Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[Good_Fella]

I see this much differently. If God crowned Mary the queen of heaven, co-redeemer, mediatrix of “all” graces, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit surely men like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome would have wrote more than a few sentences about her. Surely the Gospel authors, Paul, and all the rest would have mentioned her more than merely a few times.

Neither Paul and the Apostles, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, nor Justin Martyr taught the false 16th century Protestant doctrines Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Christu, and Sola Gratia. Nor did any Church Father throughout the Patristic period. But eventually the Church Fathers did explicitly write about Mary’s Divine maternity, her powerful intercessory role, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption into heaven.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

There are only James the son of Alphaeus (the less) and James the son of Zebedee. James the less is the one mentioned in Acts 9:27 and Galatians 1:19.

Many commentators disagree with your view. However, I’m sure we’re not going to resolve this issue here tonight.

We know at least James the son of Zebedee (brother of John) is not ever mentioned as a possible relation of Jesus.

So the question I think is limited to these two instances:

**"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).**

Obviously the names here don’t match up. So the Mary in Matt 13:55 (mother of Jesus) and the Mary in Mark 15:40 (mother of James the younger) are different people. Moreover, again neither of these men were John’s brother James. So there is clearly three James’ in the New Testament.

Also keep in mind Salome is a female name.

Paul is not saying that he saw none of the other apostles except the Lord’s uterine brother. The term “brother” denotes kinship. Paul was a Jew, so he could have expressed himself by using a Semitic idiom. He did not necessarily have to use the Greek word for cousin.

I’m not saying Paul may not have meant “cousin” – rather I am simply saying (in this instance) that the context doesn’t allow an interpretation of brother as fellow Christian or disciple.

In his ‘Antiquities’ Josephus is referring to the execution of James the son of Zebedee (c.40-44 A.D.) and uterine brother of the apostle John. His usage of the term “brother” denotes apostleship. The Catholic Church commemorates his martyrdom on July 25.

I haven’t heard this rendering of Josephus from any commentator? Josephus was a Jew. He would have used brother in its natural sense. Moreover, Josephus wrote in Hebrew and if he meant to say cousin he would have framed with words like: son of his mothers sister.

The only credible argument against Josephus (in support of the Catholic theory) is that he was wrong. For instance Origen commented on the Antiquities of the Jews (by Josephus) indicating that Josephus did not accept Jesus. Apparently Josephus’ mention of James as the brother of Jesus also sparked controversy during Origen’s time (since it is in that the context which Origen mentions Josephus) – so Origin sought to discredit Josephus.

Unfortunately we only have fragments of Origen’s writings in this regard – however, there is enough to know that Josephus did indeed consider James to be the brother of Jesus. The only question pertains to Josephus’ credibility (and the authenticity of authorship). However, strangely Origen did not seem to question the authenticity of the writings, only Josephus’ motives. Ironically I have discussed Josephus with some very conservative Jewish folks on other discussion forums & they view Josephus as a traitor and heretic (poor Josephus got no love from either side I guess?).

If you read the rest of the chapter you’ll see that Eusebius is simply relaying information grounded on hearsay.

Hearsay? Isn’t you’re entire position also grounded on hearsay?

Sorry GF I couldn’t resist (I hold a law degree & essentially everything about faith is technically hearsay – so that statement is a little amusing to be honest).

The fact is not a single Apostle, or Apostolic Father has ever written or to our knowledge spoken anything about Mary beyond what is in Scripture. Mariology began with the early church fathers: Origen, Ireneaus, and Tertullian. Indeed even those three disagreed with one anothers view of Mary. So what I see is far from a perfect continuum between the Apostolic Fathers and the view of Mary held by today’s church.

Ultimately what I do know is the RCC has gone too far in its depiction of Mary. It’s impossible to think that the Apostles or Apostolic Fathers would have forgot to make mention of this if the Catholic view were true. Take Paul. In all his writings he mentions Mary a few times, usually referring to her as woman.

The resurrection of Christ started out as a “rumour”.

It’s questionable whether the Evangelists and Paul actually fully comprehended what they wrote. No prophet is the interpreter of his prophecy. Divine revelation is only materially complete in Scripture. Sacred Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in the written word. Jesus founded a Church and sent his Paraclete to gradually unfold the true mysteries contained in the scriptures.

The idea that Mary inhabits such an important role in the economy of salvation – much more important than any Apostle (in the Catholic scheme of things), but yet the Apostles slipped and forgot to mention it, and it also slipped the minds of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement … confounds reason?

