J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
And how come the apostles are small ‘a’ apostles? How come Paul said “all the apostles” instead of again to the Twelve? Because the apostles were different from the Twelve!
- Status
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Ok. There is an Eastern Christian tradition derived from the Gospel of Luke of there being as many as Seventy Apostles during the time of Jesus’ ministry. Prominent figures in early Christianity were often called apostles even though their ministry or mission came after the life of Jesus.
However, when St Paul refers to “the Twelve” or to the"Apostles" he is referring to the same group of 12 chosen by Jesus, His Apostles. However, Paul enlarges the number somewhat by including himself and St. Barnabas as Apostles (in the sense that they were the Apostles to the Gentiles -but so was St. Peter.) But St. Paul DOES NOT include the 72 Disciples in his word the Apostles.
In Western Christianity “The Twelve” and “The Apostles” are always synonymous. The Apocalypse defined the “The Twelve” and “The Apostles” to be the same chosen men, and is therefore Biblically correct. Further, Jesus Himself called “the Twelve” Apostles. IOW, the name Apostle was given by Jesus ONLY to the Twelve.
Nowhere in Christianity today including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant etc, would they make a distinction between “the Apostles” and “the Twelve.”
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Wrong.
Cited from Agape Bible Studies:
the Biblical passages referring to James, the “brother” or kinsman of Jesus the first Christian Bishop of Jerusalem, none of these passages identifies James the bishop as one of the 12 Apostles: Mark 5:37; 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal.1:19; 2:9; 2:12; James 1:1; Jude 1:1; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Let’s take for example St. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 written circa 54AD: “I handed on to you first of all what I myself received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures; that He was buried and, in accordance with the Scriptures, rose on the third day; that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that He was seen by 500 brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have fallen asleep. Next He was seen by James; then by all the apostles.” Paul notes that the resurrected Savior was seen by:
Cephas = Simon-Peter, who Paul identifies by his title ROCK in Aramaic which is rendered “Kepha” but transliterated into Greek is rendered as Kephas or Cephas.
The Twelve, which had become a title for the original Apostles chosen from among the 70 disciples as the leaders of the Church.
500 believers
James
By the rest of the disciples, or apostles which we might designate with a small “a” to distinguish them men from the 12 Apostles. The other “apostles” includes the original 70 men who were Jesus’ disciples during His 3 years of ministry, among them Barnabas and Stephen, and men like St. Paul who came to believe after the Resurrection and became leaders in the Church.
Notice that Paul does not place the man he names as “James” within the framework of the first 12 Apostles selected by Jesus, nor in all the existing ancient writings of the Church fathers is James the brother of Jesus ever identified as one of the 12 Apostles. James the Just can be identified as an “apostle” in the same way Paul and Barnabas and others of influence in the early Church are identified as “apostles” or messengers sent out by the authority of the Twelve see Acts 14:14; Romans 1:1; 16:7; 1 Corinthians 12:28ff; Ephesians 2:20; Philippians 2:18 (“messenger” or “representative” in the Greek in this passage is apostolos), but he is not identified in this way by Paul in this passage.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Because the word apostles wasn’t originally written with a capital A. Paul said “all the apostles” instead of “the eleven” meaning all eleven, minus Judas Iscariot of the original twelve, if not “twelve”. But the initial letters weren’t originally capitalized.
With regard to 1 Cor. 15:5, several modern Protestant versions have “Twelve” while the rest (incl. the KJB) have “twelve”. The English translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (DRB) has “eleven”, which is found in the original Greek text. Protestant Bible revisionists decided to arbitrarily capitalize the t in this verse and leave the ‘a’ in small case in v.7, save the Weymouth NT version: “Afterwards He was seen by James, and then by all the Apostles.” The Aramaic Bible in Plain English also reads: “And after these things, he appeared to Yaqob (James) and after him, to all the Apostles.” You are drawing your conclusion from an arbitrary translation that differs from others. The Latin Vulgate has “eleven” (v.5) and “apostles” (v.7). The KJB: “twelve” and “apostles”.
