James, Brother of Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oneheartway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure if anyone has already brought this up but I have something which I feel may contribute to the conversation:

“Note also that at the “Finding in the Temple” episode of the Gospel (Luke 2: 41-51) no “other children” of Mary and Joseph are mentioned, only Christ. If there had been other children in the Holy Family, it’s reasonable to assume they would have been mentioned here. The fact that no other “sons or daughters” were even alluded to here, is a strong indication that there were no others. Also, scripture only refers to Christ as “the” son of Mary, but never as “a” son of Mary, which we would expect if there were other “sons” of Mary. Furthermore, in John 7:3-4 we see a situation in which the men known as the “brothers” (i.e, disciples) of Christ, who did not believe in him, are giving him rather forceful advice. This type of exchange from younger brothers to the eldest brother would have been thought highly unusual and disrespectful by the Jews at that time, yet no negative reaction is recorded in Scripture. However, if these men were simply the close friends or followers of Christ, their giving him advice this way would not raise eyebrows the way it would have if they had been his blood brothers, sons of Mary.”

Taken from the book “Where is that in the Bible”.
 
Mark 7:5-13 (NIV) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
JL: The Church recognizes Apostolic Tradition, which is the deposit of faith, received from the beginning, whether by word OR epistle as the very word of God, [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

A discipline, custom or rule could be considered a tradition of men, such as a head covering, for women. Those traditions of men are not of themselves bad. Paul nor Christ condemns traditions of men, except when they nullify the Word of God, by being made a doctrine of God as the scripture makes clear. When the Church changes a discipline a few will mistakenly claim they are doctrine and teach others likewise, this is what Christ is condemning.

The law says do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. The Pharisees add their rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying you cannot eat cheese and meat together. The NT condemns being a drunkard, yet some faith groups add a rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying, you cannot even drink alcohol. (Taken from CD by Jeff Morrow a Jewish convert). CONTINUED:
 
Mark 7:5-13 (NIV) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
JL: The Church recognizes Apostolic Tradition, which is the deposit of faith, received from the beginning, whether by word OR epistle as the very word of God, [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

A discipline, custom or rule could be considered a tradition of men, such as a head covering, for women. Those traditions of men are not of themselves bad. Paul nor Christ condemns traditions of men, except when they nullify the Word of God, by being made a doctrine of God as the scripture makes clear. When the Church changes a discipline a few will mistakenly claim they are doctrine and teach others likewise, this is what Christ is condemning.

The law says do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. The Pharisees add their rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying you cannot eat cheese and meat together. The NT condemns being a drunkard, yet some faith groups add a rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying, you cannot even drink alcohol. (Taken from CD by Jeff Morrow. “The New Light of the Old: A Jewish Convert’s Reading of St. Paul”). CONTINUED:
 
CONTINUED:

Another example of a tradition of men made a doctrine of God would be Sola Scriptura, which only scatters and divides people of faith. There is no scripture saying scripture only. In fact that very sole authority they claim tells them the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm3:15. And if one does not listen to the church treat him as an unbeliever, Mt18:17. Again Paul tells us, [Eph3:7 Whereof I was made A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace of God given unto me BY the effectual working OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is THE FELLOWSHIP of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH THE manifold WISDOM OF GOD,]

Paul even checked his teaching with that one SENT Church Fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, **LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, the tridition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.]

If scripture is the sole authority? Then what authority was used before the canon? What authority discerned the books of their sole authority? Their sole authority also teaches we are to keep those Apostolic Traditions, whether by word OR epistle. They dismiss those scriptures, saying all those Oral Traditions are now in the written Tradition of Scripture. Yet they cannot PROVIDE SCRIPTURE TELLING US THAT IS THE CASE. The fact is scripture confirms Oral Tradition throughout. The following are a few scripture references for our gospel, whether by word or epistle, as Paul tells us:

1Tim6:20 Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO: and the God of peace shall be with you.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and BRING all things TO your REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee **KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.

