Jesus Brother James

[mlchance]

Kostja:

Matthew 27.55 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.

Reading is fundamental. One more time:
Matthew 10:2-3: The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus…
Mary, the mother of James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 27:55, is not the Virgin Mary. She is the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Kostja]

mlchance:

Mary, the mother of James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 27:55, is not the Virgin Mary. She is the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas

.
Original Posted by thessalonian

“John 19
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´m already earlier asking, was Clopas carpenter? If you can answer to this question?

 

[Mad_Amos]

Kostja:

I´m already earlier asking, was Clopas carpenter? If you can answer to this question?

The establishment of Clopas’ profession will provide no insight into this matter.

Matthew 13: 55, contextually speaking, simply identifies James, Joses, Simon and Judas as the “brothers” of Jesus. This assertion has not been contested. What is at issue, however, is whether or not these men are also the children of the Virgin Mary, a point that this particular Scripture passage does not address.

Understand that anything gratuitously asserted can equally be gratuitously denied. As we are without Scripture that definitively and explicitly establishes the maternal link between the mother of Jesus and those identified as His brethren, the task for one who would seek to prove otherwise becomes a difficult one indeed.

 

[mlchance]

Kostja:

I´m already earlier asking, was Clopas carpenter? If you can answer to this question?

Irrelevant. Clopas may have been a carpenter, but there is one thing for certain he wasn’t: He wasn’t the Virgin Mary’s husband. Her husband was, of course, Joseph, and there isn’t a single person identified in the Gospels as being the biological child of Joseph and the Virgin Mary. The frequently named contenders (i.e., the Apostle James) have their parents identified in the Gospels as people other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary.

It’s really not that complicated.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Nan_S]

Mary, the mother of James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 27:55, is not the Virgin Mary. She is the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas.

“John 19:25: 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´m already earlier asking, was Clopas carpenter? If you can answer to this question?

Please go back to post #20 for the identity of Clopas.

The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. Now, Joseph had died while Jesus was still young, and there is no record or tradition that Mary had brothers of her own. It would have been an obligation of Joseph’s family, therefore, to take Joseph’s widow and orphan into their home and finish raising his orphan (Jesus) as one of their own sons. In the Middle East, even today, the extended family concept still lives. One’s “brothers” are not only sons of your own two parents, but also your close family members of your own generation.

For a more comprehensive writeup on this, see the Catholic Answers tract “Brethren of the Lord” at catholic.com/library/bre…of_the_lord.asp

 

[MaggieOH]

MariaG:

There is no term for cousin. Thus brother can also refer to cousin.

Also, he may have been Jesus’ brother, his step brother son of Joseph but not of Mary.

No, no a thousand times no. Joseph was not an elderly widower as described in the Protoevangelium of James. That work has some good points but it is also very suspect with regard to speculation. The writer, for example knew that there were 4 men who were somehow related to Jesus. Since they were older, and he did not understand the Middle Eastern and African way of explaining tribal family relationships, he concocted the story that Joseph was a widower. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Joseph was a widower with other sons.

The Scripture itself negates this form of speculation. Why is it that American Catholics are so taken with a document that has already been ruled out as containing authentic information? There are clues in the Gospels about the parents of the four men. The men in question are Simon (not to be confused with the Apostles, but he did become bishop of Jerusalem), James, Jude and Joseph (the younger, thus his name is sometimes written as Joset. The mother of these four is named in the Gospels as the other Mary, who is, according to John’s Gospel the wife of Clopas (or Alphaeus in the synoptic gospels). There is strong evidence against them being sons of Joseph in the Gospel of John, because Jesus gave Mary to the disciple John the beloved, and if he had brothers he would not have made that gesture.

Please stop relying on this document to come up with what is truly inaccurate information. Trust what you read in the Scripture before relying upon a gnostic source of information.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Nan S:

Please go back to post #20 for the identity of Clopas.

The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. Now, Joseph had died while Jesus was still young, and there is no record or tradition that Mary had brothers of her own. It would have been an obligation of Joseph’s family, therefore, to take Joseph’s widow and orphan into their home and finish raising his orphan (Jesus) as one of their own sons. In the Middle East, even today, the extended family concept still lives. One’s “brothers” are not only sons of your own two parents, but also your close family members of your own generation.

For a more comprehensive writeup on this, see the Catholic Answers tract “Brethren of the Lord” at catholic.com/library/bre…of_the_lord.asp

No, Clopas was not a foster father to Jesus. We do not know that Joseph died when Jesus was young. He was alive when Jesus made his bar-mitzvah. What we do know is that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry.

What everyone forgets is that the family ties in that time were very strong and there was a tendency for families to live in villages together. The other possibility is that Clopas and his family lived very close to Mary, Joseph and Jesus, and that the two families were very close, such that the cousins of Jesus were more than likely regular visitors in his parent’s house. Also, when Joseph did pass away, and Jesus would have been an adult at the time, the nearest relatives would have made sure that Mary was cared for, but there is no reason to believe that they all lived in the one house.

Mary of Clopas was a follower, a disciple of Jesus. Two of her sons, James and Jude, were apostles. The other two were not believers from the beginning, but at some point they finally realized who Jesus was, and they became believers.

I am a Catholic and I am saying stick to what is written in the Scripture and forget about the speculation. I will have to check my copy of Eusebius but I am certain that he did not say that Jospeh died when Jesus was still quite young. That does not fit with Joseph being present when Jesus reached the age of about 13.

 

[Nan_S]

MaggieOH:

No, Clopas was not a foster father to Jesus.

Excuse me for the confusion. Allow me to re-word my comment a little more clearly: “The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, [and Joseph was] the foster-father of Jesus.” Therefore, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was Jesus’ uncle.

MaggieOH:

We do not know that Joseph died when Jesus was young. He was alive when Jesus made his bar-mitzvah…Also, when Joseph did pass away, and Jesus would have been an adult at the time

Lk 2:41-43 Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom. After they had completed its days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it.

Generally, sons were bar-mitzvahed at age 13. In this passage St. Luke does not say anything about Jesus’ bar-mitzvah. Further, he specifies that Jesus is still a boy, age 12. Therefore, we can not conclude from this passage that Jesus was an adult when Joseph died.

MaggieOH:

I will have to check my copy of Eusebius but I am certain that he did not say that Jospeh died when Jesus was still quite young. That does not fit with Joseph being present when Jesus reached the age of about 13.

How wonderful!! You have a copy of the writings of Eusebius!! Please check this excellent resource and let me know if it offers any hint about Jesus’ age at Joseph’s death. I have been through William Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers and found no mention. Neither did I find help in any other historical or apocryphal writings.

 

[gusano]

My spirit rejoices in God my savior to see that my brothers and sisters are doing their homework, …I love it !
defending the virginity of Mary through the scriptures…but at the same time it grieves me that a proud man will never admit he has made a mistake…even when the truth has been presented.

stubborn pride makes one blind to the truth.

God resists the proud but gives Grace to the humble.


gusano

 

[dano]

jamjostab:

How do we explain Jesus brother James (galatians1:1-24) to a protestant from scripture and the Chuch History.

Hi,
See this

(catholic.com/library/Burial_Box_of_St_James_Found.asp) on CA. The “brother” issue has been highlighted recently due to the fake Ossuary "discovered in Israel 3 years ago.

Ciao,
dano

 

[Kostja]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaG
*There is no term for cousin. Thus brother can also refer to cousin.

Also, he may have been Jesus’ brother, his step brother son of Joseph but not of Mary.*

Originally Posted by MaggieOH

“The Protoevangelium of James”.

Here is only one problem, so that the Protoevangelium of James don´t belong to The Bible canon.

 

[Zooey]

We are not arguing that [Protoevangelion] is scripture. We are pointing out the fact that there is Biblical data that says that Jesus was Mary’s one & only Child, and that there is historical data that supports the Biblical record.
Please check the many fine links that have been posted; you will see that what folks here are telling you is provable by the records.
I pray that you will read thoughtfully & prayerfully. God bless.

 

[mlchance]

Kostja:

Here is only one problem, so that the Protoevangelium of James don´t belong to The Bible canon.

So? Are you saying that only things found in the Bible are historically relevant?

That question aside, the Protoevangelium of James is irrelevant because Scripture itself nowhere states that the Virgin Mary ever had children other than Jesus.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[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 me why the bible uses the word cousin in Luke 1?

After researching the word cousin in protestant bibles, I was unable to find any reference to cousin in Luke 1, my friend understood cousin, but cousin is not stated. The King James Version uses the word relative.

However, upon doing a word search in the Douay-Rheims Bible, as well as looking at past post within these forums, the following is what I found.

1 Luke 1

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:

Any insight on this?

 

[Strider]

Sure, Greek had words for relatives, but post 16 by Thessalonian is definitive.
Paul goes to Jesusalem and meets with Peter and another Apostle, “James, the brother of the Lord.”
There are two Apostles named James. One is the son of Zebdee and the other is the son of Alpheas.
Therefore, “James the brother of the Lord,” is not a uterine brother of Jesus.
Based on this, any other references to “Bretheren of the Lord,” or his “sisters” loses power for argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[bheroux]

I just had this very discussion regarding the cousin of Mary in Luke 1:36. Why is it that scripture uses the word cousin in Luke 1:36 and not in Mark 5:7 where it lists Jesus’ “brethren” Since the Greek language has a word for cousin, why is’nt it consistently applied in the NT? This makes it difficult to use this as an argument.

 

[Lillith]

You guys are absolutely brilliant, but I don’t think Kostja is interested in reading your incredible posts (I am of course) Thanks!!

Kostja…are you aware that Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Peace

 

[scm]

I hope I don’t offend anyone here by asking this, but would not Joseph and Mary have had to consumate their marriage after Jesus’s birth in order to make it a valid marriage?

 

[Malachi4U]

scm:

I hope I don’t offend anyone here by asking this, but would not Joseph and Mary have had to consumate their marriage after Jesus’s birth in order to make it a valid marriage?

Please give us the verse in Scripture that claims this?:whacky:

If two elderly people kid married long past childbearing age is their marriage invalid if they don’t consumate it?

If a handicapped person is incapable of consumating a marriage does that make it invalid?

The claim you make is just another lame excuse by anti-Catholics and Satan to distract away from Christs body, his catholic Church.

 

[scm]

Malachi4U:

Please give us the verse in Scripture that claims this?:whacky:

If two elderly people kid married long past childbearing age is their marriage invalid if they don’t consumate it?

If a handicapped person is incapable of consumating a marriage does that make it invalid?

The claim you make is just another lame excuse by anti-Catholics and Satan to distract away from Christs body, his catholic Church.

I asked an honest question and did not make a claim. I can not show a Bible verse to support a question.

I am not anti-Catholic.

To answer some of the questions you posted. Catholic Cannon Law states that impotent persons are not allowed to marry, so yes it would seem that anyone not able to consumate a marriage can not have a valid marriage.

The question I asked was precisely analogous and realated to the first of your questions. Is the marriage valid without consumaiton. AND I would prefer the answer to be YES.