Joseph Previous Marriage

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I read a thread by Andy S that Joseph might had a previous marriage; therefore, Mary would remain virgin all her life.

Is this what the Catholic believe that Joseph was married before enaged to Mary?

If Jesus's brothers and sisters were step-brothers and step-sisters, what happen to these children when Joseph and Mary took baby Jesus to Egypt?

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004

Answers

Is this what the Catholic believe that Joseph was married before enaged to Mary?

It is one tradition, but not a required dogma. I think it is especially strong with the Eastern Church.

If Jesus's brothers and sisters were step-brothers and step- sisters, what happen to these children when Joseph and Mary took baby Jesus to Egypt?

Don't know.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.


This is one possibility, in keeping with the common practice of consecrated virgins marrying older widowers, thereby receiving care and providing companionship. The Church is open to such a possibility, but does not teach that this is true since there is no way of knowing. In addition to the historical precedent, this idea is sometimes proposed to explain how Jesus might have had "siblings" even though Mary was a virgin. Of course, if this was the case, the other children in the family would not actually have been blood relatives of Jesus, since they would have had both a different mother and a different father. In any case, as stated in earlier posts, one does not have to explain why Jesus had siblings, as neither Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition indicates that He did.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2004.

Thank you all,

surely, it difficult for me to accept that Mary was still virgin after having Jesus. Really it's not important in my faith.

Thanks.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.


it would be incredible if some document, roman or hebrew, were found with SOME record of Mary's or joseph's life.

im sure you (plural) have heard of that container that supposedly held the remains of james, jesus' brother? i cant remember the details about it, it was 2 yrs ago, maybe, making rounds at i think york university in toronto-- but the remains of a supposed BROTHER of christ! chilling. anyone have thoughts or opinions on this?

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.


jas- The "bone box" (osuary?) was declared a fraud by the Isreali Antiquities Authority. Here's some good info: http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Henri- Generally speaking, I think that Orthodox tend toward step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph, Catholics tend toward cousins. Her's some good info: http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 04, 2004.



actually, james is considered the "brother" of Christ... why? because in the book of john Jesus declares james to be his brother. this is where people often mistake, in saying that Jesus declares john to be mary's new son. ACTUALLY, the confusion occurs over the fact that the reference occurs in the book of john. the reference is in reality only noted as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." this term is used to refer to james in several other places throughout the bible.

thus, in tradition, james has been referred to as the brother of Christ, because he was appointed so by the Lord during the crucifixion.... not because of some forgery centuries later. even if that is a forgery, if the remains are real, then it may still be accurate.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.


Paul- I copied this from Catholic Answers: "Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons." Are you talking about the same thing above? If so, I'm very confused.

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 04, 2004.

yes, mark, i am talking about the same thing:

"Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26– 27)."

actually, the exact words indicate that Jesus entrusted his mother to the diciple whom He loved. john is never refered to in such a way. james, however, is the only disciple referred to repeatedly in this way. another indication is that later in the bible james is actually called "james, brother of Jesus." while there is no guarunty that john was NOT the disciple there at the cross, it is unlikely given the context of the title used and the subsequent title of "brother of Christ" given to james.

The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude.

yes, those would be james, joseph, simon (later peter), and judas: some of the first disciples and those who happened to be present at that time. james would be the "disciple whom Jesus loved." none was real brothers, they were brothers in the sense that they were close companions of Christ.

while some scholars refer to john as the one who was recognized by Jesus, many agree that that claiment was actually james, as later writers in the new testament seem to agree.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.


Paul- If you tell me Catholic Answers is wrong, I'm going to slit my wrists. To me, Jesus statements (from the cross) to John and Mary were always the most logical, clearest proof that Mary had no other children. Does the possibility that it's James instead of John change anything? Which version of the Bible is clearest on this?

So John or James was the disciple that Jesus loved? You know, now that you mention it, I did think it odd that John would refer to himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved" in his own writings.

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 04, 2004.


Paul M

The reference to Jesus brothers (Mk 3,31 p;6,3 p; Jn 7,3; Ac 1,14;Co 9,5 ; G 1,19)has led critics to think different than the Magisterium.

