James, Brother of Jesus?

[elvisman]

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.”

Ahhh, now you’re playing games.
Some translations do, in fact say, “until” (Young’s Literal, Webster’s Translation).

---

For the sake of argument, let’s forget this one passage.
What then, do you do with the Acts and Hebrews use of the word?

 

[Hesychios]

Huh???

Let me make it clear, you are using scripture in a Fundamentalist sense.

If you are a Biblical literalist and believe every phrase is completely inerrant then you would have to admit that the sun circles around the earth. Do you believe the sun circles the earth? If you do then you are endorsing a peculiarly Fundamentalist Protestant form of Biblical inerrancy, or literalism.

Then you take an isolated scriptural passage which probably is clearly hyperbole (namely that Saint Anna never left the temple) to support some notion only expressed in apocryphal sources (namely, that Saint Mary was raised in the temple of Jerusalem).

In other words you are quote mining, taking isolated disconnected passages of scripture to build a case. You still have to reconcile your opinion with the historical or scientific facts. There are ways to do this but it has always to be acknowledged as theoretical, lacking further proof.

I have already stated that I don’t care if that is how you want to think, but they are just your ideas, not the church’s.

 

[freedomwriter]

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.

I told him the same thing a while back but he continues to misinterprate the Word of God.

 

[elvisman]

Let me make it clear, you are using scripture in a Fundamentalist sense.

If you are a Biblical literalist and believe every phrase is completely inerrant then you would have to admit that the sun circles around the earth. Do you believe the sun circles the earth? If you do then you are endorsing a peculiarly Fundamentalist Protestant form of Biblical inerrancy, or literalism.

Then you take an isolated scriptural passage which probably is clearly hyperbole (namely that Saint Anna never left the temple) to support some notion only expressed in apocryphal sources (namely, that Saint Mary was raised in the temple of Jerusalem).

In other words you are quote mining, taking isolated disconnected passages of scripture to build a case. You still have to reconcile your opinion with the historical or scientific facts. There are ways to do this but it has always to be acknowledged as theoretical, lacking further proof.

I have already stated that I don’t care if that is how you want to think, but they are just your ideas, not the church’s.

**The whole point of bringing up Anna the prophetess was to show proof that women could and did stay at the temple “without leaving”. **
Why is it that Luke can use hyperbole when speaking of Anna but the Protoevangelium of James can’t use similar hyperbole when speaking of Mary?

I eagerly await your scripturally-acrobatic response . . .

 

[elvisman]

I told him the same thing a while back but he continues to misinterprate the Word of God.

2 Peter 3:15-18
Read it.
Learn it.
Live it.

 

[Hesychios]

The whole point of bringing up Anna the prophetess was to show proof that women could and did stay at the temple “without leaving”.
Why is it that Luke can use hyperbole when speaking of Anna but the Protoevangelium of James can’t use similar hyperbole when speaking of Mary?

I eagerly await your scripturally-acrobatic response . . .

But the proto-gospel of James does use hyperbole.

It is even less reliable as a source than Luke is!

One has to be very careful about these things. For instance, scholars had always known that Homer’s Iliad was a fanciful legend, and thereby were completely skeptical of what it said.

Schliemann knew this, but was strongly certain that the legend–myth-story had a basis in truth. He went searching and actually found Troy, to the amazement of the skeptics.

Does that mean every fact related, or every piece of dialog in the Iliad is true? Of course not! What Homer recorded (long after the events) was a piece of historical fiction, we can’t count on the dialogs to be accurate, nor the dates and other facts.

But underlying all of that was the fact that Troy did exist, and it fell by seige more than once. This indicating that whatever flaws the story may contain and whatever fictions were introduced by dramatists later, it began as a retelling of some basic true story.

We cannot know it for sure from this far off in time, but the proto-gospel of James can contain some basic truths under the uncertain details. As a reflection of the common understanding of the second century Christians about the key players: Mary, Joseph, Joachim and Anna it has a much higher probability of being right in the basic facts than any 16th century exercise in polemics.

 

[elvisman]

But the proto-gospel of James does use hyperbole.

It is even less reliable as a source than Luke is!

