 12.50

blessing to all, wg

As you know ... it can sometimes be difficult to separate that which has some real support - and that which has grown from a pious imagination to become an unquestionable 'truth'.

There is absolutely no doubt that myth (even piously intended) has attached itself to past members of the church - and it can be difficult to separate that - from fact and legitimate interpretations. Scratch �can be� because it is just plain is - difficult. If one touches something that others have held as dear belief - that can risk getting our fingers cut off.

As a bit of a history buff (you are) may I also suggest that, with the mind and culture of the East at the time of Christ � if Jesus did have siblings - these would have been swept up to run things after him. Such as we see happened to the relatives of Mohamed. Revolts, kings, royal families � etc� wherever such movements began - authority was passed down within the family - the movements was carried on (in authority) by the nearest immediate male family member - and so on and so on. Even Moses to Arron and on to Joshusha (sp) who I seem to remember was related to Moses in some way - perhaps nephew through Arron of Miriam.

Christianity - was an anomaly. While Mary was treated as the Queen Mother (Israel had a king and queen) all decisions were maybe the �table of ministers� (apostles) and neither did they - hand down power through their own hereditary line - instead they anointed others (not relatives) as their successors. This was of course - unheard of - a very �strange� thing to do. If we look at the rise of Chritianity according to the customs of the time - Chritianity should NOT have survived at all. It did things entirely against the 'grain'. There is no social or cultrual reason why - it should have survived. Its complete social anomoly - should have snuffed it out within 100 years. There is no grounds whatso ever that current social conditions were 'ripe' and Chritianity grew because 'the time way right'.

All other eeligious movements (including Moses) the time - was right. Social conditions were ready to 'swing'. Not so with Chritianity. There sinmply is no human explination of history for its sucess. By all trends of history - it should have died with Christ that day. Anyways - now I am just yakking.

It has often intrigued me that the last failed �messiah� movement (and you know there were many) happened around the time that Jesus was born. During the time in which the last Roman census was taken. And several more took place after Jesus with the last being the Bar Kopha revolt which was followed by the Temple destruction. As with the Maccabiean revolt - authority stayed within the genetic family. Not so with the �Jesus� event. And so this is just one more extra-biblical support that there were no Jesus siblings.

But early on (in the total history of the church) as bishoprics became long established and steady - such patrimony did take place. Bishops passing down their own authority - within their own family. And so a son of a bishop might be ordained to the priesthood in a hurry - so that he would take his fathers place. Having no qualifications at all - would be ordained on a minutes notice - and take over his fathers authority so that authority would not fall out of the family.

Now to husband and wife (Joseph and Mary) we have every right to conjecture that Joseph thought of Mary in a husbandly way - and fully expected to consummate their betrothal and marriage - in the customary way. At least the thought should have crosses both their minds upon their agreement to be engaged. One can speculate that since Mary knew herself to be that chosen virgin - if she had informed Joseph of that before the engagement - he would not have had such mental difficulty when she was pregnant by not by him. Betrothed couples did have sex - because being betrothed was as good as being married - so it was not a social sin to find the bride already pregnant by the husband to be - by the time the actual marriage took place. The perplexity of Joseph regarding the pregnancy - displays that - Joseph at least expected a normal engagement and marriage with all the usual things involved - namely - a family - kids - etc.. which does not lessen Joseph�s personal virtues in any way.

The concept that Joesph would not have �thought of Mary in that way� I suspect - probably arose during the Victorian age - when any sex - became - evil. As far as the Victrian age is concerned - they all had children through - miracle means (hehe).

Sex and the sex act between married couples has never - ever - been considered anything but - a wonderful part of marriage - by church doctrines. Of course, members of the church have thought and taught differently - according to their own minds - but as far as I know the church has never considered it a �distasteful obligation� of husband and wife - but rather likened it to a union which reflects the nuptials of that mystical union between the soul and Christ. Song of Songs being just one such wonderful comparison.

So there is every reason to believe that Joseph (upon entering the engagement) saw himself in every way - a husband and not just a protector or guardian. Matters would soon change (certainly I would be a bit stunned to find my wife pregnant and be told that she was going to be the mother of a messiah) and other necessities and priorities took over. And so I can readily believe that Joseph and Mary remained chaste both before and now after her unusual pregnancy.