And this clashes with several Gospels texts, James and Joseph, brothers of Jesus in (Mt.13,55p seems to be the sons of another Mary (Mt 27,56 p). And when Jesus is dying He entrusts His Mother to the care of a disciple (Jn 19,26 f), which seems to suggest that she has no other son. Apart from this it is known that in the semitic world the name brother is applies to close relations and relations by marriage.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 04, 2004.



I meant Paul H.

Sorry Paul M. I mean't no harm.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 04, 2004.


The only scriptural references to "the disciple Jesus loved" are in the gospel of John. John 21:20-24 describes an interaction between three men - Jesus, Peter, and "the disciple Jesus loved". In verse 24 John identifies himself as the third man, the disciple Jesus loved.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 05, 2004.

at best, paul, that reference makes me... uncertain. because at other points it is james who is referenced to as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." it is interesting that John refers to himself in this way in his own gospel, which lends credence to the idea that he may have used such a title for himself again at the crucifixion, but it makes things uncertain at best. Is there a vatican declaration on this, because I've heard good catholic scholars argue it both ways?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2004.

at other points james who is referenced to as the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

This is not correct, paul h. This phrase is used only about St. John -- and only by St. John (about himself). It can be found in chapters 13, 20, and 21 (twice). Even if someone can try to interpret those verses in an inventive manner, Sacred Tradition assures us that the references are to St. John.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), June 05, 2004.


Hi Paul H,

This is the first I've heard that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" might be James instead of John. Could you direct me to any references you have seen regarding the argument that it is James? I find the argument intriguing and would like to read more about it.

Thanks.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 05, 2004.



yet, i would bring up several points: james is thereafter referred to as the brother of Jesus. also, we know the four gospels were all written under psuedonyms.

therefore, is it possible to think, for a moment, that James may have written the book which later came to be known as the book of John?

and, is it also possible to assume that if John did write the book, that he may have used the title to name two different people... because it seems a might bit odd that John would be declared Jesus' brother, and then James would get that title...

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2004.


John 21:20-24, at the very least shows that John is the same disciple whom he loved "who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he who betrays You?" (verse 20)

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 05, 2004.

Paul H,

I always thought there were at least two different James' in the Gospels.

1. James (called the younger), cousin to Jesus and brother of Joses (Joseph), Simon (different from Peter the apostle), and Judas (different from the apostle Judas Iscariot the betrayer). This James would also have been the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Gr., Alpheus). I suppose that would make Mary, the wife of Clopas, Jesus' aunt. He may have later become a bishop.

2. James, son of Zebedee and brother of John. One of the "sons of Thunder." Both apostles.

With this understanding, I have come to know John as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." if I got any of this wrong, please correct me.

Thanks,

Andy S

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 05, 2004.


Paul H.,

I see that James the son of Alpheus (the younger?) is listed as one of the apostles in Mt 10:1-4 along with James the son of Zebedee. I should have noted that in my previous post.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 05, 2004.


All,

Acts 1:13-14 proofs that Jesus has brothers.

"13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

"They" in verse 14 is refering to the 11 disciples.

"along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers" indicates another group of people joining with the disciples.

Even Jesus entrusted his mother to John, all his brothers and mother still together.

No doubt folks, Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary can't remain virgin after Jesus.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 07, 2004.


It proves nothing of the sort. "They" refers to the Apostles who had been present at the Ascension of Christ the previous day. The passage says that after watching Christ ascend into the heavens, "they" - the Apostles - traveled to Jerusalem and joined a large group of believers who were already there, which included his mother and some other women, plus a large group of his brethren. Verse 15 says that the total number of people present was about 120. So, besides Mary and the Apostles there were over 100 other people present. Some of them, undoubtedly a minority, were women. The rest of them are those whom verse 14 calls "his brothers". Therefore, if "his brothers" refers to children of Mary, or even to children of Joseph by a previous marriage, there must have been at least 70 or 80 kids in the Holy Family. But as already explained to you, "brothers" as used in the New Testament, represented by the Greek word "adelphoi" and later the Latin "fratres", means the followers of Christ, who was "the first of many brothers" (Romans 8:29).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 07, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