Mary's perpetual virginity

[JB_Brother_4446]

John was the son of Zebedee. How do get “second cousin/nephew/first cousin.” Never heard that one before.

BTW, all of your arguments are actually undermining the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary as well. You are “proving” that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are indeed blood brothers and sisters. You of course say they aren’t the Virgin Mary’s children, but on what grounds? Your opponents will say that is far more likely the case based on Scripture.

Just like undermining the glories of the Virgin Mary has the effect of reducing the Truth of the Incarnation, undermining the glories of St. Joseph has the effect of reducing the Truth of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.

I’m saying that because I got many sources that say John was related to Jesus. Orthodox sources, even Catholic sources. Have a look here. Tradition give by Ephihanius of Salamis says that the names of Jesus “sisters” are Mary and Salome. So if this Salome was the mother of Zebedee’s sons, John could have been a nephew of Jesus.

Or:
If you read all four accounts of the attendants at the cross, and put all the information together, it becomes 95% certain that Mary’s sister was actually Salome, not the other Mary

Or, Luke could have been referring to four women: 1) His mother and 2) His mother’s sister, 3) Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen (“A and B, C and D”). There is precedent for this in Luke’s Gospel; this is precisely how he listed the 12 apostles in 6:14-15: A and B, C and D, E and F, etc.

Mark named only three women. He omitted Mary the mother of Jesus, but named 1) Mary Magdalen, 2) Mary the mother of Joses and James the Less (this would be Mary of Cleophas) and 3) Salome (this would be the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother). Matthew identified 1) Mary Magdalen, 2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and 3) the mother of Zebedee’s sons (= the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, = Salome).

At this point I’m not even sure.

And how do I undermine the glories of Joseph? Joseph’s greatest glory was his obedience to the Lord, which isn’t impossible for people who aren’t perpetual virgins.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JB Brother 4446:

At this point I’m not even sure.

And how do I undermine the glories of Joseph? Joseph’s greatest glory was his obedience to the Lord, which isn’t impossible for people who aren’t perpetual virgins.

By denying St. Joseph the glory of his perpetual virginity you are denying him his glory. Even today, Even in the USA, St. Joseph is held up as a model of purity and chastity. In your version of events, there is no definite reason why St. Joseph would have taken a vow of Chastity when marrying the BVM, seeing as how he already had children of his own, and was not a virgin. You can’t really come up with a reason either, since there is nothing logical we can adduce from Scripture.

However, if St. Joseph was already a perpetual virgin, and a young strong man of immense virtue and holiness, comparable to any of the OT Patriarchs, and even surpassing them, which is really the only fitting spouse one can imagine for the Immaculate Conception, then there is a SIMPLE explanation for their mutual vow of Chastity when marrying. They were two kindred spirits, who shared a common bond of Love of God and love of each other.

I know you can fabricate all sorts of far-fetched scenarios to justify your view that St. Joseph had children. But in my mind, I see that those ECF’s that first supposed St. Joseph to have had children were only saying as much, NOT because there was anything Scriptural to this effect, at least not explicitly, BUT rather as a means of protecting the virginity of the BVM. That explanation has run its course and has become obsolete NOW that the Church has defined the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM as a matter of Dogmatic Faith. NOW we can intelligently look into the theological fitness and implications of the Scriptural accounts in defending the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

By denying St. Joseph the glory of his perpetual virginity you are denying him his glory. Even today, Even in the USA, St. Joseph is held up as a model of purity and chastity. In your version of events, there is no definite reason why St. Joseph would have taken a vow of Chastity when marrying the BVM, seeing as how he already had children of his own, and was not a virgin. You can’t really come up with a reason either, since there is nothing logical we can adduce from Scripture.

However, if St. Joseph was already a perpetual virgin, and a young strong man of immense virtue and holiness, comparable to any of the OT Patriarchs, and even surpassing them, which is really the only fitting spouse one can imagine for the Immaculate Conception, then there is a SIMPLE explanation for their mutual vow of Chastity when marrying. They were two kindred spirits, who shared a common bond of Love of God and love of each other.
.

Or if he was person older than Mary, his knowledge and wisdom he gained with his age would teach Jesus in his childhood. I’m pretty sure any person who heard that the son of God was in their wife’s womb would hesitate to touch her. People can be pure without being perpetual virgins.

