What an incredible mind-bending crock this discussion is. Do you people actually believe everything you post? Do you have any idea how delusional you are?
I agree. There are at least five possibilities that these kind of things can fall under:
- Of God for private revelation
- Of God for public revelation
- Of Demonic Deception
- Mental Illness/Delusion
- Of Human Deception
I believe Joseph Smith falls in the number 5 category. Anyone who has multiple Wives is doing so out of ego, selfishness, or self-entitlement.
I believe Maria Valtorta may fall under the number 4 category or number 1 category (if I’m being charitable). But, only God knows for sure.
God can reveal things to benefit us personally, through signs, visions, dreams, circumstances, opportunities, through the reading of His Word, and through the positive influence of other people, etc.
Private revelation is meant for the one receiving it, to grow in Faith, Hope, and Love. It does not mean that it is intended to dictate or even speak to everyone.
We had a man in our Men’s Bible Group who claimed to have heard God tell him the words of a poem over a series of days, weeks, and months. It is a beautiful poem/Prayer. But, he believed God wanted him to share the Prayer to every Catholic Christian. I believe the Prayer was meant specifically for him. And if others are edified by it, then great. He went through a series of health issues and I believe it was this Prayer that helped him rely on God to get through it. I do not believe that God wanted us to recite from the Poem at every Bible Study and to reflect upon it’s words morning, day, and night. This gentleman was a manager at a Nuclear Power Plant prior to retiring. He is a very intelligent man, who liked to be in control. I do believe this Prayer humbled him during a time when he needed to trust God. However, when it came to sharing the poem with others, it may have been more about control or ego for him. A sort of responsibility put upon himself than from God. When you use words like “dictate,” I hear the word “control,” rather than invitation.
David. You started this discussion ; ) Enjoy the ride.
Multiple wives: last year one of the Scriptures at Mass mentioned that somebody—I think it was Solomon—had 500 wives. I figure that even if some of those women were sisters, he had hundreds of mothers in law. Was that wise? 
I wouldn’t want 500 wives. One good one (which I have) is plenty for me. 
1 Like
Your belief that Maria Valtorta may have been mentally ill or delusional during the years that she wrote is unsupported. You should read A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, and in it, for example, you’ll find the following quotes.
Jean Aulagnier describes what he did and his findings in this excerpt from his book:
Some, even sincere Catholics, may still have doubts about Maria’s work. Is it an authentic revelation? Or is it just the roaming imaginations of a suffering mystical soul? After all, her writings could have been no more than personal reactions to her religious upbringing. It is in this connection that a scientific approach to Maria Valtorta’s work was timely. I thus began to analyze her writings with the same method that I had used in my previous historical research, which had yielded such positive results.
First of all, I noticed that Maria Valtorta’s work consists of over 700 scenes. More than 600 concern Jesus’ Public Ministry alone, which spanned approximately 1200 days. This gives us an average of one scene every second day. I sought to determine whether it would be possible to use these writings to establish a precise chronology of Jesus’ Public Ministry.
There were three possibilities.
It might be possible to use Maria Valtorta’s writings to establish a chronology that would be confirmed by all other historical data on the life of Christ. In this case, my test would be successful. We would have an excellent reason to disregard the possibility that Maria Valtorta’s writings were the result of her own imagination.
It might be possible to use Maria Valtorta’s writings to establish a chronology that was internally consistent, but would contradict known historical facts.
It might be impossible to use Maria Valtorta’s writings to establish any kind of chronology at all.
In the last two cases, my test would fail since Maria Valtorta’s writings would have little or no historical value. This, however, still would not mean that Maria Valtorta’s writings were merely the fruit of her own imagination, since many mystical writings in the past did not have any particular historical value either. Furthermore, there is already evidence that Maria Valtorta’s visions provide an accurate picture of Palestine in Jesus’ time. She had never traveled to Israel or perused the literature of experts describing their archaeological finds. Her writings were not revised by anyone else. Therefore, there is no explanation for the archaeological and geographical accuracy of her writings except an intervention from the beyond. These factors exclude the possibility of a hoax or a mental disorder.
