James - the brother of the Lord?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

Jesus’ brother was James the Just. He is neither the son of Adelphus, not the son of Zebedee.

From “Church History,” by Eusebius, about 325 AD, Book 2, Chapter 2

"Then James, whom the ancients surnamed **the Just **on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the **first to be made bishop of the church **of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E. Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”
Click to expand...
Sorry once again… James the Just is the SAME as James the Less. Alphaeus, cleopas, and Clopas are also the same person… Which is the Father of James the Just.

newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
“The identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD, where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favour of the Apostleship of St. James the brother of the Lord, is to be found).” I cant believe anything you say after you denied the assumption of the Virgin Mother on the other thread. I will continue to pray for your return to the Catholic faith.
 
TEPO said:
Sorry once again… James the Just is the SAME as James the Less. Alphaeus, cleopas, and Clopas are also the same person… Which is the Father of James the Just.

newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
“The identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD, where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favour of the Apostleship of St. James the brother of the Lord, is to be found).” I cant believe anything you say after you denied the assumption of the Virgin Mother on the other thread. I will continue to pray for your return to the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
I LOOKED there. That is the kind of information I was looking for to set things in my mind. Thanks for finding that:thumbsup:

Maybe you could help me with the historical reference to James, the brother of the Lord also being refered to as the son of Joseph? I mean, it seems as if James who became the bishop is claimed by some to be the son of Mary, wife of Cleophas but also the son of Joseph by others and that just doesn’t make any sense. Is there an explanation of that?

God Bless,
Maria
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

Jesus’ brother was James the Just. He is neither the son of Adelphus, not the son of Zebedee.

From “Church History,” by Eusebius, about 325 AD, Book 2, Chapter 2

"Then James, whom the ancients surnamed **the Just **on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the **first to be made bishop of the church **of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E. Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
'The James (5) of Jude 1:1 must certainly be identified with James (3), the brother of the Lord and the Bishop of Jerusalem. The identification of James (3), the brother of the Lord and James (4), the son of Mary, and probably of Cleophas or Clopas offers some difficulty. This identification requires the identity of Mary, the mother of James (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), with Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25), and, consequently, the identity of Alpheus (2) and Clopas (4). As Clopas and Alpheus are probably not two different transcriptions of the same Aramaic name Halpai (see CLEOPHAS), it must be admitted that two different names have been borne by one man. ’

-also-

newadvent.org/bible/mat001.htm#verse18
Till she brought forth her firstborn son… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8:6 and 8:7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46:4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the 1 Maccabees 5:54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Exodus 13:2. (Challoner)

I still cant believe you denied the assumption of the Virgin Mother ! :tsktsk:
 
Catholics should go with Church teaching rather than simply go through bible verses,and try to pick which words and phrases to take literally. The work has already been done for us by monks and scholars for many years, through much prayer and meditation.

As you can see, one poster here has gone so far as to deny the assumption and coronatrion of the Blessed Virgin Mary calling it “legend” and claiming there was no evidence… :eek:

That is enough evidence for me to say that excessive fumbling for answers here leads to protestantism, because people read too much between the lines, and are not qualified to do so.

Leave Church teaching to the Church.
 
So when all said and done what does it matter if “MARY” had more children than “JESUS”? It seems to me what is important if you believe “MARY” is in heaven “Body and Soul” or not. The church teaches that she is. Is this the fundamental issue? If not, then what is the issue or the reason for this thread???

I for one, know she is in heaven - “Body and Soul” - you either believe it or you do not - it is that simply!!!
 
United said:
So when all said and done what does it matter if “MARY” had more children than “JESUS”? It seems to me what is important if you believe “MARY” is in heaven “Body and Soul” or not. The church teaches that she is. Is this the fundamental issue? If not, then what is the issue or the reason for this thread???

I for one, know she is in heaven - “Body and Soul” - you either believe it or you do not - it is that simply!!!
Click to expand...
Actually it does matter. If Mary had other children some could argue it casts doubt on the virgin birth of Jesus.
 
MariaG said:
I actually spent some time looking into this. And will probable spend more just to see if I can get the historical document you cite in line in my mind with Scripture.

But, as ironic as some may find this, (but not me, cause I come from fundamentlist “bible alone” kind of churches before the Catholic Church:p) I have to turn to scripture for clarification.

Scripture shows that James, the brother of the Lord was also son of Mary, wife of Cleophas.

This Rock has a quick little answer on it which was one of the many, many articles I looked at trying to find who the James, son of Joseph, brother of the Lord would have been. In scripture, I don’t see James, son of Joseph, though, just brother of Jesus and son of Mary.