I know you can fabricate all sorts of far-fetched scenarios to justify your view that St. Joseph had children. But in my mind, I see that those ECF’s that first supposed St. Joseph to have had children were only saying as much, NOT because there was anything Scriptural to this effect, at least not explicitly, BUT rather as a means of protecting the virginity of the BVM. That explanation has run its course and has become obsolete NOW that the Church has defined the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM as a matter of Dogmatic Faith. NOW we can intelligently look into the theological fitness and implications of the Scriptural accounts in defending the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph.

And now you undermine the Fathers as well? The opinion of the East is much closer to fact on the brothers and Joseph than the opinion of the West.

 

[HelenRose]

I want to ask about the evidence and the necessity in believing Mary was fully a virgin through out her life.

Now, i’m not going to raise the typical Protestant argument that she eventually had children. Most Protestants believe that this is “evident” due to the fact that Jesus appeared to have brothers. While this is an argument that we can dispute (like Joseph having a spouse prior to her, or the fact that brothers is a more general term during those days) how can a Catholic defend Mary’s perpetual virginity based on Scripture and a historical sense (did the christians prior to the 300’s believe this)?

Also, is it really a problem if Mary and Joseph did have intercourse (not all intercourses lead to children)? If her virginity ended sometime in her life, prior to Joseph’s death, how does this diminish her sinless life, her title of being the Mother of God and the mother of Christians? Having intercourse is one of the main natural things of a human being so why is it so important to believe that Mary was forever a virgin?

I wonder what kind of ego a man would have to have in order to have sex with “The Mother of God.” Somehow the idea of Joseph - a kind man, a devout man, a man of great integrity and a man who loves God - would approach Mary it that manner, just doesn’t ring true to me.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I wonder what kind of ego a man would have to have in order to have sex with “The Mother of God.” Somehow the idea of Joseph - a kind man, a devout man, a man of great integrity and a man who loves God - would approach Mary it that manner, just doesn’t ring true to me.

Exactly! The gravity and truth of the Incarnation have a powerful trickle down effect (more like a waterfall effect!) that washes over all who experience Jesus.

Mary was at the source summit of the experience that is the Incarnation our Lord and Savior and Joseph, her most chaste spouse, was there supporting her.

Think of how profound and powerful of an effect Christ has on all of us thousands of years “down stream” from the source of the living waters where they originate from at the summit.

If we can see the beauty and the majesty of the summit from our far away vantage point so far down stream… how could Joseph possibly gaze upon Mary at the summit, after being told by an Angel of God of what had transpired by the power of the Holy Spirit, after accepting his role as the adoptive father Jesus… How could he possibly look at Mary as anything other than the Mother of God?

Why would he ever desire to have another child to divide his attention and love to when he already has the Christ child in his arms, under his protection and care?

Joseph had such a special and unique view of the summit. For us to believe him to have fathered children with Mary after having seen it rejects and diminishes the beauty and perfect purity of Mary, the awe of the summit that is the Incarnation, and the perfect divinity of Christ.

 

[Good_Fella]

GoodFella and AmbroseSJ, here is this to chew on.

If either of the two of you are versed in Koine Greek, you obviously know that adelphos means brother, (step-brother, half-brother, etc.) but not cousin. The step-brother theory is more plausible comsidering this fact.

Eusebius of Caesarea quotes from two second century Fathers, Hegessipius and Clement.
So it was pretty clear who Jesus’ brothers were.

Scripture does indicate that Mary took a vow of virginity, but not Joseph.

You missed my earlier reply.

21The sons of Merari; Mooli, and Musi: the sons of Mooli; Eleazar, and Kis. 22 And Eleazar died, and he had no sons, but daughters: and the sons of Kis, their brethren, took them. 23 The sons of Musi; Mooli, and Eder, and Jarimoth, three.

21 υἱοὶ Μεραρί· Μοολὶ καὶ Μουσί. υἱοὶ Μοολί· ᾿Ελεάζαρ καὶ Κίς. 22 καὶ ἀπέθανεν ᾿Ελεάζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοί, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κὶς** ἀδελφοὶ **αὐτῶν. 23 υἱοὶ Μουσί· Μοολὶ καὶ ᾿Εδὲρ καὶ ᾿Ιαριμώθ, τρεῖς.

