E
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
**Hegesippus.
From Book Five of the Commentaries on the Acts of the Church (170 A.D.)
Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.3-18:**
James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day… He was holy from the womb of his mother.
So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other: Let us stone James the just…
**And one of them, one of the fullers, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. **And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
**Clement of Alexandria.
Late 2nd century
Eusebius, History of the Church 2.1.3-6:**
But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposeis writes as follows: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of the savior, as if also preferred by the Lord, did not strive for glory, but rather elected James the just to be bishop of Jerusalem.
And the same [Clement] in the seventh book of the same work says also these things concerning him: The Lord after the resurrection delivered knowledge to James the just and to John and to Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.
But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.
Paul indeed makes mention of the same just one, writing: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.
From Origen, On Matthew 10.17, commentary on Matthew 13.55: (c. 235 A.D.)
And disparaging the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kindred, they said: Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? They supposed therefore that he was the son of Joseph and Mary.** But some, depending on a tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James, say that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a former wife**…
And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord… And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.
Eusebius, Church History ll:1
- Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him…
- But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: *“For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, **as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
- The apostle James the Greater, son of Zebedee, who was present on Mount Tabor with Peter and John during Christ’s transfiguration.
- But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”…
James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord”, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number.
PAX
:heaven:
B
Brendan
Guest
By the same token then, do you believe that the Reign of God will come to an end.
1 Cor. 15: 24-25
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until (Greek: heos hou) he has put all his enemies under his feet
So, per your definition, Christ will stop reigning after He puts His enemies under his feet…
Is that your understanding of the duration of the Reign of Christ?
Or how about the Gospel of Christ
St Peter said
2 Peter 1:19
So, per your definition, there will come a point in our lives where we will have to stop being attentive to the Good News, that day being when ‘the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts’
Is that the correct understanding?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7, 14
I would agree with you if the verse read ‘And he knew her not “until after” (meta) she had brought forth her firstborn son.’ But instead Matthew only uses the word “until” (heos) which in its prepositional form doesn’t reference the future and means “up to the time of” or “hither to”. The evangelist isn’t concerned with what might have come after the birth of Jesus. He is strictly concerned with the time that came before our Lord’s birth and the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Indeed, Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah (7,14) in v.23 because he wishes to tell his Jewish audience (the original text was written in Hebrew) that Jesus was not only the expected Messiah, but was also divine - contrary to Judaic tradition. The Jews didn’t expect the Messiah to be born of a virgin by the time the angel appeared to Mary. And they still don’t. Moreover, they have never regarded Isaiah’s prophecy even to be messianic. Certainly we as Christians believe, according to the Apostolic Tradition and our interpretation of the OT, that Isaiah 7, 14 points to Christ and the Incarnation as a secondary fulfillment of the prophecy. But the Jews have always looked at the text’s primary fulfillment alone in its direct historical context which has nothing to do with the expected Messiah. Hence, Mary had no idea that her Son, who would inherit the throne of his ancestor David and the eternal kingdom, would be born of a virgin until after the angel answered her question: “How shall this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (Lk 1:34). She asked this question because she and her husband had no intention of having any children together.Thus Matthew is strictly concerned with the period of time shortly before Jesus was born by stressing Mary did not naturally conceive Jesus by Joseph while they were betrothed. As Luke tells us, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Most High when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (cf. 1:35).
Now some Protestants claim that the text reads heos hou, so reference or allusion to the time after our Lord’s birth can be made. In other words, this construction indicates that the action or state (virginity) of the first clause discontinues after an event (the birth of our Lord). However, *heos hou *can be used interchangeably with heos and mean the same thing “up to the time of”. We find another example in the NT: “But when Paul had appealled to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (heos hou) I could send him to Caesar” (Acts 25:21). We know for a fact that the apostle remained in custody after he was sent to Caesar; he was held while enroute to Rome (Acts 27:1) and for a short time after he arrived there (Acts 29:16). Thus the action of the main clause (the command to be held in custody) did not necessarily cease at the moment of the pivotal event (being sent to Caesar) in the linear course of time. Paul was no less sent to Caesar free of his chains than Mary was a virgin after the birth of Christ. One can easily have the impression that Matthew is implying she bore another child after Jesus was born, when he reads the text in simple English. But the word until doesn’t necessarily reference the future in the ancient Greek or Hebrew language as it may in English usage, though not necessarily: “After the teacher had left the classroom, the students didn’t make any noise until he returned.” The narrator means that the students worked quietly before their teacher returned after he had left the classroom for a brief period. He doesn’t mean that the students became noisy after the teacher returned. Likewise, Matthew doesn’t mean to imply that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born (Joseph didn’t know Mary - he knew her not - until the birth of her firstborn son.) but rather they never had Jesus together by conjugal relations.
