J
- Status
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
If you read on, you will see that the persons, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas can be clearly identified in the New Testament. They were “brothers” in the sense that they were “followers of Jesus” and the same could be said for the unidentified “sisters”, they were also “followers of Jesus”.
*
Let’s start by taking a look at the persons named “James” or the so-called “brothers of Jesus”. There exist only two people with the name “James” in the entire New Testament:*
=
Note: There were three additional Mary’s described, “looking on from a distance” when Jesus was crucified, Mary the mother of Jesus was not “Looking on from a distance”, she was right there at the foot of His Cross.
Here are some of the biblical references for “James”.
=
Galatians 1:1919 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.James is described here as an Apostle, clearly a “brother” in the sense that he was a follower of Christ.
=
Matthew 4:21 Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them,
=
Matthew 10:2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
=
Matthew 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
=
Matthew 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
=
Matthew 27:55-56 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
=
Mark 1:19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets.
=
Mark 3:17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John
=
Mark 3:18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot
*
Let’s start by taking a look at the persons named “James” or the so-called “brothers of Jesus”. There exist only two people with the name “James” in the entire New Testament:*
=
- James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
=
AND
= - The Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).
=
Moreover, James the son of Alphaeus had a mother named Mary, however it was not the Virgin Mary and it was one of the three other Mary’s described in the New Testament.
+
Note: There were three additional Mary’s described, “looking on from a distance” when Jesus was crucified, Mary the mother of Jesus was not “Looking on from a distance”, she was right there at the foot of His Cross.
*
More specifically, we can find a Mary who is described as the mother of James and Joseph, another Mary, Mary Justus, who is the wife of Titius Justus. There also exist a Mary, described as the “mother of Zebedee’s sons” or Zebedee’s wife and finally Mary Magdalene. None of whom are the Mother of Jesus.
*
There exit only two “James” in the entire New Testament and it is clear that their father is not Joseph “the carpenter”. Clearly, neither “James” is the biological brother of Jesus. The argument should stop here, but it doesn’t.
Here are some of the biblical references for “James”.=
Galatians 1:1919 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.James is described here as an Apostle, clearly a “brother” in the sense that he was a follower of Christ.
=
Matthew 4:21 Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them,
=
Matthew 10:2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
=
Matthew 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
=
Matthew 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
=
Matthew 27:55-56 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
=
Mark 1:19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets.
=
Mark 3:17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John
=
Mark 3:18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot
T
Tanner9188
Guest
Joseph was Jesus earthly father; not biological father, but according to Jewish custom and Gods command. Remember when Jesus was 12; Mary said " Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You." ; does this mean Mary did not know that the Holy Spirit conceived in her Jesus? What we do know is that Jesus saw John and Mary at the foot of the cross and Jesus declared that John should take care of her. We do not know the reason because we are not told; an implicit reason maybe because Jesus referred to John as the disciple He loved, but that is still mere speculation; which brings us back to we do not know. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but what was is that Jesus, for whatever reason, chose John to watch over Mary. It would have probably grieved Mary to know that His other brothers did not believe in Him. How loving of the Savior to think of His mother at the very time He was taken the burden of the world on; our Lord is so loving and caring and never to busy to express His love for His own.
May God bless His word this day!
I have never heard of anyone denying Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ…did someone say that?
You are reading into Scripture by assuming that because the other brothers & sisters are not mention, then Jesus brothers and sisters were not at the scene; the fact is since it is not mentioned, we do not know one way or the other.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
By the way; you also left out another obvious indication of Jesus brothers.
John 7:1-10 and Jesus said "1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be {known} publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. 6 So Jesus *said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. 7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil. 8 “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.” 9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. 10 But **when His brothers had gone up **to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.
If these were “brothers”; as in true disciples, then we would not have the emphatic use of the Greek to really emphasize that His very own blood brothers did not believe in Him.
Don’t you think Mary would have been grieved to stay with her other sons; knowing they did not believe in Jesus? I do and I believe this is why John was chosen, but that is just speculation on my part.
E
elvisman
Guest
These are the two scriptural references I was talking about:
Hebrews 10:12-13 says:
"But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits UNTIL his enemies are made his footstool."
Similarly, Acts 2:34-35 says the following:
"For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."