I proceeded with my research, and discovered that it was possible to establish the exact dates of the events described by Maria Valtorta. These dates do match all the historical data found in the Gospels and in other reliable sources. Her writings withstood the test of my complex analytical method, and my book reveals the chronology that I was able to derive.
There is no way that Maria Valtorta could have composed thousands of pages of fiction that would be so historically accurate. She only obtained the average education of well-to-do girls in early 20th century Italy. She never went to a university. She had no reference books at her disposal, except for the Bible and Pope Pius X’s catechism. In spite of this, some of the things that she wrote are only known by Biblical scholars and experts on ancient Israel. She did not have a gift for long, involved calculations. Yet, by our standards, the Jewish calendar in Jesus’ time was rather complicated, and it is impossible that Maria Valtorta could have imagined, let alone chanced upon, all kinds of chronological details that would stand up to historical scrutiny.
Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:
“Now had her visions and dictations been mere literary forms of her own deliberate invention, she would have been an unscrupulous liar; but this hypothesis is excluded by the testimonies of all the priests and nuns and lay people who knew her. Or what if Valtorta had been insane and had imagined all those visions and dictations and mistaken them for real mystical occurrences (and thus escaped the accusation of being a hoaxer)? This hypothesis of lunacy falls flat in the light of her daily living during the years that she wrote.”
When I say, “Jesus dictated to Maria Valtorta the following […]”, and then I follow up with what He said, I’m saying that Jesus uttered the following words to be transcribed by Maria Valtorta (“to give dictation”). Additionally, for clarity, Jesus never made Maria Valtorta His spokesperson against her will.
Private relevations are for all Catholics and for all to read, but a Catholic ought to make sure to follow the following rules, which is the same as with every other private revelation, such as Fatima, La Salette, Lourdes, Our Lady giving the Miraculous Medal to St. Catherine
Laboure, the Sacred Heart revelations, Ven. Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, etc:
One must understand the teaching of the Catholic Church that authentic private revelation never adds anything new to the Deposit of Faith (a.k.a. Public Revelation), which was given to the Catholic Church for all time and was sealed with the death of the last Apostle. Although private revelation never adds anything new, it may clarify things already in the Deposit of Faith, or it may reveal things heretofore unknown that are, objectively, already contained in the Deposit of Faith. Private revelation often gives fresh perspective to Mysteries already contained in the Deposit of Faith, such as occurred with the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. All teaching of authentic private revelation was already in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning, and was–at least implicitly–taught and believed by the Catholic Church for all time. For example, the faithful always believed throughout the centuries in the Assumption of Mary, long before it was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII in November 1950. This was always believed, even if, at times in the history of the Church, this Mystery was not emphasized as much as in modern times. In the same way, Catholics today believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and is the Mediatrix of All Graces, and these will likely be infallibly defined by a Pope some day in the future.
Catholics must make sure not to become so attached to private revelation that they neglect learning their catechism, neglect the canonized Scriptures, neglect reading more standard types of spiritual reading (the writings of the saints, Imitation of Christ, The Devout Life, The Sinner’s Guide, etc.), neglect frequent use of the sacraments and public prayer, or neglect the obligations of their duty of state. In my opinion, I think that the vast majority of people are capable of reading The Poem of the Man-God without neglecting these other things, nor do I think that there is any correlation whatsoever between people reading The Poem of the Man-God and neglecting these other duties.