One has to be very careful about these things. For instance, scholars had always known that Homer’s Iliad was a fanciful legend, and thereby were completely skeptical of what it said.

Schliemann knew this, but was strongly certain that the legend–myth-story had a basis in truth. He went searching and actually found Troy, to the amazement of the skeptics.

Does that mean every fact related, or every piece of dialog in the Iliad is true? Of course not! What Homer recorded (long after the events) was a piece of historical fiction, we can’t count on the dialogs to be accurate, nor the dates and other facts.

But underlying all of that was the fact that Troy did exist, and it fell by seige more than once. This indicating that whatever flaws the story may contain and whatever fictions were introduced by dramatists later, it began as a retelling of some basic true story.

We cannot know it for sure from this far off in time, but the proto-gospel of James can contain some basic truths under the uncertain details. As a reflection of the common understanding of the second century Christians about the key players: Mary, Joseph, Joachim and Anna it has a much higher probability of being right in the basic facts than any 16th century exercise in polemics.

**And your argument is . . .??

I was pointing out that the story of Anna in the temple in Luke and the story of Mary in the temple in the Protoevangelium of James were similar examples of people being constantly in the Temple. I also agreed with the possible hyperbole in Luke and in the Protoevangelium - so I don’t really see where this debate is going.

The original argument about this was that there are no examples of temple virgins or consecrated women in the temple. I have shown two good examples - from scriptural and extra-bilical sources.

 

[Hesychios]

The original argument about this was that there are no examples of temple virgins or consecrated women in the temple. I have shown two good examples - from scriptural and extra-bilical sources.

Except that there were no consecrated virgins in the temple.

 

[elvisman]

Except that there were no consecrated virgins in the temple.

And I refer you back to an earlier post where I told you that the 1st and 2nd century writers would have known better than you about whether or not there was a precedent for consecrated temple virgins.

 

[Hesychios]

**And I refer you **back to an earlier post where I told you that the 1st and 2nd century writers would have known better than you about whether or not there was a precedent for consecrated temple virgins.

I think we should ask some specialists in Jewish temple history

 

[SalomeBintullah]

I think we should ask some specialists in Jewish temple history

Well, I’m no expert, but I’ve done a little bit of casual research because I was interested in the theory that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin. There’s not enough historical evidence one way or the other that there were consecrated Temple virgins, but it seems unlikely they existed. Tal Ilan is the scholar you want to check out if you want to learn about women in Second Temple Judaism. The author of the Protoevangelium of James seems to have had little knowledge of 1st-century Palestinian Judaism. My personal opinion is that Mary was probably a consecrated virgin, but privately, not publicly. Either way, as a Catholic I firmly believe in her perpetual virginity. I just have serious reservations about the popular belief that she was consecrated in service in the Temple.

 

[Tanner9188]

Ahhh, now you’re playing games.
Some translations do, in fact say, “until” (Young’s Literal, Webster’s Translation).

---

For the sake of argument, let’s forget this one passage.
**What **then, do you do with the Acts and Hebrews use of the word?

Refresh my mind on these two.

At least on the previous post you half admitted that the church does contain the local community church’s; albeit you may be thinking the local Catholic church.

 

[freedomwriter]

2 Peter 3:15-18
Read it.
Learn it.
Live it.

Cool I think you finally got it

 

[Tanner9188]

The whole point of bringing up Anna the prophetess was to show proof that women could and did stay at the temple “without leaving”.
Why is it that Luke can use hyperbole when speaking of Anna but the Protoevangelium of James can’t use similar hyperbole when speaking of Mary?

I eagerly await your scripturally-acrobatic response . . .

Elvis, I have to agree with you on this one concerning Anna; however it is possible that she came back everyday, but I believe the passage say she stayed there day and night…correct me if I am wrong on that.

Literal interpretation of Scripture does not take away from the symbolic language, metaphors, simile and analogies. They enhance and clarify the literal translation. Perhaps this may be the point of contention between you two.