Handed down by the apostles through oral and written Tradition. Oral Apostolic Tradition is found in the lived out life of the Church through the liturgy (worship of the church), church councils, writings of the Fathers, teachings of the popes, creeds, prayers, writings of the saints and doctors. This does not mean all these writing are without error or that all oral Tradition is written down. It is that **magisterium (Teaching Authority) SENT **by Christ to TEACH the whole world till the end, Mt28:16-20. That teaching authority SENT others by laying on of hands and will continue till the end. That teaching authority today is the Pope and Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to lead them in all truth, who discern Apostolic Tradition from the traditions of men. Tradition and the Bible go hand in hand and cannot contradict each other. Without Tradition the scriptures cannot be correctly understood and interpreted. One of the ways the canon of the Bible was discerned is Apostolic Tradition. Those books could not be contrary to that lived out faith Tradition, already received and practised as delivered by the Apostles, they must agree. Those writings contrary to Tradition given by the Apostles, where rejected.

Hb13:7 REMEMBER YOUR LEADERS, WHO SPOKE THE WORD OF GOD TO YOU. Consider the outcome of their way of life and IMITATE THEIR FAITH.
 
I willfully bow out of this thread. prmerger, erikd, paulc, jpaul1953, jlhargus continue to promote the faith.
 
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course. isjustme has bowed out and without her, there is no longer a dissenting view from the correct Catholic view.
 
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course. isjustme has bowed out and without her, there is no longer a dissenting view from the correct Catholic view.
You’re right, although we could always have a discussion on just how many James characters are really involved. You already covered some of this, Paul C in your earlier posts, I wonder if anyone can break it down.
 
You’re right, although we could always have a discussion on just how many James characters are really involved. You already covered some of this, Paul C in your earlier posts, I wonder if anyone can break it down.
There seems to be three.
James, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John
James, son of Alpheus and Mary, brother of Joseph, Jude and simon
and the James, father of the apostle Jude, who is mentioned in Luke.
 
There seems to be three.
James, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John
James, son of Alpheus and Mary, brother of Joseph, Jude and simon
and the James, father of the apostle Jude, who is mentioned in Luke.
Well, that’s what I came up with. Anyone else have anything to add?
 
Traditional Christianity held that Jesus is Mary’s only son. The references to Jesus’ brothers refers to other family members, and in some cases to his disciples.

Mary wife of Cleophas and sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the “brothers of Jesus” (Mk 6:3).
Acts 1:12-15 Apostles, Mary, some women and Jesus’ brothers number about 120. That is a lot of brothers.
Gen 14:14 Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham’s brother (KJV).
Gen 29:15 Laban, Jacob’s uncle, calls Jacob his brother (KJV).
John 19:26-27 Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his brothers.
Zechariah 12:10 Predicts the Messiah will be an only child.
 
And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.
 
Acts 1:12-15 Apostles, Mary, some women and Jesus’ brothers number about 120. That is a lot of brothers.
As John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society once said, regarding these verses “Mary wouldn’t have been a perpetual Virgin, she would have been in perpetual labor!”:eek:
 
I think the subject has been exhausted, you all did and excellent job, I have learned from the discussion, as I usually do.
 
I’m not sure if anyone has already brought this up but I have something which I feel may contribute to the conversation:

“Note also that at the “Finding in the Temple” episode of the Gospel (Luke 2: 41-51) no “other children” of Mary and Joseph are mentioned, only Christ. If there had been other children in the Holy Family, it’s reasonable to assume they would have been mentioned here. The fact that no other “sons or daughters” were even alluded to here, is a strong indication that there were no others. Also, scripture only refers to Christ as “the” son of Mary, but never as “a” son of Mary, which we would expect if there were other “sons” of Mary. Furthermore, in John 7:3-4 we see a situation in which the men known as the “brothers” (i.e, disciples) of Christ, who did not believe in him, are giving him rather forceful advice. This type of exchange from younger brothers to the eldest brother would have been thought highly unusual and disrespectful by the Jews at that time, yet no negative reaction is recorded in Scripture. However, if these men were simply the close friends or followers of Christ, their giving him advice this way would not raise eyebrows the way it would have if they had been his blood brothers, sons of Mary.”

Taken from the book “Where is that in the Bible”.
Dear Josie L,

I’m glad you brought that up. Great point!

jpaul1953
 
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course. isjustme has bowed out and without her, there is no longer a dissenting view from the correct Catholic view.
Hey Paulc,

You take care of yourself.

May God guide us always.

jpaul1953
 
There seems to be three.
James, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John
James, son of Alpheus and Mary, brother of Joseph, Jude and simon
and the James, father of the apostle Jude, who is mentioned in Luke.
I re-thought my position on this and I think it’s just two. Because, if you look at the Apostles mentioned in Luke 6:14-16, you will find 13 if you count James three times:

13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles):
14 Simon(1), whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew(2) his brother, James(3) and John(4), Philip(5) and Bartholomew(6),
15 Matthew(7) and Thomas(8), James(9) the son of Alpheus, and Simon(10) who is called Zelotes,
16 And Jude(11), the brother of James(-), and Judas Iscariot(12), who was the traitor.
Luke 6:13-16
 
I re-thought my position on this and I think it’s just two. Because, if you look at the Apostles mentioned in Luke 6:14-16, you will find 13 if you count James three times:

13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles):
14 Simon(1), whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew(2) his brother, James(3) and John(4), Philip(5) and Bartholomew(6),
15 Matthew(7) and Thomas(8), James(9) the son of Alpheus, and Simon(10) who is called Zelotes,
16 And Jude(11), the brother of James(-), and Judas Iscariot(12), who was the traitor.
Luke 6:13-16
in the NAB, Jude is listed as the son of James, not the brother of James.:
14 Simon, whom he named Peter, 6 and his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,
15 Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called a Zealot, 7
16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, 8 who became a traitor.

This clearly implies that Jude, the brother of James is not one of the Apostles and that James, the father of Jude the Apostles is not the same as James the brother of Jude,simon and Joseph
 
just to point out the obvious … when the term “cousin” is used in scripture the Koine Greek Anepsios is used; while the term for “brother” is Adelphos.

Adelphos is the word for cousin (and only cousin); therefore it seems peculiar (and obviously problematic for the Catholic position, particularly the western position) that Anepsios would be used so often to denote brother if they really meant to denote a cousin (when a different term for cousin was in common usage during that period)?

Adelphos was also used (more rarely) to denote a familial relation other than brother … but the term was used much like the English word for brother is today. Like two soldiers might greet each other by something like “hey brother” – the Greek term was used the same way. It was also the common term for a blood or step brother.

However, it seems odd to think the word would have been used to denote cousins (particularly given the fact that Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters several times throughout scripture & also considering Paul’s reference to James as the “brother” of Jesus, when Paul himself used Anepsios to depict a cousin – see Col. 4:10).

Obviously the Pauline epistles make the RCC position pretty difficult to maintain (i.e. why would Paul use the common Greek term for cousin in one letter yet depict a cousin using a different word not commonly used to denote a brother in another letter?). It seems pretty clear that the only tenable theory that could preserve the idea of perpetual virginity is the Eastern Orthodox position. However, the so called “tradition” it’s drawn from is a apocryphal book (the protoevangelium of James) whose authorship has already been debunked by scholars.

For instance the so called gospel is signed by a “James of Jerusalem” (inferring James, the brother or step-brother of Jesus). However, it’s Old Testament references are from the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), while if this James were really a Jew from Jerusalem (Roman Palestine during the Second Temple period) he would have only been familiar with the Mosaic text (though it’s possible he could have come across the Septuagint … but it’s highly unlikely he would have quoted from it). Moreover, there’s some clear inconsistencies between the so called gospel of James and the other canonized New Testament accounts (I know because I read the document some years back & I’ve read the scholarly critique of the document).

So if nothing else the whole thing is pretty sketchy?
Hey Humble in doubt,

Why you give us a line from an existentialist is bewildering at best.
Timothy, true son of mime, Titus true son of mine. Did Paul have two sons?
He didn’t just call them his sons, he called them his true sons. You can stay a non-Catholic, a lost sheep, a prodigal son. That’s your choice.

Good luck on your ventures. The more you study the more reason for me to believe you’ll be back as a Catholic before too long. Because the truth will set you free and lead you back to the one true Church of Christ.

Take care.

jpaul1953
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top