Now on a note of humor - I certainly can not imagine what it would have been like to have Jesus as an older or younger brother. He would always win at very game - he would always be right about everything - and I would not be able to teach him - anything. While that is meant for humor - there is a certain amount of reality to it. Joseph and Mary must have often been in awe - of their son - and having to do their parental duties - still. They were adults and had to cope with that - I can not imagine a normal human sibling having the capacity to grow up with his brother �Jesus the messiah�. Any siblings would have either been entirely sick of their brother - or - been entirely dedicated to him. While apparently each disciple called was apparently a normal guy of the time and lived a normal life before becoming a disciple. A read of any description of action or words of any of the disciples recorded - displays that these disciples - really did not know Jesus well or understand him. So that also seems to point to a fact that none of them grew up close to him. He was more of a stranger to them - than even a close friend. So it is just outside of even human reason to consider that Jesus grew up with sibling brothers who became his disciples - and all of a sudden - these �brothers� had no idea what Jesus was talking about and misunderstood almost everything he said to them.

And so tradition and human reason coincide here to say that Jesus had no siblings.

-ray

hello Ray,

Thanks for that; I usually shrink from reading posts that are that long, but I know the spirit in which you write so it is not burdensome to read your posts!

I can't help but wonder if these verses in St Luke say more than we first think of on the surface:

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?

No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." chapter 12.49-53

And we have this in St Mark:

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." chapter 3.21


When you spoke of how it might have been hard being the brother or sister of the messiah-elect, it was quite touching. It reminded me of the Joseph stories... where Joe dreams he will someday be in a position of prominence and his brothers will bow down to him. :-) Yet there is no such record of Jesus' delusions of grandeur. In fact the Apostle Paul encloses this early hymn to Jesus in his correspondence to the Church at Philippi:

he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form
he humbled himself and became obedient unto death,
even death on a cross. chapter 2.6-8


Remember, He has to wash the disciples feet! :-)


Furthermore, though one can argue that He was always aware of His sonship, calling, mission... we see this come to fruition at His baptism.

:-) So... I'd venture to say that he was not a pain to his little brothers and sisters. :-) good to speak with you, wg

WG,you wrote:

/It reminded me of the Joseph stories... where Joe dreams he will someday be in a position of prominence and his brothers will bow down to him. :-) Yet there is no such record of Jesus' delusions of grandeur./

Delusions of grandeur might have been what Joseph's brothers and father thought although that would not have been their words used at that time. A careful reading of that story in Genesis 37-50 will show that the reason the brothers of Joseph sold him into bondage in Egypt was because they hated him and were jealous of him. His father's favor was on Joseph. Their hatred of him is repeated throughout the first part of the story.
And It is true that because Joseph shared what he dreamed with them this caused hatred and jealousy even more.

Yet it is significant to remember that Joseph's own ability to interpret Pharoah's dreams brought him from being a slave to a place of prominence in Egypt.

Later Joseph was Lord over all of Egypt and when his brothers came to him (not knowing that this was their brother) they did, indeed, bow down to him.

As for the banter as to 'what if' Jesus had brothers and how hard it might have been for them to have someone so perfect a brother as Jesus - what Ray mentions - I will leave 'what if' alone and just conclude by saying...

Jesus IS our brother and His Father is our Father and His Mother is our Mother.


In Christ,
Porter...

Jewish customs of the time forbid younger to advise elder. If these were the siblings of Jesus by the womb of Mary - they would not try to size the elder Jesus in public. So these (half-brothers? cousins? nephews?) were older than Jesus. And double that if Joseph was dead already and Jesus was eldest male.

It is still that way among Greeks and Jews.

Some first century Church records and historians have James the Righteous, Joses, Jude and Symon (these called brothers) as having been half-brothers of Jesus on Joseph�s side. But so little is written on them there is no huge confirmation. The Protestant reformation cut off many Christians from these records.

But exactly what they were (�brother�) by today�s language - is quite peripheral to the apostolic witness of the perpetual Virginity of Mary and her status as Theotokos.

Are you a member of a wider Protestant denomination or have you your own church?

-ray

Eusebius (d. AD 339) in his The History of the Church wrote,
These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters, but only by law, not by blood since Joseph was not the natural father of our Lord. This explanation is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings. Keep in mind there is no conclusive evidence to support this explanation.

I already explained to you about the Greek use of adelphos to include cousins, half-brother, nephews etc... here are some from the OT�

Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16, Lot is called the brother (adelphos) of Abraham... and Laban is called the adelphos of Jacob (today we would say 'uncle').

The Protestant dictionary 'Vines' - notes adelphos used to indicate - any kinsman. So even some protestants recognize the use.