Honestly GF I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Neither Paul and the Apostles, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, nor Justin Martyr taught the false 16th century Protestant doctrines Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Christu, and Sola Gratia. Nor did any Church Father throughout the Patristic period. But eventually the Church Fathers did explicitly write about Mary’s Divine maternity, her powerful intercessory role, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption into heaven.

PAX

hold on … you forgot her hypostatic union with the Trinity? (I love these fancy philosophical words used to explain simple faith and love).

I always find these charges somewhat ironic. The idea of all these “solas” – well if there’s a bunch of concepts referred to as “sola” they really can’t be “sola” can they?

Take faith alone and grace alone. It’s by grace through faith – so obviously both play into the economy of salvation right?

Hence how can we say either of them are “alone” sufficient for salvation? So I’m not a fan of the word “sola” either (in fact – I can pretty much do without the Latin generally speaking). I just picked a name out of thin air – nothing deep to imply about my selection of screen names.

Then there’s Christ alone. Well of course by grace through faith in Christ we are saved – but we must also believe in God the Father, not only Christ.

If I could go back in time to the reformation – and speak to Luther, I would say, hold on buddy, you enumerated like four different things that “alone” save us? How can they be “alone”

I will put it like this. We are drawn to Christ by grace alone. We are justified by faith alone. We are sanctified by the Spirit alone. We should live for God’s glory alone. And the reliable word of God is found in Scripture alone.

 

[Good_Fella]

I will put it like this. We are drawn to Christ by grace alone. We are justified by faith alone. We are sanctified by the Spirit alone. We should live for God’s glory alone. And the reliable word of God is found in Scripture alone.

Not according to Scripture and Tradition. What you believe is a 16th century novelty originating from an excommunicated Catholic.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

Not according to Scripture and Tradition. What you believe is a 16th century novelty originating from an excommunicated Catholic.

PAX

It’s not a 16th Century “novelty” it’s a timeless reality.

By grace – Was there ever anything but grace? Paul tells us the remnant (the 7,000 who did not bow to baal) was saved by grace, just as we are today. There’s nothing new about this idea – though perhaps it was rediscovered in the 16th century?

Through faith – is there anything else that justifies? Certainly I’m not one to say that we can profess faith one day and go our merry way the next; but of course anyone who thinks this has a faith, which isn’t based upon knowledge of truth.

God alone – is there anyone else the Christian should seek to glorify? If so I’ve never heard anyone explain this to me. The misunderstanding is perhaps in how we glorify God. We glorify God through love and charity – by bearing fruit.

I guess it is the faith alone idea that has drawn so much resistance; however, I’m not really sure why? I assume it’s based on the assumption that we Protestants think there need be no witness of faith, which is a misunderstanding of our doctrine.

Frankly, I’ve had enough experience with Catholic, mainline Protestant, and evangelical churches in my life to know that the average evangelical church facilitates the Christian life much better than others. With weekly (at least) Bible study, plenty of fellowship opportunities (outreach and charity), etc. we walk the walk. All the rest want a faith that fits their schedule – while they lecture us about proper doctrine?

 

[placido]

So the question I think is limited to these two instances:

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).

Obviously the names here don’t match up. So the Mary in Matt 13:55 (mother of Jesus) and the Mary in Mark 15:40 (mother of James the younger) are different people. Moreover, again neither of these men were John’s brother James. So there is clearly three James’ in the New Testament.

Sola Scriptura’s position is untenable because it implies Jesus had two brothers named James – if the James of Galatians is not the same as the James of Matt 13. It also implies Jesus had three apostles named James. That is, rather have 13 apostles instead of agreeing with Catholics.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sola Scriptura’s position is untenable because it implies Jesus had two brothers named James – if the James of Galatians is not the same as the James of Matt 13. It also implies Jesus had three apostles named James. That is, rather have 13 apostles instead of agreeing with Catholics.

Uhhh … no . Here’s the three James’

1. James (the greater): son of Zebedee (one of the twelve)
2. James (the lesser): son of Alphaeus (one of the twelve)
3. James (the Just): brother of Jesus (NOT one of the twelve)

So – no I DO NOT imply Jesus had two brothers named James – only one (he could have been a cousin I suppose; but at least only one James who is referred to as Jesus’ brother).

Moreover, it does not imply that Jesus had three disciples named James, since James the Just (described as Jesus’ brother) was NOT one of the twelve. He is also the James described by Paul in Galatians & my assertion does not imply that Jesus had 13 disciples?

