James, Brother of Jesus?

[SalomeBintullah]

You are funny!!
:tiphat:

I try.

 

[Hesychios]

Again, it says:
She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.

Why on earth would I believe you over Scripture? Were you there?
It always amazes me how people will twist the scriptures to fit their own ideas of what THEY think it should say.

Really, I don’t care what you believe about this point.

But the presence of this woman, Anna the Prophetess, is a matter for historical review. What she stated has theological importance.

In other words what she stated has more importance to us than her background or where she spent most of her time. We already know that the scriptures are not totally reliable for recounting science or history, otherwise we would all be required to believe the world was 6000 years old and the church will not require that of us!

Being a Christian is not a good excuse for shutting down one’s frontal lobe.

Now I happen to agree with you that Saint Mary of Nazareth had no other children. But the details surrounding all of these people, what they did and when, are often confused, and different Gospel accounts will reveal contradictions occasionally. That is really to be expected! The recording of this material was not a perfect process.

In fact, if it was perfect it would be highly suspect of fakery, I think any police investigator would agree.

Luke, who tells us about Anna the Prophetess, was three or more generations removed from the event (written likely after 75AD, it could be 80 to 100 years after the event described) and easily many retellings after the original story, also was a Gentile…possibly a physician. No one definitely knows this author’s name, so we settle on Luke in accord with tradition.

People make mistakes, they forget things and sometimes get the facts wrong. Many of the Gospel accounts (especially regarding the earliest events in the Saviors earthly life) were recounted like a game of telephone. By the time the Evangelist got it no one can be sure of the real facts.

I still think,* hypothetically*, little Mary could have been raised at Qumron, you read it here first! :thankyou:

 

[Tanner9188]

To say that The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15) is crazy. Nowhere in God’s Word do you see this happening. The theory that Peter was the first pope has already been established. Christ is the Rock. Peter is the small stone. Jesus was talking about himself. He is the corner stone In Matt 16:15-19. In Matt 18:15-18 its just a proclamation of what is already done in heaven. No one can forgive sins other than Christ. That has already been established. The disciples were able to declare that if a person repents, his sins are forgiven in heaven as well as if he doesn’t repent. Then his sins are not forgiven in heaven.

Is there a point of contention here? Peter the first Pope? What year did the term Pope come into play???

Anyone who declares the gospel, can open the door to heaven or shut one out and all of heaven would be in agreement. If they accept, then their sins are loosed and if reject, then their sins remain…very simple unless you do not understand the power of the Living Word.

 

[Tanner9188]

**And those men must **be from the Church that Jesus esablished - because he only estabished ONE Church - not thousands. They must have the guarantee that Jesus gave his Church - the ONE Church he established and the same Church to whom he gave all of the Authority.

The true church of Christ is the body of believers of Christ and we are called Christians.
What does your church teach concerning these things? Perhaps if you look at individuals, as Christ does, and not denominations, as Christ doesn’t, then you may be able to see clearly. Either that or I misunderstood what you implied concerning your denomination.

 

[Tanner9188]

"Brethren of the Lord"

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth.

They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.”

The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Continued…

Well you overlook two very important versus and a full understanding of the God ordained marriage covenant.
Matt 1:18 18 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.

What could the implication be for “came together”; especially in light of the fact that everyone that knew Jesus and His family, knew He had brothers and sisters.

Matt 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

A little more explicit, not implicit; wouldn’t you have to agree? Especially in light of the whole of Scripture in relation to the biblical references to His brothers and Sisters.

Can you deny the plain rendering?

Oh, by the Joseph, don’t leave her; go ahead and marry her, but don’t expect to ever have intimate relations with her; you are just to keep an eye on her to make sure she remains a virgin.

 

[Louie1983]

Jesus referred to Peter as “rock” (not small stone).

It is such a shame that you have lost your faith humble in doubt, you are smart, articulate and strong. there is evidence that you onced loved the faith and the scriptures (correct me if i’m wrong). I pray that you return home to the faith!

God bless!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

"Brethren of the Lord"

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth.

They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.”

The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Continued…

you’re right with everything you say here … but I think the bigger problem is the context we see brothers and sisters used in the New Testament (it appears to be very clearly a familial context). The problem as I see isn’t so much trying to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity (heck even Luther and Calvin didn’t dispute that), but rather trying to also defend Joseph’s perpetual virginity (and herein we even see a rift between Eastern and Roman Rite Catholics).

