James, head of the early Church

[JonathanKinsman]

Read in context (James and the other shadow ‘siblings’) and understanding that NO ONE in early Church writings accepted by councils and individual Bishops, spoke of James et alii as the blood or law relations of Jesus of Nazareth .
Why would they need to when it is right in the pages of the Bible? That is an argument from silence, just like the Immaculate Conception argument.

Quote:

Look to what references are made about Jesus’ teaching in the Temple at age 12: only Joseph and Mary are with him when they lose him, never are siblings mentioned (there goes the Joseph’s children’s theory
).
Argument from silence once again. Are you suggesting that ONLY the people there were the people directly mentioned?

Brian,

Here is a major, nay a fundamental conceptual problem you have in proving your assertions.

If there is “silence” on something which suits your argument, then you use it. Like the lack of comment about the Immaculate Conception [another thread, another time, friend]. But if I or someone else brings us this “silence” as indicative as a non-subject or not-important, you pounce on it as an “argument from silence.”

Make up your mind, Brian, you can’t have it both ways.

If you are truly a Protestant (United Methodist, I think you said before) then be very careful posting assertions that support OR attack your pet doctrines or pet peeves with the Church:
because you ASSUME that the Bible is the END ALL and BE ALL of Christian thought and commentary on the Good News of the Christ.

Why is this a problem? Because many places in the Gospels Jesus is alluding to telling the Apostles and/or Disciples “secrets of the Kingdom of God” that the masses will not understand.

In St Matthew’s Gospel alone I think (I don’t have it handy as I type this) Jesus is quoted as saying, “The Kingdom of God is like…” 28 times. (it is a lot, forgive the stab at a number here).
Not the Kingdom of God is, and go do it, but “like.”

Why when our Lord teaches in an elliptical manner do so many non-Catholic Christians take their [insert local language here] Bibles in a literalist way?

The whole STRUCTURE of the Synoptics should alert you to the fact that it is the BEST reconstruction (outside of Paul’s authentic early letters) we have of Jesus’ teachings.

There are slight, but very important, differences in words attributed to our Lord. There are references to “what you have been taught or told” and “as I have shown you” that should set off the “Do NOT Take Everything In A Literalist Manner” light in your understanding.

Too much of this “James, brother of Jesus” and “Mary of Magdela, secret wife of Jesus,” and “Paul, true founder of Christianity,” smacks of Dan Brown and his pot boiler conspiracy buddies.

Pax Christi

ps: I will address the Midrash tomorrow, it is 1206 in California and I am tired.

 

[Montalban]

IOW, anyone but Peter. Sigh!

Do you really think the Church is ignorant of any of these quotations? That the Church got it all wrong by teaching that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom? Hardly.

Do a little real historical research and then come back. PLEASE!

Although your post here is rather old, I thought I’d comment on your circular logic.

The church says it’s the authority to say that it’s ‘the’ church is what you’re arguing - it has the authority and therefore can’t be wrong about it’s own authority!

 

[Montalban]

I am putting together a serious of verses and early writings that suggests that the Apostles and the early church viewed James, the Lord’s brother and others of his earthly family as his immediate successors. Biblical and otherwise.

BIBLE

Peter reports to James

Peter feared James

Paul, writing 20 years before Mark and 30 or 40 before Matthew and Luke

Places James first

Presides at Jerusalem Council and declares the sentence after weighing what Peter, Paul, Barnabas and scripture says;

Hegesippus (c110-180)] “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.”

Eusebius reporting directly from Clement of Alexandria and then editoralizing a bit in the second.

History of the Church 4:22:4-5

Of course the Gospel of Thomas dates later in the second century although scholars debate that some parts are from as early as the mid first century

Anyone know of any others?

Jesus’ only *earthly *family was Mary. There’s circumstantial evidence in the Bible to show this. When Jesus was on the Cross he entrusted Mary into the hands of John. Had he any ‘brother’ then the role of looking after Mary would have gone to that man, not a non-relative, John.

The Gospel of Thomas? There’s three or four books attributed to Thomas, that I’m aware of, two commonly called Infancy Gospel A and Infancy Gospel B respectively.

All of them are available, along with a number of other books at
earlychristianwritings.com/

if anyone wants to read them.

“THE” Gospel of Thomas is great if you’re a Gnostic

 

[BrianH]

 

[BrianH]

ps: I will address the Midrash tomorrow, it is 1206 in California and I am tired.

great

 

[guanophore]

are you implying that you know that Mary was going to also live a long life?

No, I am implying that Jesus knew how long each person was going to be left on earth, and planned accordingly.

how about just accepting that Jesus knew what He was doing.??

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but that is what I meant. It would have been unusual to entrust His mother if there were another close male relative availalble to take her in.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Because as we know there IS direct scriptural support that after the death of Joseph, Mary would have married his brother, but that did not occur either now did it?

Tradition and some historical documents claim that Joseph was already in his old age. He took Mary as a spouse at someone’s elses request.

The possibility exists that Joseph was the youngest and all his brothers died before he did. So when Joseph died, there was not a living Brother to take her as a spouse.