In the NT, the word apostle is applied only to the Twelve or Eleven, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus. So James in v.7 must be one of the twelve. It makes no sense that his name is mentioned while his identity is left obscured. The fact that his name is even mentioned shows that he was a distinguished member of the Church. We know by reading the NT who Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus were: associates of Paul. Timothy was ordained a bishop along with Titus. These two succeeded the twelve/eleven in their divine office.
With regard to the word apostle(s), we don’t find the ‘a’ capitalized in the other verses where this word appears in the NT: Mt.10:2; Mk.3:14, 6:30; Lk.6:13, 9:10, 11:49, 17:5, 22:14, 24:10; Jn.13:16; Acts 1:2, 26, 2:37, 42, 43, 4:33-37, 5:2, 12, 18, 29, 40, 6:6.
All the Protestant and Catholic Bible versions have “twelve apostles” in the Gospel passages that list the Twelve.
Recall, Paul writes that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter (an apostle), but he saw no other “apostle” except James. This James was there because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem whom Peter was probably visiting to discuss essential matters of doctrine. Thus we can see in 1 Cor. 15, 7 how James was a distinguished member of the Church and what is meant by him being associated with the apostles or the eleven…
PAX
:heaven:
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Yet Eusebius, along with Epiphanius was not regarded as heretical. How do you even know where Eusebius and Epiphanius got their influence from? They got this from plain reading of Scriptures and knowledge of the customs of the Jews. And again, no one is mentioned as a cousin of Jesus execept Simeon, and a Jewish second century Christian said that!
James the younger was presumably the same as James of Mary and James of Alphaeus. He actually went to Syria and ended his mission in Egypt where he was crucified. James the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ inner circle and probably also a relative of Jesus (if you believe that Salome was Mary’s sister), was killed by the sword. James the Just, a totally different guy from these men, was the one Paul calls brother of the Lord and who many ECFs attest as the brother of Jesus. The only person you have doing this is Jerome, who although had good intentions, admitted his opinion was not the prevailing one at the time. In the case of Simon Zealotes, tradition tells us he went along with Jude Thaddeus (not Jude the brother of the Lord) and was martyred there. Simeon of Jerusalem was crucifed at the age of 120. Unless you can give me proof that younger brothers were called sons of their older brothers, you’re picking names out of thin air. And by the way, what does James call himself in his epistle? A bondservant of the Lord, not an Apostle!
Wrong Papias.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Jesus wasn’t one of the twelve no more than Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus were, but the latter four are called apostles in the NT. Or haven’t you read?
"Consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession” (Heb.3:1).
The word ‘apostle’ means “one sent as a messenger”. With regard to the twelve apostles, it means they were chosen by Jesus and sent into the world in his name to bear the Gospel message to all nations (Mt.28:18-20).Jesus is called an apostle to signify that he was sent from the Father to preach the good news and set captives free, as prophesied by Isaiah. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (Jn.3:17).
Now this brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15:7: “After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles.” You contend that the word applies to all of Christ’s disciples. Now if this were true, then all of his disciples would have been commissioned to go out into the whole world as ministers of his word. But we read in Matthew 28 that Jesus had specifically appointed the Eleven for this task just before he ascended into heaven. And, of course, James the Less / Younger / Just was included. We read in Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,” (DRB). So not all of Christ’s disciples have been appointed to be “apostles”, but only some, according to their particular calling. The word ‘apostles’ does not apply to each and every disciple. What Paul means by “all the apostles” is 'all eleven of them, including James after our Lord appeared only to him as he had only to Peter. When Jesus appeared to the common disciples, it wasn’t on an individual basis. He appeared to about 500 of them at once when they were probably gathered together. And these disciples are called “brethren” which distinguishes them from the “apostles.”
PAX
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Just because one 2nd century Christian, whoever that might be, called Simon a cousin of Jesus doesn’t mean that he thought James of Alphaeus, Joseph, or Jude weren’t^ If he thought they weren’t, then he was duped by an erroneous tradition^ What else can I say?
It was the religious mandate that only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement #Yom Kippur#^ Children weren’t raised there^ The Nativity Gospel of James isn’t Scripture, though Origen and Clement called it that when they cited the PoJ in defence of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her virginity during the birth of Jesus^ Protestants I’ve debated with claim the doctrine of the PVM originated from the PoJ, which is false.
