Could Jesus have had actual brothers and sisters?

[po18guy]

This attack on Mary always seems to overlook three things:

1. What on earth could an unknown and unwritten about (except Isaiah 7:14) Jewish teenage girl have accomplished in her short life to be visited by the Archangel Gabriel, who addressed her even at that point as “full of grace” and “you have found favor with God”, if it was not grace from her conception by God’s will? Especially since Mary pondered what sort of greeting it might be.
2. The motive for the almost rabid desire to prove that Mary was nothing special is solely to oppose Catholic and Orthodox teaching, since it lacks scriptural basis.
3. Her womb was destined to contain the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, since before time began. Scripture tells us that Joseph was a “righteous man”. What on earth makes these Mary-denigraters think that Joseph would violate the sacred womb - holier than the Ark of the Covenant, since it contained God’s new and eternal covenant in the Flesh, rather than merely in stone?

 

[Jerom3]

po18guy

Rather, you must love the Lord God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind and all of your strength, and your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27-28). And, what is your authority to interpret scripture? Peter said that there is no private interpretation allowed (2 Peter 1:20). Next: Where does the bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith? It does not, so why do you teach that it is? Do you have any knowledge of the ancient languages in which scripture was written? Any knowledge of the culture? You completely dismiss what Paul wrote as to handing on teachings, either via the oral teaching, or letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You have no oral tradition, so your faith is incomplete. This is the fruits of the man-made Tradition of “sola scriptura”. The bible even tells you it is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 20:25, Acts 2:40 and others).

The bible is blessed, but it is not all.

If you are truly Lutheran, why don’t you believe as Luther did about Mary? Strange.

I don’t disagree with you on the scriptures you quoted because scripture is pretty much self-translating…it doesn’t take a scholar to understand it when it is so clear. It’s when some people change what it says completely that makes it difficult to know who to listen to.

And I do have a lot of oral tradition but when tradition conflicts with scripture then I have to believe the scripture just as all the early church fathers did. When we don’t have it written, then we must believe whatever the church tells us and we all know the church changes its mind with each new leader and even some of the same leaders later change their mind. Take Augustine for example; he changed his mind about the church being built on Peter to what the bible teaches, it was built on the “faith” of Peter and not on the man himself.

God gave us the scriptures so that we would always have the truth and not have to change our minds with each changing of the guard.

And by the way, I agree with Luther until he contradicts scripture and then I have to go with scripture.

Cheers! JC

 

[po18guy]

po18guy
I don’t disagree with you on the scriptures you quoted because scripture is pretty much self-translating…it doesn’t take a scholar to understand it when it is so clear. It’s when some people change what it says completely that makes it difficult to know who to listen to. And I do have a lot of oral tradition but when tradition conflicts with scripture then I have to believe the scripture just as all the early church fathers did.

But, the bible is silent on many subjects. What then? Also, know that nothing in scripture contradicts Catholic teaching. Now, it appears to contradict if you use the improper interpretation of scripture. That is where the problem lies.

When we don’t have it written, then we must believe whatever the church tells us and we all know the church changes its mind with each new leader and even some of the same leaders later change their mind. Take Augustine for example; he changed his mind about the church being built on Peter to what the bible teaches, it was built on the “faith” of Peter and not on the man himself.

Ah, but Augustine, leader though he was, was not the Pope, and did not decide doctrine. The same with Saint Jerome. He personally disagreed, but chose wisely to be obedient to the Church - placing it higher than himself. There are many Lutherans who disagree with you. Does that disprove Lutheran doctrine? Nope.

God gave us the scriptures so that we would always have the truth and not have to change our minds with each changing of the guard.

But, our Lord Jesus founded a Church, not a bible. The bible supports the Church, not the other way round. The Church is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to Paul. We believe that, explicitly. However, once separated from the Church, Scripture is subject to the whims of man. Just look at the different interpretations out there. It’s insanity. That is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

And by the way, I agree with Luther until he contradicts scripture and then I have to go with scripture. Cheers! JC

Luther was not infallible, as he has proven to you. Why follow anything he espoused, then? Listen to Paul and go to the pillar and foundation of truth. It’s not the 1500s any more. The abuses have ceased, the abusers now being judged. The Church remains, just as our Lord said it would. Amen!