1 Chronicles, 23 [The Septuagint]

The word adelphos (brothers/brethren) can also mean “cousins” in Hebrew parlance. The daughters of Eleazar married the sons of his brother Kish. There is no word for cousin in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. Although there is a Greek word for cousin, the Hebrew idiom is preserved.

The NT doesn’t mention Mary’s Assumption either, at least not explicitly, but that doesn’t mean it never happened or couldn’t have. The Church Fathers were not infallible and prone to err on an individual basis. We Catholics don’t need theories, having the Sacred Liturgy.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You missed my earlier reply.

21The sons of Merari; Mooli, and Musi: the sons of Mooli; Eleazar, and Kis. 22 And Eleazar died, and he had no sons, but daughters: and the sons of Kis, their brethren, took them. 23 The sons of Musi; Mooli, and Eder, and Jarimoth, three.

21 υἱοὶ Μεραρί· Μοολὶ καὶ Μουσί. υἱοὶ Μοολί· ᾿Ελεάζαρ καὶ Κίς. 22 καὶ ἀπέθανεν ᾿Ελεάζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοί, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κὶς** ἀδελφοὶ **αὐτῶν. 23 υἱοὶ Μουσί· Μοολὶ καὶ ᾿Εδὲρ καὶ ᾿Ιαριμώθ, τρεῖς.

1 Chronicles, 23 [The Septuagint]

The word adelphos (brothers/brethren) can also mean “cousins” in Hebrew parlance. The daughters of Eleazar married the sons of his brother Kish. There is no word for cousin in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. Although there is a Greek word for cousin, the Hebrew idiom is preserved.

The NT doesn’t mention Mary’s Assumption either, at least not explicitly, but that doesn’t mean it never happened or couldn’t have. The Church Fathers were not infallible and prone to err on an individual basis. We Catholics don’t need theories, having the Sacred Liturgy.

PAX

:heaven:

This is not a theory, but an attested belief by the ECFs. And the only person called a cousin of Jesus by Eusebius who quotes Hegessipius is Simeon son of Clopas. James the Just is referred to as son of Joseph by Eusebius who quotes Hegessipius as well. However Hegessipius is careful to call Mary “the Virgin.” The only thing we can deduce from this is that Hegessipius is saying that James was a son of Joseph by a previous marriage. Hegessipius was a second century Jewish Christian, much closer to the actual facts.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JB Brother 4446:

This is not a theory, but an attested belief by the ECFs.

Correction: by SOME of the Eastern ECF’s, not all, and not by the Latin ECFs either. BTW, it is still only a theory, even if attested by a few ECFs.

Further, this sort of opinion was most relevant for their own times, hence it is not Church doctrine today. It was important in the development of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, but it has served its purpose and is now less relevant. We now have a dogmatic definition from the Church.

Constantly throwing us back to the opinion of these few is interesting but not relevant. As I mentioned earlier, in today’s world of infidelity, and evangelical fundamentalism, arguing for the children of Joseph is basically playing into their hands; i.e. arguing that Mary and Joseph had natural children (when and where are irrelevant to them.)

 

[Good_Fella]

This is not a theory, but an attested belief by the ECFs. And the only person called a cousin of Jesus by Eusebius who quotes Hegessipius is Simeon son of Clopas. James the Just is referred to as son of Joseph by Eusebius who quotes Hegessipius as well. However Hegessipius is careful to call Mary “the Virgin.” The only thing we can deduce from this is that Hegessipius is saying that James was a son of Joseph by a previous marriage. Hegessipius was a second century Jewish Christian, much closer to the actual facts.

Hegessipius and Josephus give different accounts of the death of James the Less/Just because the two of them draw their information from different traditions. How can we know who is right? Again, James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude) and Simeon (Simon) are grouped together in the list of the apostles. This is probably because they were related to each other as kin. We read in the Gospels that James, Joseph, and Simon were “brothers” of Jesus.