Because James calls himself a “servant of God” in his opening greeting, it follows that he wasn’t an Apostle^ I hope you’re kidding^
You say “many ECFs” That’s quite a broad generalisation. Please quote them all.
If you’re going to appeal to spurious texts like the PoJ and dubious oral traditions and opinions, all you can do is ‘presume’^ I prefer to consult sacred Scripture, which if examined closely refutes all these suppositions you present.
The apostles Jude (Thaddeus) and Simon were brothers who were martyred together while doing missionary work in Persia^ I’ve already cited Mark’s Gospel which list James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon together as “brothers of the Lord” and three of them as his apostles in the same order, save Joseph who wasn’t an apostle^ The apostles were paired and grouped in the list according to their blood relations^ Going beyond that is sheer speculation^ You seem to place more reliance on oral tradition than on sacred Scripture^ In the original Greek text of the Gospel of St^ Luke, one does not find the word “son” either in reference to “James son of Alphaeus” or “Judas son of James”^ The literal translation of the Greek is “James of Alphaeus,” and “Judas of James^” Judas of James means ‘of the same father’ or brother of James, according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia^ The preposition signifies that they were related as kin^ Jude follows James twice in Mark because he was his younger brother and also of Alphaeus. The KJV and DRB have “Judas the ‘brother’ of James”^ The Muratorian Fragment #c^155 AD# provides one of the earliest listings of those writings that could be read at Mass because they were of ‘apostolic’ authorship and free of heresy or error. These works would later be included in the canon of the New Testament^ The Muratorian fragment lists the Epistle of Jude as one of those accepted writings, thereby attesting to the authorship of the ‘Apostle’ St^ Jude^ “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,” (Jude 1). You see, the ‘brothers of our Lord’, James and Jude, were also apostles, as we see in Mark 6:3 and his list of apostles.
*And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
Acts 1, 13 (DRB)
And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
(KJB)*
Re: Simon
newadvent.org/cathen/13796b.htm
Why should this Church Father be wrong and the other three you mention be right? Papias was wise enough to ignore the Nativity Gospel of James, which was written during his time, and hold fast to a tradition other than the one found in the PoJ about Joseph being a widower. It appears the author wasn’t even a Palestinian or Hellenistic Jew, which explains his ignorance of Jewish customs at some points in his text.
PAX
:heaven:
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
You still haven’t answered my question: Why did Paul say the Twelve, and then all the apostles a few lines later?
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
[/QUOTE]Just because one 2nd century Christian, whoever that might be, called Simon a cousin of Jesus doesn’t mean that he thought James of Alphaeus, Joseph, or Jude weren’t^ If he thought they weren’t, then he was duped by an erroneous tradition^ What else can I say?
It was the religious mandate that only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement #Yom Kippur#^ Children weren’t raised there^ The Nativity Gospel of James isn’t Scripture, though Origen and Clement called it that when they cited the PoJ in defence of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her virginity during the birth of Jesus^ Protestants I’ve debated with claim the doctrine of the PVM originated from the PoJ, which is false.
Because James calls himself a “servant of God” in his opening greeting, it follows that he wasn’t an Apostle^ I hope you’re kidding^
You say “many ECFs” That’s quite a broad generalisation. Please quote them all.
If you’re going to appeal to spurious texts like the PoJ and dubious oral traditions and opinions, all you can do is ‘presume’^ I prefer to consult sacred Scripture, which if examined closely refutes all these suppositions you present.
John 7:5 says that Jesus brothers did not believe in him. So I don’t know how you can say three of Jesus’ brothers believed in him while the others did not. And must you seriously regard the suppositions of Eastern Catholics as spurious? Really?
, of which this was one of the entries (actually three entries).. This quote was found in a 14th century manuscript attributed to a ‘Papias’ (the Italian Papias’ dictionary was quite popular in its heyday); people apparently confused the later Papias with the earlier Papias. (What really gave away the quote is how in the original Latin - yes, the quote was in Latin - the statement about Mary being Cl(e)ophas’ wife is word-for-word identical with what St. Jerome wrote.)