PAX
:heaven:
E
ericc
Guest
V
Vanny
Guest
Amen:thumbsup:Alas, it is a cold and lonely world for us Lutherans. :bighanky:
To Catholic for protestants, too protestant for Catholics.
Jon
I’ve had so many evangelicals get on my case for baptizing my sons as infants.
I had to resort to the early Church fathers and Catholic writings to show them that the Church did baptize infants. I tend to agree with Manualman, if Mary had other children
Jesus would not have given her to John at the cross.
for JonNC this is off-topic but when LCMS recite the Nicene or Apostles Creed do they say one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church or One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church as the WELS does?
B
betsybug354
Guest
I’m not JonNC, but my Lutheran Service Book uses the word “Christian” in the creeds. (I still say catholic anyway because that’s how I was raised in my old Methodist church, and I’m not changing now.) I also sing “let men their songs employ” instead of “let all their songs employ” when we sing Joy to the World at Christmas. I’m a stubborn old lady, I guess.
The LSB (Lutheran Service Book) says “Christian” with an * and a note that the original is “catholic”, which means universal. One of the vestiges of not wanting to appear “Roman”.
I wouldn’t say that Referring to the Church Fathers and early Church is “resorting to” as if they do not apply to us. The confessions are filled with references to the early Church Fathers. They are indeed part of our heritage and Tradition as Christians, and they are there precisely for that purpose. We don’t have to apologize simply because they misunderstand the sola scriptura praxis, and want to exclude the Fathers.
Jon
You be stubborn, Betsy.
It an unnecessary change to the creed. Ironically, the LSB does not change the Athanasian Creed. It still says, “catholic”.Jon
V
Vanny
Guest
I’m a stubborn old lady too, as I still sing God rest ye Merry Gentlemen instead of Gentlefolk that we sang in the ELCAI’m not JonNC, but my Lutheran Service Book uses the word “Christian” in the creeds. (I still say catholic anyway because that’s how I was raised in my old Methodist church, and I’m not changing now.) I also sing “let men their songs employ” instead of “let all their songs employ” when we sing Joy to the World at Christmas. I’m a stubborn old lady, I guess.
V
Vanny
Guest
Thanks JonNC.
Actually I didn’t mean “resorting” to as in that they didn’t apply to us I guess I didn’t word that well ! Actually I love the Early church Fathers!You are right they are the heritage of all Christendom as I point out to my friends.
I was raised LCMS but haven’t attended a LCMS service since my teens so I couldn’t remember which they used in the creed. I was ELCA for awhile and they do use “catholic” as in universal. Hubby and I joined the WELS here in early 1990’s as the small town we live in did not have a LCMS and I did not want to remain ELCA because of their stance on certain issues. The WELS says Christian- with no mention of “catholic”.
E
Erich
Guest
This link explains the relationship between Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and her Perpetual Virginity.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I am a former LCMS member also and remember when the provisional hymnal [back in the 1970’s] replaced ‘Christian’ with ‘Catholic’ in the creed. I was very surprised when the new hymnal went back to using ‘Christian’. The Missouri Synod seems to be influenced by those who have difficulty understanding the word catholic and only looks foolish, in my opinion, when they succumb to these Protestant impulses.Thanks JonNC.
You are right they are the heritage of all Christendom as I point out to my friends.