**The quote in the verse from Acts originally comes from Psalms 110:1. The same Greek word in all 3 instances is "heos" which means "until". This CERTAINLY does NOT mean that Jesus will cease to be at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool. **
Just as Joseph kept Mary a virgin "until" she gave birth does NOT mean that Mary no longer remained a virgin.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
Both uses of “until” are appropriate; it speaks of His second coming; cross reference is Acts 1:11 Almost all versions use the word “until” unlike the very first reference you used. Thanks for bringing the 2 versus back to mind.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Tanner,
Your wrong, they are mention…by name, along with who their parents are… and they aren’t Mary and Joseph.
Oh, we (Catholics) know…We believe in the* Perpetual Virginity of Mary. *Mary did not have any other children.
My Protestant friends here have taken the Bible out of context and changed the true meaning of the word “brother” to try to fit a Protestant belief, which is in error.
My point is that, many non-Catholic, Protestant Christians, tend to take some verses literally, when they “support” a Protestant belief, or they (Protestants) will define a word like “brother” in one way, when it “supports” a Protestant belief… but then, they will “read” too much into other verses, in order to make a Catholic verse into a Protestant verse.
Some here, will say that they believe in “Sola Scriptura” in one post, when it “supports their beliefs, however, when the evidence is lacking, like in the case where some here assume that Joseph had other children with another wife, they will refer to a document, outside of the Bible.
Whenever a Protestant uses a document outside the Bible, or when they quote something from early Christian history, which is not found in the Bible, aren’t the acting like Catholics, who follow the Bible, the Church and Tradition? This has occurred in this very thread.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot take the word “brother” literally, and having one meaning, on one hand and then try to explain how John isn’t Mary’s biological son on the other, when in fact, Jesus said “behold your mother (Mary)….behold you son (John).
We all know that John is not the biological brother of Jesus. One cannot credibly claim that the Bible is the sole authority on Christianity, when they want to make a “Protestant point” and then use a source outside the Bible, to try to disprove a Catholic belief… (Generally speaking).
Who are we kidding here? The real reason that non-Catholic, Protestants Christians have assigned a single meaning to the word “brother” in this case, is because they are attempting to discredit the Catholic belief, in the* Perpetual Virginity of Mary*, plain and simple. They don’t want to admit that they are wrong about this and that the Catholic Church is right. That’s because, if they are wrong about this Christian belief, one might wonder what else they got wrong.
Am I right?.. Be honest….
The only way that anyone can use the Bible, a Catholic book, to discredit a Catholic belief, is to take a Bible verse out of context, or to change the true meaning of a word, as in this case, the word “brother”.
It is clear that neither James’ is the biological brother of Jesus. We know this because the Bible tells us who their actual Father’s are and it isn’t Joseph. . I don’t know how anyone can get around this fact….seems somewhat disingenuous to me.
Your thoughts?
E
elvisman
Guest
The use of the word IS appropriate. That’s my whole point.
**Just as the use of the word when speaking of Joseph and Mary. ****It doesn’t necessarily mean that they had sexual relations. **
You’re looking for something that simply isn’t there.
S
SalomeBintullah
Guest
I think the Essenes may have taken in children, but I’m not certain of that. One Catholic visionary, Sister Emmerich, is reported that in her visions she saw that Mary’s family had a history of involvement with the Essenes. But I’m even more skeptical of Sister Emmerich’s visions than the Protoevangelium, because while in some parts the visions are uncannily historically accurate, in other parts there seems to be a heavy reliance on apocryphal Christian literature. And according to the Bible Mary obviously lived in Nazareth, not Qumron. I also believe that the Essenes denied the validity of the Temple or the priesthood or something to that effect, and yet in Luke’s gospel we see her going to the Temple to offer a purification sacrifice, which seems unlikely if she were a practicing Essene. Still, perhaps there was a family connection, like you suggest, and this connection inspired Mary to take a private vow of celibacy.I feel about the same. I do not question her virginity nor do I dismiss out of hand that something like a consecration could have happened. The legend is packed with interesting clues…
There is the Nazirite vow for one thing (even Paul took this one for a while) but it was not normally a permanent vow and it is unclear to me whether women also took this.
So I tried to find some other way that second century gentiles could have gotten this idea that she was a consecrated celibate. The only thing I can think of is the Qumron community, which was an Essene group (and very apocalyptic, like the early Christians). There has been speculation that Saint John the Baptist was an Essene and this has also been suggested of Jesus.
But the gentiles would not likely have known about Qumron, it was slashed and burned out of existence by Rome in the rebellion of 62AD, never to revive.
Did they take in children? I don’t really know. It was a community which practiced celibacy. Such a connection would explain why neither Jesus nor John the Baptist had children but not challenged on this by the wider community.
I don’t claim to know the answer, but the evidence for Mary to have lived in the temple is not strong considering what is known about the temple.
I will follow up on your suggestion about Tal Ilan.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
Show me in God’s word, where it says that His brothers and sisters were at the scene of the cross.
I believe the idea of the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception didn’t become dogma for quite some time after your Church was established-a little suspect in my opinion only. Neither can be shown from Scripture; otherwise it would not be an issue; whereas Jesus brothers and sisters and the plain reading of Scriptures leaves little doubt in the mind of Christians as to the fact that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations, including children, after the birth of Jesus. John was not Jesus blood brother; I don’t know a Christian that thinks otherwise. However, listen to words of Jesus in Matthew 12 "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (we know at the time of Jesus death, His brothers did not believe in Him; therefore the brothers standing outside must be His blood brothers because we know they were not believers at that time. How do we know that? Listen to the words of Jesus say in:
John 7 -
Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be {known} publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. 6 So Jesus *said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. 7 “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.”
OR maybe they are correct based on the Scriptural evidence and you are wrong; both can’t be right.
Perhaps some should heed the warning in:
James 3:1 -
Let not many {of you} become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
I can only speak for myself; but I have not seen a Christian use supporting documents outside of Scripture unless it is a historical reference, but not as additional revelation; like many false religions do.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
Contined from previous post
{quote]The only way that anyone can use the Bible, a Catholic book, to discredit a Catholic belief, is to take a Bible verse out of context, or to change the true meaning of a word, as in this case, the word “brother”. The antithesis of that statement would be to say; “the only way credit a non-Biblical Catholic belief is to impose Bible versus out of context to fit the belief” I’m just saying there are two ways to view it. As far as the Bible being a Catholic book; I could find many Christians, Jews and Christian-Jews who would disagree with that; including myself. “Catholics” may have organized the material, but the Holy Spirit is the author and used men to organize it.
God bless you!
Based on the Scriptural evidence, it would be much harder to prove the Catholic position than to refute the Biblical position in my opinion, which is based on the weight of all the evidence presented in the gospel.
{quote]The only way that anyone can use the Bible, a Catholic book, to discredit a Catholic belief, is to take a Bible verse out of context, or to change the true meaning of a word, as in this case, the word “brother”. The antithesis of that statement would be to say; “the only way credit a non-Biblical Catholic belief is to impose Bible versus out of context to fit the belief” I’m just saying there are two ways to view it. As far as the Bible being a Catholic book; I could find many Christians, Jews and Christian-Jews who would disagree with that; including myself. “Catholics” may have organized the material, but the Holy Spirit is the author and used men to organize it.
You do know there is more than one James spoken of, just like more than one Mary and more than one Simon and more than one Judas etc
God bless you!
T
Tanner9188
Guest
The antithesis of that is that you are blind to the clear reading of the evidence of Scripture. Which is harder to show from Scripture? The perpetual virginity and may as well add the immaculate conception or the likelihood of Jesus having blood brothers and sisters. It really is a no brainer…isn’t it?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello again Tanner, may God bless you as well.
The alleged “brothers of Jesus”, identified as; James, Joseph, Simon, and **Judas **found in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:2-4, can clearly be identified in the New Testament and they are not the biological brothers of Jesus!
There exist only two people with the name “James” in the entire New Testament:
1.James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
AND
- The Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Tanner,
It appears that the divinely inspired authors of the New Testament books went out of their way to identify the two James’, so that this confusion over their identity would not have occurred and yet it has.
This confusion propagated by Protestant denominations, is leading people down the wrong path and away from Christian truths. The motivation for this deception is clear….it’s purpose is to undermine the Catholic Church.