I am going to be looking at this more, but was there a scripture that talked of James the son of Joseph, that may help me in this quest?

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
what about Mary’s sister - did she not have any children - twinc
 
thistle said:
When it comes to our faith and morals we accept Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magesterium.

We do not accept English myths.
Click to expand...
okay then go to www.ScriptureCatholic.com and in L/H column scroll down to science and accept Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium - please dont push me to prove that we accept things as regard our faith and morals that are not in Scriptures.To give just one example that Jesus for better or worse did not have sex.not even with Mary Magdalen - twinc
 
twinc said:
okay then go to www.ScriptureCatholic.com and in L/H column scroll down to science and accept Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium - please dont push me to prove that we accept things as regard our faith and morals that are not in Scriptures.To give just one example that Jesus for better or worse did not have sex.not even with Mary Magdalen - twinc
Click to expand...
Didn’t see anything on your favorite subject.Faith and morals are a lot different than folkloric tales of England. As far as accepting things not in Scripture-there are many things implied, hinted at and through the tripod of scripture/tradition and magesterium we can gain more insight into what the Holy Spirit is saying through His church.
Trinity being the prime example of an implied doctrine that became defined overtime.I don’t think the Holy Spirit cared about Jesus’ travel itinerary- unless it had a spiritual,dogmatic, doctrinal point- which this quaint Folktale does not.
I also do not get why this joseph of A tale is so important to you.It’s a nice story but it doesn’t have a spiritual,allegorical or literal point-does it.Are you so desperate to make your point that you would defame the Lord with the old da vinci code ploy? How very sad.
 
juliamajor said:
Didn’t see anything on your favorite subject.Faith and morals are a lot different than folkloric tales of England. As far as accepting things not in Scripture-there are many things implied, hinted at and through the tripod of scripture/tradition and magesterium we can gain more insight into what the Holy Spirit is saying through His church.
Trinity being the prime example of an implied doctrine that became defined overtime.I don’t think the Holy Spirit cared about Jesus’ travel itinerary- unless it had a spiritual,dogmatic, doctrinal point- which this quaint Folktale does not.
I also do not get why this joseph of A tale is so important to you.It’s a nice story but it doesn’t have a spiritual,allegorical or literal point-does it.Are you so desperate to make your point that you would defame the Lord with the old da vinci code ploy? How very sad.
Click to expand...
what are you talking about - da vinci is being accepted by many as an alternative to the original which is being rejected by many - da vinci is of recent and dubious vintage whilst the original is from the start of the Christian era with the oldest marian shrine in England etc and royal and holy ground for here lies Englands royal and saintly kings and saints,all fact and not fantasy or myth - you had better be careful and certain you are not defaming the Lord,His mother and His saints - twinc
 
twinc said:
what are you talking about - da vinci is being accepted by many as an alternative to the original which is being rejected by many - da vinci is of recent and dubious vintage whilst the original is from the start of the Christian era with the oldest marian shrine in England etc and royal and holy ground for here lies Englands royal and saintly kings and saints,all fact and not fantasy or myth - you had better be careful and certain you are not defaming the Lord,His mother and His saints - twinc
Click to expand...
Boy, try as you may you can only twist so far. I know the apocryphal tale as I’ve read the So called "gospel of Mary Magdalen. , Thomas ,Secret Mark, Protoevangelum, and most of the other NT Apocrypha-Pseudepigrapha.
I was not the one who brought the MM thing .you did so stop twisting things to suit yourself.Besides Da Vinci Code idea was stolen from the G of MM and other dubious writings primarilly “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”
It might be the oldest Marian shrine in England but there is a great big world out there. How about the The House of Mary in Ephesus?I
Royal and Holy ground? Any where the saints and the saintly have trod makes it holy ground. England is NOT any more sacred then any place else.
. If your talking Biblically it’s God’s presence that makes something Holy. If God is not present -then a place cannot be holy. A place is and cannot be Holy in and of itself.
Royal? how?
defaming? How? Who?
Your Nationalistic fervor is nice. But it isn’t proof of the Holy Family and Friends being in England. England isn’t more special to God then Borneo,or theSolomon islands or Haiti or anyplace else.Besides it isn’t the land that counts but the people there-in.
If you make a good argument there is no need for the old “switcheroo”. That is the last desperate attempt to make an arguement in your favor.
Now guessing by how the tone of this has rapidly gone down , I know exactly what your next move will be, but i won’t spill the beans.
Good Luck!
 