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I answered your question. All the apostles mean “the eleven” or “twelve”. Maybe Paul didn’t want to be repetitive, an element of style in writing. Who knows? But this isn’t enough to go on to reach a conclusion. There are other facts which must be taken into consideration, as I’ve explained.
Why do you capitalize the t in twelve? It isn’t in the original Greek text, or Latin Vulgate, or KJB. This is a modern Protestant revision out of some motivation or other. Which Bible version are you consulting?
Not all the disciples were apostles of Jesus. I explained to you what is meant by being an apostle, and only “some” were called to be apostles, so Paul tells us in Ephesians. We must consider the definition of the word. Jesus did not commission 500+ disciples of his to go to the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel. This task was given only to the eleven, who then appointed men to succeed them in their ministry after Jesus had already ascended into heaven and sent the Paraclete.
PAX
:heaven:
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
So the NAB is Protestant? And we basically should not throw out the possibility that Paul meant the 72 other guys Jesus chose when he said “all the apostles.” I think we basically can agree on the PV of Mary, but not the ways of defending it.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The brothers in John 7:5 aren’t the brothers in Mark 6:3 where we find James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon together with Jesus and Mary. They wouldn’t have accompanied the two if they didn’t believe in him. These same disciples of Jesus were with him and Mary at the wedding feast at Cana because they were a family: ‘On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.’ (Jn.2:1-2). The brothers in John 7 don’t necessarily have to be the same brothers in Mark 6 just because they are called brothers. The word also applies to male relatives in general who comprise the extended Jewish family and clan. I’m sure there were some male relatives who listened to Jesus when he was preaching or having a dialogue with the scribes and Pharisees who thought he was mad. Again you are drawing conclusions from obscure material to accommodate the faith you have placed in fallible oral tradition and the speculations of a few Eastern Church Fathers who were not infallible. Origen wrote: “According to the Gospel of Peter, the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife.” Apocrypha is spurious. The Eastern tradition was born out of wedlock.
We also find fragments attributed to Papias in the writings of Ireneaus and Eusebius, but that doesn’t mean they are their actual authors. The fragment found in the Bodleian library is entered in Papia’s dictionary, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he composed it or even copied Jerome. Why would he? Are you sure the wording is completely identical or that it only conforms with Jerome’s argument against Helvidius. And even though the fragment is written in Latin, that could be because a Latin scribe translated it from the original Greek as had been done with all the works of the Greek Fathers. Papia may have even had access to a manuscript which he copied, but is now lost. Countless manuscripts have in fact been lost over the centuries. Still, the fact that the two have the same name is remarkable.
But it makes no difference. Jerome focussed strictly on examining the Scriptures to form his argument against Helvidius. He rejected the Eastern tradition of Jesus having half-brothers and refused to appeal to the apocryphal texts as the Eastern Fathers did.
*“Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.” [Papias]
jimmyakin.com/library/jeromes-against-helividius*
“With show of reason it could be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Master, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Good News makes mention of Mary, the daughter of Cleopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.”
Hegesippus (From Eusebius’ Ecclesiastic History; Book 3, Chapter 32.)
“The identity of Alphaeus and Clopas. These two words, it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name yplx or [Aramaic] (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St. John, the more completely grecized Alphaeus taking its place in the other Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alphaeus, or replaced by a k (or c) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius and Ludovicus are recognized Latin representatives of the Frankish name Clovis (Clodovicus, Hludovicus, Hlouis).”
philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm
Jerome was the greatest scholar of his time and could have known this. He was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He was correct in arguing that James and Simon were brothers, and so cousins of Jesus, as well as his apostles (Mk. 3:13-19; 6:3). And he was wise enough to reject the apocryphal works and stick to the canonical Scriptures that we find in the Muratorian Canon of 150 AD.
PAX
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
See Matthew 28. The 72 other guys weren’t there when Jesus ascended into Heaven. If they were, the Evangelist would have recorded their presence. Moreover, one can never know anything for sure by purely making suppositions. We must start from what is fact to get to the truth in any inquiry. One can defend the PVM without having to argue about Jesus having step-brothers. Luke 1:34-35 alone is sufficient and more practical when debating with Protestants who don’t care squat about early Marian tradition. Moreover, many Protestants employ the same Scriptural arguments that you do to prove that Jesus had uterine brothers and there were at least 4 James’s instead of two. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that the temple priests would marry a 14 year old Jewish girl off to an 80 year old widower and grandfather. The only daughters that the temple priests married off were their own. And the young girls who left the temple service at the onset of puberty had their marriages arranged by their own parents as was the norm. Why should Mary be an exception? Do you suppose the priests expected her to conceive and bear a divine Messiah who needed a family?
