James, Brother of Jesus?

[elvisman]

I really think that IF someone was Sola Scriptura, the most natural reading supports the Protestant view. I wonder if the Orthodox or Catholic agree with that?
I personally believe that if tradition is thrown in; the Greek view is certainly plausible.

And since Sola Scriptura is totally unsupported by the very scriptures it purports to derive its doctrine from - the only logical conclusion is the latter.

 

[Mickey]

One of the reasons Orthodoxy is attractive to persons like myself is the high regard for tradition, and the earlier the tradition the better. I want to be as close as I can be to the first century Christian mindset.

So if I have to choose between a second century eastern Mediterranean recorded legend, a sixteenth century European polemical argument or a twentieth century north American pre–conceived notion I will go with the oldest opinion over the most obvious to me.

Like a good friend of mine likes to say:
"The deepest wells have the clearest water".

 

[jpaul1953]

The only reference to cousin used in the NT is in Colossians 4:10, the Greek word is anepsios, which is a noun masculine and means “cousin”. Nowhere else in the NT is the word cousin used, nor is there an example of the term brother being used as cousin, as far as I can see. The term in Greek is “adelphos” is used for brother and can mean used in a variety of contexts:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

However; in Matthew 1:18 states: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child * by the Holy Spirit.” The Greek word for “came” is “synerchomai”, which is used in one of 2 ways:

1. to come together
   1. to assemble
   2. of conjugal cohabitation
2. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

The context and use here should be obvious to all and the plain reading of Scripture that being related to the marriage covenant, the “conjugal cohabitation” is the meaning here.

Then add the use of “before”, tells us in no uncertain terms that they did come together as husband and wife, which when related to Matt 4:18 “Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” We know that Peter and Andrew are blood brothers…I don’t know anyone who has ever questioned that.

Then go to Matt 12:47 "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Luke 8:20 is parallel passage) - we know it wasn’t His disciples, they were already with Him.

Also, Matt 13:55 "“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

In addition Galatians 1:19 states “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

In light of the plain reading and use of Greek terms, you can drawl your own conclusion based on the evidence. My conclusion is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations, which would honor God’s command concerning the marriage covenant.

Dear Tanner 9188,

I don’t know what denimination, if any, you belong to , but you sure feel that you speak with authority on this issue.

Couple of things, Tanner. The original protesters mostly believed in the virginity of Mary. It’s the spin-offs of the Protesters that have decided to question this point. Which furthur distances themselves from the Church

Aramaic and Hebrew had no term for cousin. Sort of like many people say that Jesus had to have been nailed at His wrists because it would have torn through His hands from the body weight. Then, I read that the hand back then included the wrist. Just different ways of seeing things. Different times, different language. Just as you and I could read the same Bible verse and have different interpretations.

May we accept God’s endless mercy.

jpaul1953

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;5343924:

Wow all that writing and you still don’t make any sense. The idea that mary was a perpetual virgin is directly contradicted by the biblical account. Matt 1:25 we read that Joseph "kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son. The word UNTIL implies that normal sexual relations between Joseph and mary took place following the birth of Jesus. Greek scholars agree that the term adelphos should be taken in its normal sense of a literal brother. Read 69:8 since verse 8 is a messianic reference to Christ’s alienation “to my mothers son’s,” mary most definitely had other children besides Jesus. Also since there was a Greek word for cousins (anepsios), don’t you think the biblical writers would have used this word instead of the Greek word adelphos for brothers when referring to James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas Matt 13:55-57

Gabriel of 12;

The word “until” when used in this text is the idiom that Matthew uses,in confirming to his Jewish audience, that Mary concieved as a Virgin, and gave birth as a Virgin period. Although it is common knowlede that Joseph and Mary are betrothed.You are very hard pressed to make an assumption that this implies that Joseph had “sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth to her son”. This sexual mis- interpretation of yours is a late 19th century massacre of the text, this interpretation never existed “until” centuries after the Protestant reformation. “Until” then the Christian world was Catholic, who since the first recorded history of Christendom, all are in agreement that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Iam surprised you can adamantly state that “Mary most definitely had other children besides Jesus”. You must be greater than the apostles, because scripture gives no evidence that Joseph and Mary had other offspring. Do you know when Joseph died? The time frame of Joseph’s death, makes it impossible for Joseph to have all these brothers and sisters, not to mention adults, who were older than Jesus. Yet you believe Joseph and Mary had all these children? Ridiculous.

