S
shawnbelieves
Guest
At what point did James and Jude believe Jesus was the Messiah? Before or after the resurrection?
- Status
C
cguerber
Guest
After. Even the Apostles weren’t positively sure until they saw the risen Lord.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
It really depends on the identity of the people you’re talking about. I say before because I identify James the author of the epistle as the bishop of Jerusalem and son of Alphaeus. This makes him one of the Twelve. Jude’s identification of himself as the brother of James (Jude 1:1) seems to place him among the Twelve as well (Luke 6:16). It would be absurd to say that the Apostles did not believe that Jesus was the Christ (i.e. the Messiah) prior to the Resurrection. To give an explicit example, we have the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:16.
S
shawnbelieves
Guest
According to Jn 7 the brethren did not believe he was the Christ at that time. The people thought he was crazy.
S
shawnbelieves
Guest
According to Jn 7 the brethren did not believe he was the Christ at that time. The people thought he was crazy.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I wouldn’t take that as a proof that the Apostles James and Jude were not his brethren or that they did not believe in him. That thinking would be that James and Jude were his brethren, and his brethren didn’t believe in him. Therefore James and Jude did not believe in him. However, that is only a valid conclusion if we presume that John meant that every last person who was a “brother” of Jesus did not believe in him. What I think is more likely is that his kinsmen specifically living where he was staying at the time in Galilee did not believe in him. James and Jude, if we identify them with those of the Twelve, would probably not be included in this group.
C
cmodrmac
Guest
I am impressed how the underlying theme of the question was essentially ignored-for non Catholics & Orthodox many feel the James and Jude were the physical brothers of Jesus Christ-the family of Christ would have one would think “trouble” accepting his Divinity-the family of Jesus described in the Gospels
The Brothers and Sisters of Christ have been extensively discussed in other threads-just pointing out the obvious
The Brothers and Sisters of Christ have been extensively discussed in other threads-just pointing out the obvious
E
ericc
Guest
Correct, but Bible does not provide conclusive proof that they are indeed blood brothers/sis. As proven out, if personal interpretations of the bible are based upon feelings, if all ends up “I am right, you are wrong.”
This topic was resurrected post Reformer Fathers. All the Reformer Fathers believed in Mary’s PV. So far, I have not been able to locate the first modern proponent of this theory post Reformer Fathers. Others seem to hop on to the bandwagon and just parrot the brother/sis mantra. It would be interesting to locate this first proponent and see why he/she/they think they are not preserved from error and that the CC and the Reformer Fathers are in error.
If they are honest, they will need to admit that the Bible does not provide conclusive evidence that they are blood bro/sis rather than just sprouting their own personal beliefs. And stop propagating this belief as if they are preserved from error.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Ericc, Scripture could go either way on this issue. Also, the Reformer Fathers are not infallible just as the ECFs are not. Pointing to their beliefs does not hold much evidence in the mind of a non Catholic.
They could be blood siblings or step siblings.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
cool just eight post and already off topic.
:clapping::clapping:
:clapping::clapping:
E
ericc
Guest
You just answered the question. Since Reformer Fathers and ECFs are not infallible, why should we listen to those who are not even ECFs or Reformed Fathers? They are equally fallible and with even less credentials to speak of and at each passing year even further away from the event.
Exactly, since the Bible is not conclusive, why does this topic keep on resurfacing as if the blood siblings explanation is definitely true to the exclusion of all other explanations. I just wish they will give this a rest.
A
abucs
Guest
I think we have to read that text in context. If my cousin went about the middle east gaining followers and worrying the rulers about coming kingdoms and criticising the powers that be, I’d use the same language. That wouldn’t mean i thought he was insane.
Y
YADA
Guest
…Then perhaps - looking at the two posts by the OP … this thread topic was worded in such a manner as to get to exactly this topic … as off track as it appears to the Catholic mind -
A catholic person might be curious as to the point when James and Jude first believed without the undercurrent of the perpetual virginity of Mary and whether Mary conceived children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus … But me thinks
that a Protestant would be curious about this question specifically because they do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and are convinced that Mary and Joseph has lots of children after the birth of Jesus …And the skeptic in me thinks a Protestant might start this thread to approach the argument from this perspective in order to gain some advantage [though maybe that is not the right word] perhaps to cause one to second guess
which I don’t believe with be persuasive
E
ericc
Guest
Which James and Jude? The children of Mary, wife of Clopas?
- Status