James, Brother of Jesus?

[imjustme]

Hi, Imjustme,

Thank you for your response to my question. I know, by your posts, that your beliefs are not taken lightly. In my opinion, anyone who goes to a Catholic forum site, especially when initially not agreeing with the Catholic view, is someone who at the very least wants to learn more about the topics being discussed. I commend you for having an open mind and a charitable attitude.

As far as the topic being discussed, since you did join the forum, let’s discuss it. There have been some good questions posed so far by PRMerger (post 599), Bill Pick (post 604), and Paul C (post 605). Since those questions are the start of a healthy discussion, I will refrain from asking my own until some of these have been covered. If you’d like, you can ask your own question, or voice your own objection. The only thing I would ask, in order for me to participate in this discussion, is specificity. General ideas and thought are always based on something more specific. If, for instance, you don’t believe that the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is Biblical, let me know what in the Bible contradicts it. If you don’t believe that Jesus had no blood brothers, let me know where the Bible says He did. This thread can progress a number of different ways, and you’re holding the cards. I look forward to a meaningful discussion which will enrich the both of us as well as hopefully all else on this thread.

I posted a reply to some of the questions in #610 and #611.
I will be glad to answer some questions but I am not a well versed bible scholar and my time is also limited when I work, so I can’t promise lots of timely answers, especially as I feel there are several Catholics all asking and me being one of the few non-Catholics. I guess I should have expected that, coming here, huh?

If you are sincere in your desire to better understand non-Catholic doctrine, I’d be glad to send you some informative links. They will be much more informative and eloquent than anything I can write.

I also have no intentions of answering anybody’s post unless it is from their own words and with what appears to be honest interest in hearing the other person’s view. Someone that just cut-and-pastes a bunch of text from another site shows very little initiative and I won’t waste my precious time with that.

I go back to work for 3 days and then have a 2 day Christian Women’s Conference…so if you don’t see me as often, don’t worry…the ex-Catholic Christian will return !! haha

 

[erikd]

I posted a reply to some of the questions in #610 and #611.
I will be glad to answer some questions but I am not a well versed bible scholar and my time is also limited when I work, so I can’t promise lots of timely answers, especially as I feel there are several Catholics all asking and me being one of the few non-Catholics. I guess I should have expected that, coming here, huh?

If you are sincere in your desire to better understand non-Catholic doctrine, I’d be glad to send you some informative links. They will be much more informative and eloquent than anything I can write.

Hi, Imjustme:

I will read your replies and post an answer to your posts 610 and 611. It’s okay not to be a well versed scholar, God will provide you with the ability to speak His Word. After all, God has always used man to pass down His Eternal Word.

As far as understanding non-Catholic doctrine, I must confess that I’m really not interested. I’m only interested in what you believe. I have had debates with Protestants, including Ministers from the Calvary Chapel, so I’m well versed in their beliefs. I’m not interested in those, I’m only interested in yours. Also, don’t worry about sending me informative and eloquent responses written by someone else, as that is something you don’t want from me either (see your other quote below).

I also have no intentions of answering anybody’s post unless it is from their own words and with what appears to be honest interest in hearing the other person’s view. Someone that just cut-and-pastes a bunch of text from another site shows very little initiative and I won’t waste my precious time with that.

I’m with you, that’s why I hope you don’t send me cut and paste stuff either. I want to know what YOU believe, what YOU want to learn about and what YOU hope to accomplish. I’m not interested in the beliefs or ambitions of the ministers running the Calvary Chapel.

I go back to work for 3 days and then have a 2 day Christian Women’s Conference…so if you don’t see me as often, don’t worry…the ex-Catholic Christian will return !! haha

I’m with you, Imjustme, my work keeps me busy all the time. Sometimes it’s hard to find time to respond to these but I promise to always try. I believe that the Word of God is too important, for me, to not discuss, to not learn about, and to not spread to others. Have a good time at the conference, we’ll talk to you when you get back.

 

[imjustme]

JL: Have you got a source other than the ones atheist use to disprove Christianity? You know, the pagan religions atheist claim shows Christ was not the only God to resurrect after three days and not the only one born of a virgin, etc. etc…

If it were taught by the Church to convert pagans then their should be evidence in the Church Fathers.