Frankly I don’t think the RCC will officially say that Joseph remained a virgin (and I’m pretty sure they don’t write off the possibility that Joseph brought step children into the marriage). The fact is from an official standpoint I’m pretty sure the church does not claim to know whether these apparent references to siblings mean step-siblings or cousins (although cousins seems to be the popular view among RCs).

If I remember my history right the idea that Joseph was a virgin was popular, but was never adopted as official dogma (because many RC scholars reject the idea).

 

[elvisman]

The true church of Christ is the body of believers of Christ and we are called Christians.
What does your church teach concerning these things? Perhaps if you look at individuals, as Christ does, and not denominations, as Christ doesn’t, then you may be able to see clearly. Either that or I misunderstood what you implied concerning your denomination.

That’s just it - I don’t belong to a denomination.
**I belong to the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago (Matt. 16:15-19). **This IS the true church - period.
He didn’t establish many churches or denominations - rebellious men did later.

 

[elvisman]

Well you overlook two very important versus and a full understanding of the God ordained marriage covenant.
Matt 1:18 18 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.

What could the implication be for “came together”; especially in light of the fact that everyone that knew Jesus and His family, knew He had brothers and sisters.

Matt 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

A little more explicit, not implicit; wouldn’t you have to agree? Especially in light of the whole of Scripture in relation to the biblical references to His brothers and Sisters.

Can you deny the plain rendering?

Oh, by the Joseph, don’t leave her; go ahead and marry her, but don’t expect to ever have intimate relations with her; you are just to keep an eye on her to make sure she remains a virgin.

Ummm . . . 2:Samuel 6:23 states:
"And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death."
Are we to understand that she had children AFTER her death?

Hebrews 10:12-13 syas:
**"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."

Will Jesus no longer sit at the right hand of the father afterward??
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The use of “until” or “after” don’t have the same meaning as they do in 21st century American English. That’s the problem with many Protestants. You assume that the Scriptures were written that way.

**We have established over and over that the use of the term “Adelphos/Adelphoi” were looser, Post-Septuagint renderings - if you would bother to go back and read the posts. This has ALL been covered and refuted.

 

[elvisman]

Really, I don’t care what you believe about this point.

But the presence of this woman, Anna the Prophetess, is a matter for historical review. What she stated has theological importance.

In other words what she stated has more importance to us than her background or where she spent most of her time. We already know that the scriptures are not totally reliable for recounting science or history, otherwise we would all be required to believe the world was 6000 years old and the church will not require that of us!

Being a Christian is not a good excuse for shutting down one’s frontal lobe.

Now I happen to agree with you that Saint Mary of Nazareth had no other children. But the details surrounding all of these people, what they did and when, are often confused, and different Gospel accounts will reveal contradictions occasionally. That is really to be expected! The recording of this material was not a perfect process.

In fact, if it was perfect it would be highly suspect of fakery, I think any police investigator would agree.

Luke, who tells us about Anna the Prophetess, was three or more generations removed from the event (written likely after 75AD, it could be 80 to 100 years after the event described) and easily many retellings after the original story, also was a Gentile…possibly a physician. No one definitely knows this author’s name, so we settle on Luke in accord with tradition.

People make mistakes, they forget things and sometimes get the facts wrong. Many of the Gospel accounts (especially regarding the earliest events in the Saviors earthly life) were recounted like a game of telephone. By the time the Evangelist got it no one can be sure of the real facts.

I still think,* hypothetically*, little Mary could have been raised at Qumron, you read it here first! :thankyou:

**This is a clear-cut case of why it is so important that Jesus left his Church in charge. **Your confused rant amounts to nothing more than slanted opinions and scriptural acrobatics.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

**That’s just it - I don’t **belong to a denomination.
I belong to the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago (Matt. 16:15-19). This IS the true church - period.
**He didn’t **establish many churches or denominations - rebellious men did later.

how can you call men like Luther … who fought against what by today’s standards would be defined as tyranny, a seditious rebel (and infer he was therefore a wicked man). I can’t believe there’s Catholics who still think this way when everyone knows the history (including intellectually honest Catholic lay people & scholars). We know Pope Leo X was corrupt, we know what he was doing in Germany, and therefore the reformation was Rome’s fault.