TEPO said:
Catholics should go with Church teaching rather than simply go through bible verses,and try to pick which words and phrases to take literally. The work has already been done for us by monks and scholars for many years, through much prayer and meditation.

As you can see, one poster here has gone so far as to deny the assumption and coronatrion of the Blessed Virgin Mary calling it “legend” and claiming there was no evidence… :eek:

That is enough evidence for me to say that excessive fumbling for answers here leads to protestantism, because people read too much between the lines, and are not qualified to do so.

Leave Church teaching to the Church.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I disagree. Your post appears to have the attitude that Catholics should not “look it up in the bible”. That attitude is what has some Catholics think and many Protestants, that Catholics aren’t supposed to read the Bible.

One should read the Bible but read it WITH the teachings of the Church, not in a vaccuum without proper understanding. While the great scholars of the Church can help us to understand what God wishes us to know, that is no replacement for reading His Word yourself.

Respectfully,
Maria
 
TEPO said:
Catholics should go with Church teaching rather than simply go through bible verses,and try to pick which words and phrases to take literally. The work has already been done for us by monks and scholars for many years, through much prayer and meditation.

As you can see, one poster here has gone so far as to deny the assumption and coronatrion of the Blessed Virgin Mary calling it “legend” and claiming there was no evidence… :eek:

That is enough evidence for me to say that excessive fumbling for answers here leads to protestantism, because people read too much between the lines, and are not qualified to do so.

Leave Church teaching to the Church.
Click to expand...
Leave Church teaching to the Church? So we aren’t supposed to explain things to those who ask us? Just tell them to ask the Church?

At first reading, I thought you were saying that one should not read scripture at all, but just what the Church teaches. On second reading, it appears as if you are saying one should not do it separate from Church teachings? The first one is unacceptable, the second what most here in these forums try to do.

While the Church can and does explain things better than most of us here on these forums, the Church is not talking to my neighbor, the person in the grocery store and countless others who we run into in real life as well as here in these forums.
 
MariaG said:
Leave Church teaching to the Church? So we aren’t supposed to explain things to those who ask us? Just tell them to ask the Church?

At first reading, I thought you were saying that one should not read scripture at all, but just what the Church teaches. On second reading, it appears as if you are saying one should not do it separate from Church teachings? The first one is unacceptable, the second what most here in these forums try to do.

While the Church can and does explain things better than most of us here on these forums, the Church is not talking to my neighbor, the person in the grocery store and countless others who we run into in real life as well as here in these forums.
Click to expand...
Here’s what I think…

Those who call themselves Catholics ARE the Church. We are a body of millions with Christ as our head -so when someone asks us to explain things, we should IF WE KNOW THE TRUTH.

Some posters here claim to know the truth, but the problem is that what they claim to be true is not in line with what the Church actually proclaims. I say — if you have been told that Church teaching claims you are dead wrong, then you ought to stop making those false claims.

One poster on the other thread (just like this one) who claims to be Catholic, said that the assumption of Mary into heaven Soul AND physical body, was “legend”, and unproven. Well actually it is DOGMA, which means in order to be Catholic, you have to believe it. If you dont, then you are not Catholic. Here is proof that the Assumption of Mary is Dogma…

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
"The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. "

Other posts offend the Dogma that Mary was “Ever-Virgin”
As a matter of fact there are 5 dogmas on mary. And Catholics MUST believe all of them with all their hearts.
They are :

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
1- The Mother of God… the Prophecy of the Bible about Mary

2- Ever-Virgin… asserted by the Reformers… and the Bible - Brothers and sisters of Jesus

3- The Immaculate Conception… every child looks like his mother!

4- **The Assumption… **The Queen of Heaven, of Earth, and of your Heart.

5- The Mother of the Church… The Woman of Genesis 3:15… and of Revelation 12

6- Mary: Co-redeemer, Mediator, Advocate… the work of the Queen in her Reign.

-So, as you can see, I am actually protecting the integrity of my Church -Our Church!!!
I must protect her from the lies of her enemies, as it is my duty as a confirmed Catholic. 😦
 
catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Catholic Church:
Code: 
"The second Dogma proclaimed by the Church on Virgin Mary is her Perpetual Virginity, defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649, insisting the Council that Mary remained "ever-Virgin"... Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and perpetually after the birth of Christ (Ante partum, in partu, post partum), a belief also re-asserted during the first decades of the Protestant reformation."
Many, many Church leaders claim that Mary was Virgin all her life… Why would any Catholic deny it then?
 
TEPO said:
Here’s what I think…

Those who call themselves Catholics ARE the Church. We are a body of millions with Christ as our head -so when someone asks us to explain things, we should IF WE KNOW THE TRUTH.

Some posters here claim to know the truth, but the problem is that what they claim to be true is not in line with what the Church actually proclaims. I say — if you have been told that Church teaching claims you are dead wrong, then you ought to stop making those false claims.

One poster on the other thread (just like this one) who claims to be Catholic, said that the assumption of Mary into heaven Soul AND physical body, was “legend”, and unproven. Well actually it is DOGMA, which means in order to be Catholic, you have to believe it. If you dont, then you are not Catholic. Here is proof that the Assumption of Mary is Dogma…

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
"The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. "

Other posts offend the Dogma that Mary was “Ever-Virgin”
As a matter of fact there are 5 dogmas on mary. And Catholics MUST believe all of them with all their hearts.
They are :

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
1- The Mother of God… the Prophecy of the Bible about Mary

2- Ever-Virgin… asserted by the Reformers… and the Bible - Brothers and sisters of Jesus

3- The Immaculate Conception… every child looks like his mother!

4- **The Assumption… **The Queen of Heaven, of Earth, and of your Heart.

5- The Mother of the Church… The Woman of Genesis 3:15… and of Revelation 12

6- Mary: Co-redeemer, Mediator, Advocate… the work of the Queen in her Reign.

-So, as you can see, I am actually protecting the integrity of my Church -Our Church!!!
I must protect her from the lies of her enemies, as it is my duty as a confirmed Catholic. 😦
Click to expand...
I can see that but in protecting it, you went a bit far, or did not explain enough, in my opinion.

As someone who came from a fundmentalist Protestant background, I truly had to read over and over because even though it wasn’t what you wrote, I kept reading that people shouldn’t read the bible but only study church teachings. People frequently think that Catholics are told not to read the bible for themselves and your post initially seemed to reinforce that erroneous belief to me. I know that sometimes when I talk with cradle Catholics, I try to tell them that even though they might not mean something a certain way, that a fundmentalist can “hear” something they may not intend. In your case, I “heard” that Catholic shouldn’t read the Bible, at least for a bit.​

I know one of the best ways I like to study scripture is to take my catechism, read on a particular subject and look up every reference to scripture. It really helps one understand scripture and Church teachings.​

And I can see you have a history with a poster and I didn’t understand the context of some of your post.

Peace and God Bless,
Maria
 
TEPO said:
catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Catholic Church:

“The second Dogma proclaimed by the Church on Virgin Mary is her Perpetual Virginity, defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649, insisting the Council that Mary remained “ever-Virgin”… Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and perpetually after the birth of Christ (Ante partum, in partu, post partum), a belief also re-asserted during the first decades of the Protestant reformation.”

Many, many Church leaders claim that Mary was Virgin all her life… Why would any Catholic deny it then?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why they would, except usually they are rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church.

But I also know that people can question things and research things. One is supposed to conform ones conscience. To do so, one needs to educate oneself, and sometimes that education can come in the form of questions and even doubts.

God Bless,
Maria

P.S.
Just to be clear, I personally have no doubts whatsoever as to Mary being ever Virgin. But I did research it a BUNCH. I personally love the typology of Mary and the Ark.
 
MariaG said:
Leave Church teaching to the Church? So we aren’t supposed to explain things to those who ask us? Just tell them to ask the Church?

At first reading, I thought you were saying that one should not read scripture at all, but just what the Church teaches. On second reading, it appears as if you are saying one should not do it separate from Church teachings? The first one is unacceptable, the second what most here in these forums try to do.

While the Church can and does explain things better than most of us here on these forums, the Church is not talking to my neighbor, the person in the grocery store and countless others who we run into in real life as well as here in these forums.
Click to expand...
agreed and exactly so and the problem is clearly stated at Lk.16:8 and the remedy or answer by our first Pope in his epistle “Be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks”.Unfortunately neither the warning nor the advice has been heeded - twinc
 
twinc said:
agreed and exactly so and the problem is clearly stated at Lk.16:8 and the remedy or answer by our first Pope in his epistle “Be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks”.Unfortunately neither the warning nor the advice has been heeded - twinc
Click to expand...
Has not been heeded by who? I think people in these forums do a pretty good job, and some do great.

There are some who are give erroneous information but frequently it stems from trolls posing as Catholics or those who in my experience here, in about 6 months will no longer be calling themselves Catholic, but still do now out of habit more than belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top