James "brother" of Jesus?

[Tom]

I am aware of the argument made from Tradition and have read many Catholic apologists on the topic. The usual argument is that it would have been unfitting for Mary to have had another child. That is not Scriptural evidence; it his human reasoning.

If you had read the links I gave you would have seen Scriptural proof. Read Luke chapter 1, verses 1-32, very carefully. Nowhere does it infer Mary wouldn’t have her child in the normal way, through normal sexual intercourse with her husband, Joseph. Nowhere does it infer the child would be conceived prior to her being taken into the house of Joseph. In fact legally they were already married. Her question of how shall this be only makes sense if she intended not to have sexual relations.

 

[Tom]

The apologists then try to explain away all the Scriptural references to brothers and sister on the basis that it can mean close kinsmen or cousins. That doesn’t justify a conclusion that it means anything other than its normal meaning when it refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the New Testament, especially when we consider that most ot the New Testament was written in Greek which does have words for brother, cousin and kinsmen, so the fact that Hebrew may not have doesn’t explain the multiple uses.

Again, unless you’re willing to say Lot, the nephew of Abram, was in fact his uterine “brother”, the term “brother” in Scripture is not limited to a uterine brother. In the case of Gn 14,14 “Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.” Lot is called Abrams “brother” yet he was actually his nephew. So “brother” in Scripture does not mean uterine sibling, it means kinsman, a member of an extended family.

 

[water]

Because John tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him.

It is not a matter of believing or not believing - this has nothing to do with mother-son relationship. If James had ever been a son of Virgin Mary, he would’ve taken care of her anyway. How do you prove that James’ doubt had anything to do with a mother-son relationship? If you want to use Bible only, then show where in the Bible it says that James did not care for his mother?

If you have a brother whom you don’t believe in, would you abandon your own mother? - Hope not!

 

[mich2]

I asked because the post said:

However we require no single “proof” the preponderance of Scriptural evidence points to Jesus being the only child of Mary.

 

[Tom]

As for Calvin and Luther, they were not infallible.

Absolutely correct, the only people who, according to Scripture, will be led to all truth are the pope individually, and the magisterium as a group (John 16).

 

[Wolseley]

Catholic Dude:

There were two apostles named James, but neither of them had a father named Joseph.

Correct. These two were James the Greater, who was the son of Zebedee and the brother of John; and James the Less, who was the son of Alphaeus and the brother of Matthew.

However, there is a third James in Scripture, James the Righteous; and this is the James who is called “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19. He was also the bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-18) and probably the author of the Epistle of James.

So, we have James the Righteous who is called “the Lord’s brother”. But was he the child of Joseph and Mary?

Luke 2:7 tells us that Jesus was Mary’s first-born son. This means that if James was the child of Joseph and Mary, he would have been born after Jesus was.

So, was he?

Scripture says nothing more past this, so if you’re depending on Scripture alone, you are free to draw your own conclusions. However, as has been pointed out, there are a number of other ancient documents which tell a different story.

Hegesippus, Josephus, and Eusebius all mention James, identify him as “the Lord’s brother”, and recount his martyrdom, but two other documents give us more specific information for our purposes here.

The Protoevangelion of James (9:2) was written between 150 and 180 AD, and recounts the story that Joseph was chosen by the priest and the local council to be Mary’s husband, she being about 16 years old. Joseph replies, “Why do you bring her to me? I am an old man, with grown sons, and she is just a girl.” So here we have a text which specifies that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage.

The second document is from Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403 AD), who wrote the Panarion or Adversus Haereses (377 AD); this document (78:13:2-14:5) recounts that James the Righteous was 96 years old when he was martyred in 62 AD.

This would mean that James was 34 years old when Jesus was born…and Jesus was Mary’s first-born; therefore, the only way James could have been Jesus’ brother would have been in the capacity of an older step-brother.

Take it for what it’s worth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could you please provide the Scriptural prrof that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

Actually, I believe it is incumbent upon you to prove that he wasn’t since the Church has held that Mary was ever-virgin from the beginning.

The Bible does not say definitively that Jesus had brothers (I can answer every scriptural reference you will attempt to argue).

On the other hand, you will have no answer to the writings of the Early Church Fathers of the Church that say he was an only child.

IOW, you have nothing. I have the ancient tradition of the Church.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[bilop]

Correct. These two were James the Greater, who was the son of Zebedee and the brother of John; and James the Less, who was the son of Alphaeus and the brother of Matthew.

However, there is a third James in Scripture, James the Righteous; and this is the James who is called “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19. He was also the bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-18) and probably the author of the Epistle of James.

So, we have James the Righteous who is called “the Lord’s brother”. But was he the child of Joseph and Mary?

Luke 2:7 tells us that Jesus was Mary’s first-born son. This means that if James was the child of Joseph and Mary, he would have been born after Jesus was.

So, was he?

Scripture says nothing more past this, so if you’re depending on Scripture alone, you are free to draw your own conclusions. However, as has been pointed out, there are a number of other ancient documents which tell a different story.

Hegesippus, Josephus, and Eusebius all mention James, identify him as “the Lord’s brother”, and recount his martyrdom, but two other documents give us more specific information for our purposes here.

The Protoevangelion of James (9:2) was written between 150 and 180 AD, and recounts the story that Joseph was chosen by the priest and the local council to be Mary’s husband, she being about 16 years old. Joseph replies, “Why do you bring her to me? I am an old man, with grown sons, and she is just a girl.” So here we have a text which specifies that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage.

The second document is from Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403 AD), who wrote the Panarion or Adversus Haereses (377 AD); this document (78:13:2-14:5) recounts that James the Righteous was 96 years old when he was martyred in 62 AD.

This would mean that James was 34 years old when Jesus was born…and Jesus was Mary’s first-born; therefore, the only way James could have been Jesus’ brother would have been in the capacity of an older step-brother.

Take it for what it’s worth.

This is the tradition I was referring too. Thanks, I didn’t have chapter and verse. Also, people at the time would have thought James was Jesus’ half-brother, not knowing about the incarnation. So, calling him Jesus’ brother makes total sense.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because John tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him.

One question: Since the native tongue of Israel was Armaic (not Greek), is there a word in Armaic for “cousin”?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

**Wolseley,

I, too, am familiar with this. I’ve heard that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, may have also been involved in the Essene community. He was thought to be a very respected Jew, which would have made him ideal for the position of Bishop of Jerusalem.

When he was be-headed, both the Jews in Jerusalem and the Christians protested to Rome of this incident.

AgapeBibleStudy.com has a rather long article detailing the origins of Ya’akov, Servant of God.
**

 

[SyCarl]

One question: Since the native tongue of Israel was Armaic (not Greek), is there a word in Armaic for “cousin”?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

It doesn’t really matter if there is or not because, except for Matthew and possibly Hebrews, the New Testament was written in Greek. As such the writers had the choice of using brothers or cousins and they were quided to the word brother by the Holy Spirit in their inspired writings.

 

[Tom]

It doesn’t really matter if there is or not because, except for Matthew and possibly Hebrews, the New Testament was written in Greek. As such the writers had the choice of using brothers or cousins and they were quided to the word brother by the Holy Spirit in their inspired writings.

So the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to call Lot the “brother” of Abram, even though there is a word for nephew? Why would they make such a decision? certainly it isn’t an error, perhaps it is to point to the error of those who insist Jesus was not the only son of Mary?

 

[SyCarl]

So the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to call Lot the “brother” of Abram, even though there is a word for nephew? Why would they make such a decision? certainly it isn’t an error, perhaps it is to point to the error of those who insist Jesus was not the only son of Mary?

However, Genesis clearly tells us the relationship of Lot to Abram, so we know the word brother here does not mean blood brother. This is not the case for the New Testament references.