I think the Vatican owes Germany an apology …

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Marriage covenant that God ordained has not changed; ceremoniously there are differences among cultures Jewish vs Christian; even today, but the overall vows are the same and virginity is not one of them…can’t someone apply just a little “common sense”?

Gabriel of 12;
Whoooo, there, slow down. God ordained marriage between man and a woman in Genesis as both becoming one flesh, one body. Moses changed this Marriage to a contractual marriage between man and woman allowing a bill of divorce, up until Jesus appears on the scene, Jesus elevates marriage between a man and woman again indissoluble, where divorce is not accepted from “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”. Jesus raised Holy Matrimony to a level of sacrament by placing the divine sign between a man and a woman. Which symbolizes Jesus and his Catholic church. Jesus would never divorce his Church, not the Church would ever divorce Jesus. This is Paul’s teaching regarding this marriage mystery between the husband and wife found in Ephesians 4-6.

Interesting enough is that, Paul and many other apostles became or remained celibate in their single or marriage state, even up to today in the Roman Catholic Rite, our Priests follow after Paul by taking a vow of chastity, in order to devote themselves totally to the work of Jesus and his church.

Tanner;
Matt 1:18 Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, ** before they came together she was found to be with child ** by the Holy Spirit.

Gabriel of 12;
This verse does not in any way indicate a sexual content as your 21st century mind totals. This Hebrew idiom only indicates before their co-habitation. Which is the responsibility of the betrothed husband to place a roof over her head, meant much more “wealth” than having sexual intercourse. In other words, “before they came together” means before they co-habited Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, proving Mary conceived in her virginity, stop, nothing else occurred.

This is the confusion from 21st. century interpretation and first century meaning. Again, you are mis- reading a new late definition into the text from antiquity. From a Scholarly view point; this text is not stating “came together” means they had marital relations, but that Mary conceived while remaining a virgin. This is Matthews message to his Jewish audience, nothing else according to biblical scholars both Catholic and non catholic. Where do you get this interpretation of the bible text? It definitely is not biblical Scholarly work. A personal interpretation does not make it “truth” across the board. If this is your opinion then state it as such, but not as a biblical interpretation. You are making biblical scholars cry both living and deceased with your personal interpretation of this text.

Tanner;
Matt 1:25 25 but ** kept her a virgin until she gave birth ** to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Therefore, Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son, then what? She gave her virginity to Joseph and had other children as the Bible plainly states in reference to Jesus having other brothers and sisters.

Gabriel of 12;
Again you are reading into the text something that does not exist. This text does not state in any way Joseph had marital relations with Mary after giving birth to Jesus. It is confirming that Mary remained a Virgin before conceiving Jesus and during giving birth to Jesus. Here is a prophecy concerning this fulfillment from Matthew’s testimony; ISAIAH 66; 7
2 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child.
8
Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children.
9
Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? Says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? Says your God.
10
Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,
Matthew is only revealing what the prophets spoke of this virgin birth. Notice that the prophecy details that no birth pains come upon her, which is a curse for all child bearing women with original sin from Adam and Eve. Isaiah speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes certain that this virgin is without sin, for “who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like”?
Learn what the early Christians taught about these scriptures before implying a 21st interpretation. The “truth” you will find about these scriptural teachings from the first 400 years was that these Christians were all Catholic and believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and defended this Apostolic Belief until the death.

 

[elvisman]

how can you call men like Luther … who fought against what by today’s standards would be defined as tyranny, a seditious rebel (and infer he was therefore a wicked man). I can’t believe there’s Catholics who still think this way when everyone knows the history (including intellectually honest Catholic lay people & scholars). We know Pope Leo X was corrupt, we know what he was doing in Germany, and therefore the reformation was Rome’s fault.

I think the Vatican owes Germany an apology …

Because men like Luther chose not to reform but to split. He let his spiritual pride get in the way and almost deleted books like James, Jude, 1st & 2nd Peter and Revelation becaus of it. If it hadn’t been for the pleading of his contemporaries - he would have gotten away with it.

****In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus identifies his Church as his very self.
Regardless of the corruption of men - you don’t abandon Jesus. The Church is his body and he is the head.

