James, Brother of Jesus?

[PRmerger]

So by your comment you believe it is okay to add and subtract from the word of God? Please answer that question. And this one as well; if you add to God’s word; are you then playing God and speaking as God or not? And answer this question; if you subtract from His word; then are you saying God was wrong for having said it? Answer that as well please. In the end; it will come back that no one is to add or subtract; hopefully you will actually give us all a reasonable answer to these legitimate questions. And hopefully, Lord willing, you will see that adding and subtracting will tick Him off.

Well, let’s just be honest, Tanner. Anyone who quotes Scripture using chapter and verse is accepting an addition to Scripture. Chapter and verses were not part of the original manuscripts, but were added much, much later.

 

[adrift]

It’s funny – I view Christianity as ancient mythology & entirely untrue (no more true than Zeus, Odin, or the spaghetti monster). However, Catholicism not only expects its adherents to believe in this untrue fable … but it can’t even remain consistent with the founding document of its own mythology. Wow

I have been following you on several threads. Each time you write God you do so with a small g which I find disrespectful. Here you capitalize Zeus. Please have some respect for those you are talking to and capitalize God then your name will be accurate.

 

[jlhargus]

**[Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: if James was an unbeliever and only believed after the the resurrection. Would such a new convert not trustworthy enough to provide for his own mother be made head of the church in Jerusalem without spiritual development? to provide for the welfare and care of the people of God? If James could not run his own house, how could he in charge of God’s? [1Tm3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)]

First, you are adding speculation as to what Jesus did or said; therefore we can open the door to all speculations and come up with all kinds of unknowable positions. It was God that made the decision and God has all authority of men, including their tradition. I know God does not contradict Himself, nor does He lie. So we can only accept this at face value. We may be able to really dig into the word and come up with a Biblical reason for that specific event.

JL: I see you have no answer, in fact your comments are a bad attempt of diversion. How am I adding speculation to what Jesus did or said? I asked you three questions, I added the ? this time.**

 

[jlhargus]

Tanner9188;5404854 [** I would depending on all the surrounding circumstances and I would want what my mother would want; perhaps that can be a speculative reason for Jesus decision. So it's OK for you to speculate? Yes depending on the circumstances:
Remember when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were inquiring about Him; what was His response. "Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

The antithesis of that statement is that those who do not believe in Him and do not the will of the father is not His mother, brother or sister. We know His brothers did not believe in him until sometime after His death and resurrection; therefore since both John and Jesus mother were at the foot of the cross and He defined what a brother, mother and sister really is; John would have qualified to be His brother and therefore He did according to the Jewish tradition you spoke of because in the eye of God, which is the truth; His blood brothers would not be considered brothers in the most important sense, which is the spiritual. Did Jesus do the right thing; of course.

Also, just came to my mind that He came and stated that if you were not willing to hate your mother or father or brother (paraphrasing) Matthew 10; here is an exert, but it would be worth reading from verse 16 till the end to get the entire picture.
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

JL: So you think Christ didn’t like his mother?

 

[jlhargus]

Quote:JL: Do you suppose Christ as God would not have known his alleged brothers would have converted after his death? By the way at Pentecost the so called brothers were there, with Mary, Acts1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. THOSE PRESENT were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, ALONG WITH the women AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS, AND WITH HIS BROTHERS

He is omniscient.

JL: I see you have no answer again, good dodge. So if his brothers were in the upper room at Pentecost, they would have been belivers, and you admit Christ would have known this. So the old unblievers theory is mote.

 

[Joe_Brown]

You have to understand that he was not speaking english. The grammar is different. That is not his brother.

 

[erikd]

James was not the biological brother of Jesus, as the Bible does not make any connection between James and the Mother of God, Mary, or to His adopted father, Joseph.

There are two James’ characters in the New Testament that stand out. One is the brother of John, both of whom are the sons of Zebedee (Mt. 4:21, 10:2, Mr. 1:19, 3;17, 10:35, Lu. 5:10, Joh. 21:2). The other James is the son of Alpheus (Mt. 10:3, Mr. 3:18). There is no James in the Gospels who is listed as the son of the Mother of Jesus, son of the Mother of God, or the son of Joseph.

The word “brother” in Aramaic also refers to spiritual brother, friendly brother, cousin, etc.

 

[elvisman]

LOL; you let everyone know where it came from and save everyone else the trouble; thanks for your service; the check is in the mail…LOL

I don’t know why, but I really do like you Elvis and I pray God blesses you today in ways only He can!

Nice dance around the issue, Tanner - but you’re avoiding the challenge I issued:
IF you believe the lies that freedomwriter posted about the church, then PROVE them.