 

[Fidelis]

I should perhaps explain my position. I do not say that the Marian doctrines may not be true. I do not feel that it hurts to believe them. I do not mean to disrespect Mary, she was a humble and faithful woman who provides a model to be followed. What bothers me is that the doctrines are stated as required for belief, even though some of them were not proclaimed until 1854 and 1950 and there is minimal Scriptural proof…

So, again, if you’re not a Catholic, what’s it to you? It’s not required for YOU to believe.

Perhaps you should less worried about what Catholics think than you should about some of the weird things your fellow Protestants are in to --like dispensationalism and the Word Faith nonsense.

I mean, seriously, what’s it to you?

 

[Tom]

However, Genesis clearly tells us the relationship of Lot to Abram, so we know the word brother here does not mean blood brother. This is not the case for the New Testament references.

Was it a different Greek? Just curious, Greek is Greek. God uses this to show you that the term “brother” in His Words do not mean what you are attempting to force on them. Brother does not mean having shared the same womb. There are hundreds of people who are identified in the New Testament as the “brothers” of Jesus, you aren’t seriously suggesting that Mary had hundreds of children are you? If not, then why must James be a child of the womb of Mary? Why not all of the hundreds? Silly logic.

 

[VociMike]

Could you please provide the Scriptural prrof that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

The proof you seek is in John 19:26-27

 

[Wolseley]

SyCarl:

I should perhaps explain my position. I do not say that the Marian doctrines may not be true. I do not feel that it hurts to believe them. I do not mean to disrespect Mary, she was a humble and faithful woman who provides a model to be followed. What bothers me is that the doctrines are stated as required for belief, even though some of them were not proclaimed until 1854 and 1950 and there is minimal Scriptural proof…

So, again, if you’re not a Catholic, what’s it to you? It’s not required for YOU to believe.

Perhaps you should less worried about what Catholics think than you should about some of the weird things your fellow Protestants are in to --like dispensationalism and the Word Faith nonsense.

I mean, seriously, what’s it to you?

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that while the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary were not formally defined until 1854 and 1950, both were around in the form of doctrines for hundreds of years before they were defined; the Immaculate Conception goes back to at least 370 AD, and the Assumption of Mary can be found in 593 AD: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/boettner_list.html

 

[VociMike]

Because John tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him.

That answer is flawed in so many ways…

To start with, did any of Jesus’ “brothers” ever come to believe in him, or did they all remain unbelievers for their entire lives?

 

[elvisman]

Now the Catholic arguments may be right and Mary might have remained a virgin. However there is enough contrary Scripture that I could not accept it as a matter of faith that must be believed.

Not so fast, there, Sy!!

Mark 15:40
**There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. **

Matt. 27:55-56
***There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. ***
**Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. **

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

According to Jewish tradition, it is not proper to have 2 children of the same name. In fact MOST children are named after a relative who passed before them. WHY, then, would Scripture call Mary, wife of Clopas, Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) sister. Most scholars agree that she was probably a COUSIN or other relative. This would make the possibility of Jams being the COUSIN or other relative of Jesus much more possible.

**As for Jesus **handing his mother over to John’s care – it would be SCANDALOUS and a greatly disrespectful for him to do this, if he had other uterine brothers.
Jesus, being God, would have known that his so-called “brothers” would turn from their disbelief and ultimately follow him and would not have had reason to shame and disrespect them in this way.

In John 6:64, he KNEW who would turn away from him:
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

 

[SyCarl]

Was it a different Greek? Just curious, Greek is Greek. God uses this to show you that the term “brother” in His Words do not mean what you are attempting to force on them. Brother does not mean having shared the same womb. There are hundreds of people who are identified in the New Testament as the “brothers” of Jesus, you aren’t seriously suggesting that Mary had hundreds of children are you? If not, then why must James be a child of the womb of Mary? Why not all of the hundreds? Silly logic.

The original Old Testament books were in Hebrew, not Greek. If you are referring to the Septuagint, that was a translation into Greek. It was not the original language as it was in the New Testament. It is the writing in the original language that was inspired.