 

[Hesychios]

Well, I’m no expert, but I’ve done a little bit of casual research because I was interested in the theory that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin. There’s not enough historical evidence one way or the other that there were consecrated Temple virgins, but it seems unlikely they existed. Tal Ilan is the scholar you want to check out if you want to learn about women in Second Temple Judaism. The author of the Protoevangelium of James seems to have had little knowledge of 1st-century Palestinian Judaism. My personal opinion is that Mary was probably a consecrated virgin, but privately, not publicly. Either way, as a Catholic I firmly believe in her perpetual virginity. I just have serious reservations about the popular belief that she was consecrated in service in the Temple.

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.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If you notice in Matthew 13:55-56,​

55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?56 Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"

=

“is he not the carpenter’s (Joseph’s) son”.​

And in Mark 6:2-4

2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”

=
As Christians, we know that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus; God is the Father of Jesus.
==+
Apparently, the ones making the comments in Mathew 13:55, the “non-believers”, did not know Jesus or His family very well, much like the “non-believers” today, who believe that “Jesus had (biological) brothers”, do not know His family very well.

If one were to except Matthew 13:55, literally, using the same flawed logic and by taking this verse out of context, one would have to reject the Virgin Birth and the fact that Mary conceived Jesus by the Power of the Holy Spirit. One would then be rejecting Christianity itself.
+
If one were to believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus, and not God, then he would be in error and is not, by definition a Christian. However, one could, in error, use Matthew 13:53 , if taken literally and out of context (the same way that many “Protestants” use this verse today to assert that, “Jesus had brothers”) to assert that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. This too would be in error, because we know that Joesph is not the biological father of Jesus.
+
Furthermore, if Mary had other biological children, where were they when Jesus was crucified?​

It would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of Mary, at the foot of the Cross, especially when, James the “brother of the Lord” was alive in 49 AD (Galatians 1:19), he should have taken care of her.
+
Remember; if Mary was a virgin (which she was) when she conceived Jesus, then all of Jesus’ siblings would have been younger than Him, and presume to still be alive when Jesus was crucified, yet not one of his so-call “brothers or sisters” were there at the foot of the cross! If that was the case, surely it would have been commented on in the Bible, as Peter’s denial was (John 18:12-27).

 

[Jimmy_B]

Additionally, “Protestants” incorrectly cite, Matthew 1:24-25, focusing on the word “until” to assert their belief that Jesus “must have had brothers”.​

Matthew 1:24-25:
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.25 He had no relations with her** until** she bore a son, 12 and he named him Jesus.​

'Till" (or Until) Mary brought forth her firstborn son… From these words, Helvidius and other early heretics against Christianity, wrongly inferred that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other biological children besides, Jesus Christ. (Explained in more detail here )​

Saint Jerome (340/42 - 420 AD) However, shows, examples, that this assertion by the Evangelist (heretics) were in error, noting that the manner of speaking, usual among the Hebrews, was to denote, by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. In Genesis 8:6 and 8:7. =
Moreover, we see in 1 Maccabees 5:54: also in Isaiah 46:4, God says, I Am “till” (or until) you grow old (also “even in your old age”).

=

This does not mean that God will cease to be, when they “grow old”.​

In addition, "they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace.​

That does not mean that they were slain after they had “returned in peace”.​

 

[Jimmy_B]

Additionally, "God saith to his divine Son: “Sit on my right hand till (or until) I make thy enemies thy footstool.”​

This does not mean that He remained seated from that point on. Moreover, shall He sit no longer, after his enemies are subdued?​

Saint Jerome proves using Scripture, examples, that God’s only begotten son, Jesus was also called the firstborn, or the “first begotten”, or the “first born King”.​

Additionally, according to Jewish “law”, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; “Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that “openeth the womb” among the children of Israel,” etc… Exodus 13:2.​

This brings us back to Matthew 1:25, where it says, "Joseph knew her (Mary) "not until “she bore a son.​

Many “Protestants” wrongly assert, based on a flawed interpretation of Matthew 1:25, that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after she bore a son, assuming that he (Joseph) did then have relations with Mary, after the birth of Jesus. There exists no credible evidence anywhere that support’s this theory. This belief is in error, and not supported anywhere in the Bible.​

“Till” or “until”, or “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.”​

“Heos” (“until” in ancient Greek) refers to the past, never, the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means, “not up to that point” did she bore a son.​

Therefore, Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus; this is a central Christian belief, in the “Virgin Birth”, and Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Continuing with evidence that proves that Jesus did not have biological brothers:

=

We know that John was not the biological brother of Jesus and that the Virgin Mary was not John’s biological Mother, yet Jesus said to John, “Behold your Mother” and to his mother “behold your son” (John 19:27).​

From this point on, Mary became the “mother” of us all, as described in Revelations 12:1-17. Not a biological mother to us all, a spiritual “mother”.
+
Matthew 12:49,50
"And (Jesus) stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”​

It is clear in Mathew 12:48, that the “followers of Christ” or “Christians” or “brothers and sisters in Christ”; or those who “do the will of God”, are Jesus’; “brother, sister and mother”. This is meant in the spiritual sense, or in the context of a “Christian family”, it is not biologically.
+
Note in Revelations 12:6-17;
+
“Then the dragon became angry with the woman (Mary) and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring (children), those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.”​

The “offspring” (or children) of Mary, are those who “bear witness to Jesus”; this means “Christians”. This does not mean that Mary is actually the biological mother of all Christians.
+
Mary here is described as, the mother of all Christians, just as she was, at the foot of the Cross; we know this is meant in the context of a “spiritual family”; as Christians, not that Mary is literally our biological mother.
*
Moreover, to except Christianity, is to except the “Virgin Birth”. If Mary were a “virgin” at the time of Jesus’ birth, this would mean that Jesus did not have any older brothers or sisters. He (Jesus) was the “First Born King”.
+
Furthermore, we know Jesus did not have any older brothers, because none were mentioned when Jesus was twelve and 'Found in the Temple" (John 2:1-25 ). Additionally, after this verse, Joseph is not mentioned again.
+
Surely, the stepfather of Jesus, Joseph, would have been at the Cross of Jesus, along side his spouse Mary, had he been alive. After all, Joseph loved Mary and Jesus and he is the one who took Mary and Jesus and fled to Egypt to protect Jesus (Matthew 2:13-23).
+
In addition Joseph was described as a good and “holy man” (Matthew 1:19) and Joseph and Mary, prior to the birth of Jesus, had already 'consecrated themselves to the Lord". At the time, this meant; a life of Chastity, much like the vow of celibacy, priests take today. Do you remember the stories in the bible, regarding the virgins and eunuch’s (Matthew 19:11-12)?
+
Mary was the sacred “vessel” or “tabernacle” or “ark” which carried our Blessed Lord into this world. She was the new Eve, (the original mother of man). It was through Mary that God entered the world.​

Who would dare violate or desecrated such a pure, precious vessel, chosen from all time and all peoples.
+
=.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Joseph knew who Jesus was and he also knew who Mary was, he knew how important she was. Joseph knew that the “Lord was with Mary”, that she was “FULL of Grace”, that she was “Blessed among ALL women” and that “All generations would consider her (Mary) blessed”.
+
In short, Joseph knew who Mary was at the time and what she would become, “the mother of all of us”; the mother whose descendants were those who would “bear witness to Jesus”.
+
Joseph was also fully aware that Jesus was the Son of God.
+
Would you expect anyone to use the “Ark of the Covenant” described in the Old Testament, for any other use, other than its original intended purpose? Of course not, that would be sacrilegious, and so is denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.​

Mary was the “Ark” which carried our Lord. This heretical and disrespectful denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which has no historical or biblical bases, is in error, preached in many “Protestant” Church’s; along with the false doctrine, that Jesus had Biological brothers, even though these false and heretical beliefs are in direct conflict with the Gospels!
+
Much of what has been written on this topic and much of this discussion, addresses the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic translation of “brother” into English, used through-out the Bible; meaning - cousin or another close relative, or kinsman or in the New Testament; “follower of Christ” and not persons sharing the same biological parents with Jesus.
*
Jesus referred to all of his close friends, kinsmen or followers of Christ as “brother(s)”, much like we today, consider ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, sharing the same Father, God.​

Yet, somehow today, “Christians”, who have no difficulty with today’s English word “brother” and the concept of the word “brother” having many different meanings, somehow have a problem with its use in the Bible.