1. Irenaeus doesn’t mention Peter in his list of Popes.
2. The Catholic Church was started around the year A.D. 590

**Prove this with historical means. I can’t wait to read your response!

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, You do know that the Jewish sense of the word used for Brother in these readings, simply means relative and not necessarily full brother, correct? And as for speculation, you use plenty of it yourself. You state that Jesus’ borthers didn’t believe in him until after the resurrection. Where does it say that in scripture?

That is why putting things in context will often render the correct meaning. Their is a Greek tern used for cousin; therefore on the passage where Jesus was summoned by His mother and Brothers; and the term for cousin was not used; then add the other passages where the Festival of Booths His brothers mocked Him about going and showing His “power”; then the statement his brother did not believe in Him. (paraphrased) John 7; it would not be very long afterward that He would be put to death. Can one say dogmatically that His blood brother did not believe in Him until after His death…no. But there is a definitive they did not believe in him shortly before His death; and we know at some point a couple of blood brothers di eventually believe; for the other we can’t say for sure either.

This is complete speculation on your part. You condemn JLhargus for his speculation and then you speculate yourself.

** I prefaced my comment as speculation; then presented a logical and reasonable possible explanation and cited Scripture to support the idea, but prefaced with it was speculation. He did neither.**

EDIT-question answered above?quote}

So he would have known that James would have become the Bishop of Jerusalem and a martyr for the faith. Doesn’t that demonstrate his love for Jesus?

Do people come to Jesus on their terms or His? Who decides the timing of the calling?

 

[elvisman]

If you read his book Geisler’s book on Roman Catholics and Evangelicals you might see it. I am glad to hear that you listen to Hank Hanegraff. Thats a start. I have already proven it you have been debunked LoL. You know we pray the same prayer for each other:thumbsup:

I listen to a LOT of Evengelicals who spew lies about Jesus’ only Church.
It helps me to keep my finger on the pulse of what drives these spiritually prideful men who create the very traditions Jesus condemned (Matt. 15:8-9, Mark 7:7-8).

Oh, and by the way - you danced around the challenge I issued to you (so did Tanner).
Now - since you claim that the Catholic Church was started in the 6th Century - prove it with history. Show me the documentation.
As I have said before - I will leave the Catholic Church today if you can.

If you can’t - then you’re nothing but another angry anti-Catholic spewing a lot of hot air and nothing else.

 

[Tanner9188]

Look, this whole thread is about proving that Mary isn’t the ever-virgin Mother of God.
Have you read the whole thread? If so, you would have noticed this in post 3:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
I suggest you read it before going further in this discussion. Then at least you will understand the Catholic position and the scriptural verses behind them.

**I have read and Catholics, in defense of their faith, in my opinion and observation, conveniently use Aramaic when it fits their position and Greek, like the Septuagint, when it fits their need to defend; whereas we accept the the fact that we were given the Hebrew, Greek and a small smattering of the Aramaic; with the belief that the Holy Spirit, who is the Author of Scripture used the Greek in the NT and Hebrew in the NT for specific reasons. We accept and don’t make excuses for changing the language given to make something fit God’s word.

In relation to the topic; the burden of proof is on the Catholic; not the other way around as you would like to have it because the overwhelming evidence and plain reading of Scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters. However; what proof do we have of the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity from Scripture? Good luck on bringing evidence on this one against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion given the context of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

You claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives or brothers united with Christ (brethren), but also and does have the literal meaning as a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that leaves any doubt that they were His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

May God bless all of you and give you the courage to see His truth on this topic and may we lay it to rest.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Oh, and by the way - you danced around the challenge I issued to you (so did Tanner).
Now - since you claim that the Catholic Church was started in the 6th Century

**1 John 4:20

May God bless you with His redemption through Christ Jesus!

I am finished with this thread and the nonsense; see you around in another I’m sure.**

 

[erikd]

**1 John 4:20

May God bless you with His redemption through Christ Jesus!

I am finished with this thread and the nonsense; see you around in another I’m sure.**

Tanner:

Once again you did not answer some of my questions, in addition to the questions of others. You wrote that this thread contains nonsense, and I couldn’t agree more. You see, when someone asks you a question you can’t answer, and you avoid the question while telling everyone else they are in error, than seems like nonsense. In regards to this particular thread I challenged you on posts 471 and 541. You did not answer either of them, though I should not have expected an answer. After all, this is a pattern with you judging by the other thread “How Catholics answer John 3:16” where two of my challenges were answered with silence. Sorry to see you go, I hope you realize that defending John Calvin is not as worthy as defending Jesus. After all, it’s not John Calvin who will judge you “on the last day.”
471 & 541

 

[erikd]

Now - since you claim that the Catholic Church was started in the 6th Century - prove it with history. Show me the documentation.
As I have said before - I will leave the Catholic Church today if you can.