 

[Tanner9188]

**That’s just it - I don’t **belong to a denomination.
I belong to the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago (Matt. 16:15-19). This IS the true church - period.
**He didn’t **establish many churches or denominations - rebellious men did later.

The church composes of the individual true believer, not a religion or denomination. Does Jesus/God look at individual hearts or at an organization? Believers are united only in the sense that we belong to Him, as individuals. Not united as a religion or denomination; this should be obvious based on observation and experience. I love the goofy color usage!

God bless you neighbor!

 

[elvisman]

The church composes of the individual true believer, not a religion or denomination. Does Jesus/God look at individual hearts or at an organization? Believers are united only in the sense that we belong to Him, as individuals. Not united as a religion or denomination; this should be obvious based on observation and experience. I love the goofy color usage!

God bless you neighbor!

The problem with “Lone Ranger” Christianity is that it is not the way the scriptures paint the faith. The community nurtures the believer. This is the theme throughout the New Testament, especially in Acts and Paul’s letters.
As individual parts of the Body - we are strenghthened by the other parts (1 Cor. 12:12). and we all make one body.

The fact that Jesus identifies himself with this Body (Acts 9:4-5) should be enough for every believer to want to be part of it.

PS - Thanks for the “goofy color usage” remark. Some people actually find it offensive.

 

[Tanner9188]

Ummm . . . 2:Samuel 6:23 states:
"And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death."
Are we to understand that she had children AFTER her death?

Hebrews 10:12-13 syas:
**“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."

Will Jesus no longer sit at the right hand of the father afterward??
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The use of "until" or “after” don’t have the same meaning as they do in 21st century American English. That’s the problem with many Protestants. You assume that the Scriptures were written that way.

**We have established *over and over ***that the use of the term “Adelphos/Adelphoi” were looser, Post-Septuagint renderings - if you would bother to go back and read the posts. This has ALL been covered and refuted.

Blind blind blind to the obvious rendering. Why? What do you have to protect by admitting the truth? The truth really does set one free.

Did you tinker with Scripture? No where in the KJV, NKJ, NASB,ASB uses the word “until” in the rendering of 2 Samuel 6:23. The NLT put it best “So Michal, the daughter of Saul, remained childless throughout her life.”

 

[Tanner9188]

The problem with "Lone Ranger" Christianity is that it is not the way the scriptures paint the faith. The community nurtures the believer. This is the theme throughout the New Testament, especially in Acts and Paul’s letters.
As individual parts of the Body - we are strenghthened by the other parts (1 Cor. 12:12). and we all make one body.

The fact that Jesus identifies himself with this Body (Acts 9:4-5) should be enough for every believer to want to be part of it.

PS - Thanks for the “goofy color usage” remark. Some people actually find it offensive.

The local body of wheat and tares assists the Holy Spirit in the maturation of the believer. Read all of the greetings in the NT epistles for Scriptural confirmation…you are only kidding yourself Elvis; be careful because the Bible has a severe warning for teachers; probably for good reason and something to be considered when rendering an accurate interpretation of the word of God; not to be taken lightly.

 

[Hesychios]

** … **Your confused rant amounts to nothing more than slanted opinions and scriptural acrobatics.

In other words you have no intelligent response to the facts of history!

The Roman Catholic church does not teach inerrency of scriptures, yet that is the background of your assumptions. If you need to grasp on to myths so doggedly go for it.

Like I stated before, it is not important to me what you believe. I am responding because you like to attack my reasoning.

But intelligent Christians (and surely you are intelligent) should be able to see the Truth in spite of scriptural inconsistencies.

 

[elvisman]

The local body of wheat and tares assists the Holy Spirit in the maturation of the believer. Read all of the greetings in the NT epistles for Scriptural confirmation…you are only kidding yourself Elvis; be careful because the Bible has a severe warning for teachers; probably for good reason and something to be considered when rendering an accurate interpretation of the word of God; not to be taken lightly.

The Body of Christ does not consist solely of the local group of members.
It is the UNIVERSAL (Gr., Kato-holos) Body of believers. That is where we get the name, “Catholic”.

Indeed - be careful about false teachings, my friend.

 

[elvisman]

The Roman Catholic church does not teach inerrency of scriptures, yet that is the background of your assumptions. If you need to grasp on to myths so doggedly go for it.

Huh???
Prove that statement.