James, Brother of Jesus?

[PRmerger]

On post 567, Tanner said he’s leaving this thread.

:sad_yes:

I just posted for the benefit of all the non-Catholic lurkers out here!

 

[erikd]

Freedomwriter has already proved them. I have checked everyone of the passages and commentaries and found him to be correct. But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.

Please refer to post 471.

 

[adrift]

Freedomwriter has already proved them. I have checked everyone of the passages and commentaries and found him to be correct. But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.

Come on now. Freedomwriter made some claims and they were refuted.

1. There is no record that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church claims.

Irenaeus DOES include Peter in his list of Popes in his Against Heresies - CONTRARY to your plagiarized claim. I have checked this out and Peter’s name is there

1. Irenaeus, a Bishop in the early church [at Lyons, in modern day France] from 178 – 200 A.D. provided a list of the first 12 bishops of Rome. Peter’s name does not appear. Irenaeus says that the first Bishop of Rome was a man by the name of Linus. Irenaeus is a very trusted source. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.

Irenaeus list begins with Peter. Irenaeus even wrote supporting the office of the Bishop of Rome.

By pointing out the Apostolic tradition and creed which has been brought down to us by a succession of bishops in the greatest, most ancient and well-known church, **founded **by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome.

1. Eusebius, (c.260- sometime before 341) who is called the “Father of Church History,” never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome.

How in the world did you check this out in such a short time. Although we have a lot of Eusebius we don’t have all. I don’t know what he wrote about Peter. I doubt you do either.

Most scholars date the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church at 590 A.D. when the leader of the church in Rome, Gregory I consolidated the power of the bishops in Rome and set the church on a new course.

Post 485 more than refute this.
None of this is substantiation of your claim that the Catholic Church Started in 590. I can hardly believe your claim that you checked it all out especially on Eusebius writings. Did you go to the library or do you have all his writings that is all that we still have?

But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.
Reply With Quote

I assume you meant lie? I also assume that this is more about yourself than anyone else

 

[paul_c]

Come on now. Freedomwriter made some claims and they were refuted.

Irenaeus DOES include Peter in his list of Popes in his Against Heresies - CONTRARY to your plagiarized claim. I have checked this out and Peter’s name is there

Irenaeus list begins with Peter. Irenaeus even wrote supporting the office of the Bishop of Rome.

How in the world did you check this out in such a short time. Although we have a lot of Eusebius we don’t have all. I don’t know what he wrote about Peter. I doubt you do either.

Post 485 more than refute this.
None of this is substantiation of your claim that the Catholic Church Started in 590. I can hardly believe your claim that you checked it all out especially on Eusebius writings. Did you go to the library or do you have all his writings that is all that we still have?

I assume you meant lie? I also assume that this is more about yourself than anyone else

Eusebius does indeed identify Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This is a line from his History of the Church, Book 2, chapter 14: " Close on his (Simon Magnus) heels, in the same reign of Claudius, the all-gracious and kindly providence of the Universe brought to Rome to deal with this terrible threat to the world, the strong and great apostle, chosen for his merits to be the spokesman for all the others, Peter himself." He further states in Book 3, chapter 2: “After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man apointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

As for Eusibius stating that the Catholic church started in 590AD, that is perposterous on two levels. First of all, Eusibius died in 339 AD, so he would have been in no position to discuss what did or didn’t happen in 590AD. Further, he wrote the History of the Church around 324AD, after the Edict of Milan but before the Council of Nicea. So clearly he felt the Church existed prior to that time, otherwise he would have had nothing to write about. In fact, if you read this work, you would find that the Church started with Christ and that he clearly recognizes the Apostolic Succession. In fact, he has a list in the appendix showing not only the succession of the Roman Pontiffs but also for the sees of Antioch, Alexandria ,and Jerusalem.

 

[Mickey]

If you would like to see a host of other errors for yourself, then click this link;
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

Joe Mizzi is a well known reformed baptist anti-Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

** God bless and good luck with the charitable attitude.**

Tanner9188:

You don’t understand Jesus and his love.

I think there have been enough insults on this thread.

 

[Bill_Pick]

How does one prove history to people that “parrot” what they are told; and are not interested in the facts? Not much room dialogue or debate. I concede; I declare you an earthly winner.

Tanner Please show us the FACTS that the CC was started in what did you say 354ad, I for one can not wait, Remember we just need FACTS

 

[Bill_Pick]

Eusebius does indeed identify Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This is a line from his History of the Church, Book 2, chapter 14: " Close on his (Simon Magnus) heels, in the same reign of Claudius, the all-gracious and kindly providence of the Universe brought to Rome to deal with this terrible threat to the world, the strong and great apostle, chosen for his merits to be the spokesman for all the others, Peter himself." He further states in Book 3, chapter 2: “After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man apointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

As for Eusibius stating that the Catholic church started in 590AD, that is perposterous on two levels. First of all, Eusibius died in 339 AD, so he would have been in no position to discuss what did or didn’t happen in 590AD. Further, he wrote the History of the Church around 324AD, after the Edict of Milan but before the Council of Nicea. So clearly he felt the Church existed prior to that time, otherwise he would have had nothing to write about. In fact, if you read this work, you would find that the Church started with Christ and that he clearly recognizes the Apostolic Succession. In fact, he has a list in the appendix showing not only the succession of the Roman Pontiffs but also for the sees of Antioch, Alexandria ,and Jerusalem.

