James - The Brother of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter jusher7281
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jusher7281

Guest
Why do Protestants (I’m referring to those who believe Jesus had biological brothers) take the reference to James as “the brother of Jesus” literally? I asked several of my Protestant friends whether or not they believed Jesus had biological brothers or sisters, and without exception (or delay), they all said, “Yes, He did.” They couldn’t all name Jesus’ so-called brothers, but they were sure nonetheless that He had at least one. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Mary had no other children, they still refuse to accept it.

Although the Bible isn’t quite as clear as one would like, the early Church Fathers and even many key Reformers unanimously supported belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Nevertheless, my non-Catholic friends insist that the word “brother” used in this case is meant literally.

Any insight into why this is such a hard teaching to understand, or believe, would be greatly appreciated.

JU
 
It is simply because they are usually not so much interested in the issue of whether Jesus had broters or not, but in trying to prove Catholicism wrong. (It is the same with the Immaculate Conception).

These people have an emotional investment in having an interpretation of scripture that directly contradicts traditional Catholic and Orthodox teaching. So no matter how many times it is explained that “brother” in Aramaic actually means kinsman, how often it is proved that neither of the Apostles named James could have been a son of Mary, or how often it is pointed out that Mary of Cleophas is the mother of James Jude and Simon, they will ignore it and insist that brother can only possibly mean son of Mary and Joseph.

After all, the “brother” argument is a good one to use on badly catechised Catholics, and even worse; if the Catholic Church is right on that, it may be right on other things.
 
This is a fairly recent development, at least in more conservative Protestant Christian circles. I grew up in Methodist tradition in the 50s & 60s without ever hearing a suggestion that Jesus ever had any brothers & sisters. (My Methodist grandmother would have showed the door to anyone who suggested such a thing).
I think that it has shot up as has been suggested, as :rolleyes: one more thing to complain about in the Catholic church.
 
It is a very recent development. It is championed by a protestant theological seminary in central Texas. Nontheless, it is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in the section on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

(CCC) 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

If you look up the footnote to the “other Mary” #158, and you will find:

** Footnote for 158 = Mt 13:55; 28:1; cf. Mt 27:56.**
cont…
 
Mt 27:55-56: "55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee."

Mt 28:1 "1 **Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. **

Sorry for the formatting, I can’t seem to fixe those verses in terms of bolding. You can also look at

Mark 15:40:

“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,”

Jn 19:25 “25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.”

I hope this helps. I will next post some of the quotes from the early reformers.

Peace,

MilesJesu
 
Here are some excerpts from Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, the “fathers” of the reformation. When it come to Mary, Mother of God and Mary Perpetual Virgin, these three were not particularly at odds with the Catholic Church. This fact alone highlights the migration of protestant belief over the last 400 years.

Martin Luther:

**“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.” **

John Calvin from his commentaries:

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

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

Ulrich Zwingli:

“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.”

Pretty interesting to say the least. Most protestants do not know what was taught before. This is something you can also ask them why they changed if they all used the bible alone.

Peace,

MilesJesu
 
40.png
jusher7281:
Why do Protestants (I’m referring to those who believe Jesus had biological brothers) take the reference to James as “the brother of Jesus” literally? …Any insight into why this is such a hard teaching to understand, or believe, would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem may modern day Americans have limited knowledge of any language that isn’t closely related to English. Add to that how some people almost seem to believe the Bible was written in English or that it is a word for word translation. When they see the word “brother” in the Bible, the idea that it might refer to a cousin or close male relative never enters their minds. Protestants often believe (and are told) they can understand all that the Bible says, and it does say “brother” so they think they understand. Anti-Catholicism may play into this also, but I think they bigger factor is their self confidence in their own ability to interpret the Bible. The idea that the words of the Bible may not really mean what they think they mean would undermine much of their faith, and so they dismiss that idea quickly.
 
I was always taught as a protestant that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Recently I looked up the scripture reference to “James the Lord’s brother” on E-Sword and had a look at what the available E-Sword commentaries (which are all protestant) had to say on the verse. I was surprised to find that the basic consensus of these protestant commentaries is that James is not brother (literal sibling) of Jesus, but a close kinsman.

So I wonder how come it is that although all these respected protestant commentators say one thing, the protestant churches I’ve been in have taught the complete opposite (at least those churches I’ve been in that have mentioned it).

Amazing how quickly these new ideas take hold, isn’t it?
 
40.png
asteroid:
I was always taught as a protestant that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Recently I looked up the scripture reference to “James the Lord’s brother” on E-Sword and had a look at what the available E-Sword commentaries (which are all protestant) had to say on the verse. I was surprised to find that the basic consensus of these protestant commentaries is that James is not brother (literal sibling) of Jesus, but a close kinsman.

So I wonder how come it is that although all these respected protestant commentators say one thing, the protestant churches I’ve been in have taught the complete opposite (at least those churches I’ve been in that have mentioned it).

Amazing how quickly these new ideas take hold, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
asteroid,

Thanks for the feedback. I was hoping I could get someone with a Protestant background to answer. Good point about how quickly these things take hold. I wasn’t aware myself that this is a relatively new belief. I guess I just assumed that it had been taught in Protestant churches for a long time. Thanks for the info on E-Sword. I’ll check it out and share it with my friends, maybe they’ll be willing to do what you did and examine this for themselves.