*16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, **James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot ***19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. - Mark 3

3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. - Mark 6

*2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; **James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot ***and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. - Matthew 10

12 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. 13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas,** James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James**, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.- Luke 6

Mark separates Peter and Andrew by placing the brothers James and John in between, probably because these two apostles held higher ranks among the Twelve after Simon Peter, who always comes first. Peter and the sons of Zebedee were the only apostles who witnessed our Lord’s Transfiguration. Judas is called son of James because the former was his younger brother and son of the same father. In that case, Alphaeus and Clopas must be one and the same person (Judas goes by two other names.) James certainly wasn’t Judas’ father.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Correction: by SOME of the Eastern ECF’s, not all, and not by the Latin ECFs either. BTW, it is still only a theory, even if attested by a few ECFs.

Further, this sort of opinion was most relevant for their own times, hence it is not Church doctrine today. It was important in the development of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, but it has served its purpose and is now less relevant. We now have a dogmatic definition from the Church.

Constantly throwing us back to the opinion of these few is interesting but not relevant. As I mentioned earlier, in today’s world of infidelity, and evangelical fundamentalism, arguing for the children of Joseph is basically playing into their hands; i.e. arguing that Mary and Joseph had natural children (when and where are irrelevant to them.)

It still is not dogma that Mary and Joseph were perpetual virgins. Personally I think if you start saying that they were cousins, well you’ll basicallty get a lot of ridicule as well. You might also say is also immense biblical support for two Jameses but then they will provide scripture that leans to three Jameses. So by saying both Mary and Joseph were PVs, you’ll get even more backlash. They will provide facts similar to the facts I posted. The only probable answer is still going to be the Ephiphanian theory.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hegessipius and Josephus give different accounts of the death of James the Less/Just because the two of them draw their information from different traditions. How can we know who is right? Again, James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude) and Simeon (Simon) are grouped together in the list of the apostles. This is probably because they were related to each other as kin. We read in the Gospels that James, Joseph, and Simon were “brothers” of Jesus.

Both of them are right. We just have to use Hegessipius and Josephus in light of each other.

Mark separates Peter and Andrew by placing the brothers James and John in between, probably because these two apostles held higher ranks among the Twelve after Simon Peter, who always comes first. Peter and the sons of Zebedee were the only apostles who witnessed our Lord’s Transfiguration. Judas is called son of James because the former was his younger brother and son of the same father. In that case, Alphaeus and Clopas must be one and the same person (Judas goes by two other names.) James certainly wasn’t Judas’ father.

Although James the Less was been related to Jesus because Alphaeus=Clopas and Clopas was Joseph’s brother, I will have to concede that there were three Jameses. The Aramaic version of Luke reads Judas son of James, which is neither of the two Jameses mentioned. John also tells us that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him. Although this may be hard to connect to the view of Jerome, this is easier to connect to the Ephiphanian theory. The prominence of a younger brother over the elder might be a factor for jealousy. James may have also struggled with Jesus’ statement about His mother and brothers, and may have seen it as rejection, although Mary His Mother certainly did not. Jesus was also seen as challenging the Law, which might have gone against the mind of the legalistic James. John also makes it clear that the brothers of Jesus were with disciples after He performed His first miracle. Mark also tells us that Jesus’ close ones were intent on restraining him because they thought He was mad. It is probable that those close ones might have included the relatives of Jesus through Joseph. A case can be made that not all of the brothers showed animosity towards Jesus, but it is pretty clear from the context of the text that the brothers are or challenging or testing Him. With all of these factors being considered, along with the fact that Joseph’s sons were probably not responsible for the care of Mary since she was their mother, it would only seem logical to place the Mother of Jesus, into the care of John, who was a believer, and probably a kinsman at that.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JB Brother 4446:

With all of these factors being considered, along with the fact that Joseph’s sons were probably not responsible for the care of Mary since she was their mother, it would only seem logical to place the Mother of Jesus, into the care of John, who was a believer, and probably a kinsman at that.

Your rationalization is anachronistic. You are casting antiquity in the light of modern expedience. It would have been a serious condemnation of those “brothers” of Jesus by St. Joseph had Jesus taken the extraordinary step of bypassing their mosaic obligation, and putting the BVM in St. John’s care. It would have been very awkward at the very least for the BVM to have to submit to this overruling by Jesus from the Cross of ordinary Mosaic law.

No. That explanation won’t do. It is because the BVM had no one, other than her close friends and relatives, but certainly no immediate family. That is why Jesus saw fit, as her Son, and ONLY immediate family at that time, to entrust His Mother to St. John, who according to tradition, was a perpetual virgin himself.