The Greek/Hebrew/Latin translation of the cousin/brother text; see my posts 217 and 221. If more information is needed for this topic.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;
I was not defining Hebrew custom here, I was introducing it here;
Let me see if I can summarize here for you; The Whole of the context both from Mat. and Mark coming from two different Gospels, both record this event, not as a geneology of Jesus and Mary, of which you wish to see "uncles, nieces, nephews, grandchildren etc. mentioned? No of course not, you are side stepping the issue of the content of this scripture. The content of this scripture is a total insult to Jesus himself, where John records the same event taken place in John1:11 from his perspective. This scripture proves nothing of Jesus having blood relatives from Joseph and Mary.

This Idiom from Matt. and Mark display a forceful insult to Jesus, lacking the male figure head, and or “uncles” proves the cursing taken place. If compared to today, One filled with anger and contempt who wishes to insult another in a spur of the moment does not have to time to speculate details such as uncles or relatives, The “cursing” displays multiple insults coming one after another as you witness from these text.

His divine orgins, have already been witnessed from the sorrounding areas, that is why Jesus only healed a few of his own, because these came to believe, while the majority rejected his power from testimonies. Taking the text out of context from the whole leads to dangerous grounds of mis-interpretations, the whole of the text cannot conflict with either letter or Apostolic Tradtion. Perpetual Virgin of Mary fits all of the bible from Gen-Revelations.

Here is a reference for you as you requested; R.E Brown, et al.(eds.), Mary in the New Testament (PHL/NY,1978) for scripture reference indicating that brothers signifies the Hebrew person having the SAME ANCESTORY, CLAN, OR TRIBE, or same race and nation please see Nm 16:10, Dt. 15:12, Dt. 23:7

Here is a question that may help us in this Hebrew idiom of brothers;
What does Jesus mean to you when he states from; Mt.12:50, Mk.3:35, Lk.8:21. Am I to assume if your interpretation of brothers from the scriptures is applied to mean that Mary and Joseph continued to have offspring after the death of Jospeh?

 

[Scardinoz]

Mary had no children before Jesus. We can agree on that, right?

However, these brethren seem to talk to Jesus as if they are his elders in Mark 3:21 and John 7:3. Also, in the temple in Luke chapter 2:41 there are no other siblings mentioned.

Please don’t take my word for it. Read and let me know what you think.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Here you go:
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Adelphos), even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the “brother” (Adelphos) of his uncle Laban.
**Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren **(Adelphos),” the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

Thanks … good examples.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Mary had no children before Jesus. We can agree on that, right?

However, these brethren seem to talk to Jesus as if they are his elders in Mark 3:21 and John 7:3. Also, in the temple in Luke chapter 2:41 there are no other siblings mentioned.

Please don’t take my word for it. Read and let me know what you think.

I wouldn’t say the verses you cite necessarily elude to elder brothers? In Mark 3:21 it was his (Jesus’) entire family who “went to take charge of him” (not just his siblings). In fact the verses you cite brings to light another problem I haven’t heard mentioned. In verse 31 Mary and Jesus’ siblings (or for arguendo sake his cousins) arrive. This entire discourse is a hallmark event in the New Testament; because it’s here where Jesus appoints his twelve apostles and where he enumerates the one “unforgivable” sin. It also marks the moment where he breaks from his temporal family and begins to formulate his spiritual message (a oneness in spirit incorporated into his body).

If this all represents a series of events in close time proximity (which it seems to) then is it possible that Mary was with Jesus’ siblings (or cousins); and was among those who thought he was out of his mind? Not something I’m asserting as factual or even likely (since IMO, assuming there was a historical Jesus – I don’t believe the copies of manuscripts we possess today accurately depict his ministry. They are after all copies upon copies, and I know from first hand experience as a message or story is disseminated along it morphs into an entirely different story. Just try putting 20 people in a line, whisper a phrase into the first persons ear, then have him whisper it to the next guy, and so on until you reach the last man. I guarantee that you won’t even recognize the message when the 20th man repeats it).

 

[Tanner9188]

**This has all **been address if you go back and read the posts.
The Greek word, "Adelphos" has been discussed as well as the word “Anepsios” and the Septuagint and NT usages of these words.

As for Matt. 1:18 - the Greek used here sunerchomai can mean,
***1. to come together
***2. to assemble
3. of conjugal or domestic cohabitation
4. to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

Since they were not yet living together when she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, it could mean any part of #1, #2 OR #3.

You are correct that the term could be used in a number of contexts, but applying logic to the topic that the Holy Spirit was speaking of and applying the rest of Scripture as a whole, especially in light of how God defined marriage…then there is but one logical conclusion and the other conclusions cannot logically justified in light of Scripture. Again, the evidence is there to drawl your own conclusion.

 

[Tanner9188]

Dear Tanner 9188,

I don’t know what denimination, if any, you belong to , but you sure feel that you speak with authority on this issue.

Couple of things, Tanner. The original protesters mostly believed in the virginity of Mary. It’s the spin-offs of the Protesters that have decided to question this point. Which furthur distances themselves from the Church

Aramaic and Hebrew had no term for cousin. Sort of like many people say that Jesus had to have been nailed at His wrists because it would have torn through His hands from the body weight. Then, I read that the hand back then included the wrist. Just different ways of seeing things. Different times, different language. Just as you and I could read the same Bible verse and have different interpretations.

May we accept God’s endless mercy.

jpaul1953

Hello,

I have no authority except to reiterate what God has made clear in His word. The holy Spirit gave us the Greek, Hebrew, and a tad of Aramaic language for Holy Scriptures. The reason is probably have to do with the richness and nuances of the Greek language to help make the correct interpretations of His word…just a thought, nothing I could prove from Scripture, but God always has a purpose for the way He does things.

Blessings!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You are correct that the term could be used in a number of contexts, but applying logic to the topic that the Holy Spirit was speaking of and applying the rest of Scripture as a whole, especially in light of how God defined marriage…then there is but one logical conclusion and the other conclusions cannot logically justified in light of Scripture. Again, the evidence is there to drawl your own conclusion.

I wonder how this omnipotent god, powerful enough to raise dead men, destroy cities, who exists everywhere in time and space, and who allegedly created the entire universe for goodness sake – couldn’t relay a simple message in a way that everyone could understand it in a consistent way (not even those who believe in him)?

Hmmm … I suppose the theist will come up with all sorts of elaborate answers to address this objection; however, it seems to me the right answer is simple enough to discern

So when you guys talk about “applying logic” consider my contention … Christianity is completely illogical (at least insofar as believing the events depicted in scripture actually happened).

 

[Tanner9188]

Thanks … good examples.

Hello,

The examples that Elvis gave imposed the Greek onto the Hebrew, which one cannot do and reach a logical conclusion. The Hebrew word for relative (Gen 14:14 & the other Gen reference) and brother (1 Chr reference) is “'ach”; meaning(s)

brother

1. brother of same parents
2. half-brother (same father)
3. relative, kinship, same tribe
4. each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
5. (fig.) of resemblance

This is why the Greek is so much clearer because their is a specific word for cousin as well as brother whereas the Hebrew does not make that distinction.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Hello,

The examples that Elvis gave imposed the Greek onto the Hebrew, which one cannot do and reach a logical conclusion. The Hebrew word for relative (Gen 14:14 & the other Gen reference) and brother (1 Chr reference) is “'ach”; meaning(s)

brother

1. brother of same parents
2. half-brother (same father)
3. relative, kinship, same tribe
4. each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
5. (fig.) of resemblance

This is why the Greek is so much clearer because their is a specific word for cousin as well as brother whereas the Hebrew does not make that distinction.

I’m not sure that’s the point exactly. For instance, here’s Gen. 14:14 taken from the Septuagint:

14:14 ακουσας δε αβραμ οτι ηχμαλωτευται λωτ ο αδελφος αυτου ηριθμησεν τους ιδιους οικογενεις αυτου τριακοσιους δεκα και οκτω και κατεδιωξεν οπισω αυτων εως δαν

The word in bold translates to: Adelphos (see Strong’s No. 80). the Strong’s definition doesn’t include the alternate meaning of non-sibling relatives; but obviously that’s exactly how it’s used (in a few cases) in the Septuagint. The point Elvisman was making earlier is that even though there is a Koine Greek word for cousin, sometimes they used Adelphos anyway. The reason is (as far as I can speculate anyway) there was no separate word for cousin in ancient Hebrew. The word x) (translated its: 'Ach) was used to describe both cousin and brother (and also nephew along with other relatives).

Paul was a Greek Jew, raised in Tarsus, and well educated in Greek language and culture. He would have most likely been raised studying the Septuagint version of the Old Testament; so the contention is (by some Catholics here) that Paul simply used these words interchangeably as the writers of the Septuagint did.