Joe
 
So I wonder how come it is that although all these respected protestant commentators say one thing, the protestant churches I’ve been in have taught the complete opposite (at least those churches I’ve been in that have mentioned it).
Click to expand...
Amazing how quickly these new ideas take hold, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
It is very amazing indeed. In fact, if you wish to do a little comparison, look back at what Protestant commentators said about Onan in Gen 38.

If you go back to Luther, Calvin, Wesely, and others (Matthew Henry), you will find that they all agree with the historic Catholic position concerning Onanism. It is not until recently (early 1900’s) that things start to change along with the acceptance of contraception in 1935.

If you go to a book store and read the current commentaries, you will not find one that agrees with even the historic protestant position.

Peace,

MilesJesu
 
40.png
jusher7281:
Why do Protestants (I’m referring to those who believe Jesus had biological brothers) take the reference to James as “the brother of Jesus” literally? I asked several of my Protestant friends whether or not they believed Jesus had biological brothers or sisters, and without exception (or delay), they all said, “Yes, He did.” They couldn’t all name Jesus’ so-called brothers, but they were sure nonetheless that He had at least one. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Mary had no other children, they still refuse to accept it.

Although the Bible isn’t quite as clear as one would like, the early Church Fathers and even many key Reformers unanimously supported belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Nevertheless, my non-Catholic friends insist that the word “brother” used in this case is meant literally.

Any insight into why this is such a hard teaching to understand, or believe, would be greatly appreciated.

JU
Click to expand...
I think, like what axion has said, it is more of an effort to prove that the dogma of the Catholic Church is wrong. If they can prove that the Church has a fallible doctrine then the dogma of infallibilty also is wrong then the whole catholic church falters. It basically becomes a domino effect.

I did a detailed analysis on this subject(I’m not trying to say that it is scholarly done). But I think that it would help to shed light on the subject. Let me know if you want it.

Here’s another verse that you can point out to your friends. Galatians 1: 18-19 where St. Paul numbers James “so-called brother of Jesus” among the apostles. Now the question is, “Was any of the apostles a real brother of Jesus?”
 
Hello, I am a Catholic of course and I had the same question. The answer I was given is that Jesus did have more brothers & sisters do the fact that “Joseph was married to someone else before marrying Mary” So then all the family from he’s first wife became family of Jesus’ This is what I was told. I have attended many classes and I was not supprised at this answer. I hope you are not alarmed.

May God Bless,
dMaria
40.png
jusher7281:
Why do Protestants (I’m referring to those who believe Jesus had biological brothers) take the reference to James as “the brother of Jesus” literally? I asked several of my Protestant friends whether or not they believed Jesus had biological brothers or sisters, and without exception (or delay), they all said, “Yes, He did.” They couldn’t all name Jesus’ so-called brothers, but they were sure nonetheless that He had at least one. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Mary had no other children, they still refuse to accept it.

Although the Bible isn’t quite as clear as one would like, the early Church Fathers and even many key Reformers unanimously supported belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Nevertheless, my non-Catholic friends insist that the word “brother” used in this case is meant literally.

Any insight into why this is such a hard teaching to understand, or believe, would be greatly appreciated.

JU
Click to expand...
 
There are two apostles named James. One is the son of Zebedee (and brother of John) The brothers James & John, sons of Zebedee, are often mentioned together.

The other James is the son of Alphaeus.
(see Matt 10: 2-4, where both are listed.)
 
Good studies and commentary gang! Hail the Ever-Virgin!

Hey, I have an idea, why doesn’t someone comprise a list of the “so called” brothers including their parents and we can try to piece together a little family tree?
 
40.png
dMaria:
Hello, I am a Catholic of course and I had the same question. The answer I was given is that Jesus did have more brothers & sisters do the fact that “Joseph was married to someone else before marrying Mary” So then all the family from he’s first wife became family of Jesus’ This is what I was told. I have attended many classes and I was not supprised at this answer. I hope you are not alarmed.

May God Bless,
dMaria
Click to expand...
This story that Joseph was an elderly widower with children is found in some of the New Testament era apocryphal writings, particularly The Gospel of the Birth of Mary and The Protevangelion of Mary. The way these brothers treat Jesus in the biblical gospels, when trying to call him out, is consistent with the attitude of an elder brother (James, etc.) towards a younger (Jesus).

The most telling part of the story, however, is in the Gospel of John, when Jesus gives His mother into the care of John, who is not family. The importance of this is that Jesus’ so-called brother, James, is very much alive, living in Jerusalem, and an active part of Jesus’ ministry both before and after the crucifixion. If Jesus were the elder brother, the care of Mary would have gone to James.
 
I went to public school in the 50’s and 60’s that was divided between mainline Protestants and Catholics. We had plenty of discussions on religion and I don’t ever remember this as an issue.
We learned the 23rd psalm from the KJ bible and we prayed the Our Father every day (with the addition at the end)

I think this is a very modern notion to attack the divinity of Christ

Using the Anti-Catholic bias of some fundamentalist as its catalyst.

In fact my theory is if you look deep enough into the Anti-Marian doctines today there basis is to get at the divinity of Jesus.

Let me give you an example:

If Jesus is the son of God its ludicrus to believe a devout 1st Century Jew would approch Mary. If relations can be proven than

Jesus was just a man. If Jesus was a man then not just the Church but all Cristianity falls. If Jesus was a man he was a liar and a heritic who new well the punishment of that crime.

Marian dogma is not a the Core of Christen belief

Read the letters of John, Read the Creeds. The fact that Jesus was God and Man is the essence of Catholic belief. These are the stakes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top