Now I see why you guys get these things so wrong

 

[guanophore]

Uhhh … no . Here’s the three James’

1. James (the greater): son of Zebedee (one of the twelve)
2. James (the lesser): son of Alphaeus (one of the twelve)
3. James (the Just): brother of Jesus (NOT one of the twelve)

So – no I DO NOT imply Jesus had two brothers named James – only one (he could have been a cousin I suppose; but at least only one James who is referred to as Jesus’ brother).

Moreover, it does not imply that Jesus had three disciples named James, since James the Just (described as Jesus’ brother) was NOT one of the twelve. He is also the James described by Paul in Galatians & my assertion does not imply that Jesus had 13 disciples?

Now I see why you guys get these things so wrong

There were more than 12 Apostles, though, so James could have been considered an Apostle, though not one of the “twelve”.

I am curious how you set aside the accounts of Josephus and later Jerome about the early family history. Here is a Wikipedia summary:

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – 339) reports the tradition that James the Just was the son of Joseph’s brother Clopas, and therefore was of the “brethren” (which he interprets as “cousin”) of Jesus described in the New Testament.

This is echoed by Jerome (c. 342 – 419) in De Viris Illustribus (“On Illustrious Men”) - James is said to be the son of another Mary - the wife of Clopas, and the “sister” of Mary, the mother of Jesus - in the following manner:

“James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary, sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book…”

Jerome refers to the scene of the Crucifixion in John 19:25, where three Marys - the mother of Jesus, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene - are said to be witnesses. John also mentions the “sister” of the mother of Jesus, often identified with Mary of Clopas due to grammar. Mary “of Clopas” is often interpreted as Mary “wife of Clopas”. Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Clopas also need not be literally sisters, in light of the usage of the said words in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.[16]

Mary of Clopas is suggested to be the same as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and Joses”, “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” and the “other Mary” in Jesus’ crucifixion and post-resurrection accounts in the Synoptic Gospels. Proponents of this identification argue that the writers of the Synoptics would just have called this Mary the mother of Jesus if she was indeed meant to be the mother of Jesus, given the importance of her son’s crucifixion and resurrection. These proponents find it odd that Mary would be referred to by her biological children other than Jesus at such a significant time (James happens to be the brother of one Joses, as spelled in Mark, or Joseph, as in Matthew).[16][17][18]

Jerome’s opinion suggests an identification of James the Just with the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus; Clopas and Alphaeus are thought to be different Greek renderings of the Aramaic name Halpai.[17] Despite this, some biblical scholars tend to distinguish them; this is also not Roman Catholic dogma, though a traditional teaching.

Since this Clopas is, according to Eusebius, Joseph of Nazareth’s brother (see above) and this Mary is said to be Mary of Nazareth’s sister, James could be related to Jesus by blood and law.[16]

Let you think this a “Roman” phenomenon, I will include a passage from our Orthodox brethren:

According to some, this Saint was a son of Joseph the Betrothed, born of the wife that the latter had before he was betrothed to the Ever-virgin. Hence he was the brother of the Lord, Who was also thought to be the son of Joseph (Matt. 13: 55). But some say that he was a nephew of Joseph, and the son of his brother Cleopas, who was also called Alphaeus and Mary his wife, who was the first cousin of the Theotokos. But even according to this genealogy, he was still called, according to the idiom of the Scriptures, the Lord’s brother because of their kinship.

This James is called the Less (Mark 15:4) by the Evangelists to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee, who was called the Great. He became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, elevated to this episcopal rank by the Apostles, according to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., Book II: 23), and was called Obliah, that is, the Just, because of his great holiness and righteousness. Having ascended the crest of the Temple on the day of the Passover at the prompting of all, he bore testimony from there concerning his belief in Jesus, and he proclaimed with a great voice that Jesus sits at the right hand of the great power of God and shall come again upon the clouds of heaven. On hearing this testimony, many of those present cried, “Hosanna to the Son of David.” But the Scribes and Pharisees cried, “So, even the just one hath been led astray,” and at the command of Ananias the high priest, the Apostle was cast down headlong from thence, then was stoned, and while he prayed for his slayers, his head was crushed by the wooden club wielded by a certain scribe. The first of the Catholic (General) Epistles written to the Jews in the Diaspora who believed in Christ was written by this James.

goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=254

 

[Good_Fella]

Many commentators disagree with your view. However, I’m sure we’re not going to resolve this issue here tonight.

So the question I think is limited to these two instances:

(Matt. 13:55); (Mark 15:40).

Obviously the names here don’t match up. So the Mary in Matt 13:55 (mother of Jesus) and the Mary in Mark 15:40 (mother of James the younger) are different people. Moreover, again neither of these men were John’s brother James. So there is clearly three James’ in the New Testament.

Also keep in mind Salome is a female name.

I haven’t heard this rendering of Josephus from any commentator.

The only credible argument against Josephus (in support of the Catholic theory) is that he was wrong. For instance Origen commented on the Antiquities of the Jews (by Josephus) indicating that Josephus did not accept Jesus. Apparently Josephus’ mention of James as the brother of Jesus also sparked controversy during Origen’s time (since it is in that the context which Origen mentions Josephus) – so Origin sought to discredit Josephus.

Hearsay? Isn’t you’re entire position also grounded on hearsay?

The fact is not a single Apostle, or Apostolic Father has ever written or to our knowledge spoken anything about Mary beyond what is in Scripture. Mariology began with the early church fathers: Origen, Ireneaus, and Tertullian.

The idea that Mary inhabits such an important role in the economy of salvation – much more important than any Apostle (in the Catholic scheme of things), but yet the Apostles slipped and forgot to mention it, and it also slipped the minds of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement … confounds reason?

Concerning the identities of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, please see my reply #543 in the thread: Re The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot…Apologetics Forum. Hopefully you’ll see how the names match up. The lists of the Apostles should be sufficient when it comes to names. Going beyond these lists leads to “straining the text”.

It is uncertain who Salome is. Some scholars think that it’s probable she is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, while others have inferred she is a sister of Mary. But she is not the sister of James the less, Joseph (Joses), Simon, and Judas (Jude).

I apologize and stand corrected with regard to Josephus. I had Acts in mind. The historian is referring to the execution of James the less (the Just) in A.D. 62. The son of Alphaeus was not a uterine brother of Jesus. So the term “brother” should mean “cousin.” Please cite your source about this supposed dispute between Origen and Josephus.

My entire position is grounded on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not hearsay. These two mediums of divine revelation must not be divorced from each other. Eusebius’ account does not reflect a traditional awareness of the Church with regard to Jude (Judas/Thaddeus). He simply reports what an annonymous group of people have to say. Moreover, he fails to mention who these people are and provide actual quotes. The apostle Jude was a brother of James the less (the Just) and a cousin of Jesus, the author of the epistle in his name. The Letter of Jude was read in the liturgy of the Mass before the canon of Scripture, for the Church accepted it as the work of an apostle of Jesus.

You’re mistaken about the Church Fathers with regard to the scriptural Mary. Hyppolytus is the first to call Mary the Ark in keeping with a tradition acknowledged by Luke, who clearly draws a parallel between Mary and the ark of the Old Covenant by referring to the Book of Samuel. Anyway, all Church doctrines have developed over a period of time. Christ established his Church to last until the end of the age, not until the end of the 2nd century. And all our Marian doctrines are based on what has been revealed implicitly in Scripture. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth”, Paul tells Timothy. Still Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr taught much more than what we have left in a few written letters and extant fragments. Paul never wrote about the virgin birth, or the ontological deity of the Holy Spirit, but I’m sure he mentioned it when he preached; although Arian Catholics and Unitarians would disagree. Churches had already been erected in honour of Mary in the Apostolic Era. James, the son of Zebedee, for instance, erected one in Spain before he returned to Jerusalem. Today this church still draws many pilgrims each year.

The Marian teachings of the Church Fathers have been consistent through the centuries, with the exception of Tertullian, who significantly denied Mary’s ‘virginitus in partem’. No Church Father has objected to the teaching of Mary as the New Eve and Mother of God, but rather articulated these teachings even further. No Church Father objected Mary was sinless. Origen merely believed Mary had personal faults like vanity and doubt. The consistent and developed teachings on Mary’s sinlessness through the centuries by the Fathers of the East and West led to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Finally, once the Church Fathers explicitly taught the Assumption in the 6th century (the feast was already celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century), only one lone bishop objected to this teaching in the 8th century, but it was not yet dogmatic. May I suggest you read Luigi Gambero’s book on Mary and the Church Fathers. You are obviously misinformed.

Mary does “inhabit an important role in the economy of salvation”, unless you consider the birth of Jesus unimportant. If not for her Divine maternity, the apostles would never have been called. Maybe you should stick to law and forget about theology.

PAX

 

[guanophore]

Concerning the identities of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, please see my reply #543 in the thread: Re The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot…Apologetics Forum. Hopefully you’ll see how the names match up. The lists of the Apostles should be sufficient when it comes to names. Going beyond these lists leads to “straining the text”.