One must understand that no Catholic is required to believe any approved private revelation, nor is the belief in or following of the private revelation necessary to attain holiness and salvation. Public Revelation (the Deposit of Faith), however, is required to be believed by all Catholics to save their soul and attain holiness. Authentic private revelation may be believed with a level of faith that is commonly termed “human faith” which recognizes that authentic visions and dictations come from God or an angel or saint, but also recognizes that the seer may have introduced minor or major error from their own misunderstanding or there might have been error introduced in the process of transcribing their supernatural vision or dictation onto paper. Public Revelation (the Deposit of Faith) must be believed with what is called “divine faith”, that is, recognizing it as infallibly coming from God where God Himself guarantees its integrity and indefectibility, such as is the case with the canonized Scriptures.
On the other hand, we must understand that while authentic private revelation is not, strictly speaking, required or necessary, it should not be ignored by most people (that is, for important authentic private revelation…Fatima and the Sacred Heart revelations being prime examples). Read the next sub-chapter to understand why, which is entitled “Should We Just Ignore Authentic Private Revelations Because it is Merely Private Revelation and Catholics Aren’t Required, Strictly Speaking, to Believe it or Make Use of It? Should We Ignore This One?” The great Apostle St. Paul wrote against such a closed attitude: “Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies; but test all things, and hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5: 19-21) (A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work)
The following excerpts are from the preface in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work by the author Stephen Austin:
About five years ago, after reading and hearing some of the all-too-common misinformation and falsehoods about Maria Valtorta and her writings, I was convinced it was a false private revelation and I energetically began researching it and compiling information into an organized report to give to someone close to me to try to prove to them that Maria Valtorta’s writings were a false private revelation, forbidden by the Church, and should not be read. However, upon investigating Maria Valtorta and her writings in depth, and considering all the arguments both for and against it with a discerning, but open mind, I discovered my initial viewpoint was wrong, and I discovered that the evidence shows that her writings are not only free of error in faith and morals, and approved by a tremendous number of high-ranking, very learned, and trustworthy Church authorities, but that her writings are extraordinarily beneficial for souls and unlike any other book ever written.
In my research, I was amazed at the massive amount of extraordinary proofs of the divine origin of her writings, proofs which rival the proofs of the greatest approved private revelations of the Church and put to shame the hundreds of false private revelations circulating around the world today. I began to realize that her writings are the most accurate, detailed, comprehensive, and powerful revelation about Jesus and Mary’s lives ever given to mankind. These writings have transformed my life. The tremendous impact these writings have had on multitudes of priests, religious, and lay faithful around the world is extraordinary.
This e-book is the result of thousands of hours of research conducted over five years,
incorporating information from almost every single Internet website and printed source about Maria Valtorta and her works that I could find that are available in the English language, as well as incorporating information from many primary sources available in Maria Valtorta’s native Italian language. You will not likely find a more comprehensive, detailed, and honest exposition of Maria Valtorta’s writings anywhere else in the English language.
I highly recommend that you read A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, and if you do, I hope that from there you feel moved to read God’s Work through Maria Valtorta, His “pen”.
I am skeptical of many of these as well. So, it is nothing personal.
But, haven’t you argued that Maria was told things that are not in the Deposit of Faith? And this is why you think we should read it, believe it, and apply it to our lives?
For one, getting back to the topic of this thread, you believe that the Marital act is only for procreating, separating the unitive aspect. I know I sound like a broken record here, but you have a disordered view of this gift. And you posted where Maria said something very similar to your disordered view. And I think her view has a lot to do with the relationship between her mother and her father. Or a misunderstanding of why Mary (and Joseph) protected her perpetual virginity. It wasn’t because they did not want to have more children and therefore implying that the Marital act is only for procreating. That is the wrong way of looking at it. It has more to do with the fact that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. And just as the Ark of the Old Covenant was a sacred place and touching the Ark was forbidden, so is true of Mary.
I feel like you have made a religion out of this lady. I’m glad that her writings have inspired you to grow in your Christian Faith.