I was raised LCMS but haven’t attended a LCMS service since my teens so I couldn’t remember which they used in the creed. I was ELCA for awhile and they do use “catholic” as in universal. Hubby and I joined the WELS here in early 1990’s as the small town we live in did not have a LCMS and I did not want to remain ELCA because of their stance on certain issues. The WELS says Christian- with no mention of “catholic”.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
In this bald unsupported statement of his, which is inconclusive evidence to say the least, Eusebius might simply be telling us what the Jews in Palestine idiomatically called Jesus in Aramaic. The expression “son of an uncle” (brona d- ammeh) was used by the Jews in Palestine in the 1st century as a circumlocution, since there was no word for cousin, and thus a broader kinship term was needed. So what Eusebius could mean is that James was called (idiomatically that is) a cousin of Jesus because Joseph was his uncle by being married to Mary. In other words, James was a son of Joseph by being his nephew. Jesus is called the son of David, but the king of Judah wasn’t his father. In Scripture Jude is called the son of James, but because the latter was his elder brother and had the same father.
*Clement of Alexandria.
Late 2nd century
Eusebius, History of the Church 2.1.3-6:
But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposeis writes as follows: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of the savior, as if also preferred by the Lord, did not strive for glory, but rather elected James the just to be bishop of Jerusalem.
And the same [Clement] in the seventh book of the same work says also these things concerning him:** The Lord after the resurrection delivered knowledge to James the just and to John and to Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy***, of whom Barnabas was one.
But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.
Paul indeed makes mention of the same just one, writing: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord. [cf. Gal 1:18-19]
PAX
:heaven:
V
Vanny
Guest
yes, should be “catholic”, no doubt.
My teens were a long time ago(in my 50’s now) so I can’t remember what they did then.
B
betsybug354
Guest
Gentlefolk?!? :bigyikes:I’m a stubborn old lady too, as I still sing God rest ye Merry Gentlemen instead of Gentlefolk that we sang in the ELCA
S
steido01
Guest
Hi EC, I think this post is a little anachronistic. As I understand it, “Christian” had the predominant use in LCMS Creeds stretching all the way back to Germany - the reason not being any aversion to appearing too “Catholic,” but rather the simple issue of a word that made sense in the German language. In any case, “Christian” and “Catholic” are understood by the LCMS to be synonymous, in the context of the Creeds. When the various Lutheran Synods got together to attempt making that hymnal in the 70’s (LCMS, ALC, LCA, ELCC), they went with the German-English translation. I’m not sure we can ascribe any intent as to why, other than “that’s the way we’ve always said it.” (I understand that the Lutheran Synods that descended from other countries may use other wordings - today’s ELCA, for example, which is largely Scandinavian).
Maybe this needs a different thread. We’re moving further away from topic…
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Would you settle for God rest ye ladies and gentlemen? :christmastree1:
PAX
:heaven:
D
drblank1
Guest
Let’s mix things up a bit.
First:
"Luke 2:6-7 ‘So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…’ The Greek word in this verse is ‘prototokon.’ meaning ‘first-born’ but does not describe an only child. The word for ‘only-born’ is ‘monogenes’ as in Luke 7:12, when describing a person who was ‘the only son of his mother.’
I understand ‘prototokon’ does not deny only born, but Luke 7:12, Luke found it important to call out this was the woman’s only son. Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.
Second:
So we know that the Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21,‘adelphos’ meaning explicitly brother. The word for cousin is ‘exadelphos,’ meaning ‘from brothers or cousin.’ When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, Matthew used the word ‘adelphos,’ not the word ‘exadelphos.’
‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’.
I’m not arguing for or against if Jesus had brothers and sister. From Catholic apologetics, I only curious how are these difficulties with the scriptures are handled.
First:
"Luke 2:6-7 ‘So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…’ The Greek word in this verse is ‘prototokon.’ meaning ‘first-born’ but does not describe an only child. The word for ‘only-born’ is ‘monogenes’ as in Luke 7:12, when describing a person who was ‘the only son of his mother.’
I understand ‘prototokon’ does not deny only born, but Luke 7:12, Luke found it important to call out this was the woman’s only son. Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.
Second:
So we know that the Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21,‘adelphos’ meaning explicitly brother. The word for cousin is ‘exadelphos,’ meaning ‘from brothers or cousin.’ When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, Matthew used the word ‘adelphos,’ not the word ‘exadelphos.’
‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’.
I’m not arguing for or against if Jesus had brothers and sister. From Catholic apologetics, I only curious how are these difficulties with the scriptures are handled.
- Status