If you notice, more effort is taken in identifying the two James, than the other Apostles.
This “brother” nonsense, where Protestants are attempting to undermine the Catholic Church and the Christian truth, regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, is not biblically based and it amounts to just one more, non-biblical Protestant myth.
Tanner, if you have a Bible concordance, then I suggest that you do as I did and look up all of the James’ found in the New Testament.
I believe that a sincere effort to find the truth will lead you to the Catholic conclusion regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. When I researched this issue, using a concordance, the truth was clear. That is that Jesus did not have any biological bothers. There exists no evidence anywhere that Jesus had biological brothers.
Your opinions here seemed to be caused by your viewing this matter through a “Protestant lens”.
Start with the first verse that mentions James and follow the other verses, in chronological order and you will clearly see that neither James’ mentioned, are the biological brother of Jesus.
This should put this matter to rest. Thank you for your post.
Your thoughts?
It appears that the divinely inspired authors of the New Testament books went out of their way to identify the two James’, so that this confusion over their identity would not have occurred and yet it has.
This confusion propagated by Protestant denominations, is leading people down the wrong path and away from Christian truths. The motivation for this deception is clear….it’s purpose is to undermine the Catholic Church.
If you notice, more effort is taken in identifying the two James, than the other Apostles.
This “brother” nonsense, where Protestants are attempting to undermine the Catholic Church and the Christian truth, regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, is not biblically based and it amounts to just one more, non-biblical Protestant myth.
Tanner, if you have a Bible concordance, then I suggest that you do as I did and look up all of the James’ found in the New Testament.
I believe that a sincere effort to find the truth will lead you to the Catholic conclusion regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. When I researched this issue, using a concordance, the truth was clear. That is that Jesus did not have any biological bothers. There exists no evidence anywhere that Jesus had biological brothers.
Your opinions here seemed to be caused by your viewing this matter through a “Protestant lens”.
Start with the first verse that mentions James and follow the other verses, in chronological order and you will clearly see that neither James’ mentioned, are the biological brother of Jesus.
This should put this matter to rest. Thank you for your post.
Your thoughts?
E
elvisman
Guest
It really is a no-brainer. There is no evidence that Mary had other children.
I issued a challenge many pages back:
If Mary had other children - name them.
Since then - nobody has come forth.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
**Luke 24:10 (Here is your third James) Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the {mother} of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
Marks version; this gets even more interesting: MaryMagdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where He was laid.
Matthews account: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. How many Mary’s were at the cross? Two; Mary Magdalene and Jesus mother Mary, who had sons James and Jose, Simon, and Judas
I believe this is even more evidence; but I don’t expect you either make the connection nor belief because of your own preconceived notions, not based upon Scripture in my opinion.
**
T
Tanner9188
Guest
We never go the names of the sisters, but the brothers are Simon, Judas, James and Jose.It really is a no-brainer. There is no evidence that Mary had other children.
I issued a challenge many pages back:
If Mary had other children - name them.
Since then - nobody has come forth.
Also, for further evidence, read the port before this on.
God bless you Elvis!
PS you did not answer the question; Which is easier to show from Scripture, the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary; or as the Biblical evidence suggests in numerous ways, that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Christ. You know the answer and you know I am right, but do not admit the obvious; it will crush your understanding concerning what you have been taught in light of the Biblical record. That is really between you and God; I can only present the Biblical evidence.
E
elvisman
Guest
WRONG.
The mother of James, Joses (wife of Clopas) is the “other Mary” spoken of at the foot of the cross. Since she is referred to as the virgin Mary’s sister - it can be assumed that they were kinsfolk (cousins, familial relations).
You will also see that her daughter is named, "Salome"
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"
John 19:25 - "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."
Matthew 27:55-56 - " There were also many women there… among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas/Jude are not sons of the Virgin Mary but of Clopas and his wife Mary. It’'s ALL there in Scripture - IF you bother to read it without an anti-Catholic bent.
With that - the answer to your question is, “The perpetual virginity of Mary.”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;It really is a no-brainer. There is no evidence that Mary had other children.
I issued a challenge many pages back:
If Mary had other children - name them.
Since then - nobody has come forth.
Me? Revelations 12:1
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
E
elvisman
Guest
- Status