If nothing else it’s certainly plausible.

 

[Tanner9188]

I’m not sure that’s the point exactly. For instance, here’s Gen. 14:14 taken from the Septuagint:

14:14 ακουσας δε αβραμ οτι ηχμαλωτευται λωτ ο αδελφος αυτου ηριθμησεν τους ιδιους οικογενεις αυτου τριακοσιους δεκα και οκτω και κατεδιωξεν οπισω αυτων εως δαν

The word in bold translates to: Adelphos (see Strong’s No. 80). the Strong’s definition doesn’t include the alternate meaning of non-sibling relatives; but obviously that’s exactly how it’s used (in a few cases) in the Septuagint. The point Elvisman was making earlier is that even though there is a Koine Greek word for cousin, sometimes they used Adelphos anyway. The reason is (as far as I can speculate anyway) there was no separate word for cousin in ancient Hebrew. The word x) (translated its: 'Ach) was used to describe both cousin and brother (and also nephew along with other relatives).

Paul was a Greek Jew, raised in Tarsus, and well educated in Greek language and culture. He would have most likely been raised studying the Septuagint version of the Old Testament; so the contention is (by some Catholics here) that Paul simply used these words interchangeably as the writers of the Septuagint did.

If nothing else it’s certainly plausible.

The OT was written and given to us in Hebrew, not Greek, the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew; therefore the transliterations are not going to correspond at all times, just as the English language does not always render the appropriate contextual meaning. Does this mean we all need to know Greek and Hebrew, no; but it helps on the stickier issues and there are plenty of resources to help.

 

[Tanner9188]

I wonder how this omnipotent god, powerful enough to raise dead men, destroy cities, who exists everywhere in time and space, and who allegedly created the entire universe for goodness sake – couldn’t relay a simple message in a way that everyone could understand it in a consistent way (not even those who believe in him)?

Hmmm … I suppose the theist will come up with all sorts of elaborate answers to address this objection; however, it seems to me the right answer is simple enough to discern

So when you guys talk about “applying logic” consider my contention … Christianity is completely illogical (at least insofar as believing the events depicted in scripture actually happened).

That is actually a simple answer to that, most people who call themselves Christians are not; God always has and always will keep a remnant for Himself. There has to be an infinite mind that created something from nothing; otherwise how would anything ever exist unless it was created from something that had no beginning nor end, which is one infinite characteristic or attribute of God. In addition there can only be one infinite being, because if you had two or more infinite beings, then by definition they would be the same because infinitive is infinite and not finite. If this being created all the Heavens and Earth and all that it contains, and He did, then how hard would it be for that being to raise the dead, since He would be the author of life or have a whale swallow up someone, stay in the whale belly for three days and then spit the person out alive?

Just a few thoughts for what it’s worth. Here is something you may agree with…religion is man at his worst, not at his best and Christianity is about a personal relationship with god, not about rituals, rites or traditions of men.

Bless you!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The OT was written and given to us in Hebrew, not Greek, the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew; therefore the transliterations are not going to correspond at all times, just as the English language does not always render the appropriate contextual meaning. Does this mean we all need to know Greek and Hebrew, no; but it helps on the stickier issues and there are plenty of resources to help.

I was actually trying to add to my post but my time to edit ran out. Anyway, here’s my additional comments:

Obviously there’s also the problem of Luke, who was a gentile convert to Christianity, who allegedly authored both Luke and Acts. Luke obviously would of had minimal if any exposure to the Old Testament (whether the Septuagint or Mosaic text). Luke was also said to be a physician so assumably he was well educated. In passages such as Luke 8:20 he uses the Koine Greek word for “brother” NOT cousin (and of course there was a commonly used word for cousin in Koine Greek).

Moreover, in Col. 4:10 Paul uses the Greek word for cousin, so obviously he didn’t take his cues from the Septuagint writing style 100% of the time. So the better view is probably that Jesus indeed had siblings – but on the other hand the RC view probably isn’t as implausible as you think either. Now whether or not these siblings were step siblings or blood siblings is another matter entirely. It does seem important from a typological standpoint that Jesus be rejected by his siblings – just as David was.

Anyone who has even a rudimentary familiarity with the bible knows David is the most important Old Testament “type” who prefigures Jesus. At 1 Sam. 17 David is rejected by his brothers; and as we see at John 7:5 Jesus was initially rejected by his own brothers (of course the bible also avers that the risen Jesus appeared to his brother James, and subsequently James played a pivotal role in building and administering the early church).