No, so you must’ve misunderstood something that I said. Although private revelation never adds anything new, it may clarify things already in the Deposit of Faith, or it may reveal things heretofore unknown that are, objectively, already contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Then quote which parts of the following are “disordered” and explain why and how:
The families which are not families and which are the origin of serious misfortunes radiating out from within the family cell to ruin the structures of nations and, afterwards, world peace, are the families in which God does not rule, but, rather, sensuality and self-interest hold sway and, therefore, filiation with Satan. Created on the basis of sensuality and self-interest, they do no rise to what is holy, but, like unhealthy grass sprouting in the mire, they always crawl towards the earth.
The angel said to Tobiah, ‘I will teach you who the devil has power over.’
Oh, there really are spouses who are under demoniac power from the first hour of their marriage! Indeed, there are people who are such even before getting married. They are this way from the moment they make the decision to find a male or female companion and do not do so with an upright purpose, but with deceitful calculations where selfishness and sensuality hold sovereign sway.
Nothing is healthier or holier than two people who sincerely love one another and unite to perpetuate the human race and give souls to Heaven.
The dignity of a man and a woman who become parents is second only to God’s. Not even royal dignity is like this. For a king, even the wisest one, does nothing but administer his subjects. These parents, on the other hand, attract God’s gaze towards themselves and carry off from that gaze a new soul, which they enclose in the sheath of the flesh born to them. I would almost say they have God as their subject, in that moment, since God immediately creates a new soul for their upright love forming a union to give a new citizen to Earth and Heaven.
If they were to consider this power of theirs, to which God assents at once! The angels cannot do so much; rather, the angels, like God, are immediately ready to support the act of the fruitful spouses and become guardians of the new creature. But there are many who, as Raphael says, embrace the marriage state in such a way as to banish God from themselves and their minds and abandon themselves to lust. And the devil has power over these.
What difference is there between a sinful bed and the bed of two spouses who do not refuse pleasure, but do refuse offspring? Let’s not engage in verbal acrobatics and deceitful reasoning. The difference is quite small. For if, because of illness or imperfections, it is advisable or permissible not to have children, people must then manage to be continent and deprive themselves of the sterile satisfactions which are nothing but sensual pleasure. If, on the other hand, no obstacle to procreation intervenes, why do you make a natural and supernatural law an immoral act by deforming its purpose?
When any honest consideration induces you not to increase the number of children, manage to live as chaste spouses and not as lustful monkeys. How can you want God’s angel to watch over your home when you turn it into a den of sin? How can you want God to protect you when you force Him to avert his gaze in disgust from your sullied nest?
Oh, the families are wretched that are formed without supernatural preparation! The families from which all searching for Truth has been excluded a priori and where, on the contrary, the word of Truth is derided which teaches what Marriage is and why it exists. The families are wretched that are formed without any thought for what is superior, but only under the spur of sensual appetite and financial considerations! How many spouses, after the inevitable custom of the religious ceremony—I said ‘custom,’ and I repeat it, since for the majority it is nothing but a custom and not the soul’s aspiration to have God with it at that moment—no longer have a thought for God and make the Sacrament—which does not end with the religious ceremony, but begins then and lasts as long as the life of the spouses, according to My thought, just as the taking of vows does not last as long as the religious ceremony, but as long as the life of the man or woman religious—and they make the Sacrament a party and turn the party into an outlet for bestiality!
The angel teaches Tobiah that, by having the act preceded by prayer, the act becomes holy and blessed and fruitful in true joys and offspring.
It would be necessary to do this. For people to enter into marriage when moved by the desire for children, for this is the purpose of the human union, and every other purpose is a sin dishonoring man as a rational being and wounding the spirit, the temple of God, which flees in disdain, and to bear God in mind at all times. God is not an oppressive jailer, but God is a good Father who exults in the honest joys of His sons and daughters and responds to their holy embraces with heavenly blessings and with the approval which the creation of a new soul is proof of.
But who will understand this page? As if I had spoken the language of an unknown planet, you will read it without perceiving its holy savor. It will seem like old straw to you, and it is heavenly doctrine. You, the learned of this time, will mock it.
And you do not know that Satan is laughing over your foolishness; thanks to your incontinence, your bestiality, he has managed to turn to your condemnation what God created for your good: marriage as a human union and as a Sacrament.
I shall repeat for you so that you will remember them and be guided by them—if you can still do so through a residue of human dignity surviving in you—Tobiah’s words to his wife: ‘We are the children of saints and we cannot unite like the gentiles who do not know God.’
Let them be your norm. For, even if you were born where sanctity had already died, Baptism has still made you sons and daughters of God, of the Holy of holies, and thus you can always say that you are the children of saints—of the Holy One—and be guided by this. You will then have descendants in whom the name of the Lord will be blessed, and they will live in his Law.
And when the children live in the divine Law, the parents reap the benefits, for it teaches virtues, respect, and love, and the first to benefit therefrom, after God, are the fortunate parents, the holy spouses who have managed to make marriage a perpetual rite and not a dishonorable vice. (The Notebooks: 1944)
Maria Valtorta didn’t have a misunderstanding about Mary and Joseph as individuals, nor as Spouses. Jesus and Mary spoke to her in-depth about Mary being the new Ark, and she received visions of scenes from Mary’s life, which include the moment She and Joseph first met, their discussion about their mutual desire to remain chaste for God, their marriage ceremony, and so on.
I haven’t elevated Maria Valtorta to a level of sacred importance, similar to a religion, just because I recognize that she was God’s “pen” and her writings are God’s Work, and recommend that you read an e-book consisting of a wealth of proof to support that.
The “perpetual virginity of Mary” is a childish catholic myth. The bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. James, the brother of Jesus, was the founder of the Jerusalem church. Any explanation that these were “cousins” or “step brothers” of Jesus is contrived catholic nonsense. He had brothers.
And The Early Church Fathers (successors to the Apostles) disagree with you. You view a lot of truth to be nonsense. The question is, why do you believe such things to be nonsense? Is it for personal reasons? Do you believe certain things to justify your own actions?
I have a Protestant co-worker who believes that Mary and Joseph were intimate after the birth of Jesus, because her Husband has told her that he could not go through life not “getting any.” Do you agree with her Husband and with her reasoning?
Let me go a step further, Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? Or is this also nonsense? Do you believe, rather, that Mary and Joseph “hooked up” prior to being Married and made everything up?
Why do you believe what you believe? I can show you other places in Sacred Scripture where the term “brother” and “sister” are used and it does not mean biological brother and sister.
In Geneses 13:8 Abraham refers to his nephew Lot as his “brother,” though Lot is actually his brother’s son.
The word “brother” was also used to describe Jacob and Laban who were Uncle and Nephew.
The Hebrew word for brother (אח, ach) can refer to any close male relative of the same generation, such as cousins, nephews, or even members of the same culture. And we often see it to mean relative or kinsman in Sacred Scripture.
Same goes for the word “sister.” It can mean close female relative, like a half-sister, aunt, or sister-in-law. And like brother can also mean a fellow believer or spiritual kin.
The book of Proverbs uses the word “my sister” to describe Wisdom.
Origen and Epiphanius (successors to the Apostles in the 4th Century) believed these “brothers” and “sister” of Jesus were St. Joseph’s children from a previous Marriage.
St. Jerome, who lived in the late fourth century and translated the Bible into Latin, believed that the “brothers” and “sister” of Jesus were cousins (belonging to Mary and Clopas).
If you would like to read more about this, I invite you to check out “Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church” by Richard Bauckham (it is a bit pricey, because it is an academic book).
In this post, I will show the teaching that Jesus’s four brothers (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings is false.
Firstly, only Jesus is called the son of Joseph and Mary. (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3)
Secondly, the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός’’ (sing. adelphos, brother;pl. ἀδελφοί/adelphoi, brothers) has the following definitions: “fellow-countryman,” “disciple/follower,” “one of the same faith,” and “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative,” e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc. In the plural, it regularly refers to men and women.
In Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are called Jesus’s “ἀδελφοί” (adelphoi, brothers). The context shows that its applicable definition is “kinsman, or relative”. In Gal. 1:19, Paul refers to James of the twelve apostles, and calls him Jesus’s “ἀδελφός” (adelphos, brother), and the context shows that its applicable definition is “kinsman, or relative” as well. Therefore, we can deduce that the James in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, and James in Gal. 1:19, were the same person. Of the two James of the twelve apostles, only James of Alphaeus, and at least one brother of his, apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, corresponds with Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3. (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18;15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)
Now, compare the above with the scriptural and early Church Father writings below:
Two scenes surrounding the same event:
I. “When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee), bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.” (Mk. 16:1)
II. Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles." (Lk. 24:10)
Three accounts of the same scene:
I. “Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee [Salome]” (Matt. 27:56)
II. “Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)” (Mk. 15:40)
III. “His Mother (Mary of Joseph), His Mother’s sister Mary, the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (the mother of James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene” (Jn. 19:25)
I. “Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus [Clopas], who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph.” (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, see Jn. 19:25)
II. “[…] James, who is called the brother of the Lord […] as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord […] after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles” (see Jud. 1:1) and “[…] Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord’s mother” (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, see Jn. 19:25)
III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:
“James, the brother of the Lord, was “[…] the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles” and that while it is disputed, “as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles,” it is known they have been “[…] read publicly in very many churches.” (Bk. I, ch. 23, see Jud. 1:1)
“James […] surnamed the Just […] bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord” and “Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, ‘Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.’” (Bk. II, ch. 1)
“[…] those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord […] with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh … pronounced Symeon [Simon], the son of Clopas […] 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.” (Bk. III, ch. 11)
“Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, ‘These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.’” (Bk. II, ch. 23)
“[…] the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)
“[…] James the Just bishop of Jerusalem” and “[…] but there were two Jameses: one called the Just […] thrown from the pinnacle of the temple […] and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, see Ac. 12:1-2)
“[…] James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church […] called the Just […]” (Bk. II, ch. 23) and “after James the Just had suffered martyrdom […] Symeon [Simon], the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop […] because he was a cousin of the Lord.” (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)
Summary
The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources (early Christian Church Fathers), even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively prove the following:
I. Jesus’s brothers (kinsmen/relatives) Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55 and Mk.6:3 were the sons of His Mother’s Spouse’s brother, Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and his wife Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus), the sister [in-law] of Mary of Joseph (Jn. 19:25), and thus His cousins.
II. Jesus’s cousins James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus became two of His twelve apostles.
III. Jesus’s cousin-apostle James of Alphaeus of the Twelve, “James the Less”, “James the brother of the Lord”, “James the Just”, “James the first bishop of Jerusalem”, and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person.
Additionally, there’s the writings of Maria Valtorta, a true spokesperson of God, and through her Jesus reaffirmed the above to be true. I highly recommend reading A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work.
Of course she did ; ) No, but thank you for your references to the Early Church Fathers. To me, weather the brothers and sister were cousins or step-siblings is not as important as Mary’s perpetual Virginity.
For if she was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived then it is all a lie. And if she and St. Joseph were intimate after the birth of Christ, then she is not the Ark of the New Covenant, or is, and thus had been defiled, which even good Jews under the old Covenant knew better than to enter the Ark of the Old Covenant!
I’m still interested to hear David’s answers to my questions to get a better understanding of where he is coming from and why he believes what he believes.
Part II
Below I address other scriptural verses believed to support that Joseph and Mary had other children.
Matt. 1:25
In preceding verses 20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his Spouse the Virgin Who will conceive and give birth to a Son. In verse 25, he reiterates and reinforces this by referring to a specific period: pre-birth of the Messiah, a period of known chastity between Joseph and Mary that would dispel any belief that He was not begotten by the Holy Spirit, nor born of the virgin. [Note: This in and of itself does not indicate whether Joseph and Mary did have or didn’t have a carnal married life/children, post-birth of the Messiah, so Matt. 1:25 can’t be used as definitive proof that Mary was or was not a perpetual Virgin.]
Jn. 2:12
In this scene, Jesus’s brothers were two of His four cousins, James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, and His disciples were Peter and Andrew, who later became two of His twelve elected apostles, and they accompanied Him and His Mother to Capernaum. These details are found in The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, where the omissions and gaps in the four Gospels of Christ, brought about by natural causes and supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.
Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31-32, Lk. 8:19-20
In this scene, Jesus’s brothers who arrived with His Mother to speak with Him at Capernaum were His cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. Joseph and Simon heard that Jesus had recently done carpentry work in Korazim for a widow whose husband had died, and they were angry at Him for earning money for her and her children, but not His own Mother, and were there to confront Him about it. These details are found in The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, where the omissions and gaps in the four Gospels of Christ, brought about by natural causes and supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.
Matt. 13:57, Mk. 6:4
In this verse, the definitions for the following Koine Greek words are (I) “συγγενής” (pl. syngenēs), “kindred, akin;, as a subst. a kinsman or kinswoman, relative,” which can refer to various types of family members, (II) “οἰκία” (sing. oikia), “a house, dwelling, an abode, Mt. 2:11; 7:24, 27; trop. the bodily abode of the soul, 2 Cor. 5:1; meton. a household, family, Mt. 10:13; 12:25; meton. goods, property, means, Mt. 23:13", and in some households there’s only the parents and their only child, who may or may not have other types of family members living with them as well, and so on.
Jn. 7:3-5;10
In this scene, Jesus’s brothers were His cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, though they later came to believe this. These details are found in The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, where the omissions and gaps in the four Gospels of Christ, brought about by natural causes and supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.
Ac. 1:14
In this scene, Jesus’s brothers were disciples, some of whom were the shepherds that visited Him the night of His birth. These details are found in The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, where the omissions and gaps in the four Gospels of Christ, brought about by natural causes and supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.
Gal. 1:18-19
Paul mentioned that in Jerusalem he had seen Peter, one of the twelve apostles, but that he didn’t see another one of the apostles, except James the Lord’s brother. The title “the Lord’s brother” indicates that James was Jesus’s kinsman/relative, and the overall context of these two verses indicates that he was also one of the Twelve. This means that he would have had to have either been apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary. So, which of these apostles was Jesus’s kinsman/relative, and how were they related? Refer back to my previous post.
1 Cor. 9:5
In this scene, Jesus’s brothers were His cousin-apostles James and Judas of Alphaeus. [Note: It’s not a problem that they were mentioned separately from the rest of the twelve apostles, because in the same verse Cephas (Peter) was also mentioned separately from the rest of the Twelve, though he was still one of them.]
1 Cor. 15:5;7
In 1 Cor. 15:5, Jesus appeared to the apostle Peter, then to the Twelve, and thus He was seen by Peter twice. Regarding 1 Cor. 15:7, if “all the apostles” referred to “all other apostles”, then Paul, an "other” apostle, would’ve been included with them, but He was seen and mentioned separately from them and lastly. Therefore, Jesus appeared to one of the James of the Twelve, then to “all of the [twelve] apostles”, and thus He was seen by James twice.
1 Like
The Bible states that Jesus had brothers. It does not say “cousins”. It does not say “step-brothers”. It does not say “half-brothers”. The bible says they were his brothers.
Mark 6;3 “isn’t this Mary’s son (Jesus) and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?”
Your argument isn’t with me. Your argument is with the Bible.
Matthew 13; 55-56 ""Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not all his sisters with us here?"
Peace to all,
To me, Jesus came to unite all as One in being through Spirit and Life blood of God in two natures becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, to me. Making all One in being through From One Father through One Mother for One Son becoming the Christ in all manking becoming again in all One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
Logically, Jesus is The Christ conceived by The Holy Family One God in being, fully God and fully man, fully God and non-generic having no gender to me, all gender all family all mankind, in One God.
The Holy Sprit is non-gender, all gender, all mankind, to me and not a person but The Family Of The One God in being through both natures, OMNILogically.
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
Peace always,
Stephen
Words have more than one meaning. This is true in modern day and it was true in Biblical times. In recent years, the word “drip” is used to describe someone’s fashionable clothing. But, could you imagine someone in Biblical times reading the lyrics to a hip-hop song from a few years back and read the word “drip”? And someone might argue that the text did not mean liquid falling, but that it could have meant something that you wear. And then imagine someone like yourself who says, no, the text says “drip” and that means that is what it means.
There are other places in Scripture that you might not take it literal and we do. For instance, Catholic Christians (and really the Early Church) takes Jesus at His word, when He say, “This is my body… This is my blood…” But, to many Protestants, they add the words “symbolic of” or pull a President Clinton and say, “Well, it depends on what your definition is “is” is.” What did the Early Church teach about this? They believed in the Eucharist.
Then there are other place in Scripture where Jesus describes himself as a door. And Protestant and Catholic Christians do not believe Jesus is a literal door with hinges and such. And neither did the Early Church Fathers believe (the successors to the Apostilles) believe Jesus was a literal door.
So, for me it comes down to, do I believe what modern Protestants believe about the Word of God? Which modern Protestants’ interpretation do I believe? Do I read the text and make up for myself what it means? Or do I look to those who lived closest to the time of Christ and whom were taught by the Apostles and by the successors of the Apostles believed? Though it is true that not all Early Church Fathers all interpret Scripture the same, however, when it comes to the things that they definitively taught in common, this is important.
I believe in the living Word of God, meaning that the Holy Spirit can and does speak to us when we read The Holy Bible, and I also believe that not everyone’s interpretation of the Bible is always the correct interpretation.
Also, the Church teaches that there are multiple ways in which we interpret Sacred Scripture. You can look these up in the Catechism or read Dr. Scott Hahn’s book titled, “Scripture Matters.”
Firstly, in all of the New Testament, only Jesus is called the son of Joseph and Mary. (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3)
Secondly, the Koine Greek word used in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 and others is "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi/brothers), which has the following definitions:
“fellow-countryman,” “disciple/follower,” “one of the same faith,” and “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative,” e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc.
As I’ve shown in previous posts, scriptural verses, early Church father writings, and other accounts confirm that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Jesus’s brothers as in “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative”, by showing that they were the sons of Jesus’s uncle and aunt, and thus His cousins.
1 Like
So for me it comes down to do I believe what the church teaches or do I believe the Bible.
It comes down to you ignoring the language the New Testament was written in (Koine Greek), the words used and their definitions, and that in all of the New Testament, only Jesus is called the son of Joseph and Mary. (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3)
Nonsense. What is it that you’re not intelligent enough to understand about his? The Bible says they were his brothers. No amount of doubletalk and tortured logic can change this fact. The bible DOES NOT SAY “kinsman/relatives”. IT SAYS THEY WERE HIS BROTHERS. And you haven’t shown a single thing in “previous posts”.
So, apparently you don’t understand the difference between a word and a definition. And, you’re calling me unintelligent?
Again, the Koine Greek word used in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 and others is “ἀδελφοί” (adelphoi, brothers), which has the following definitions:
“fellow-countryman,” “disciple/follower,” “one of the same faith,” and “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative,” e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc. In the plural, it regularly refers to men and women.
The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources (early Christian Church Fathers), collectively confirm that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Jesus’s brothers as in “kinsmen/relatives”, by showing that they were the sons of Jesus’s uncle and aunt, and thus His cousins.