Peters primacy: Matt 10:2,16:15-19, *Luke 22:24-33,24:34, John 10:16,21:1-11,15-19,
Acts 2:14-41, Acts *5:29,9:36-43,10:1-48,11:1-18, *Acts 15:7, 1Cor 15:5.

 

[elvisman]

How does one prove history to people that “parrot” what they are told; and are not interested in the facts? Not much room dialogue or debate. I concede; I declare you an earthly winner.

In other words - you have no proof - only hot wind and hate.
Just what I thought.

 

[elvisman]

Freedomwriter has already proved them. I have checked everyone of the passages and commentaries and found him to be correct. But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.

Okay - now that you’ve picked up the ball for freedomwriter - I will issue the challenge to you.

Show me the proof. Show me the historical documents that show the Church came into existence in the 6th century. Tanner couldn’t do it and fled. Freedomwriter hasn’t responded and has appeared to have fled also.
Are you telling me that you have the proof?? Let’s see it, then.

If you can’t provide it then you are as big a fraud as your other two fellow anti-Catholics.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Freedomwriter has already proved them. I have checked everyone of the passages and commentaries and found him to be correct. But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.

He has proven nothing except heresy

Okay - now that you’ve picked up the ball for freedomwriter - I will issue the challenge to you.

Show me the proof. Show me the historical documents that show the Church came into existence in the 6th century. Tanner couldn’t do it and fled. Freedomwriter hasn’t responded and has appeared to have fled also.
Are you telling me that you have the proof?? Let’s see it, then.

If you can’t provide it then you are as big a fraud as your other two fellow anti-Catholics.

I also challenge you prove your point. I am 1000000% sure you can’t.

 

[jlhargus]

continued from previous post
These arguments are in fact, pretty weak. Sirach and Tobit teach taht good works atone for sins. What did Jesus say when asked how a man could get to heaven: follow the commandments. In Matthew 25: 36-51, who were the men judged to be suitable for heaven: those that did acts of mercy for the least of our brothers. This is completely consistent with Sirach.

As for the Wisdom quotes: Here is the NAB translation of Wisdom 8:19-20:
19 Now, I was a well-favored child, and I came by a noble nature;
20 or rather, being noble, I attained an unsullied body.

What does this have to do with not being borm with original sin?

Finally, in Sirach 12 : 4-7 lets back up one line to get the context:
3 No good comes to him who gives comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that he does.
4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.
5 No arms for combat should you give him, lest he use them against yourself;
6 With twofold evil you will meet for every good deed you do for him.
7 The Most High himself hates sinners, and upon the wicked he takes vengeance
As you can now see, he is not advocating doing evil to the sinner, he is recommending against giving support to a sinner who will abuse it .

Finally, there are apparent historical inconsistencies in Tobit, I grant you, but there are also inconsistencies between Chronicles and Kings, yet the divine inspiration of neither are in question and rightfully so. Tobit is not a history book, It is a religious novel which teaches morality.

Lastly, why are you reading all these Anti-Catholic Websites and bringing them here? Is it for us to convince you they are wrong? If so, why not just bring up the questions that are bothering you?

JL: Thanks Paul, good post. I just wanted to add a verse or two that came to mind while reading the post. 1Pt4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because LOVE COVERS over A MULTITUDE OF SINS. Also Mt5:38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I’m not positive but Tanner has the style of one trained in a Calvery Chapel group. They target Catholics. They are anti-Catholic in my view because they are taught Loraine Boetner’s type of distorted history and believe it. I think that’s why they post from those anti-Catholic sites. I don’t understand why sincere people will not go to a library and check with other sources.

 

[ppasa316]

JL: Thanks Paul, good post. I just wanted to add a verse or two that came to mind while reading the post. 1Pt4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because LOVE COVERS over A MULTITUDE OF SINS. Also Mt5:38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I’m not positive but Tanner has the style of one trained in a Calvery Chapel group. They target Catholics. They are anti-Catholic in my view because they are taught Loraine Boetner’s type of distorted history and believe it. I think that’s why they post from those anti-Catholic sites. I don’t understand why sincere people will not go to a library and check with other sources.

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

 

[tobinatorstark]

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

I beg to differ. You do target a specific group or denomination. You target Catholic as shown in every post in this forum. You say you study the Bible book by book. Does that include the 7 deutrocanonical books of Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1Machabees and 2 Machabees?? If not you are misrepresenting yourself stating that you study every book. Chapter by Chapter and verse by verse. Does that include all 100 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel?? Again if you aren’t you are misrepresenting yourself and you are totally lying through your teeth. Misrepresentations of specific denominations. Give examples.How do you know your Bible 100% accurate as opposed to the Latin Vulgate or even the original manuscripts???