The Virgin Mother of God, was always in the care of, and protected by the most holy of persons, connected with the Incarnation, all Perpetual Virgins, like herself. St. Joseph, then Jesus, then St. John the Evangelist.

The problem with your theory, is it is all founded on an interpretation AND speculation regarding extremely difficult passages of scripture with respect to who is related to whom. It is further complicated by a few Eastern ECF’s, who in an effort to protect the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, posited a “possible” explanation that the brothers and sisters were from St. Joseph.

But the big picture does not appear to enter into these calculations. How fitting was it for the Virgin Mary to be espoused to a formerly married man with children, considering her singular dignity in God’s plan, not to mention, that Jesus would have a foster father who already had natural children of his own. When we consider that Jesus was even buried in a tomb, never before used, and was born of a Virgin, none of that theory seems consistent with the rest of the Divine plan.

But my major complaint with your theory, is that it is no longer viable, or relevant. The Catholic Church has dogmatically declared that the Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin. That is a Divine Revelation. We no longer have to lean on old suppositions and speculations by ECFs, who were trying to protect the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. I respect those ECFs for the purpose they had in mind, and although not always accurate, it still accomplished its work.

Will you start quoting St. Cyprian in declaring a Protestant baptism is ineffective? No, I don’t think so. St. Cyprian, one of the outstanding ECFs was wrong about something as fundamental as Baptism.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Your rationalization is anachronistic. You are casting antiquity in the light of modern expedience. It would have been a serious condemnation of those “brothers” of Jesus by St. Joseph had Jesus taken the extraordinary step of bypassing their mosaic obligation, and putting the BVM in St. John’s care. It would have been very awkward at the very least for the BVM to have to submit to this overruling by Jesus from the Cross of ordinary Mosaic law.

However, we must also know that if they were just sons of Joseph and not sons of Mary, well they would not be liable to take care of him.

 

[Cathoholic]

cisco_1.

Forget about after the birth of Jesus for a moment (we can come back to that later).

Think about BEFORE Jesus was born.

Why do you think St. Joseph “knew her (Mary) not” at that point?

After all, the Angel told St. Joseph to take Mary into his home.

If a guy and his wife are under the same roof, there is no sin or issues with a typical husband having marital relations with his typical pregnant wife.

So WHY do you think St. Joseph “knew her not”?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

DaddyGirl.

There isn’t one ancient Church Father that denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary that I have ever found.

Tertuliian apostatized and is not typically considered a Church Father.

He was a Catholic who fell away for Montanism.

He later “fell away” from Montanism to what many call (for lack of a better heresy label); Tertullianism.

I’ve walked back 2000 years of Church Fathers on this issue and I found no dissent.

I have also found at least implicit affirmation of the Perpetual Virginity doctrine when it was discussed in their writings (the writings of the Fathers and their contemporaries).

If you know of any dissent let me know. I’d like to be aware of it (please also if it is not asking too much, link to it too).

Thak you DaddyGirl.

 

[Good_Fella]

Both of them are right. We just have to use Hegessipius and Josephus in light of each other.

Even though they contradict each other? Let’s not put our faith in hearsay.

Although James the Less was been related to Jesus because Alphaeus=Clopas and Clopas was Joseph’s brother, I will have to concede that there were three Jameses. The Aramaic version of Luke reads Judas son of James, which is neither of the two Jameses mentioned.

See the list of the Apostles. James the Less and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are grouped with Simon, They were brothers or half-brothers. Even as a stepson of Alpheus, Judas would be regarded as a younger brother of James in the family. Mary’s husband Joseph would be their uncle. There were only two James, the other one being the son of Zebedee and elder brother of John, who are paired together in the list of the Apostles.

John also tells us that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.

Brothers probably refers to male kin in general.

Although this may be hard to connect to the view of Jerome, this is easier to connect to the Ephiphanian theory. The prominence of a younger brother over the elder might be a factor for jealousy. James may have also struggled with Jesus’ statement about His mother and brothers, and may have seen it as rejection, although Mary His Mother certainly did not. Jesus was also seen as challenging the Law, which might have gone against the mind of the legalistic James.

I don’t follow. James was one of the Twelve. And he was the son of Alpheus, according to Scripture. Also, he must have been present when Jesus performed his first miracle at the wedding feast in Cana. The disciples were there with Mary.

John also makes it clear that the brothers of Jesus were with disciples after He performed His first miracle. Mark also tells us that Jesus’ close ones were intent on restraining him because they thought He was mad. It is probable that those close ones might have included the relatives of Jesus through Joseph. A case can be made that not all of the brothers showed animosity towards Jesus, but it is pretty clear from the context of the text that the brothers are or challenging or testing Him. With all of these factors being considered, along with the fact that Joseph’s sons were probably not responsible for the care of Mary since she was their mother, it would only seem logical to place the Mother of Jesus, into the care of John, who was a believer, and probably a kinsman at that.

You should know that the word brothers can apply to male relatives in general - the male extended family. You seem to think that the word adelphos applies only to male siblings and half-brothers. But it doesn’t. Everything you say is pure supposition that stems from a faulty premise.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

DaddyGirl.

There isn’t one ancient Church Father that denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary that I have ever found.

Tertuliian apostatized and is not typically considered a Church Father.

He was a Catholic who fell away for Montanism.

He later “fell away” from Montanism to what many call (for lack of a better heresy label); Tertullianism.

I’ve walked back 2000 years of Church Fathers on this issue and I found no dissent.

I have also found at least implicit affirmation of the Perpetual Virginity doctrine when it was discussed in their writings (the writings of the Fathers and their contemporaries).

If you know of any dissent let me know. I’d like to be aware of it (please also if it is not asking too much, link to it too).

Thank you DaddyGirl.

Neither did the fathers of the so-called Reformation dissent. Calvin would have burned someone on the stake for denying the PVM.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Even though they contradict each other? Let’s not put our faith in hearsay.

See the list of the Apostles. James the Less and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are grouped with Simon, They were brothers or half-brothers. Even as a stepson of Alpheus, Judas would be regarded as a younger brother of James in the family. Mary’s husband Joseph would be their uncle. There were only two James, the other one being the son of Zebedee and elder brother of John, who are paired together in the list of the Apostles.

Brothers probably refers to male kin in general.

I don’t follow. James was one of the Twelve. And he was the son of Alpheus, according to Scripture. Also, he must have been present when Jesus performed his first miracle at the wedding feast in Cana. The disciples were there with Mary.

You should know that the word brothers can apply to male relatives in general - the male extended family. You seem to think that the word adelphos applies only to male siblings and half-brothers. But it doesn’t. Everything you say is pure supposition that stems from a faulty premise.

PAX

:heaven:

www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/The%20James%20of%20the%20New%20Testament.htm

Here is this to chew on.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Also 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “He was seen by James then all the apostles.”

It seems pretty clear from the text presented that James the brother of Jesus was not considered an apostle in the sense that Peter and the Twelve were, but in the sense that Barnabas and Paul were.

Hippotylus of Rome, a Latin Father, complied a list of the Seventy Apostles in which James the brother of the Lord was mentioned.

 

[Good_Fella]

Also 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “He was seen by James then all the apostles.”

It seems pretty clear from the text presented that James the brother of Jesus was not considered an apostle in the sense that Peter and the Twelve were, but in the sense that Barnabas and Paul were.

Hippotylus of Rome, a Latin Father, complied a list of the Seventy Apostles in which James the brother of the Lord was mentioned.

There were women there, who stood watching from far off; among them were Mary Magdalen, and* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph***, and Salome.
Mark 15, 40

and meanwhile his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen, had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus.
John 19, 25

Then, when three years had passed, I did go up to Jerusalem, to visit Peter, and I stayed a fortnight there in his company; but I did not see any of the other apostles, except James, the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1, 18-19

The fact that Paul mentions the name James and distinguishes him from all the other apostles indicates that he held a higher rank over them. Jesus appeared to his disciples more than once before he ascended into heaven. So he could have appeared to James on one other occasion when he alone was with these seventy other followers. This James Paul mentions in his first Letter to the Corinthians is probably the same James he speaks of in his Letter to the Galatians. He is one of the Twelve along with Peter, James the Less and cousin of our Lord, being the son of Mary of Cleophas, and Bishop of Jerusalem.

PAX

:heaven: