Proof of Pope

[mercygate]

With his logic I would have to conclude that Lot and Abraham were brothers too, right?

Gen 13:8- “Abram therefore said to Lot: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are brothers.”

But there is a parallel traditon that Joseph had sons and that one of them, old enough to be Jesus’ father, was James . . . “the brother of the Lord.” The great point about this is that he is believed to have been totally skeptical about who Jesus was until well AFTER the Resurrection, when he became stalwart.

Could it be that from the cross our Lord gave his Mother to John because James had not yet converted? I think it more likely that James was a cousin than a half brother. Scripture does not give the answer.

 

[po18guy]

Eusebius “History of the Church: Book II”:

Chapter 1:

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

First I have heard of this. If it’s such an ancient record, why hasn’t it been addressed? I suspect a problem here with context, or applicability.

Why, as he hung on the cross, (John 19:26-27) did Christ give Mary to John and John to Mary? Would he have the authority to give his own mother away from a blood brother? THis makes no sense! He gave her to John because there were no other children to care for her and widows had to beg for subsistence. Christ had great compassion upon widows (Luke 7:11) and (Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44) regarding the widow’s mite.

Off topic anyway.

 

[po18guy]

With his logic I would have to conclude that Lot and Abraham were brothers too, right?

Gen 13:8- “Abram therefore said to Lot: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are brothers.”

Amen! Exactly the scripture I was looking for! Lot was indeed not the “brother” (as we view it in our age) of Abraham. Nephew. Likely just like James.

 

[Bwsherman]

But there is a parallel traditon that Joseph had sons and that one of them, old enough to be Jesus’ father, was James . . . “the brother of the Lord.” The great point about this is that he is believed to have been totally skeptical about who Jesus was until well AFTER the Resurrection, when he became stalwart.

I am familiar with this tradition taken from the Protoevangelium of St. James, but the OP asked about scripture and I have not been able to see a verse that states. James, the son of Joseph the carpetner or something to that extent.

 

[mercygate]

I am familiar with this tradition taken from the Protoevangelium of St. James, but the OP asked about scripture and I have not been able to see a verse that states. James, the son of Joseph the carpetner or something to that extent.

And you won’t. Not there.

 

[Bwsherman]

And you won’t. Not there.

The main point I hinge my opinion on Jesus not having any brothers is his dealings with St. John and Our Lady on the cross. If Our Lord did in fact have any living brothers, it would have been a huge insult to his brother to give Our Lady to St. John.

 

[Menorrah]

Matthew 13:55

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

 

[Bwsherman]

Matthew 13:55

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

You ignore the other posts that address this verse, and what I just mentioned about Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. John.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Matthew 13:55

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Please read all of Scripture on this matter.

It is apparent if you compare Mt. 13:55 with Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25, you will see that James and Joseph are the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas. Despite that, they are still called Jesus’ “brothers” in Mat. 13:55. They are not his fraternal brothers.

Ok, back on topic of showing the specious “proof from Acts” demand for the Papacy.

 

[Menorrah]

You ignore the other posts that address this verse, and what I just mentioned about Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. John.

You’re correct. James wasn’t born of Mary. James was the son of the carpenter, Joseph.

James was the brother of the Lord with respect to Joseph as being known the father of Jesus. But we all know that Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus.

Read this again:

Eusebius “History of the Church: Book II”:

Chapter 1:

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

 

[po18guy]

You’re correct. James wasn’t born of Mary. James was the son of the carpenter, Joseph.

James was the brother of the Lord with respect to Joseph as being known the father of Jesus. But we all know that Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus.

Read this again:

Eusebius “History of the Church: Book II”:

Chapter 1:

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

Placed within that context, it makes sense. That may be all the historical record we have of it. It is fairly clear that Saint Joseph died sometime after the census and before the wedding feast at Cana, but he says not one word in scripture.

Still, the linguistic problem of “brother” and “sister” being used for “cousin” (or other familial relative) persists, confusing many.

 

[Menorrah]

Going back to the topic, it was James who was made the first bishop of the church of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul, when they had disagreement on some Jewish tradition being implemented to the Gentiles, travelled and met at the first council of Jerusalem. It was James who made the final decision.

Regarding papacy, we know that it didn’t start in Jerusalem. It started in Rome.

The big question that must be answered is:

When did the seat of power of the Christian church transfer from Jerusalem to Rome and who was the first bishop of Rome?

 

[po18guy]

Regarding papacy, we know that it didn’t start in Jerusalem. It started in Rome.

It began with the Words of Christ in Matthew 16:18. Never mind James or any of the others. It started with Peter (Kepha). Where is the scriptural evidence that Christ appointed James to anything? And, if not Christ, who else had the authority?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You err. Jesus was an only child. You will receive no quarter from Catholics there. You defile the Blessed Mother by your insistence that she was just another woman. Study the ancient languages. There was no word in Aramaic for cousin - it was rendered as brother. This also applies to those of your same community. All who lived in your community were considered brothers and sisters. Not by blood, but by geography.

Christ’s peace.

The most ancient tradition, that held by the Orthodox to this day, is that James and the other Brothers of the Lord were step-brothers, sons of Joseph by his first, deceased, wife.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Interesting. Peter James and John chose the bishop of Jerusalem. Hmmm.

Just following Christ’s choice, as the quote states.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Going back to the topic, it was James who was made the first bishop of the church of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul, when they had disagreement on some Jewish tradition being implemented to the Gentiles, travelled and met at the first council of Jerusalem. It was James who made the final decision.

Yes, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. That is why he presided over the council. The same thing has occurred at every council – the bishop of the See it occurs in presides.

But did James “make the final decision”? Perhaps if one subscribes to the doctrine of “whoever gets the last word in wins.”


What happened at the council of Jerusalem?

After “much discussion” in which many views had been proposed, Peter spoke the deciding word - that which had been revealed to him long before (in Acts 10), asking why attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of converted pagans?

Paul & Barnabas provided testimony that supported this decision by relating their experiences in seeing God work through the Gentiles.

Finally, James who was not only the “host” of the council as the presiding bishop over the see in which it occurred, but was also the chief representative of the Jewish Christians, adopted Peter’s view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.

(As a side note, Paul circumcised Timothy AFTER the council at Jerusalem, knowing full well that circumcision was not required, but still doing so due to what the Jews might think. Acts 16:1-3. Doesn’t sound too far from Peter’s actions in Gal. 2.)

Regarding papacy, we know that it didn’t start in Jerusalem. It started in Rome.

The big question that must be answered is:

When did the seat of power of the Christian church transfer from Jerusalem to Rome and who was the first bishop of Rome?

This is only a big question for non-Catholics who think that there was a “seat of power of the Christian church” at Jerusalem.

This sounds similar to the Seventh Day Adventist focus on the “sabbath” rather than the Lord’s Day, claiming that the sabbath was “moved”.

In any case, “seat of power” is a geographical term.

The papacy is not geographical, but is a position of primacy that was first given to Peter by Christ, when he was promised the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was the first bishop of Rome, & his successors are also bishops of Rome.

God Bless,

Chris

 

[Isa_Almisry]

According to Eusebius’ Church History, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and accordingly, he would have made that local decision, but he still appealed to the counsel of Peter, not in his jurisdiction.

An earlier post I made on the matter:

There is no record of St. James appealing to St. Peter. Instead, we find Ss. Peter and Paul leaving Antioch to go up to Jerusalem for a decision on the gentiles.

 

[Menorrah]

It began with the Words of Christ in Matthew 16:18. Never mind James or any of the others. It started with Peter (Kepha). Where is the scriptural evidence that Christ appointed James to anything? And, if not Christ, who else had the authority?

We cannot just ‘never mind’ historical evidences and accounts in the book of Acts and the writings of the early church fathers simply because it contradicts your interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Why don’t you reexamine your interpretation, it maybe wrong!

 

[mercygate]

We cannot just ‘never mind’ historical evidences and accounts in the book of Acts and the writings of the early church fathers simply because it contradicts your interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Why don’t you reexamine your interpretation, it maybe wrong!

Well, it’s impossible to be “wrong” in interpreting Mt 16:18 as singling out Peter for SOME kind of primacy. Put that together with the “strengthen your brethren” in Luke & that whole thing in Jn 21 about “feed my sheep” and I would suggest to you that anyone who thinks the Catholic interpretation deserves “more” reexamination than any alternative needs to reexamine his own position.

 

[Menorrah]

Yes, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. That is why he presided over the council. The same thing has occurred at every council – the bishop of the See it occurs in presides.

But did James “make the final decision”? Perhaps if one subscribes to the doctrine of “whoever gets the last word in wins.”


What happened at the council of Jerusalem?

After “much discussion” in which many views had been proposed, Peter spoke the deciding word - that which had been revealed to him long before (in Acts 10), asking why attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of converted pagans?

Paul & Barnabas provided testimony that supported this decision by relating their experiences in seeing God work through the Gentiles.

Finally, James who was not only the “host” of the council as the presiding bishop over the see in which it occurred, but was also the chief representative of the Jewish Christians, adopted Peter’s view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.

(As a side note, Paul circumcised Timothy AFTER the council at Jerusalem, knowing full well that circumcision was not required, but still doing so due to what the Jews might think. Acts 16:1-3. Doesn’t sound too far from Peter’s actions in Gal. 2.)

This is only a big question for non-Catholics who think that there was a “seat of power of the Christian church” at Jerusalem.

This sounds similar to the Seventh Day Adventist focus on the “sabbath” rather than the Lord’s Day, claiming that the sabbath was “moved”.

In any case, “seat of power” is a geographical term.

The papacy is not geographical, but is a position of primacy that was first given to Peter by Christ, when he was promised the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was the first bishop of Rome, & his successors are also bishops of Rome.

God Bless,

Chris

James said “My judgement is…”; He made a judgment and not just a proposal. It was actually the last act and after that, letters were sent to Gentiles to propagate the decision.

James was not just the ‘host’. Jerusalem was the central seat of the church government and that’s where dispute was settled.

What was missing in history is when did this seat transferr to Rome?