:heaven:
PAX
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The Truth is, there are MANY ways of defending the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM. Your way is just one.
You are putting WAY too much weight upon your reading of some very controverted passages regarding the brothers of the Lord. That is why they are less convincing. There is already a body of controversial works supporting and opposing various theories dating back to the ECFs.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Matthew 28 was when the eleven disciples went to the mountain in Galilee. And by the way, wasn’t an Apostle chosen from the 72? And an older Joseph (40-46) easily explains why he was absent from the picture. Joseph died of old age. One can also defend the PV of Mary wothout proving the brothers were stepbrothers.See Matthew 28. The 72 other guys weren’t there when Jesus ascended into Heaven. If they were, the Evangelist would have recorded their presence. Moreover, one can never know anything for sure by purely making suppositions. We must start from what is fact to get to the truth in any inquiry. One can defend the PVM without having to argue about Jesus having step-brothers. Luke 1:34-35 alone is sufficient and more practical when debating with Protestants who don’t care squat about early Marian tradition. Moreover, many Protestants employ the same Scriptural arguments that you do to prove that Jesus had uterine brothers and there were at least 4 James’s instead of two. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that the temple priests would marry a 14 year old Jewish girl off to an 80 year old widower and grandfather. The only daughters that the temple priests married off were their own. And the young girls who left the temple service at the onset of puberty had their marriages arranged by their own parents as was the norm. Why should Mary be an exception? Do you suppose the priests expected her to conceive and bear a divine Messiah who needed a family?
:heaven:
PAX
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
- St. Joseph did not die from old age, nor is there ANY biblical support for that theory.
- The Apostles were chosen by Jesus individually, NOT from the 72, AS Apostles directly. That is Scriptural.
- The Major (and ONLY) PROOF of the PV of the BVM is that it is the infallible dogma of the Catholic Church.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
- Well one could easily presume that Joseph died of old age
- Matthias was probably one of the 72
- True.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
First of all, the New American Bible (NAB) is Catholic, but this is what we have in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition: ‘and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.’ The RSVCE doesn’t capitalize the letter t in twelve unlike the NAB. So we can’t base our conclusion on whether initial letters are capitalized.
This is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate from the original Greek manuscript Jerome had at his disposal. The only key difference is that in the Latin text we have “eleven” instead of “twelve”. That’s keeping Judas Iscariot in mind. “All the apostles” did make up twelve originally.
*
καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα: 6 ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν:
et quia visus est Cephæ, et post hoc undecim: 6 deinde visus est plus quam quingentis fratribus simul: ex quibus multi manent usque adhuc, quidam autem dormierunt:
‘That he was seen by Cephas, then by the eleven apostles, and afterwards by more than five hundred of the brethren at once, most of whom are alive at this day, though some have gone to their rest. Then he was seen by James, then by all the apostles.’*
You should know that the word brethren refers to both men and women. Can you find the name of one woman in the NT that was called an apostle? And why mention James if he is to be counted among all the male and female disciples of Jesus? How is he so distinguished from all the rest? Why juxtapose him with Peter? If it’s because he was the step-brother of Jesus, then you end up reasoning in a circle: your premise relies on the assumption of your conclusion. There are too many question marks in your theory and nothing transparent to work with. The same goes for your theory that Joseph died of old age. All you can do is reason in a circle. Your premise rests on the assumption that Joseph was much older than Mary and a widower, which you still haven’t proven unless you think his dying of old age proves it. Do you get the picture? :hypno:
The Ascension of Jesus
6
When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going* to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7
He answered them,“It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.
8
But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9
When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. - Acts 1 [Mt 28:19–20; Lk 24:44–49; Jn 20:22] (NAB)
PAX
:heaven:
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Um, Junia?
- Status