So now let us find out who James, Joses, Jude, and Simon - are - who are called 'brothers of the Lord' in the NT.

If your own mind is set - cease reading - here -.

James (i.e. James the Less) would be the one who was the Bishop of Jerusalem and martyred. James the Less and Joses were the sons of the Mary who was the wife of Clopas (Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25) James the Less was also identified as "the son of Alphaeus" (Lk 6:15); and here "Clopas" and "Alphaeus" are names traditionally noted to identify the same man, just as "Jude" and "Thaddeus" refer to the same apostle (St. Jude Thaddeus.).

Judas and by extension Simon were the sons of James (these Judas and Simon are not the same as the apostles of the same name) find that in (Lk 6:16).

James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee - and obviously not the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus. (Mt 20:20).

More Jewish customs...
This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother." If Jesus had a younger brother - that younger brother by law must take over the care of the mother. So in giving his mother�s care to John - he displays he had no younger blood brother.

See also the �ProtoEvangelian of St. James the Apostle� you may find that on the net, and I have an excellent copy of Fahsel genealogical Table of Jesus. Pressed real hard I might copy it for you.

-ray


Cheers mate.
-ray

Dear Wild Goose...

While this may be off topic... have you eaver read Jung?

In my opinion he was a Protestant of epic proportions, a brother in Christ who came to understand spiritual depths of man that we seldom appreciate.

I read him as a teen (I was a teen) and he moved me greatly. Only now that I am older and my son is doing a bit of study on him at school, that I have confiscated my son's book and am half way through it - and I have no really sat to read in a long time.

I am amazed at how much of Jung I had actually absorded into my life... at how much reading him in my youth - really came to be a part of me.

I understand his views about the need for myth in peoples lives. Right brain - left brain - all one brain that must talk to each other.

I am wondering if you read him and what you think of our need for myth and it symbols.

I myself recognise that there is 'myth' which is fantasy - and myth which is not fantasy but rather a profound way to express what can not be expressed any other way.

I am just wondering on your thoughts here.

-ray

Hi RayK,

I'm not a rogue or a maverick or a desparado if that is what you're getting at. :-)

I've been serving the Lord actively in His Church for over 1/4 of century! The denomination I serve is firmly planted in the Reformed Traditions, Continental European, British and American. I have a great love and appreciation of both Western and Eastern Tradition.

My Protestant roots seldom let me trust Tradition over and beyond Scripture, and that's where I raise questions that seem to raise the ire of some of the good Eastern Catholics round here. AND I realise that Scripture is molded by degrees of tradition, too. :-)

I mean no harm, as you seem to be able to recognise, bless you, wg

I didn't think you were a 'troll' (a self appointed evangelical come on a mission of God to attack those who corrupted the teachings of Christ). These mostly come from the American �bible belt� of the Mid West states. Perhaps because this board is so small - or perhaps because of the diligence of its manager s- I have never ever encounter that type of �troll� in here. Arguments here seldom raise above the family kitchen table level and tolerance and love then soon prevail. I am probably the most obnoxious member of the board.

I asked your denomination so that I might take some care to be sensitive to your interpretations based upon your beliefs. Theology is like a language - and I find it best to try to adapt myself to the language of the one I am speaking with - listening is an art and I sometimes do remember that.

I am one who believes that God holds conversation with all who believe in him - and it is up to me - to not disturb that conversation in some misguided attempt to change - that very personal conversation. God comes to meet us - where we are- he comes to us - and so he is found where ever he wills himself to be found. This is sort of what I believe. I was raised a Roman Catholic but I found God outside of the Roman Catholic church and then I realized that Providence had made me a Roman Catholic - and so then began my second journey of also finding him in the Roman Catholic church also. But my story is neither here nor there.

I mentioned Jung because (and here please take no offence) there are portions of the Protestant reformed that live Christianity in a very rational way. Certainly there is good to that. But I wonder sometimes if (because we are creatures who are only part rational - left brain and right brain) some of these are not, from time to time, attracted to the symbolism (some might say mythic quality) of the catholic churches. Ceremonies and objects which seem less to the rational mind and more toward the (how to say it!?) � more toward the motherly nature.

It has seemed to me that God has built this into us, in as much as we are raised by a father (rational nature) and a mother (emotions and intuitive nature). So while the pendulum will swing through out our life (sometimes we prefer the more rational and sometimes we prefer the more mythic) there seems to be an overall balance that is good for us.

Even the most rational man (intelligence and reason well developed) will - late in his life - sit for hours remembering the views of his childhood when life was simpler and emotional. So it seems to me that even the most intelligent man - comes to reintegrate into himself his emotional nature before leaving.