It is uncertain who Salome is. Some scholars think that it’s probable she is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, while others have inferred she is a sister of Mary. But she is not the sister of James the less, Joseph (Joses), Simon, and Judas (Jude).

"There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. Mark 15:40-41

You think this should be understood that Salome was one of the women looking on, rather than "Mary the mother of James the younger, Joses, and Salome? Why could she not be their sister?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Concerning the identities of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, please see my reply #543 in the thread: Re The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot…Apologetics Forum. Hopefully you’ll see how the names match up. The lists of the Apostles should be sufficient when it comes to names. Going beyond these lists leads to “straining the text”.

I checked out your post & I don’t see any new information.

1. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).
2. James, son of Alphaeus: Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).
3. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matt. 27:56).

Is the James identified in Matt. 13:55 the same as the James in Matt. 27:56? I assume you’re not asserting you found the smoking gun conclusively answering this question (which has been the subject of debate for centuries)?

What is also striking is that Josephus claims that Jude was Jesus’ brother “according to the flesh.” This isn’t dispositive – but it is certainly persuasive.

I apologize and stand corrected with regard to Josephus. I had Acts in mind. The historian is referring to the execution of James the less (the Just) in A.D. 62. The son of Alphaeus was not a uterine brother of Jesus. So the term “brother” should mean “cousin.” Please cite your source about this supposed dispute between Origen and Josephus.

Actually it wasn’t a disagreement between the two men – rather Origen’s writings are used by some to discredit the authenticity of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Origen

You’re mistaken about the Church Fathers with regard to the scriptural Mary. Hyppolytus is the first to call Mary the Ark in keeping with a tradition acknowledged by Luke, who clearly draws a parallel between Mary and the ark of the Old Covenant by referring to the Book of Samuel. Anyway, all Church doctrines have developed over a period of time. Christ established his Church to last until the end of the age, not until the end of the 2nd century. And all our Marian doctrines are based on what has been revealed implicitly in Scripture.

I’m not sure if relying on Hippolytus of Rome lends much weight to your argument? He was a student of Irenaeus – who was the first to develop a thorough Mariology (which I noted earlier). Hippolytus simply drew from Irenaeus – so he certainly doesn’t add any additional Apostolic flavor to Mariology?

The Marian teachings of the Church Fathers have been consistent through the centuries, with the exception of Tertullian, who significantly denied Mary’s ‘virginitus in partem’. No Church Father has objected to the teaching of Mary as the New Eve and Mother of God, but rather articulated these teachings even further. No Church Father objected Mary was sinless. Origen merely believed Mary had personal faults like vanity and doubt. The consistent and developed teachings on Mary’s sinlessness through the centuries by the Fathers of the East and West led to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Finally, once the Church Fathers explicitly taught the Assumption in the 6th century (the feast was already celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century), only one lone bishop objected to this teaching in the 8th century, but it was not yet dogmatic. May I suggest you read Luigi Gambero’s book on Mary and the Church Fathers. You are obviously misinformed.

Origen did not believe Mary was sinless (dissenting from Ireneaus’ view) but he did believe she remained a virgin, while Tertullian substantially rejected Mariology all together.

In fact Origen himself cited the Protoevangelium of James in support of his own Marian view (see his Commentary on Matthew).

In the Protoevangelium of James it is asserted that Joseph brought children into his marriage with Mary. Of course at one time the RCC maintained a belief that Joseph was also a virgin (which would obviously give the impression that they didn’t regard the Protoevangelium as authoritative).

So again – your claim to an uninterrupted continuum between the Apostles and today on this issue simply cannot be substantiated.

Mary does “inhabit an important role in the economy of salvation”, unless you consider the birth of Jesus unimportant. If not for her Divine maternity, the apostles would never have been called. Maybe you should stick to law and forget about theology.

Mary is blessed among women, and her name will be proclaimed and praised forever by all Christians. That’s the extent of it. She should not be venerated, nor should any Christian engage in intercessory prayer to anyone except Christ.

On an ancillary note – it’s a shame to see you say something like “stick to law”? Ad hom attacks – gosh I’m disappointed?

 

[Good_Fella]

"There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. Mark 15:40-41

You think this should be understood that Salome was one of the women looking on, rather than "Mary the mother of James the younger, Joses, and Salome? Why could she not be their sister?

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. [KJV]

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James the Less, and of Joses, and Salome. [NKJV]

And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome. [DRB]

There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. [NAB]

The grammatical structures of these versions indicate otherwise. The NKJV reads: “among whom were Mary Magdalen, Mary (the mother of James the Less, and of Joses), and Salome”. We have a series of women being listed with only one conjunction “and” preceding Salome, the last woman in the list: ‘Mary Magdalen, the other Mary, and Salome.’ This structure identifies Salome with the other women looking on from a distance. If Salome is in fact a sister of James and Joses, then the grammar is awkward, if not incorrect. The grammatical structure of the verse in the NAB is similar. So by taking this grammatical structure into account, we cannot safely assume Salome is a sister of James and Joses, and thereby a cousin of Jesus. Unfortunately, we don’t have the original copy written by Mark himself, but I doubt the Holy Spirit would permit copyist errors to spoil the meaning of the written word.

Likewise, the grammatical structure of this verse found in the KJV and DRB suggests otherwise. These versions utilize the conjunction “and” twice, before the other Mary and Salome: “among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph, and Salome.” This pattern is emphatic in nature, identifying Salome with the other Mary as one of the women looking on. It’s like saying: “I like apples, and peaches, and plums,” when stressing our passion for fruit. Both peaches and plums are fruit (the women looking on from a distance). We cannot infer that Salome is a sister of James and Joseph without calling the precision or correctness of the grammatical structure into question. We should also note that the text does not read “of” Salome. But in this case the author may have simply wished to avoid repetition. Anyway, what we have in written form does not justify coming to the conclusion that Salome is the sister of James and Joseph (Joses), although it’s still possible however unlikely given the grammatical structures. Still Mark could have incidentally written that Salome, a sister of James and Joseph, was one of the women looking on from a distance. We cannot be certain. Thanks for pointing out this verse. It raises an interesting question.

One thing we do know for sure, that Salome is not the uterine sister of Jesus. If she were, then she would have been standing close to the cross with Mary, the mother of our Lord.

PAX :harp:

 

[sola_scriptura]

One thing we do know for sure, that Salome is not the uterine sister of Jesus. If she were, then she would have been standing close to the cross with Mary, the mother of our Lord.

PAX :harp:

I think for the “cousin” theory to hold true Salome would have to be the “cousin” of Jesus as well?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Frankly, I think brother, step-brothers, or cousins will not be conclusively proven (notwithstanding the natural reading of the text states brothers – since there is a slight possibility brother can mean cousin, this argument for all intents and purposes is barking in the wind). Thankfully, however, God gives us another clue

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

oux outov estin (5748) o tektwn, o uiov thv Mariav kai adelfov Iakwbou kai Iwshtov kai Iouda kai Simwnov? kai ouk eisin (5748) ai adelfai autou wde prov hmav? kai eskandalizonto (5712) en autw.

Mark 6:3

With regard to Sister – it cannot mean cousin. Here’s the Strongs:

Strong’s Number: 79
Original Word: a)delfh/
Translated Word: Adelphe
Noun Feminine

Definition:

1. a full, own sister
2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

Now you are left arguing that these “sisters” were “connected by the tie of the Christian religion” – when the text of the passage states: And they took offense at Him.

Hence Jesus either had natural sisters or step-sisters. So either Mary bore children after Jesus or Joseph brought children into the marriage.

I can’t wait to hear the gymnastics on this one

 

[guanophore]

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. [KJV]

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James the Less, and of Joses, and Salome. [NKJV]

And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome. [DRB]

There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. [NAB]

The grammatical structures of these versions indicate otherwise. The NKJV reads: “among whom were Mary Magdalen, Mary (the mother of James the Less, and of Joses), and Salome”. We have a series of women being listed with only one conjunction “and” preceding Salome, the last woman in the list: ‘Mary Magdalen, the other Mary, and Salome.’ This structure identifies Salome with the other women looking on from a distance. If Salome is in fact a sister of James and Joses, then the grammar is awkward, if not incorrect. The grammatical structure of the verse in the NAB is similar. So by taking this grammatical structure into account, we cannot safely assume Salome is a sister of James and Joses, and thereby a cousin of Jesus. Unfortunately, we don’t have the original copy written by Mark himself, but I doubt the Holy Spirit would permit copyist errors to spoil the meaning of the written word.

Likewise, the grammatical structure of this verse found in the KJV and DRB suggests otherwise. These versions utilize the conjunction “and” twice, before the other Mary and Salome: “among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph, and Salome.” This pattern is emphatic in nature, identifying Salome with the other Mary as one of the women looking on. It’s like saying: “I like apples, and peaches, and plums,” when stressing our passion for fruit. Both peaches and plums are fruit (the women looking on from a distance). We cannot infer that Salome is a sister of James and Joseph without calling the precision or correctness of the grammatical structure into question. We should also note that the text does not read “of” Salome. But in this case the author may have simply wished to avoid repetition. Anyway, what we have in written form does not justify coming to the conclusion that Salome is the sister of James and Joseph (Joses), although it’s still possible however unlikely given the grammatical structures. Still Mark could have incidentally written that Salome, a sister of James and Joseph, was one of the women looking on from a distance. We cannot be certain. Thanks for pointing out this verse. It raises an interesting question.

One thing we do know for sure, that Salome is not the uterine sister of Jesus. If she were, then she would have been standing close to the cross with Mary, the mother of our Lord.

PAX :harp:

Thanks, this is helpful. I am mindful that there was no punctuation in the originals, and I wonder how they managed to add it in along the way. It is true that it makes a big difference to the meaning.

 

[Good_Fella]

Is the James identified in Matt. 13:55 the same as the James in Matt. 27:56?

What is also striking is that Josephus claims that Jude was Jesus’ brother “according to the flesh.”

I’m not sure if relying on Hippolytus of Rome lends much weight to your argument? He was a student of Irenaeus – who was the first to develop a thorough Mariology (which I noted earlier). Hippolytus simply drew from Irenaeus – so he certainly doesn’t add any additional Apostolic flavor to Mariology?

Origen did not believe Mary was sinless (dissenting from Ireneaus’ view) but he did believe she remained a virgin, while Tertullian substantially rejected Mariology all together.

In fact Origen himself cited the Protoevangelium of James in support of his own Marian view…

In the Protoevangelium of James it is asserted that Joseph brought children into his marriage with Mary. Of course at one time the RCC maintained a belief that Joseph was also a virgin (which would obviously give the impression that they didn’t regard the Protoevangelium as authoritative).

James and Joseph are the sons of Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus). These two brothers can be found in the lists of the apostles, along with Simon and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus). According to your reasoning, the four alleged uterine brothers of Jesus had the same names of four of the apostles. That’s a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say? One can only draw a false assumption by ignoring the lists of the apostles. And since ‘adelphos’ can mean more than biological brother, there’s no reason to look beyond the lists of the apostles.

Whatever Josephus claimed did not reflect the traditional awareness and teachings of the early Church. If Jesus did in fact have natural brothers, there’s no reason why the Church would have invented and espoused a false Marian doctrine. One can only recklessly presume that the Church invented the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity to accommodate her notion of Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the new Covenant apart from Scripture. But this perspective amounts to biased and wild speculation. What the Church has gradually perceived of Mary’s place in the order of grace is through the agency of the promised Paraclete - who reveals to us in time the things that are to come.

Hyppolytus was a student of Irenaeus, who in turn was influenced by Justin Martyr (A.D. 155) in his teachings on Mary as the New Eve. But Hyppolytus drew his perception of Mary as the Ark from the Gospel of Luke, as Justin Martyr did his view of Mary as the New Eve. (See his Dialogue with Trypho, 100). Luke was the first to explicitly draw a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the New Covenant by referring to the Book of Samuel - confirming a traditional belief of the Church before his gospel was finally written. Do you think Luke was prone to invent doctrines as you believe Hyppolytus and Irenaeus were?The difference between the evangelist and the Church fathers is that the former was inspired by the Holy Spirit. What he wrote is an infallible truth. The individual views and teachings of the Fathers are fallible in nature. But since the Church has continuously and consistently taught the doctrines of Mary as the Ark and New Eve, these non-infallible teachings as a whole throughout time carry the weight of an infallible truth pending a dogmatic declaration. “The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen, ‘Homily 1’ [A.D. 244]

Origen also says:

“I consider it to be in conformity with reason that, with regard to purity which consists in chastity, Jesus was the first among men, while Mary was the first among women.”
Commentary on Matthew 10, 17

“Every incorrupt and virgin soul, having conceived by the Holy Spirit in order to give birth to the will of the Father, is a mother of Jesus.”
Fragments on Matthew 281

“Origen,however, taught that Mary was not holy from the beginning, and that she was scandalized and had vanity within her (Homily on Luke 17, 6-7). But this was because he was speaking in the Greek context of sanctification. Origen…tends to emphasize the Virgin’s holiness and virtues, always in the context of her condition as one still making progress.”
Luigi Gambero, ‘Mary and the Fathers of the Church’, p.78: Ignatius.

Mr. Bonocore points out that Mary was rebuked for having a maternal vanity, which was not considered a venial sin by the Greek Church.