JL: Yes for 2000 thousand years as a matter of fact. Yes we are to follow the word of God whether by word OR epistle over a tradition of men.

I would never try to disprove Christianity - I’m a Christian!

If you want to read more about how some pagan traditions and rituals have entered into Christianity, this is one link (from a non-Catholic Christian perspective / not Atheist perspective). I’m sure you can find many more by just googling away.

gotquestions.org/pagan-Christianity.html

 

[PRmerger]

IThe word “until” means that Mary was a virgin up to when Jesus was born, but they engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship afterwards.

Actually, the word “until” only means up to a certain point. It does not imply at all that something happened afterwards.

See 2 Sam 6:23: Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

Certainly you don’t believe that Michal had children after she died!

 

[PRmerger]

IThe word “until” means that Mary was a virgin up to when Jesus was born, but they engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship afterwards.

And here’s another example that the word “until” (esp. when used in Scripture) does not mean that a behavior changed afterwards:

1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Of course that doesn’t mean that after Paul comes, “public reading of Scripture” should cease, right, imjustme?

Oh, and just one more:

Hebrews 1:13:But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

 

[tobinatorstark]

And here’s another example that the word “until” (esp. when used in Scripture) does not mean that a behavior changed afterwards:

1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Of course that doesn’t mean that after Paul comes, “public reading of Scripture” should cease, right, imjustme?

Oh, and just one more:

Hebrews 1:13:But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

 

[imjustme]

Actually, the word “until” only means up to a certain point. It does not imply at all that something happened afterwards.

See 2 Sam 6:23: Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

Certainly you don’t believe that Michal had children after she died!

Funny…of course women don’t have children after death, don’t we have to put up with enough in this life?

Even if “until” doesn’t mean that "something (i.e. further children) happened afterwards, it would at least mean “up to a certain point”…so Mary was a virgin “upto a certain point” which in this case is when Jesus was born. That would at the very least say to you that Mary was no longer a virgin after Jesus’ birth, right?

 

[jlhargus]

I would never try to disprove Christianity - I’m a Christian!

If you want to read more about how some pagan traditions and rituals have entered into Christianity, this is one link (from a non-Catholic Christian perspective / not Atheist perspective). I’m sure you can find many more by just googling away.
gotquestions.org/pagan-Christianity.html

JL: I see nothing in your post to support your statement about pagan godeses and Mary. The link you posted is very tame to others I have already read.

 

[erikd]

It is the contention of many that Jesus actually had siblings. The Bible says that Jesus had “brothers” which leads many to believe that Mary, the mother of the Lord (Luke 1: 43) had other offspring, besides Jesus. However, the Bible very clearly shows otherwise.

The word “brother” or in Greek “adelphos” is used 346 times in the King James version of the Bible, every time meaning the same thing: brother. Let’s look at some of the uses, as they pertain to Jesus and His “brothers.”

55 "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13: 55

31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him.
Mark 3: 31

Each of these verses uses the same Greek word for “brother” “adelphos.” Many Christians believe that this refers to Jesus’ brothers, or Mary’s other offspring. However, the Bible refutes these claims when looked at more closely.

14 Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach,
15 and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons:
16 Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter;
17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “Sons of Thunder”;
18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite;
19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. And they went into a house.
Mark 3: 14-19

James and John here are portrayed as brothers. However, notice that Zebedee is the father of John and James his brother. This is further explained in the following verse:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.”
Mark 10: 35

Now we find out that both James and John were the sons of Zebedee. In this case, the word “brother” refers to actual brothers, related by blood through the same father. Jesus could only be portrayed as the Son of God, the Son of Man, or the Son of Joseph. Although Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, he was the father figure of Jesus during our Lord’s young life here on earth. He would, therefore, be seen as the “father of Jesus” by all living and knowing Jesus at that time.

3 “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” And they were offended at Him.
Mark 6: 3

Here is a perfect example of the word “brother” used to portray a relationship between people who were close to each other, though not necessarily biologically related. As we learned earlier, James was the son of Zebedee. The other “brothers” mentioned here were also not biologically related to Jesus as the following verses will explain:

36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus,
Acts 4: 36

Jesus was not from Cyprus, therefore could not be biologically related to Joses.

16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
Luke 6: 16

71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
John 6: 71

Neither Judas was biologically related to Jesus.

17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 16: 17

42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone).
John 1: 42

Simon was also not biologically related to Jesus.

This is simply possible due to the broad meaning of the word “adelphos.” Here is the Strong’s dictionary meaning of the word:

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
   a. his brothers by blood
   b. all men
   c. apostles
   d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
   This word is used to describe a biological relationship as well as an associate in employment or office. It is also used to label the Apostles as well as all Christians. According to the word “adelphos” we are all brothers of Christ as the definition states: “Christians, as those who are exalted by the same heavenly place.”

God Bless

 

[imjustme]

Lets focus on this one - the concept of the ever-Virgin Mary, since it is the topic of this thread. What in the bible convinced you that the Catholic church was wrong in this matter? Was it simply the statement that there are 4 men who are identified as the Brother of the Lord? But that doesn’t mean that Mary wasn’t ever virgin. First of all, we know that the greek term for brother also can mean those in his clan. Second of all, even if it is taken as literally brothers, it could mean the child of Joseph and not Mary. What made you ignore these explanations and decide the Catholic church was wrong?

There is a messianic prophecy in the OT that was fulfilled in Jesus’ lifetime which confirms that Jesus had brothers who were sons of Mary. It is Psalm 69:8 “I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons”

This psalm is clearly messianic when you compare OT/NT verses related to it:
Compare verse 8 to John 7:3-5
Compare verse 9 to John 2:17 and Romans 15:3
Compare verse 21 with Matthew 27:34
Compare verse 25 with Matthew 23:38

Thank you so much for your questions! It seems like the more I research to answer them, the more I find the answers in the Bible to confirm my beliefs. God Bless You!

 

[erikd]

Thank you so much for your questions! It seems like the more I research to answer them, the more I find the answers in the Bible to confirm my beliefs. God Bless You!

Hi Imjustme,

Have you read my post #623? I go into detail about the word “brother” as well as Biblical analysis of the people that are proclaimed to be the “Brothers of the Lord.” It is all Biblically based and does not put forth any pre-conceived ideas or human teachings. Rather, this article focuses on the Bible and the language used in it. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

[PRmerger]

:Even if “until” doesn’t mean that "something (i.e. further children) happened afterwards, it would at least mean “up to a certain point”…so Mary was a virgin “upto a certain point” which in this case is when Jesus was born. That would at the very least say to you that Mary was no longer a virgin after Jesus’ birth, right?

Your statement that’s bolded contradicts your first sentence, imjustme. First you are claiming, let’s say “until” doesn’t mean a change in behavior, but it does mean that there was indeed a change in behavior. ???

Which is it? If “until” doesn’t mean a change in something, then we can’t assume Mary had relations after Jesus birth. If we assume “until” *does *indicate a change in something, then we have to assume that Michal had children after she died. That’s whacky!

 

[imjustme]

Your statement that’s bolded contradicts your first sentence, imjustme. First you are claiming, let’s say “until” doesn’t mean a change in behavior, but it does mean that there was indeed a change in behavior. ???

Which is it? If “until” doesn’t mean a change in something, then we can’t assume Mary had relations after Jesus birth. If we assume “until” *does *indicate a change in something, then we have to assume that Michal had children after she died. That’s whacky!

Ok…I didn’t mean to be whacky…I’m not used to talking so much about Mary…my beliefs are more Christ centered…let me try this again…the text says:

“And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son…"

It does not say Mary kept herself a virgin until the birth of Jesus. The word UNTIL is not related to Mary’s actions but to Joseph’s (Joseph…kept…until).

Joseph kept Mary virgin until she gave birth (which to me means that he didn’t have sex with her until the childbirth).

It does not say Mary remained a virgin after birth and although I believe that her other children were born of Joseph, if YOU are saying that UNTIL could have meant FOREVER…it would not have excluded Mary having children with another man, since it was Joseph to keep her a virgin until…and not Mary keeping herself a virgin until…

 

[imjustme]

Hi Imjustme,

Have you read my post #623? I go into detail about the word “brother” as well as Biblical analysis of the people that are proclaimed to be the “Brothers of the Lord.” It is all Biblically based and does not put forth any pre-conceived ideas or human teachings. Rather, this article focuses on the Bible and the language used in it. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I read through it, thank you. I will have to read it over and research about it when I have more time…I have to get to work soon. Thank you and have a blessed day!

 

[PRmerger]

Ok…I didn’t mean to be whacky…

Oh, dearheart, I wasn’t calling *you *whacky. I was calling the idea that Michal had children after she died whacky, which is the logical conclusion if you believe “until” means a change in behavior subsequently.

I’m not used to talking so much about Mary…my beliefs are more Christ centered…

Talking so much *about someone, or even to *someone, does not take away from being Christ centered. Unless, of course, you believe that every time you talk to your husband you’re taking time away from talking to Christ.

“It does not say Mary kept herself a virgin until the birth of Jesus. The word UNTIL is not related to Mary’s actions but to Joseph’s (Joseph…kept…until).

Ok…
Still doesn’t change the meaning of “until” as it’s used in Scripture. Unless, of course, you believe that Michal had children after she died. And that’s just whacky!

 

[imjustme]

JL: I see nothing in your post to support your statement about pagan godeses and Mary. The link you posted is very tame to others I have already read.

I know that site is “tame”…I could post others but they would likely be considered offensive to Catholics and that is not my intention.

If you want to know of the Pagan influences in the Roman Catholic Church, you can search the internet. I won’t oblige with any more information except to tell you that I have personally seen it. Not only in the little things that still remain in the Catholic Churches and Traditions…but especially when you go to Italy, you see it full-blown everywhere.

I lived in an italian village with a church built in the early 1600s based on the story that Mary appeared to two children and asked for a church to be built on that spot. Every year in the Spring and Fall, a huge festival is given for this Madonna and the festivities include practices that are more Pagan than Christian in nature.

As a matter of fact, this year they decided to scale back the celebrations to respect the lives lost in the earthquake of nearby L’Aquila. The one thing they did NOT cut back on were the bonfires on the street as the huge, caped statue of the Madonna was paraded through. It is a beautiful scene but not one that I would consider of Christian origins.

I can’t attach pictures here but you can find similar instances if you do an image search on google and use the search words “fuochi della madonna” (fires of the madonna)

 

[erikd]

I read through it, thank you. I will have to read it over and research about it when I have more time…I have to get to work soon. Thank you and have a blessed day!

I look forward to reading your analysis.

 

[imjustme]

Oh, dearheart, I wasn’t calling *you *whacky. I was calling the idea that Michal had children after she died whacky, which is the logical conclusion if you believe “until” means a change in behavior subsequently.

Talking so much *about someone, or even to *someone, does not take away from being Christ centered. Unless, of course, you believe that every time you talk to your husband you’re taking time away from talking to Christ.

Ok…
Still doesn’t change the meaning of “until” as it’s used in Scripture. Unless, of course, you believe that Michal had children after she died. And that’s just whacky!

You seemed to have ignored the last part of my post:

It does not say Mary remained a virgin after birth and although I believe that her other children were born of Joseph, if YOU are saying that UNTIL could have meant FOREVER…it would not have excluded Mary having children with another man, since it was Joseph to keep her a virgin until…and not Mary keeping herself a virgin until…

 

[imjustme]

I look forward to reading your analysis.

I’d also appreciate it if you would read and give your comments in reply to my post #624

 

[PRmerger]

if YOU are saying that UNTIL could have meant FOREVER…

Not at all! I don’t believe the Sacred Scripture explicitly says either way. That’s why we have to rely on the entirety of the Deposit of Faith, on the whole Word of God, as revealed to us by Christ through his apostles. Otherwise we miss the fullness of truth. “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Sacred Scripture* and* Sacred Tradition.

It’s like having only 1 wing to rise to the contemplation of the Truth, to paraphrase Pope JPII. (Granted, he was talking about Faith and Reason: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”) *Fides et Ratio *

But I believe that using Sola Scriptura (which is un-Scriptural, BTW, unless you can quote us a chapter and verse that says all revealed truth is to be revealed in Scripture) severely hinders our contemplation of the Truth.