 

[LegoGE1947]

But, the bible is silent on many subjects. What then? Also, know that nothing in scripture contradicts Catholic teaching. Now, it appears to contradict if you use the improper interpretation of scripture. That is where the problem lies. Ah, but Augustine, leader though he was, was not the Pope, and did not decide doctrine. The same with Saint Jerome. He personally disagreed, but chose wisely to be obedient to the Church - placing it higher than himself. There are many Lutherans who disagree with you. Does that disprove Lutheran doctrine? Nope.But, our Lord Jesus founded a Church, not a bible. The bible supports the Church, not the other way round. The Church is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to Paul. We believe that, explicitly. However, once separated from the Church, Scripture is subject to the whims of man. Just look at the different interpretations out there. It’s insanity. That is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit.Luther was not infallible, as he has proven to you. Why follow anything he espoused, then? Listen to Paul and go to the pillar and foundation of truth. It’s not the 1500s any more. The abuses have ceased, the abusers now being judged. The Church remains, just as our Lord said it would. Amen!

Same as someday God will judge all contemporary abusers regardless of what “tag” they wear. It is amazing how the Church has survived considering all the messes she has gone through in 2000 years! Any purely human institution would have folded long ago. Look at Chrysler and GM They were giants of the auto industry and much to our surprise they have gone bankrupt in less than a century of existance. And why? Because they were purely human institutions!

 

[Janet1983]

Today’s reading at Mass indicated to the effect after Jesus had performed miracles that several around asked, “…Isn’t this Jesus, the carpenter’s son, and aren’t his brothers and sisters…?” (and it went on to name them)
I’m wondering what the Church’s position on that is. Perhaps it’s the language of the day where they were really referring to other relatives such as cousins?
I’ve only heard it spoken of in a homily once a long time ago, but it had not been a definitive answer as I recall.
Thanks.

The church is generally referring to them as cousins…

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise:

Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - " And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

John 2:12 - " After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Acts 1:14 - " These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Gal. 1:19 – “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the some theologians will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, “brothers” does not mean “brothers”, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

 

[Jerom3]

To the Lutheran,
The Catholic Church follows the example of the Early Church Fathers, and the rendering and interpretations they left are most identical to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I agree because most of the early(1st - 2nd centuries) fathers believed that if it can’t be supported by scripture, then it isn’t correct. It is when the church started changing things that resulted in present beliefs.

Scripture has mentioned the “brethern” of the Lord, but has also mentioned who their parents were. Simon, James, and Jude were sons of Mary Cleopas; while, the other James and John were sons of Zebedee. Another way to account for the “brethern” of the Lord is the Orthodox rendering as “step brothers.” They assert the belief that St. Joseph was a widower and had had children with his previous wife, as such, his children would be considered as “brethern” of Our Lord.

What must be understood is that the word “brethern” is used to describe close relatives, such as aunts and uncle or cousins or step brothers and sisters. Brethern can also designate a national or ethnic relation, so you cannot take the literal meaning of brethern fully.

Isn’t it a little strange that the only time “the brother of the Lord” is mentioned is with James, his biological brother? If everyone else who was a believer was called “brother” then why isn’t this phrase used more often?

This is a matter of Doctrine as it attacks the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother, Mary. While protestants dissent, the sanctity of Mary is direct proof of Jesus power over sin, and His ability to make us transcedent to sexuality. Remember that in heaven there will be no giving and taking in marriage and Our Lady is his first fruit. ***She was “saved” by means of preservation from sin on His merrit, and as she was fully endowed with grace ***(at one point she held Him within her). This is a matter of faith as well, as it directly links us to the grace of Christ and is evidence of what He does for us, that is, He redeems, preserves, sanctifies, and exalts us through His grace and mercy. Blessed be God, Blessed be Jesus, Blessed be the Holy Spirit, Blessed be the great Theotokos, Blessed be God in his angels and saints!

Believe me I have no intention of “attacking” your blessed mother Mary. I certainly believe she was really special or God would not have chosen her. She demands respect from all christians but when it comes to the other things attributed to her I want to see scripture supporting them or belief is not possible for me. Stories could be made up very easily by anyone but God gave us the scriptures so that we would have the truth. That is what He said…Don’t you believe that?

Could you give me the proof of what you claim in the part I have highlighted above?

 

[Jerom3]

If it is so clear, why did the founder of your church [Luther] not see it? Do you know what Luther taught regarding Mary?

List a Source or an example that supports you… ?

I assumed you had read a lot of the early church fathers. Here is a quote from a letter from Ignatius to the apostle John regarding what I wrote. I am sure you know Ignatius was a disciple of John and present while Mary was living with John:

IF thou wilt give me leave, IF thou wilt give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the faithful saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion?* And in like manner * the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.***

You see James must have been born from the same womb as Jesus. He looked exactly like him. If we can’t believe Ignatius, then who can we believe? He lived during that time.

Why is this [the certainty of a sexual act between Mary and Joseph culminating in the conception of a child] so important to you?

My salvation doesn’t depend on whether Jesus had brothers or sisters or not but since I believe what Jesus taught and what God had written in the scriptures, then I believe them when they say Jesus had brothers and sisters. It really doesn’t matter at all and I wonder why so many want to believe otherwise…

No, we just need to worry with regard to the distractions taught by a host of mini-popes [everyone who reads the scriptures and defines their own personal interpretation], plus the distractions spread by the fractured protesting Christians who can agree upon no "Truth"and new age free thinkers like yourself …

If we are going to believe the scriptures then we must also believe them when they say that we can understand them and don’t have to rely on someone else to tell us what they say. Thanks to Martin Luther and all the others who helped get the word in a language that could be understood and take the mystery out of it.

JC MGB*

 

[Jerom3]

Here is Martin Luther on the Mary as the Mother of God with the claim of reliance upon the testimony of St. Paul …

Luther wrote … “St. Paul says 'God sent his Son born of a woman, ’ These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God.” from Martin Luther’s Works, vol 7, pg 592 [Note: bolding mine]

I have no problem with that except Mary bore Jesus in human form; He always existed as God. If you want to say that makes her Mother of God, then you certainly can but it isn’t true. She was the earthly mother of Jesus, who was God.

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary …

Luther wrote … “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin.” Martin Luther’s Works, vol 11, pg 319

Luther had every right to believe that but if you believe that then you must not believe the gospel. Which writing did God inspire?

Again Luther wrote “…knew that she was to become the Mother of the Son of God, she did not wish to become the mother of the son of man, but remained in that gift.” and this … “Undoubtedly, there is no one so powerful that, depending on his own intelligence, without Scripture, he would maintain that she did not remain a virgin.” Martin Luther’s Works, vol 11, pg 320 [Note: bolding mine]

I suggest that it is hard to be perpetually a Virgin and also give birth to siblings for Jesus

repeat above…you would rather believe Luther’s assumptions than believe what God wrote in scripture.

Here is what Luther said about Mary’s Assumption into heaven … " There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in Heaven. How it happened we do not know." Martin Luther’s Works, vol 10, pg 268

So exactly how Lutheran are you in your beliefs … and what do you think about your founders take on the Mother of Jesus? …

Luther may be right about Mary being in heaven. Certainly she would have gone there when she died if we are to believe people go to heaven when they die. Some people believe they go to purgatory when they die. Who are we to say since scripture is not very clear about that? One thing we can be certain of however is that scripture doesn’t tell us what happened to Mary. We can suppose all we want but we don’t really know. Perhaps when we get there it will be revealed to us.

As christians, I certainly hope we learn the truth when we get there—whenever it may be!

May God Bless you and yours…

 

[Jerom3]

But, the bible is silent on many subjects. What then? Also, know that nothing in scripture contradicts Catholic teaching. Now, it appears to contradict if you use the improper interpretation of scripture. That is where the problem lies. Ah, but Augustine, leader though he was, was not the Pope, and did not decide doctrine. The same with Saint Jerome. He personally disagreed, but chose wisely to be obedient to the Church - placing it higher than himself. There are many Lutherans who disagree with you. Does that disprove Lutheran doctrine? Nope.But, our Lord Jesus founded a Church, not a bible. The bible supports the Church, not the other way round. The Church is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to Paul. We believe that, explicitly. However, once separated from the Church, Scripture is subject to the whims of man. Just look at the different interpretations out there. It’s insanity. That is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit.Luther was not infallible, as he has proven to you. Why follow anything he espoused, then? Listen to Paul and go to the pillar and foundation of truth. It’s not the 1500s any more. The abuses have ceased, the abusers now being judged. The Church remains, just as our Lord said it would. Amen!

Actually we can agree on that I think. It’s just that the bible teaches that the “church” is the pillar and foundation of truth and the bible also teaches that the “church” is the body of Christians with Christ as the head. It doesn’t teach that the church is a building or a place…

 

[po18guy]

The church is generally referring to them as cousins…

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise:

And, there’s the rub. “Seems” means that content is being read into scripture. Your faith community has no oral tradition, such as Jesus, Paul and the twelve used to teach. You are “sola scriptura”. This man-made doctrine has lead to innumerable interpretations of scripture - all of which are prohibited by the selfsame scripture! From the earliest days of the Church, the Catholic/Orthodox position has been taught and believed. 1,500+ years later, as the “reformation” began to crumble, the anti-Catholic position was put forward, based upon the sand foundation of private interpretation of scripture. Ego trumped truth. And that is a shame.

 

[Janet1983]

And, there’s the rub. “Seems” means that content is being read into scripture. Your faith community has no oral tradition, such as Jesus, Paul and the twelve used to teach. You are “sola scriptura”. This man-made doctrine has lead to innumerable interpretations of scripture - all of which are prohibited by the selfsame scripture! From the earliest days of the Church, the Catholic/Orthodox position has been taught and believed. 1,500+ years later, as the “reformation” began to crumble, the anti-Catholic position was put forward, based upon the sand foundation of private interpretation of scripture. Ego trumped truth. And that is a shame.

Did you ever read through my article before you stopped to attack me personally?

 

[po18guy]

Did you ever read through my article before you stopped to attack me personally?

Yes, I read it. And my response meant no offense. Did I use your name, or mention only the faith community which you claim, and whose views your espoused here? Is providing a context for the discussion now a personal attack? OK… I listed what Catholics and Orthodox believe is the source of so much disagreement regarding so much of scripture: the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura. Not mentioned at all, was that Mary has been held, for 1,976 years, by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians as perpetually virgin. Not mentioned at all was that Martin Luther also believed and taught the same. The Southern Baptists believe and teach differently from even Luther in this case.

Rather than “attack”, I was attempting to counter a “challenge” to Catholic theology on a Catholic web site.

 

[Jerom3]

So we just ignore what the bible says???

If you do not believe that the bible is inspired by God and is truth, then one must just pick and choose what he/she wants to believe. That isn’t Christianity!

The Catholic Church did not attempt to say that Mary remained a virgin until about the third century. If she did so, then why did God not tell us? Why would He inspire the writers of the Gospel to lie to us? Wasn’t it about the fifth century when the idea of the assumption of Mary came about? Wonder why those things were not important enough to be mentioned in scripture?

Most all of the non-biblical doctrines came after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome and had to deal with all the pagans and their temples, etc. His concession to them was very great. One of them was Sunday worship instead of on the Sabbath so it would coincide with the pagan sun god. The pagans also had their “queen mother” and unfortunately there is still a great deal of paganism ideas left in some of the churches today.

 

[po18guy]

So we just ignore what the bible says???

No! And, who compiled the bible? Answer that first. The Church was founded by Jesus, not the bible. Scripture itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Separate the bible from that Church and you run amok.

If you do not believe that the bible is inspired by God and is truth, then one must just pick and choose what he/she wants to believe. That isn’t Christianity!

Your interpretation of the bible is what causes all of your fears. Go directly to that interpretation which comes from the Church, and you’ll be fine.

The Catholic Church did not attempt to say that Mary remained a virgin until about the third century. If she did so, then why did God not tell us? Why would He inspire the writers of the Gospel to lie to us? Wasn’t it about the fifth century when the idea of the assumption of Mary came about? Wonder why those things were not important enough to be mentioned in scripture?

Now you’ve spun off the spindle, so to speak. Catholic doctrines are dogmatically defined only in response to heresy. Did you read that? In response to heresy. Thus, the formal definition may come centuries after the belief. When some heretic begins leading the faithful stray, the Church must act - and does. The time lag that you bemoan represents that period in which the heretics began spouting their demon-lead ideas.

Most all of the non-biblical doctrines (Pardon me, but NO Catholic doctrine goes against scripture) came after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome and had to deal with all the pagans and their temples, etc. His concession to them was very great. One of them was Sunday worship instead of on the Sabbath so it would coincide with the pagan sun god.

Have you actually read the bible? Tell us on what day the Apostles met. Tell us what day God chose to raise Jesus from the dead. Tell us which day Jesus appeared to the twelve behind the closed doors. Sunday. Christian worship began on Sunday, and remains. If you are Jewish, you are still bound by Mosiac law and must observe Saturday Sabbath. Are you Jewish?

The pagans also had their “queen mother” and unfortunately there is still a great deal of paganism ideas left in some of the churches today.

Your first mistake is using the bible alone. Where does the bible teach that it alone is the sole rule of faith? It does not. Have you wrested the bible away from the Church authority which canonized it and given it your own twist? Yes, you have. Private interpretation is absolutely prohibited by scripture itself.

Christ founded a Church. It’s in Matthew 16. He did not found a bible. Go ahead and use bible only, just don’t argue that you are Christian as Christ intended.

 

[Jerom3]

No! And, who compiled the bible? Answer that first. The Church was founded by Jesus, not the bible.

This is wrong. The church wrote nothing. The bible was written by believers, members of the church of God. There was no Magesterium or anything resembling it until many centuries later.

QUOTE=po18guy;5428102]Scripture itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

That’s your problem. The church is not an hierarchal place or group of leaders but believers in Christ. Scripture is quite clear about what a church is. It is the body of believers with Christ as the head ant not something made up by man on earth. Christ is the head and no one else.

QUOTE=po18guy;5428102]Separate the bible from that Church and you run amok.Your interpretation of the bible is what causes all of your fears. Go directly to that interpretation which comes from the Church, and you’ll be fine.Now you’ve spun off the spindle, so to speak. Catholic doctrines are dogmatically defined only in response to heresy. Did you read that? In response to heresy. Thus, the formal definition may come centuries after the belief. When some heretic begins leading the faithful stray, the Church must act - and does. The time lag that you bemoan represents that period in which the heretics began spouting their demon-lead ideas.Have you actually read the bible?

I am well versed on the scriptures thank you and I know how to discern what is truth. Truth is given by God and not some man.

QUOTE=po18guy;5428102]Tell us on what day the Apostles met. Tell us what day God chose to raise Jesus from the dead. Tell us which day Jesus appeared to the twelve behind the closed doors. Sunday. Christian worship began on Sunday, and remains.

Can you show me any scripture that says worship was on Sunday? Christ always observed the Sabbath and all the apostles always observed the Sabbath even long after Christ was dead. They met on Sunday to distribute monies and for administrative things, not to worship. The Catholic Church changed the worship day to Sunday. Not the actual church.

QUOTE=po18guy;5428102]If you are Jewish, you are still bound by Mosiac law and must observe Saturday Sabbath. Are you Jewish?Your first mistake is using the bible alone. Where does the bible teach that it alone is the sole rule of faith? It does not. Have you wrested the bible away from the Church authority which canonized it and given it your own twist? Yes, you have. Private interpretation is absolutely prohibited by scripture itself.

Christ founded a Church. It’s in Matthew 16. He did not found a bible. Go ahead and use bible only, just don’t argue that you are Christian as Christ intended.

If you will simply read the bible you will find that it is emphatic about what the church is. It is the body of believers and not as you would like to believe. All Christians are members of Christ’s church whether they may call themselves Roman Catholic or not. But they MUST believe the gospel and follow Christ’s teachings, not man’s. Most of your doctrines cannot be found in scripture and you have no written tradition so your beliefs come from man, not God.

 

[Pons]

In the aforementioned thread by nevadagardener - Jesus had siblings? some orthodox possibilities were discussed, especially about James, brother of the Lord and writer of the Epistle of James.

But first, some other links - in part reacting to the discovery of the James Ossuary:

catholic-legate.com/articles/james.html
catholic-legate.com/articles/ohbrother.html

Some posts from the thread:

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

My critique of Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary; compatible with Catholic teaching (see also next post)

The Third Apostle James?

My critique ofThe Third Apostle James; compatible with Catholic teaching

 

[Jerom3]

In the aforementioned thread by nevadagardener - Jesus had siblings? some orthodox possibilities were discussed, especially about James, brother of the Lord and writer of the Epistle of James.

But first, some other links - in part reacting to the discovery of the James Ossuary:

catholic-legate.com/articles/james.html
catholic-legate.com/articles/ohbrother.html

Some posts from the thread:

It seems foolish to continue to try and explain away what Scripture tells us. It definitely calls James the brother of the Lord, names Joseph and others also as His siblings. There is no other place where they could have come from. James was younger than Jesus as were they all. Jesus was the one who opened the womb and the others followed. Else we can not believe scripture.

Ignatius, who lived when James did, wrote of going to see Mary, mother of Jesus and John with whom she lived and how he was looking forward to seeing James, the Lord’s brother who reportedly looked exactly like Jesus and was so much like Him that it was said they came from the same womb. He wrote how happy he was to be able to go see them.

Since none of the early church fathers mentions Mary remaining a virgin and recognized that James was the Lord’s brother, it seems strange that many would want to say it was otherwise. It doesn’t change the gospel at all. It just changes some of today’s beliefs about Mary.

 

[po18guy]

This is wrong. The church wrote nothing. The bible was written by believers, members of the church of God. There was no Magesterium or anything resembling it until many centuries later.

I cannot interact with someone who so consistently demonstrates such a distinct and peculiar aversion to history.

 

[Pons]

Mark Bonocore’s essay is very illuminating to me, so I’ll quote it extensively:

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? - The Principal Reasons Why St. James the Just Could Not Possibly Be the Literal Brother of Jesus Christ by Mark Bonocore

“He alone was permitted to enter into the Holy Place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the Temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people …” (Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).

Only Levites (that is, Jewish priests) were permitted to enter the Holy Place of the Temple. It was unlawful for regular Jews to do so. If James were the son of Joseph, he could not be a Levite, but would have been a regular Jew / Judahite of the house of David, which was St. Joseph’s lineage (Luke 1:27). And so, this alone proves that James could not have been Joseph’s son. Rather, as we know from Luke 1:5 & 1:36, it was Mary who possessed Levitical relatives; and this is supported by John 19:25, which depicts James’ mother as the “sister” (that is, tribal relative) of Mary.

 

[Pons]

**…As the modernist argument goes, James presided over the Jerusalem church because he was the sibling of Jesus –a custom, so they claim, which was very typical among Semitic religious societies (such as when Mohammad’s closest relatives succeeded to the leadership of Islam). However, in making this argument, the modernists don’t seem to notice what it clearly implies – namely, that it would make James part of a royal dynasty, and so Jesus’ Messianic heir! In other words, if James were the son of St. Joseph (through whom Jesus legally inherited His Messianic claim as Son of David –the King of Israel), then he too would be of royal blood and his leadership in the Church would imply more than just mere succession, but rather inheritance!
*
“The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou, Just One, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the Crucified One, declare to us, what is the Gate of Jesus?’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He Himself sits in Heaven at the Right Hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of Heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, …‘Oh! oh! the Righteous Man is also in error.’” *(Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).

Notice how the people of Jerusalem hail Jesus as the “Son of David,” whereas there is not the slightest hint that James too is of royal, Davidic blood. Rather, he is merely “the Just One” –a particularly righteous Jew, and not a participant in a Messianic dynasty –something that would have to be the case if James were indeed Jesus’ sibling.

Also, when we look at Scripture itself, the implausible nature of James’ leadership being based on a sibling relationship with Jesus, the Messiah, becomes even more pronounced. For, in Acts 12:1-17, we are told about how King Herod Agrippa came to the throne of Judea and began to persecute the leaders of the Church. The Apostle James bar-Zebedee is killed (Acts 12:2), and Peter is arrested and marked for death, only to be miraculously freed by an angel (Acts 12:5-12). From this point on, the Apostles no longer operate out of Jerusalem, but leave James the Just in charge of the church there (Acts 12:17).

However … if King Herod Agrippa is targeting the leaders of the Church (and doing so because their worship of a risen Messiah threatened his own royal legitimacy), then the last person one would leave in control of the Jerusalem church would be the literal brother of Jesus Christ! And why? Because this would make James a very real and tangible rival to Herod’s royal throne –the blood heir and successor to King Jesus. Indeed, if anyone would have to flee Judea because of the rise of King Herod Agrippa, it would not be the Apostles, but another Davidic heir – the very thing that James would be if he were the son of Joseph and literal sibling of Jesus Christ.

The last, and probably most striking reason why James could not possibly be the child of Joseph and Mary is, strangely enough, James’ own reputation for extreme holiness. Of this, Hegessipus also writes:
*
“He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day ….He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath….Because of his exceeding great righteousness he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the People’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him” *(Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).

Now, here, it is most significant to point out that the New Testament never refers to James as the “son of Joseph.” Rather, whether alone or in the company of the others, he is always called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19, 1 Corinth 9:5, etc.). However, since he was reputed to be so incredibly holy, if he truly were the son of Joseph and Mary, it is highly unlikely, if not wholly impossibly, that Scripture would neglect to point out that he and Jesus had different fathers —that James, unlike Jesus, was merely the son of Joseph and not of Divine parentage. For, if James was reputed for such extraordinary holiness, and if he came from the same womb that bore the Son of God, would it not be natural for early believers to suspect that James too was sired by the Almighty? Yet, the fact that the New Testament offers no apologetic against this natural suspicion illustrates quite clearly that there was no need to do so. And there was no need to do so because James did not come from the same womb as Jesus. If he did, then the New Testament would have to make clear that he was the natural son of Joseph. The mere fact that this issue is never raised speaks volumes about James’ true relationship to the Lord.**