James, Brother of Jesus?

[elvisman]

Please provide scripture to support your statement. I mean anyone can say their church was started by Christ. You showed one scripture and even that doesn’t support what the perpetual virginity of mary. Surely if what you say is true then there should be something in the scriptures to imply to your statements.

**Most Protestant scholars admit that the Catholic Church - which can trace itself all the way back to Jesus - was the first Christian Church.
However, the say that it went astray and that the sects that came out of the Reformation were remnants that remained true to the Gospel.

You keep using an assertion from Ludwig Ott to “prove” your point about Mary’s virginity. It proves nothing.

Ott was correct in saying that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not explicitly stated in scripture - but neither is the idea that she had other children.
Her perpetual virginity is implicitly illustrated in Scripture. Just as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not explicitly named in Scripture - it is implicitly taught.

As has already been stated in this thread, ad nauseam, that the so-called “siblings of Jesus” named in the Gospels were the children of the “other Mary” - the wife of Clopas (John 19:25).

I find it interesting how you guys all seem to gloss over this fact.

I’ll make a challenge:
IF Jesus had brothers - uterine brothers that Mary, the Mother of Jesus gave birth to - NAME THEM.

PS - What does “Born Again Catholic” mean? Because you’re certainly not a Catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

As has already been stated in this thread, ad nauseam, that the so-called “siblings of Jesus” named in the Gospels were the children of the “other Mary”

The scripture you reference says nothing more than this:
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”

It is not even clear if this passage refers to three or four people, and their is no mention of children or their disposition.

I find it interesting how you guys all seem to gloss over this fact.

What is wrong with the idea that Joseph had children before he married saint saint Mary of Nazareth? Is that so bad?

PS - What does “Born Again Catholic” mean? Because you’re certainly not a Catholic.

Is a position on this subject supposed to somehow be a litmus test to one’s Catholicity? I should hope not.

This is not knowledge that saves.

I suggest that if we understand that Jesus is God incarnate, and the awesome significance of that, the issue of saint Mary’s perpetual virginity and what others privately think on the matter is of rather minor importance.

Certainly not an issue worth putting people out of the church over.

 

[elvisman]

The scripture you reference says nothing more than this:
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”

It is not even clear if this passage refers to three or four people, and their is no mention of children or their disposition.

WRONG.
Protestants are all over the board on trying to make uterine siblings out of more distant relatives. According to scripture - it simply doesn’t add up:

Matt. 10:2-3
**The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; **
**Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Thaddeus; **

Matt. 27:55-56
**There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. **
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

John 19:25
**Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. **

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome

What is wrong with the idea that Joseph had children before he married saint saint Mary of Nazareth? Is that so bad?

**I don’t have any problem with this theory. Why **would you even say this?
This is the case, according to the Protoevangelium of James - a 2nd century document.

Is a position on this subject supposed to somehow be a litmus test to one’s Catholicity? I should hope not.

This is not knowledge that saves.

I suggest that if we understand that Jesus is God incarnate, and the awesome significance of that, the issue of saint Mary’s perpetual virginity and what others privately think on the matter is of rather minor importance.

Certainly not an issue worth putting people out of the church over.

I asked him what “Born Again Catholic” meant because he disagrees with Catholic Dogma. Maybe your church allows cafeteria-style Christianity but the Church established by Jesus doesn’t.

 

[freedomwriter]

IF Jesus had brothers - which he *didn’t *- he wouldn’t have had to make any declaration on the cross about who would take the reins. The responsibility would have passed onto them - period. It would have been an unthinkable insult to give her to somebody else.

This is by far, the weakest argument that non-Catholics like yourself make when attempting to prove that Jesus had uterine siblings.

This thread is about whther James was the uterine brother of Jesus. So far - neither you nor anybody else has proven it. On the contrary - it has been disproven with scripture and an understanding of the Septuagint use of the words adelphos and adelphoi.

**Go back and read all **of the posts where this was explained . . .

Wrong!! Why would Jesus pass his mother to his brothers and he did have them, when they didn’t believe in Him. Go back and read all the posts that support this. Read the scriptures that ppasa316 and others have provided. After reading your replys you don’t give much scriptures to support your claims. Maybe its time for your to move on to another topic that you may a little about.

 

[freedomwriter]

**Most Protestant scholars *admit ***that the Catholic Church - which can trace itself all the way back to Jesus - was the first Christian Church.
However, the say that it went astray and that the sects that came out of the Reformation were remnants that remained true to the Gospel.

You keep using an assertion from Ludwig Ott to “prove” your point about Mary’s virginity. It proves nothing.

Ott was correct in saying that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not explicitly stated in scripture - but neither is the idea that she had other children.
Her perpetual virginity is implicitly illustrated in Scripture. Just as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not explicitly named in Scripture - it is implicitly taught.

As has already been stated in this thread, ad nauseam, that the so-called "siblings of Jesus" named in the Gospels were the children of the “other Mary” - the wife of Clopas (John 19:25).

I find it interesting how you guys all seem to gloss over this fact.

I’ll make a challenge:
IF Jesus had brothers - uterine brothers that Mary, the Mother of Jesus gave birth to - NAME THEM.

PS - What does “Born Again Catholic” mean? Because you’re certainly not a Catholic.

Its funny because i have yet to hear one protestant scholar say that the catholic church was the first christian church. How can all these scriptures pointing to mary having other kids mean nothing. I guess we ought to rid ourselves of God’s Word because it means nothing. Those children mentioned John 19:25 are not the same as Jesus’ brothers mentioned in Matt 14:55 James, joses, Simon and Judas. Now what more do you want:shrug: Born Again Catholic means I have now see how bad the misinterpetations the catholic church can make. Like those that you make. You are right i am no longer a catholic but a christian who has given his life to the Lord Jesus Christ with no strings attached. Amen Brother:thumbsup:

 

[freedomwriter]

The scripture you reference says nothing more than this:
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”

It is not even clear if this passage refers to three or four people, and their is no mention of children or their disposition.
What is wrong with the idea that Joseph had children before he married saint saint Mary of Nazareth? Is that so bad?
Is a position on this subject supposed to somehow be a litmus test to one’s Catholicity? I should hope not.

This is not knowledge that saves.

I suggest that if we understand that Jesus is God incarnate, and the awesome significance of that, the issue of saint Mary’s perpetual virginity and what others privately think on the matter is of rather minor importance.

Certainly not an issue worth putting people out of the church over.

Totally agree!!! It is important though to get the scriptures correct.

 

[freedomwriter]

**Most Protestant scholars *admit ***that the Catholic Church - which can trace itself all the way back to Jesus - was the first Christian Church.
However, the say that it went astray and that the sects that came out of the Reformation were remnants that remained true to the Gospel.

You keep using an assertion from Ludwig Ott to “prove” your point about Mary’s virginity. It proves nothing.

Ott was correct in saying that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not explicitly stated in scripture - but neither is the idea that she had other children.
Her perpetual virginity is implicitly illustrated in Scripture. Just as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not explicitly named in Scripture - it is implicitly taught.

As has already been stated in this thread, ad nauseam, that the so-called "siblings of Jesus" named in the Gospels were the children of the “other Mary” - the wife of Clopas (John 19:25).

I find it interesting how you guys all seem to gloss over this fact.

I’ll make a challenge:
IF Jesus had brothers - uterine brothers that Mary, the Mother of Jesus gave birth to - NAME THEM.

PS - What does “Born Again Catholic” mean? Because you’re certainly not a Catholic.

By the way if it makes you sick to try and provide scriptures for your claim, then maybe you ought to leave and go to another thread. God Bless Brother

 

[Mickey]

You are right i am no longer a catholic but a christian

The Orthodox and Catholic Church have always accepted by way of Sacred Tradition and primarily by Jesus Christ’s words to St John that the Virgin Mary never gave birth to other children. Jesus Christ did not have siblings by St Joseph and St Mary. The early reformers also believed this–including Luther and Calvin. Not until about 150 years ago did your “Jesus had brethren by St Mary” theory come into existence.

 

[elvisman]

Its funny because i have yet to hear one protestant scholar say that the catholic church was the first christian church. How can all these scriptures pointing to mary having other kids mean nothing. I guess we ought to rid ourselves of God’s Word because it means nothing. Those children mentioned John 19:25 are not the same as Jesus’ brothers mentioned in Matt 14:55 James, joses, Simon and Judas. Now what more do you want:shrug: Born Again Catholic means I have now see how bad the misinterpetations the catholic church can make. Like those that you make. You are right i am no longer a catholic but a christian who has given his life to the Lord Jesus Christ with no strings attached. Amen Brother:thumbsup:

How about R.C. Sproul? Billy Graham? Norman Geisler?

The passages I provided DO, in fact, debunk your argument. Read them slowly.

As for the Word - why rid ourselves of it - just because it doesn’t say what YOU want it to say?
Actually, Protestants HAVE ridded themselves of 7 books of the Bible. They chose to agree with a post-Christ, non-binding gathering of rabbis at the “Council” of Jabneh after the fall of Jerusalem, some 50 years after the Death and Resurrection of our Lord. Do some homework on the subject.

**PS - If you’re no longer a Catholic - you shoudn’t try to pass yourself off as such. **

 

[elvisman]

By the way if it makes you sick to try and provide scriptures for your claim, then maybe you ought to leave and go to another thread. God Bless Brother

I already did, my angry friend.
Perhaps, you should look them up.

 

[elvisman]

Wrong!! Why would Jesus pass his mother to his brothers and he did have them, when they didn’t believe in Him. Go back and read all the posts that support this. Read the scriptures that ppasa316 and others have provided. After reading your replys you don’t give much scriptures to support your claims. Maybe its time for your to move on to another topic that you may a little about.

John 7:5 says that his “Adelphoi” didn’t believe him. The Gospel of John goes on for another 11 chapters before Jesus is crucified. What makes you thknk they didn’t believe him after John 7? He had John look after her because he had no uterine siblings.

**You see - you assume the writers of the Bible were speaking in 20th century English. **Not so, my anti-Catholic friend. They wrote and spoke in Aramaic and Greek.

Perhaps, you should read the Septuagint. That’s the Old Testament that Jesus and the NT writers studied from. We know this because of the dozen’s of references to it in the NT.
In the Septuagint, you’ll see that Jacob and his uncle Laban are referred to as “Adelphos” (brothers). You’ll also see that Abraham and Lot are called, “Adelphos” as well - even though they are uncle and nephew. There are many more examples of this.

My advice to you is simply this:
Get to know the Word. Study the Scriptures. Study history and the Early Church Fathers and you’ll see that they were Catholic and believed everything the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years.

 

[Hesychios]

I asked him what "Born Again Catholic" meant because he disagrees with Catholic Dogma. Maybe your church allows cafeteria-style Christianity but the Church established by Jesus doesn’t .

If you had any real exposure to Holy Orthodox Catholicism you would not have the temerity to say this. Especially after what we all know about the RC.

I will repeat something I have said before…

Some things are just not that important, we can get hung up on the minutiae. There is no sense in slinging condemnations around over this.

The Incarnation of Christ, the Holy Trinity of God, the Life-giving cross…these are important things to understand, they are fundamental to the faith.

View attachment 6008

Orthodox, like myself, believe that Saint Mary was virginal before, during and after the birth of Christ. This is traditional belief that has been passed to us and we make no apologies for it. But in itself this is not knowledge that saves, it makes no difference if a Christian had never heard of such an idea, what they need to know is Jesus is fully Divine and fully human, and He is our Mediator.

http://www.orthodox.pl/Uczelnie/Images/196-vinietka2.gif

                  First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. ***There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus***, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.

     For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument.1 Tim 2:1-8 NAB

Therefore, we must attend all the more to what we have heard, so that we may not be carried away. For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard.

God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the holy Spirit according to his will. For it was not to angels that he subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. Instead, someone has testified somewhere: "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?

You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, subjecting all things under his feet." In “subjecting” all things (to him), he left nothing not “subject to him.” Yet at present we do not see “all things subject to him,” but we do see Jesus “crowned with glory and honor” because he suffered death, he who “for a little while” was made “lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Heb 2:1-9 NAB

http://www.orthodox.pl/Images/Borders/Spas.jpg

 

[elvisman]

If you had any real exposure to Holy Orthodox Catholicism you would not have the temerity to say this. Especially after what we all know about the RC.

I will repeat something I have said before…

Some things are just not that important, we can get hung up on the minutiae. There is no sense in slinging condemnations around over this.

The Incarnation of Christ, the Holy Trinity of God, the Life-giving cross…these are important things to understand, they are fundamental to the faith.

Orthodox, like myself, believe that Saint Mary was virginal before, during and after the birth of Christ. This is traditional belief that has been passed to us and we make no apologies for it. But in itself this is not knowledge that saves, it makes no difference if a Christian had never heard of such an idea, what they need to know is Jesus is fully Divine and fully human, and He is our Mediator.

You call it minutiae - we call it Dogma and we take it very seriously.

If you don’t want me to answer you honestly on the thread, then don’t meddle in conversations I’m having with others - PM me.

Not really sure what you mean by your statement above (in Red Bold).

 

[Darlene_Jason]

Matt 12:46,Luke 8:19, Mark3:31, say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see HIm. There is a specific Greek work for brother also cousin.
“But he (Joseph had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a Son” Matt 1:25

 

[Brendan]

Matt 12:46,Luke 8:19, Mark3:31, say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see HIm. There is a specific Greek work for brother also cousin.
“But he (Joseph had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a Son” Matt 1:25

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” Mark 12:36

And then after God puts His Enemies at Christ’s feet, then Christ will no longer sit at the Father’s right hand?

Is that your interpretation of this passage?

 

[elvisman]

Matt 12:46,Luke 8:19, Mark3:31, say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see HIm. There is a specific Greek work for brother also cousin.
“But he (Joseph had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a Son” Matt 1:25

"For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." (1 cor. 15:25)
Does this mean that christ will cease to reaign AFTER his enemies are under his feet?
Nope. the problem with you guys is that you try to force strict 20th Century English meanings on the 1st century Greek text.

Go back and read the posts. All of this has already been debunked.

Most scholars - Protestant and Catholic agree that Matthew was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. There is no word for cousin in aramaic.

Secondly - as I have already pointed out many, many times - the writers of the NT who DID write in the Greek, came from studying the Septuagint OT - Greek translation. this can be proven by the dozens of NT references from the Septuagint. The Septuagint uses a much looser meaning for the Word Adelphos (brother). It can be used to mean cousin, uncle, kinsman, etc.
Nice try.

 

[elvisman]

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” Mark 12:36

And then after God puts His Enemies at Christ’s feet, then Christ will no longer sit at the Father’s right hand?

Is that your interpretation of this passage?

**Ahhh - you beat me to the punch!!

 

[BrianH]

"For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." (1 cor. 15:25)
Does this mean that christ will cease to reaign AFTER his enemies are under his feet?
Nope. the problem with you guys is that you try to force strict 20th Century English meanings on the 1st century Greek text.

Go back and read the posts. All of this has already been debunked.

Most scholars - Protestant and Catholic agree that Matthew was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. There is no word for cousin in aramaic.

Secondly - as I have already pointed out many, many times - the writers of the NT who DID write in the Greek, came from studying the Septuagint OT - Greek translation. this can be proven by the dozens of NT references from the Septuagint. The Septuagint uses a much looser meaning for the Word Adelphos (brother). It can be used to mean cousin, uncle, kinsman, etc.
Nice try.

I know that Wikipedia is just Wikipedia but your statment that “most” scholars think Matthew was written in Aramaic floored me.
I do not think that is the case at all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

Some scholars? Absolutely. Most…oh my…I would not even say 10 percent.
Here is a link to an Aramaic primacy bibliography and I think we could safely say that the majority of the ones cited are not pure Aramaic primacy proponents.
aramaicnt.org/bibliography/

Some of the names are hardly ones that Catholics would cite;
Pagels!!
Crossan!!!
Ehrman!!!

 

[Hesychios]

You call it minutiae - we call it Dogma and we take it very seriously.

If you don’t want me to answer you honestly on the thread, then don’t meddle in conversations I’m having with others - PM me.

Not really sure what you mean by your statement above (in Red Bold).

I expect honesty and I give honestly.

I won’t be PM’ing you.

** ** Not really sure what you mean by your statement above (in Red Bold).

You decided to suggest that “Maybe your church allows cafeteria-style Christianity” which is just plain silly. It is a term that relates specifically to Roman Catholicism, a problem rampant in your church. Anyone who reads CAF even just occasionally will see that.

If you knew anything about Holy Orthodoxy you would not try to say such things and expect to be taken seriously.

we call it Dogma and we take it very seriously.

Then it is obvious what your problem is.

 

[Hesychios]

You call it minutiae - we call it Dogma and we take it very seriously.

If you don’t want me to answer you honestly on the thread, then don’t meddle in conversations I’m having with others - PM me.

Not really sure what you mean by your statement above (in Red Bold).

I expect honesty and I give honestly.

I won’t be PM’ing you.

Not really sure what you mean by your statement above (in Red Bold).

You decided to suggest that “Maybe your church allows cafeteria-style Christianity” which is just plain silly. It is a term that relates specifically to Roman Catholicism, a problem rampant in your church. Anyone who reads CAF even just occasionally will see that.

…and if you knew anything about Holy Orthodoxy you would not try to say such things and expect to be taken seriously.

we call it Dogma and we take it very seriously.

Then it is obvious what your problem is.