If you can’t - then you’re nothing but another angry anti-Catholic spewing a lot of hot air and nothing else.

I’m in too. I have been a lifelong (cradle) Catholic who would be willing to leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if I found out it was a fraud. Show the evidence and I will leave too. The evidence would have to be historic and accurate, not just rhetorical and opinionated.

 

[imjustme]

I’m in too. I have been a lifelong (cradle) Catholic who would be willing to leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if I found out it was a fraud. Show the evidence and I will leave too. The evidence would have to be historic and accurate, not just rhetorical and opinionated.

Read the Bible with an open mind and open heart, taking notes and doing research on anything that contradicts what you have been taught. You owe this to yourself if you really want to know the truth.

 

[erikd]

Read the Bible with an open mind and open heart, taking notes and doing research on anything that contradicts what you have been taught. You owe this to yourself if you really want to know the truth.

I have done just that, and if anything the Bible supports every single doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Let me give you a quote from John Martignoni, a Catholic apologist: “There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Catholic Church, and there is nothing in the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible.” After over 30 years of reading the Bible, studying Church teachings, studying protestant teaching, studying Judaism, I cannot disagree with the aforementioned statement. If you have some doctrine you think disagrees with this, I challenge you to present it in a coherent and comprehensive way. In my experience, if you look through the history of this thread, all the challenges have been presented in a very opinionated, non factual, non Biblical ways. Every answer proposed by the Catholics on this site has been proposed to be “erroneous” though without any substance to the answer. If you can be the exception to the rule, write away. I will answer anything, and as stated above, after 38 years in the Catholic Church, I would leave if I found out it was not the Church that Christ built.

 

[erikd]

Just to add to my last comment, perhaps we’ll stay within the parameters of the original post of this thread. If you want to address any other issue, I’d be happy to though let’s use the appropriate thread or start a new one. You can even address issues with me through private messaging, whatever you’re comfortable with. I will answer everything and am committed to the truth.

 

[imjustme]

I have done just that, and if anything the Bible supports every single doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Let me give you a quote from John Martignoni, a Catholic apologist: “There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Catholic Church, and there is nothing in the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible.” After over 30 years of reading the Bible, studying Church teachings, studying protestant teaching, studying Judaism, I cannot disagree with the aforementioned statement. If you have some doctrine you think disagrees with this, I challenge you to present it in a coherent and comprehensive way. In my experience, if you look through the history of this thread, all the challenges have been presented in a very opinionated, non factual, non Biblical ways. Every answer proposed by the Catholics on this site has been proposed to be “erroneous” though without any substance to the answer. If you can be the exception to the rule, write away. I will answer anything, and as stated above, after 38 years in the Catholic Church, I would leave if I found out it was not the Church that Christ built.

Hi ericd -
If you have really invested 30 years actually reading and studying the Bible and you still believe the Catholic teachings, I don’t think I can change your mind, especially within the limitations of this forum.

I did not read through the whole history of this thread. I happened to see your note and felt compelled to write because I was also a “cradle Catholic” and came to a different conclusion after actually reading and studying the Bible outside of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

May God bless you and guide you in your search for truth!

 

[erikd]

Hi ericd -
If you have really invested 30 years actually reading and studying the Bible and you still believe the Catholic teachings, I don’t think I can change your mind, especially within the limitations of this forum.

I did not read through the whole history of this thread. I happened to see your note and felt compelled to write because I was also a “cradle Catholic” and came to a different conclusion after actually reading and studying the Bible outside of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

May God bless you and guide you in your search for truth!

Thanks for your answer. Like yourself, I had been challenged most of my life to read the Bible from a different perspective. Plenty of people had come up to me and asked me if I had been saved, to which outside of the Church answer I had no real answer. It wasn’t until after I had studied the teachings of the people that had challenged me that I became a stronger Catholic. I am still waiting for the one argument that challenges me in a way that I cannot answer. I’ll keep looking.

 

[erikd]

You claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives or brothers united with Christ (brethren), but also and does have the literal meaning as a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that leaves any doubt that they were His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
SIZE]

I’m glad you brought this up because St. Jerome, the first man to put together and interpret into one language the entire Bible (all 73 Books), who had command of the Greek and Aramaic languages that far surpasses the skills of most men today, would disagree with you. St. Jerome wrote an extensive account of what he believed to be the “ever-Virginity” of Mary. If you use foreign language as your argument, you have to take this into account. By the way, it wasn’t only St. Jerome. As a matter of fact, early Christianity had the same beliefs. You will not find any writings of historical value that support your belief, until after the reformation, though you’ll find plenty to oppose your belief. I invite you to look at history and compare it to actual Biblical writings. If you want assistance in where to look, I’ll be happy to help, just let me know.