James, who is he?

[LittleLes]

mayra hart:

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

But didn’t Jesus brothers live with him and always were in the company of Mary? And aren’t his borthers those four who didn’t believe in him?

Just out of curiosity, which bible are you referencing?

LittleLes

 

[mtr01]

Les, I really think you are trying to deceive us, as your arguments are the same old rehashed Protestant arguments.

LittleLes:

Perhaps for the same reason that the Hebrew word “almah” or young woman was incorrectly translated as the Greek “parthanos” or “virgin” leading to Matthew’s misinterpretation of Is 7:14 and his claim of a virgin birth?

This has so thoroughly debunked I need only to spend a couple lines on it. First, almah does connote a virgin in the Old Testament (after all, what kind of special sign is “a young maiden giving birth”?) See also Exodus 2:8 as another use of “almah” to refer to a virgin.

LittleLes:

In Timothy, Paul referes to him as “adelphos.” While this word can rarely refer to someone not an actual brother, is it really to be supposed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Josephus ALWAYS meant a non-brother when using the term “adelphos?” Of course not!

Rarely? Why because you say so? Since you’ve admitted that “adelphos” does not necessarily mean blood brother, how can YOU be sure sure when it is used to refer to a blood brother or not? After all, we can determine from scripture that 2 of Jesus’s supposed brothers were actually the sons of Mary of Cleophas. Furthermore, I have nowhere suggested that adelphos ALWAYS means kinsman and not blood brother. Your argument, on the other hand, is dependent upon the supposition that it ALWAYS means blood brother, which you have above conceded is not the case.

LittleLes:

And until the third century, no one had any need to defend a belief that had yet to be created. Do you see any reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity in scripture, or do you only read of Jesus brothers and sisters?

LittleLes

Again, do you see anyone denying the perpetual virginity before the Helvidius? You simply disregard the historical practice of the Church in not defining doctrine until it comes under attack. Why do you think the Councils were called? Why was there no mention of the Trinity, hypostatic union, homoousious, etc. until after Councils were convened to combat heresy? Your argument is simply not backed by any basis in fact or history.

Furthermore, do you read in Scripture that the supposed brothers and sisters of Jesus are “the sons and daughters of Mary, wife of Joseph”?

Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary is found in LK 1:34 and Jn 19:26-27.

Have you changed your profile yet to reflect that you are either a Protestant, or a Catholic who has excommunicated himself from the Church?

 

[deb1]

LittleLes:

But didn’t Jesus brothers live with him and always were in the company of Mary?
LittleLes

I am not certain what you are asking. Are you saying that the only scripture reference to these four are when they are with Mary? I don’t see what that proves.

 

[deb1]

LittleLes:

Hi Deb,

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut which I’ll reread.

The problem with Joseph having children form a first wife (before Mary) is with Jesus’ Davidic lineage. As I understand it, Jossph’s first born son, not Jesus, would succeed to the throne of David.

In short, as long as earlier born sons of Joseph were alive, Jesus would not be in the lineage to the throne of David.

LittleLes

Okay, I must be dense here. I don’t know if Joseph had previous sons or not. But does having older half brothers take away your lineage? Also, SOlomon inherited David’s throne and Solomon certainly wasn’t David’s oldest.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jesus didn’t have brothers. The term ‘brothers’ could have referred to

1. cousins
2. members of his extended family or community

 

[mtr01]

Ani Ibi:

Jesus didn’t have brothers. The term ‘brothers’ could have referred to

1. cousins
2. members of his extended family or community

Exactly. Frank Sheed extensively treats the issue of extended families in his book “To Know Christ Jesus.” Fact is, in the Jewish culture of the times, is was not unusual for extended families to live together in one houshold. It is entirely possible that our Lord lived among many relatives in his household.

 

[LittleLes]

Again, do you see anyone denying the perpetual virginity before the Helvidius? You simply disregard the historical practice of the Church in not defining doctrine until it comes under attack.

 

[LittleLes]

LittleLes:

Again, do you see anyone denying the perpetual virginity before the Helvidius? You simply disregard the historical practice of the Church in not defining doctrine until it comes under attack.

“Do you see anyone denying the perpetual virginity before the Helvidius?”

I don’t see anyone denying that St. Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn either. Does this make it so?

The argument that one has to believe something unless its questioned is, of course, ridiculous.

Please show any evidence you have that there was any belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary before the fourth century (or that there is any doubt about Peter’s halo and living in Brooklyn before the present date).

The Church does not defend against teaching that simply haven’t been yet thought up>

LittleLes

 

[cajun-catholic]

I had this discussion recently with a protestant fried of mine. I used the same argument of ‘no word for cousin’ back in those days.

Well, he asked my why the bible states that John the baptist was Jesus’ cousin?

Any insight on this?

Thanks

 

[LittleLes]

mtr01:

Exactly. Frank Sheed extensively treats the issue of extended families in his book “To Know Christ Jesus.” Fact is, in the Jewish culture of the times, is was not unusual for extended families to live together in one houshold. It is entirely possible that our Lord lived among many relatives in his household.

But its more probable that those always in the company of Mary and living in his house were his brothers and sisters. Why do you think that James became the leader of the Jerusalem community followed by Simon after James’ death?

And Frank Sheed is a Catholic apologist whose writings always support the “party line.” Does he, perchance, offer any evidence for his claim? Or are we just suppose to believe it “on faith.”

Incidently, if you check the list of Apostles mentioned in Acts 1:13, you will find the name of James, the son of Alphaeus. This is James the Less.

But in the next line, Acts 1:14, as a separate group there is mentioned “Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” Evidently James, Joses, Simon, and Jude are a separate group from the Apostles, esp .James the Less. And keep in mind Jesus’ own brothers were originally nonbelievers unlike the Apostles or Jesus’ “brethren.”

LittleLes

 

[teresas1979]

Okay, I must be dense here. I don’t know if Joseph had previous sons or not. But does having older half brothers take away your lineage? Also, Solomon inherited David’s throne and Solomon certainly wasn’t David’s oldest.

Matthew outlines Jesus’ lineage from the line of Joseph back to David and even further to Abraham because he wrote specifically to the Jews to prove Jesus Messiah. Therefore, there is a tangent to his Gospel which is aimed at proving Jesus’ line in Jewish terms. But in Luke’s Gospel, the line goes all the way back to Adam, because Luke wrote for the Gentiles, wishing to show a more human nature to Jesus. In Luke 23, we clearly see that both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of the line of David as Luke wished to show Jesus’ genealogoy in a different way for a diffeernt audience. Couldn’t Mary have provided his royalty if necessary as a direct descendant of David?

 

[deb1]

cajun-catholic:

I had this discussion recently with a protestant fried of mine. I used the same argument of ‘no word for cousin’ back in those days.

Well, he asked my why the bible states that John the baptist was Jesus’ cousin?

Any insight on this?

Thanks

After reading your post I decided to find the verse that lists John as Jesus’ cousin. I can’t find it! I think that we make the connection because the angel Gabriel calls Elizabeth, John’s mother, Mary’s relative. Could you give me the verse that uses the word cousin in relation to John and Jesus?

 

[LittleLes]

teresas1979:

Matthew outlines Jesus’ lineage from the line of Joseph back to David and even further to Abraham because he wrote specifically to the Jews to prove Jesus Messiah. Therefore, there is a tangent to his Gospel which is aimed at proving Jesus’ line in Jewish terms. But in Luke’s Gospel, the line goes all the way back to Adam, because Luke wrote for the Gentiles, wishing to show a more human nature to Jesus. In Luke 23, we clearly see that both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of the line of David as Luke wished to show Jesus’ genealogoy in a different way for a diffeernt audience. Couldn’t Mary have provided his royalty if necessary as a direct descendant of David?

Hi Teresas,

There are some problems with your post.

First of all, the correct descendent of David’s linage to inherit the throne is quite problemmatical. Don’t forget, David had 300 wives and some many hundreds of comcumbines. He also had a adulterous relationship with the wife of Uriah, the Hittite. And was also married to Bathsheba.

God (personally) selected Solomon to build his Temple. He also promised to Solomon that one of his offspring would be the messiah. However, later, the offspring of Solomon who would succeed him was cursed and told that none of his lineage would occupy the throne. This may be the reason Luke traces Jesus’ lineage through Nathan and not Solomon (Matthew uses Solomon’s geneology).

I can’t find anything in Luke 23 indicating that Mary is of Davidic descent. Could you be more specific in your reference? Moreover, geneologies were always through the man who bore the seed (sperma) containing the entire offspring, never through the women who merely did the hatching ("fertile (ground) or barren (ground).

Next, Luke 1 tells us tha Zechariah was a priest and Elizabeth, his wife, was a “daughter of Aaron.” Hence both were Levites, not Davidic descendents. And Luke 1:36 tells us that Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin, relative, or kinswoman, depending on the translation used. So it seems more probably that Mary was a Levite also.

LittleLes

 

[teresas1979]

Sorry, I meant Luke 3:23-38 where he traces Jesus’ roots back to Adam . I cannot find the reference now as to why Mary is a direct descendant of David (I thought it was in this Scripture) but I remember it not mattering if Joseph was called into question because Mary is the one who makes Jesus human and so the line would come from her. Maybe someone could help me out here, I’m sorry I can’t find the reasoning behind this

 

[LittleLes]

deb1:

After reading your post I decided to find the verse that lists John as Jesus’ cousin. I can’t find it! I think that we make the connection because the angel Gabriel calls Elizabeth, John’s mother, Mary’s relative. Could you give me the verse that uses the word cousin in relation to John and Jesus?

Hi Deb1,

I think you are looking for 1 Luke 36, which in older translations (see Douay Rheims), describe Elizabeth as Mary’s “cousin,” I don’t think there is any verse that so describes John the Baptist. But as the child of a cousin, wouldn’t he be a second cousin???

Please note that Elizabeth is described as a “daughter of Arron”, not David. And her husband is a Levite priest. And these are Mary’s kin. So this strongly suggests that Mary was not of Davidic descent like Joseph.

LittleLes

 

[mtr01]

“Do you see anyone denying the perpetual virginity before the Helvidius?”

I don’t see anyone denying that St. Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn either. Does this make it so?

Big difference, the Church hasn’t defined it as doctrine based on Apostolic Tradition.

LittleLes:

The argument that one has to believe something unless its questioned is, of course, ridiculous.

Strawman. I said that is has been the historic position of the Church not to formally define doctrine until it comes under attack from heretics.

"Please show any evidence you have that there was any belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary before the fourth century

Actually, Origen hinted at it in the 3rd Century. However, you fail in a basic understanding of how the Church works. You also ignore several important historical facts. First, Helvidius’s argument came first (Jerome answered the former’s claims), As such, this marks the first time there is a record of anyone denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. Being the first attack on this doctrine, there was a swift reply by Jerome, representing the orthodox view. In it, he claims that Helvidius’ position was a novelty, no one had believed this before. Now, given the quick way in which the Early Church attacked error and heresy, if Jerome had simply made this up, where are the objections to Jerome’s work? Don’t you think Augustine would have weighed in on the issue? Ambrose perhaps? Pope Damasus? Yet there are no objections to Jerome’s work from any Church Father. Again, the weight of evidence supports my position and not yours, sorry.

(or that there is any doubt about Peter’s halo and living in Brooklyn before the present date).

Being absurd and using faulty analogies do not help you case :nope:

"The Church does not defend against teaching that simply haven’t been yet thought up>

LittleLes

I see you still haven’t changed your profile, even though you obviously aren’t Catholic (or at the very least are a self-excommunicated one). Why the deception? One should have the dignity to not fraudulently represent oneself.

 

[mtr01]

LittleLes:

But its more probable that those always in the company of Mary and living in his house were his brothers and sisters. Why do you think that James became the leader of the Jerusalem community followed by Simon after James’ death?

Because that’s where the apostles decided they wanted him, why was Ignatius selected to be a bishop, or Clement, or Timothy, or Polycarp?

LittleLes:

And Frank Sheed is a Catholic apologist whose writings always support the “party line.” Does he, perchance, offer any evidence for his claim? Or are we just suppose to believe it “on faith.”

Unfortunately, I don’t have Sheed’s book with me, but there certainly is no dearth of information on the web demonstrating that in first century Palestine it was common for extended families to inhabit several houses opening to a common courtyard.

LittleLes:

Incidently, if you check the list of Apostles mentioned in Acts 1:13, you will find the name of James, the son of Alphaeus. This is James the Less.

Yes I knew this. Interestingly this point substantially weakens your case since James the Less, son of Alphaeus/Cleophas is the James called “brother of Jesus”. Furthermore, his mother was with Mary at Jesus’ crucifixion. A prime example of one of the so-called “brothers” of Jesus not being a member of his immediate family.

LittleLes:

But in the next line, Acts 1:14, as a separate group there is mentioned “Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” Evidently James, Joses, Simon, and Jude are a separate group from the Apostles, esp .James the Less. And keep in mind Jesus’ own brothers were originally nonbelievers unlike the Apostles or Jesus’ “brethren.”

LittleLes

You include James as Jesus’ brother, after posting that he was the son of Cleophas and the other Mary? I think you’ve refuted your own argument.

By the way, still waiting for you to change your profile to reflect your true status vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleLes]

You include James as Jesus’ brother, after posting that he was the son of Cleophas and the other Mary? I think you’ve refuted your own argument.

By the way, still waiting for you to change your profile to reflect your true status vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

HI MJR,

Reread the posts. James the Less is listed with the Apostles. He isn’t Jesus’ brother. James the Just, the first bishop of the Jerusalem Christianity is Jesus’ brother, as apparently was Simon, who took over after James’ death.

Little Les

 

[mtr01]

LittleLes:

You include James as Jesus’ brother, after posting that he was the son of Cleophas and the other Mary? I think you’ve refuted your own argument.

By the way, still waiting for you to change your profile to reflect your true status vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

HI MJR,

Reread the posts. James the Less is listed with the Apostles. He isn’t Jesus’ brother. James the Just, the first bishop of the Jerusalem Christianity is Jesus’ brother, as apparently was Simon, who took over after James’ death.

Little Les

(I left the top part up there because I’m still waiting).

Les, I hate to break it to you, but James the Less and James the Just are the same person.