The Catholic Church permits the faithful to decide for themselves whether Jesus actually had step-brothers through Joseph. But Catholics must give their sacred assent to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Tertullian was wrong on this score, and he did eventually become a heretic, as Judas became a traitor.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

James and Joseph are the sons of Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus). These two brothers can be found in the lists of the apostles, along with Simon and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus). According to your reasoning, the four alleged uterine brothers of Jesus had the same names of four of the apostles. That’s a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say? One can only draw a false assumption by ignoring the lists of the apostles. And since ‘adelphos’ can mean more than biological brother, there’s no reason to look beyond the lists of the apostles.

I repeat my above argument with regard to the cousin theory:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him (Mark 6:3).

With regard to Sister – it cannot mean cousin. Here’s the Strongs:

Strong’s Number: 79
Original Word: a)delfh/
Translated Word: Adelphe
Noun Feminine

Definition:

1. a full, own sister
2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

It cannot be that these “sisters” were “connected by the tie of the Christian religion” – since the text of the passage states: And they took offense at Him.

Hence Jesus either had natural sisters or step-sisters. So either Mary bore children after Jesus or Joseph brought children into the marriage.

Would this be wild speculation too?

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

This is an easy question to answer!

Nope. Jesus had no biological brothers or sisters. How could he given Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Questions can’t get much easier than this.

 

[rinnie]

I checked out your post & I don’t see any new information.

1. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).
2. James, son of Alphaeus: Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).
3. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matt. 27:56).

Is the James identified in Matt. 13:55 the same as the James in Matt. 27:56? I assume you’re not asserting you found the smoking gun conclusively answering this question (which has been the subject of debate for centuries)?

What is also striking is that Josephus claims that Jude was Jesus’ brother “according to the flesh.” This isn’t dispositive – but it is certainly persuasive.

Actually it wasn’t a disagreement between the two men – rather Origen’s writings are used by some to discredit the authenticity of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Origen

I’m not sure if relying on Hippolytus of Rome lends much weight to your argument? He was a student of Irenaeus – who was the first to develop a thorough Mariology (which I noted earlier). Hippolytus simply drew from Irenaeus – so he certainly doesn’t add any additional Apostolic flavor to Mariology?

Origen did not believe Mary was sinless (dissenting from Ireneaus’ view) but he did believe she remained a virgin, while Tertullian substantially rejected Mariology all together.

In fact Origen himself cited the Protoevangelium of James in support of his own Marian view (see his Commentary on Matthew).

In the Protoevangelium of James it is asserted that Joseph brought children into his marriage with Mary. Of course at one time the RCC maintained a belief that Joseph was also a virgin (which would obviously give the impression that they didn’t regard the Protoevangelium as authoritative).

So again – your claim to an uninterrupted continuum between the Apostles and today on this issue simply cannot be substantiated.

Mary is blessed among women, and her name will be proclaimed and praised forever by all Christians. That’s the extent of it. She should not be venerated, nor should any Christian engage in intercessory prayer to anyone except Christ.

On an ancillary note – it’s a shame to see you say something like “stick to law”? Ad hom attacks – gosh I’m disappointed?

 

[rinnie]

SS got a question for you, Now you said No one should engage in intercessory prayer to anyone except Christ right? Now question would you agree that Mary was at least AS righteous as Job?

Okay then If Jesus said to Jobs friends I will not listen to your prayer because you are not righteous but i will listen to Job.

Okay now, i am not righteous i will tell you that right now, I am not worthy of Gods forgiveness, but the Blessed Mother is, that I can be sure of, Now if Job could pray his children into heaven, (remember at the beginning jobs kids were bad) Now you know Job still loved his kids, and God said i will give Job what he asks for he is righteous, would that not be intercession.

Now if I go to the Blessed Mother and ask her to pray for me how can that be disobeying God? Or to replace God. I never said she had the power to be God, I am saying she will be heard. And her prayers will be heard, and can help me.

Now how can I ask you to pray for me or you ask me be hurting God.

The only difference is our prayer could and may be heard of death ears. Remember God said of Jobs friends I WILL NOT LISTEN TO THEIR PRAYERS. Now how can we say we are righteous. we cant. But we know the Blessed Mother is. Blessed are you among women. So how can God leaving her here for us, hurt us.

I read this somewhere about the Blessed Mother

When a child is scared or in need they will run to their Mother.

When a child is in danger the Mother will run toward the child.

What did the Blessed Mother do, she told them kids to pray, and ask God to help us.