 

[paul_c]

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

While I have no idea what a Calvary Chapel does and doesn’t teach, I find it interesting that he pegged you correctly as a member.

I would like to reduce the rancor on these threads, however, because it distracts all parties from finding the truth, which should be the goal of all.

I’ve been on these threads for a while and the one thing I always ask non-Catholics is why they believe what they do. This is not to be antagonistic. It is simply trying to get to the truth. I understand the credentials of the Catholic Church very well. It was founded by Christ and St. Peter was made the first leader. It is protected by the Holy Spirit and has been teaching a consistent doctrine for 2000 years, as can be ascertained by the continually documented teachings of the chruch fathers and the various church councils. I’ also recognize numerous miraculous events in the Catholic church, reaching right into this century.

In contrast, the only answer I ever get from non Catholic Christians is that they are following the Holy Spirit. But they can never demonstrate in any tangible way that this is the case. To which, I ask, why would we put our souls on the line to follow a teaching that is backed up only by someone’s statement of faith when they are in direct conflict with what the Catholic Church teaches and backs up with 2000 years of constant tradition? So PPasa, I ask you the same question. What made you follow Calvary Chapel? What made you believe that they teach the truth ? What do you say, when someone asks you why your truths are superior to that taught by the Catholic Church? Because truly, if we are to follow you, we need a really, really good reason…

.

 

[imjustme]

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

I’ll second that. I also attend Calvary Chapel (at two different locations) and have never heard any Catholic bashing. I was previously Roman Catholic and would have definately noticed it if it was there.

 

[imjustme]

There are references that James is referred to as the brother of Jesus. Is this intended to mean the Literal brother? As in the child of Mary? What is your understanding?

My understanding and belief is that James was Jesus’ half-brother, son of Mary and Joseph, whereas Jesus was/is the son of God, through Mary alone.

Why wouldn’t it be intended to mean the literal brother? I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes. If He didn’t mean “brother”, He would have (inspired the writer to have) said something else.

I have read what others have said about it possibly meaning “cousin” when referring to Jesus’ brothers in many places, but the text was in Greek where there was a word for “brother” and one for “cousin”, so if they meant “cousin” they would have written it that way.

I also understand that certain religions don’t believe he is a literal brother because, according to their church councils, Mary had no other children, but this does not match with what is clearly stated in the Bible.

In my humble opinion, only God and His Word are infallible, human beings and their church councils can and do make mistakes.

 

[elvisman]

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

I also beg to differ.

**In post #574, you said that freedomwriter’s claims against the Catholic Church were right on. And in post #584, I issued the same challenge to you to prove them. **

---

So far, you haven’t responded because you can’t. You can’t because freedomwriter’s anti-Catholic remarks are unfounded and unsubstantiated. They are nothing but anti-Catholic venom and you defended it as the truth. That makes you an anti-Catholic.

 

[paul_c]

My understanding and belief is that James was Jesus’ half-brother, son of Mary and Joseph, whereas Jesus was/is the son of God, through Mary alone.

Why wouldn’t it be intended to mean the literal brother? I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes. If He didn’t mean “brother”, He would have (inspired the writer to have) said something else.

I have read what others have said about it possibly meaning “cousin” when referring to Jesus’ brothers in many places, but the text was in Greek where there was a word for “brother” and one for “cousin”, so if they meant “cousin” they would have written it that way.

I also understand that certain religions don’t believe he is a literal brother because, according to their church councils, Mary had no other children, but this does not match with what is clearly stated in the Bible.

In my humble opinion, only God and His Word are infallible, human beings and their church councils can and do make mistakes.

The view that Mary was ever virgin was not defined by councils but has been a constant tradition for 2000 years. Why do you think the Catholic Church would teach that Mary was ever-virgin if it wasn’t true? You don’t believe that Mary having children was any impediment to Christology so why would anyone else? What would be the church’s motivation to just make it up?

On the other hand, what is your motivation to saying the Church’s traditions are wrong. You have no proof at all to make these claims. Even if you believe that the bible means Jesus has literal brothers (and you know that this is dubious), that criteria could be met by sons of Joseph from a previous marriage.

 

[jlhargus]

You are so wrong when you mention Calvary Chapel. I belong to one and i have never in the 10 years that i have been attending and as a leader in the church ever targeted a specific group or denomination. We take the scriptures as they come. We study the bible Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter and Verse by Verse. We do bring up the misinterpretations that are brought up by certain groups or denominations but only as the scriptures are taught. As a leader of a Calvary Chapel I have never heard of Loraine Boetner.

JL: I will stick with my expirence talking and debating with Calvary people. Of course they do not use or name Boetner’s book, but they certainly try to pass that type of fiction as historic fact.