James "brother" of Jesus?

[SyCarl]

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“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.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

So you are saying then that Apostles are limited to the original 12? So then Paul and Barnabas were not Apostles. I believe you are one of the people who argue that there were additional Apostles. One of these would have been James, the Lord’s brother. Why else would Paul call him such?

 

[Fidelis]

It does not particulartly matter to me, except that the original poster seemed, at least implicitly, to be crowing that he was establishing something contrary to what Protestants believe. As well I get sick and tired of hearing the same story that Protestants don’t have the full truth because we don’t necessarily believe things like this. Catholic get upset, and rightly so, when they are called the Whore of Babylon or when their beliefs are misunderstood or challenged. Similarly Protestants can object to being told we do not have the same fullness that Catholics have because we don’t have Sacred Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church.

Soooo… you’re asking a question about Mary on an issue that you don’t really care to know about or doesn’t affect you one way or another because the claims of the Catholic Church make you feel inadequate and your feeling are hurt?

OK, I’ll buy that.

We believe that we do, and to reverse the question, why should it matter to you what we believe?

Actually it doesn’t. I’m perfectly happy to share the fullness of the Faith with a sincere enquirer and to let the person’s good will and the Holy Spirit sort things out – but I’m not the one going into Protestant forums and asking (apparently) bellicose and insincere questions as a way of lashing out, either.

 

[tomch]

I, too, am weary of the constant “Did Jesus have brothers” debate. Maybe it would be profitable to at least establish some common ground with the Protestants… I post this for the sake of Ecumanism!!

I don’t believe that it says anywhere in Scripture (or tradition) that Jesus had any goldfish.

Are we agreed??

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you are contending that Jewish law has a complete stranger take care of the mother of a deceased man instead of her step-children OR nephews? Please reference such a custom.

A complete stranger?

John, the disciple whom Jesus loved was a complete stranger?

After three years of living in close proximity with Lord, Jesus chose a complete stranger?

Mary didn’t know who John was? They had never met?

Gee, I thought they were all at the wedding in Cana together…

John 2:1-3
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

And people claim that Catholics don’t know the scriptures…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I love this! Catholic apologists use Christ giving his mother’s care to a stranger as proof he did not have brothers but completely ignore he did not give her care to her brother-in-law or her male nephews or step-children?

The wedding at Cana…who was invited?

And why is a Catholic teaching you scripture?

 

[Pax]

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

Now that you have had ample proof from scripture that Jesus did not have uterine siblings, I would like you to answer a question not unlike your own.

Can you show us from scripture even one verse that names a person other than Jesus as the son or daughter of Mary?

I’ll save you the effort…there aren’t any.

If my post sounds sarcastic, please know that it is not intended to be.

 

[BrianH]

A complete stranger?

John, the disciple whom Jesus loved was a complete stranger?

After three years of living in close proximity with Lord, Jesus chose a complete stranger?

Mary didn’t know who John was? They had never met?

Gee, I thought they were all at the wedding in Cana together…

John 2:1-3
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

And people claim that Catholics don’t know the scriptures…

Laugh away Randy. Everyone can clearly see that you ignored the arguments and focused on my description of John…Jesus did not give his Mothers care to her nephews/step children or her brother in law, how is that for Jewish custom

 

[Catholic_Dude]

** He was there all along. Just not a believer, yet**

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you are saying then that Apostles are limited to the original 12? So then Paul and Barnabas were not Apostles. I believe you are one of the people who argue that there were additional Apostles. One of these would have been James, the Lord’s brother. Why else would Paul call him such?

Paul would have called any “relative” of Jesus the Lord’s “brother” using the linguistic conventions of his culture. This has been explained at length - though I do not get the feeling you’ve actually stopped typing long enough to read and digest any of the information presented.

Sheesh.

 

[BrianH]

The wedding at Cana…who was invited?

And why is a Catholic teaching you scripture?

Laugh away and ignore the context. Indeed.

 

[BrianH]

Catholic Dude
Once again you have proven that Mary the mother of James and Joses never appears with Mary the mother of Christ, they are one and the same.
They never appear together, never.
I said Ante-Nicene, please explain why you then used an Eucumenical Council, which by definition an ante-Nicene father is prior to 325 AD?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Laugh away Randy. Everyone can clearly see that you ignored the arguments and focused on my description of John…Jesus did not give his Mothers care to her nephews/step children or her brother in law, how is that for Jewish custom

That’s really not the point…you guys are constantly yammering away that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters.

So, we point out that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters to whom he could commend his Mother.

Now, you want to belittle the Apostle John and claim that Jesus should have left Mary in the care of some distant relatives.

This sounds like an admission that maybe there were no brothers and sisters, after all.

You grow desperate, my friend. :tiphat:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude
Once again you have proven that Mary the mother of James and Joses never appears with Mary the mother of Christ, they are one and the same. They never appear together, never.

Totally unfounded. You brushed off my evidence entirely. Further John 19 is very clear: 25Near the cross of** Jesus stood his mother**, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
The fact is Mary mother of Jesus and Mary mother of James and Joses are different people. You wont even find Protestant scholars arguing it is the same person (notice that protestants dont even mention the foot of the cross passages when discussing the “brother” issue).

I said Ante-Nicene, please explain why you then used an Eucumenical Council, which by definition an ante-Nicene father is prior to 325 AD?

I said I would like to see solid evidence, and said to my knowledge Her perpetual virginity was widely held and even mentioned in an ecumenical council. If there was a strong ante-nicene evidence She was not then the future council (which looked to the testimony of the fathers for its decrees) would have erred grossly.

So far you have been brushing off the evidence.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Laugh away and ignore the context. Indeed.

My Catholic brothers and sisters,

If I have ignored the context of BrianH’s argument, please correct me publicly.

I will admit my fault and offer my apologies.

Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[BrianH]

That’s really not the point…you guys are constantly yammering away that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters.

---

So, we point out that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters to whom he could commend his Mother.

Now, you want to belittle the Apostle John and claim that Jesus should have left Mary in the care of some distant relatives.

This sounds like an admission that maybe there were no brothers and sisters, after all.

You grow desperate, my friend. :tiphat:

I, of course, could start my own laughing icons at your claim of distant relatives. But that would be a distraction.
Are step-children, nephews, or a brother in law distant? Really? Did the crowd view them as distant relatives when they shouted out their names(if they are not biological brothers)?
You refer to your nephews and brother in law as distant relatives? Please provide a reference that Jews consider these to be distant.
Thank you

 

[BrianH]

My Catholic brothers and sisters,

If I have ignored the context of BrianH’s argument, please correct me publicly.

I will admit my fault and offer my apologies.

Thank you. :tiphat:

Tell you what Randy, how about you ask the Protestants and not play to the “home crowd advantage”. I do not usually take a poll when I have erred but…suit yourself my friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is it time for quotes, yet? Cool!

Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin." (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344

Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

Pope Siricius I

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

**Augustine **

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[SyCarl]

Paul would have called any “relative” of Jesus the Lord’s “brother” using the linguistic conventions of his culture. This has been explained at length - though I do not get the feeling you’ve actually stopped typing long enough to read and digest any of the information presented.

Sheesh.

I do read your posts. I find them very cogent and well argued, actually better than many Catholic or Protestant apologists I have visited on the net. I look for threads where you have posted. I just don’t happen to agree with you and believe my arguments are sound as I assume you so believe yours.