In as much as the catholic churches had their formation before the age of rational Reason (about the time of the Reformation) and the Protestant branch reformed within the are of Reason - I often wonder if some Protestants come to feel, at times, an attraction to the emotional and intuitive side of Christianity - with its icons, traditions, regalia, ceremonies, etc..

If we draw a parallel between the development of a child to adult - with the development of Christianity - as the child grows it must make effort to leave each stage behind in order to make himself move onto the next. The child must put away his toys (with some effort) and look at them no more - when he has decided it is time to bee a teen. And after graduation from high school he must sever some of his teen relationship by going off to college or working full time jobs - and that too is not easy so he must put the last stage - away - with some effort. And then when the peak has been reached - reminiscing in memories (re-living) his childhood and teen years takes on a special healing quality. And we tend to cherish that human in our own children. They (our children) heal us as much as we rationally guide them.

Does any of this make sense to you? Have I made any sense? What are your own thoughts here?

I tend to muse - but I guess you noticed that.

-ray

Hi RayK,

Funny enough or unbelievable enough, one of my English (Fiction, not Poetry) profs in university started a short Summer term with Jung!!! We spent what must have been a whole week of a 5-week term on Jung! I must not have been the only one who thought, "hey, I thought this was Intro to Fiction, not Psych 301!"

My great uncle was a Freudian psycho-analyst, and I remember 'taking him on' once when they came for a (very) rare visit. I'm glad now that he was patient with me... must have thought, "a little knowledge of Jung is... dangerous in his hands." !!!

I agree whole-heartedly that Protestant religious expression is too Word-dependent, not dependent enough upon Symbol (where Jung was strong, yes!).

However, I don't hold the Protestants to ransom on this. It was part and parcel of the age. The printing press has much to answer for!!!

It is really odd that Luther and Calvin could not have hoped for as much patience (any earlier era would have seen them strung up no sooner than you can say Jiminy Cricket!) as they would have gotten from Rome and Her Emperors in any other time. The Empire was fragmenting. Conditions were either right or wrong for many of the changes that happened.


Take iconography for instance. Here one has the story of the Faith told in pictures... when the masses couldn't read or write, yet they could still learn/'read' the Bible! and the Faith.

Balance is what I think is achieveable in the Christian faith: West appreciative of East and East appreciative of West. Protestants appreciative of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy and Catholicism appreciative of Protestants.

But they say that the next wave is going to be Pentecostalism. Whoa Nellie. What do you say to that?

I wrote and deleted a reply at least 4 times - either too long (who? Me?!) or too short and cryptic.

Let me try now�

Yes� the age of Reason and the Enlightenment - Kant, Hegel, French Revolution, science, etc... effected all Western culture and society.

Erick Fromm writes a good description of the change of the age - in his book �Escape From Freedom�. He does a real fair job of dealing with the Latin Church in Europe and Luther and Calvin.

Many things were changing. The industrial age was beginning. The individual was emerging from being born and submerged into a class statues. Capitalism allowed people to move between class levels. Royalty began to lose its �divine� privileges. Republics and democracy were replacing kings. Christendom had reached it peak and was starting its slow decline .. Etc�

Yes - Christendom is passing - and it must. We are at the tail end of its decline.

Christendom is when the Christian religion and Christian based principles of law - were mandated on the population by governments. While some may lament its passing, and wish for the old days to return� its purpose has been fulfilled and its time is over - never to return. People who believe in Christ - now WANT to go to church or WANT to pray. They have made a conscious and conscience choice - to do so. This is a liberty which God now desires.

Before - quantity was used in order to spread knowledge of the gospel - that task is now done and there is not a nation or peoples who do not know the name of Jesus Christ and something about his gospel. Other peoples may love Christians or hate them - but they certainly know about Jesus Christ and Christians. Now -quality is desired.

At the peak of Christendom - if one did not go to church and live externally in Christian ways - one was �odd�. To be a Christian was - expected. Those who did not do Christian observance were going to hell. Christianity was a social status. If you were not a Christian - you were a prostitute or criminal.

As we all know� being a social Christian (a card carrying member of a major Christian church) has little to do with personal holiness.

If people think that there will be a huge Pentecostal like wave - that will return peoples and countries to Christendom - that will not happen.

I am keeping this short. If you want to discuss any part of this, I will. But I should probably give it its own thread if we do.

I believe we would be of the same mind - if we worked our way through the words.

-ray