I guess the idea is that although the rejection of David does prefigure the rejection of Christ (by his own brothers) – the resurrection of Christ (and his appearance to his brother James) reverses this (keeping with the theme of reversal i.e. Jesus as the new Adam reverses the harm done to mankind by Adam & rebuilds our bridge to god; just as Jesus, once risen, reverses the shame of rejection to the royal Davidic line … or something to that effect).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

That is actually a simple answer to that, most people who call themselves Christians are not; God always has and always will keep a remnant for Himself. There has to be an infinite mind that created something from nothing; otherwise how would anything ever exist unless it was created from something that had no beginning nor end, which is one infinite characteristic or attribute of God. In addition there can only be one infinite being, because if you had two or more infinite beings, then by definition they would be the same because infinitive is infinite and not finite. If this being created all the Heavens and Earth and all that it contains, and He did, then how hard would it be for that being to raise the dead, since He would be the author of life or have a whale swallow up someone, stay in the whale belly for three days and then spit the person out alive?

Just a few thoughts for what it’s worth. Here is something you may agree with…religion is man at his worst, not at his best and Christianity is about a personal relationship with god, not about rituals, rites or traditions of men.

Bless you!

First the idea of predestination is just as hotly debated within Christianity as Mary’s virginity – or whatever. Moreover, the bible does teach faith based justification – so it would seem overwhelming biblical evidence supports the notion that all true believers will be saved (and we might assume there’s also some tangible temporal witness to faith; but I suppose that’s a separate issue). Now, if you’re going to try and say only those who hold your view of the bible belong to this “elect” remnant (or whatever) – while all others who profess belief must be deluding themselves (since, under your view, if they did truly believe they would hold your view regarding scripture) … then you truly are deluded my friend.

With regard to the idea that since the universe exists there must be a god, or since as far as we can tell the universe had a beginning (so something not governed by the laws of causation must have created it) … that’s purely philosophical conjecture.

Frankly even if there is some grand architect of the universe … that does nothing to support the view that it was the god described by the Old and New Testaments. Indeed I have a hard time believing the universe created itself – but I also know the overwhelming weight of evidence (albeit circumstantial) debunks contemporary theism (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or whatever). Christianity is probably no more true than Zeus, Odin, or Mithra.

 

[elvisman]

You are correct that the term could be used in a number of contexts, but applying logic to the topic that the Holy Spirit was speaking of and applying the rest of Scripture as a whole, especially in light of how God defined marriage…then there is but one logical conclusion and the other conclusions cannot logically justified in light of Scripture. Again, the evidence is there to drawl your own conclusion.

This is preposterous.
It always amazes me that non-Catholics seem to think that God is bound by rigid marital rules - he is not. He CAN make exceptions and DOES.

You want to talk about logic? It is not logical that if Mary is the fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant (she is the Ark of the New Covenant), then she would be untouched, undefiled by man?

Consider also the logic behind her words to the Angel Gabriel when he told her she would bear a son:
"How can this be since I do not know man" (Luke 1:34).
She DIDN’T say, “I have not known man yet” - she said I DO NOT KNOW man. She wasn’t planning on it. this corresponds perfectly with the Protoevangelium of James which said she was a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

Again - I see no scriptures showing that these relatives (Adelphos) were children of Mary.

 

[BrianH]

This is preposterous.
It always amazes me that non-Catholics seem to think that God is bound by rigid marital rules - he is not. He CAN make exceptions and DOES.

You want to talk about logic? It is not logical that if Mary is the fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant (she is the Ark of the New Covenant), then she would be untouched, undefiled by man?

Consider also the logic behind her words to the Angel Gabriel when he told her she would bear a son:
"How can this be since I do not know man" (Luke 1:34).
She DIDN’T say, “I have not known man yet” - she said I DO NOT KNOW man. She wasn’t planning on it. this corresponds perfectly with the Protoevangelium of James which said she was a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

Again - I see no scriptures showing that these relatives (Adelphos) were children of Mary.

There is no such thing as a consecrated “virgin of the Temple” in Judaism. It corresponds to something that never existed.

 

[Hesychios]

There is no such thing as a consecrated “virgin of the Temple” in Judaism. It corresponds to something that never existed.

I think you are right about this.
*
Michael*