Furthermore, Mary is always on the scene at strategic points in the life of Christ when he started his ministry with very few exceptions. It is safe to assume that Mary accompanied her Son during most of his ministry.

 

[guanophore]

Tradition and some historical documents claim that Joseph was already in his old age. He took Mary as a spouse at someone’s elses request.

The possibility exists that Joseph was the youngest and all his brothers died before he did. So when Joseph died, there was not a living Brother to take her as a spouse.

I don’t see how this would matter. If Joseph did not have any brothers, then the duty to take Mary would fall to the next nearest male relative. Boaz was not a brother of Naomi’s deceased husband, but a more distant relative.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I don’t see how this would matter. If Joseph did not have any brothers, then the duty to take Mary would fall to the next nearest male relative. Boaz was not a brother of Naomi’s deceased husband, but a more distant relative.

Your studying the Bible, who does it say was the next nearest male relative?

What exactly are the OT requirements for taking the widow of a dead brother to Joseph?

 

[guanophore]

Your studying the Bible, who does it say was the next nearest male relative?

What exactly are the OT requirements for taking the widow of a dead brother to Joseph?

I do study it, but I can’t claim to understand this law, or how it should work. I also think that the customs for fulfilling it were as much in the Jewish Oral Tradition as they are in the Law. I presume it was common knowlege at the time, because it is mentioned in three of the Gospels where the Sadducees came to test Jesus with the question of the seven brothers. They quote to him the Law from Deut. 25:5. However, there must have been a broader interpretation of this, because of what we find in the book of Ruth. Anyway, my point was that, if there had been any qualifying (blood) relatives, then it would have been contrary to the Law for Jesus to give his Mother to John. Therefore, He must have had a good reason for this, and it was NOT related to raising up blood relatives!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Anyway, my point was that, if there had been any qualifying (blood) relatives, then it would have been contrary to the Law for Jesus to give his Mother to John. Therefore, He must have had a good reason for this, and it was NOT related to raising up blood relatives!

Yes it would have been contrary. That is why we believe there no maternal brother and sisters of Jesus.

Also in the manner that Jesus spoke from the cross indicates more than just giving custody.

Jesus could just have on his last dying breaths said: John, take care of my mother. But he did not. He used a more elaborate phrasing.

I suggest this CD that only costs a dollar to buy:

The Truth about Mary: a discussion by Patrick Madrid and Marcus Grodi.

secure.catholicity.com/mary/

 

[mackbrislawn]

This is my take on the matter.

Yes, James is considered to be the head of the Jerusalem church, but not of the entire church.

The apostles, though bishops, were itinerant, that is they travelled around in their preaching work. James, though, remained in Jerusalem heading that church.

James, being head of the church there, would host the Jerusalem council and naturally preside over it as well.

Of course it would seem logical that the Jerusalem church, being the home church, the birthplace of Christianity, would be the head church, and not Rome. But it wasn’t. How so? As it turned out, it couldn’t be. Because Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in AD 70, and once more in AD 135. as foretold by Jesus. Any Christians remaining there would have been killed; therefore the Christians left Jerusalem beforehand and escaped across the Jordan.

So, the Christian church in Jerusalem simply ceased to exist. Christians returned to Jerusalem, but the church re-established there would be done from outside, replanted, and I don’t see how it could be considered the original church, even though it represents an apostolic see.

 

[ufamtobie]

I am putting together a serious of verses and early writings that suggests that the Apostles and the early church viewed James, the Lord’s brother and others of his earthly family as his immediate successors. Biblical and otherwise.

BIBLE

Peter reports to James

Peter feared James

Paul, writing 20 years before Mark and 30 or 40 before Matthew and Luke

Places James first

Presides at Jerusalem Council and declares the sentence after weighing what Peter, Paul, Barnabas and scripture says;

]Hegesippus

Eusebius reporting directly from Clement of Alexandria and then editoralizing a bit in the second.

History of the Church 4:22:4-5

Of course the Gospel of Thomas dates later in the second century although scholars debate that some parts are from as early as the mid first century

Anyone know of any others?

I know of this Jesus did not give St. James the keys to the kingdom heaven. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter. and on down through his successors. The one with the Keys is the one who is the Leader don’t you think, is it not comon sense.

And in another Scripture: you are Peter meaning (Rock)
and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell can not prevail against it. St. Peter so happens to be burried in Rome(Vatican) and what church is built over his tomb non other than the Roman Catholic Church. Facts are Facts.

Resurection Sunday, who ran to the Lords tomb, I t was both Peter and John, john ran ahead but did not enter the tomb Peter came right after and he went into the tomb. John did this out of respect for Peter, for John new Peter was the Leader.

Ufamtobie

 

[GraceDK]

BrianH

Hey brother… I only read the first 6 pages of the thread but I wanna compliment you on your rhetorics… I like your talkin’ …
Its difficult sometimes when you have to :juggle: when a lot of people get on their irrational guard saying lots of irrelevant stuff …
I like a poster who can keep his tongue straight in his mouth - as we say where I come from :tiphat:

---

Baruch Hashem Adonai :heaven: