What Church Is Most Biblical?

[BrianH]

And yet, these same “brethren” gave Mary the title “Virgin” when they gave us the Apostles’ Creed - while not giving any other person that title, who did not die in the state of virginity. Therefore, if Mary was still alive at the time of the writing of the Apostles’ Creed, then she was still a virgin at that time - and if she had already died, then she died in the state of virginity. I don’t see any way around that.

The two Jameses that are mentioned in the Bible as Apostles have Alphaeus and Zebedee for their fathers; not Joseph - so we also know that “James the brother of Jesus, a fellow Apostle” was not actually a son of Mary and Joseph.

LOL, try that line on someone who does not know better…

 

[jmcrae]

LOL, try that line on someone who does not know better…

So, who else did the Apostles ever call “Virgin” who died in the opposite state? The Virgin Barbara? (No, she was a virgin.) The Virgin Agnes? (no - she too was a virgin.)

Was there a third Apostle James who for some reason was never mentioned in the Gospels?

 

[BrianH]

So, who else did the Apostles ever call “Virgin” who died in the opposite state? The Virgin Barbara? (No, she was a virgin.) The Virgin Agnes? (no - she too was a virgin.)

Was there a third Apostle James who for some reason was never mentioned in the Gospels?

Yes, actually he is in the Gospels but more importantly, you are not under the impression that the apostles can only be found named in the Gospels, are you?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, actually he is in the Gospels but more importantly, you are not under the impression that the apostles can only be found named in the Gospels, are you?

There are four places in the New Testament where the Apostles are listed by name:

Matthew 10:2-4 (King James Version)

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:14-19 (King James Version)

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:13-16 (King James Version)

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Acts 1:12-14 (King James Version)

Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey. 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. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

(Notice that “his brethren” are neither called children of Mary, nor listed among the Apostles.)

 

[BrianH]

There are four places in the New Testament where the Apostles are listed by name:

Those are not the only apostles.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia in the entry under Apostles:

But in other books of the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and its rights.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii, 1) the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent from God to preach revealed truth to the world.
The word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it.

 

[jmcrae]

Those are not the only apostles.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia in the entry under Apostles:

So, St. Paul, St. Barnabus, St. Andronicus, St. Junias, and two unknowns were also called Apostles - but none of these ones are called James, either - so where is the third Apostle James?

 

[MariaG]

i’m not sure everyone would say that. if you want to say that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” that’s fine, but to say it’s more “biblical” isn’t exactly accurate since one of the arguments for the church is that you don’t rely totally on the bible. so, if a church is more “biblical” (which i take to mean biblically based, whether you agree or disagree with their interpretation, they still are basing their church on what they think the bible says) they will be based totally on the bible. by that standard, i would say most of the non-denoms would fit the bill.

I completely disagree.

Coming from a bible alone kind of Church, one of the reasons I am now Catholic is that we follow ALL of the bible, including the sticky ones like holding fast to tradition whether oral or by letter.

At least the Catholic Church claims to follow that oral tradition, whereas the non-denoms do not, thereby disregarding and failing to hold fast to the oral part of tradition.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[BrianH]

So, St. Paul, St. Barnabus, St. Andronicus, St. Junias, and two unknowns were also called Apostles - but none of these ones are called James, either - so where is the third Apostle James?

I guess, I am a little curious why his brother James would have needed to be called an apostle? Please clarify. When I read back on your posts you SEEM to have some incorrect ideas about the use of brethren in additon to apostle. But please clarify your reasoning.

 

[adrift]

also from the Catholic Encyclopedia

It is at once evident that in a Christian sense, everyone who had received a mission from God, or Christ, to man could be called “Apostle”. **In fact, however, **it was reserved to those of the disciples who received this title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable titles, it was occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the fundamental idea of the name. The word also has various meanings.

 

[jmcrae]

I guess, I am a little curious why his brother James would have needed to be called an apostle? Please clarify. When I read back on your posts you SEEM to have some incorrect ideas about the use of brethren in additon to apostle. But please clarify your reasoning.

One of the “proofs” that Jesus had brothers is found in Galatians 1:19, which says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” I believe you quoted this verse, among others, in your “proof” that Jesus had brothers, did you not? (Someone on your side of the fence did so, in any case.)

The plain sense of the text would seem to show that Jesus had a brother named James who became an Apostle, but upon further investigation, we find that there were only two Apostles named James - the son of Zebedee, and the son of Alphaeus. So, because neither of these Jameses is a son of Mary and Joseph, and because there is no other Apostle named James, we must conclude, therefore, that the term “brother” as used in this verse cannot signify a literal male uterine sibling; rather, the term “brother” is being used in some different sense of the word - a kinsman, perhaps, or (more likely) a likeminded fellow worker.

 

[BrianH]

One of the “proofs” that Jesus had brothers is found in Galatians 1:19, which says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” I believe you quoted this verse, among others, in your “proof” that Jesus had brothers, did you not? (Someone on your side of the fence did so, in any case.)

The plain sense of the text would seem to show that Jesus had a brother named James who became an Apostle, but upon further investigation, we find that there were only two Apostles named James - the son of Zebedee, and the son of Alphaeus. So, because neither of these Jameses is a son of Mary and Joseph, and because there is no other Apostle named James, we must conclude, therefore, that the term “brother” as used in this verse cannot signify a literal male uterine sibling; rather, the term “brother” is being used in some different sense of the word - a kinsman, perhaps, or (more likely) a likeminded fellow worker.

But you have already seen that apostle has multiple uses outside of the 12… Why do you keep saying there are only two named James when indeed you cannot prove there is not a third…
this one is a wash, from your perspective, this James is one of the twelve, from my perspective, he, like probably who knows how many people, was the Lords biological brother…its a wash. The text cannot prove either one. That is why I do not understand your perspective still…
This is one of several verses we use, taking any of them in isolation is bad apologetics.

 

[jmcrae]

But you have already seen that apostle has multiple uses outside of the 12… Why do you keep saying there are only two named James when indeed you cannot prove there is not a third…

We see no Apostles outside of the Twelve until after Christ’s ascension. If Christ’s own uterine sibling were an Apostle, his name would have certainly been listed along with the rest of the originals - why leave him out? It makes no sense to leave him out.

If you and your siblings go into business together, you put your own names on the sign ahead of the hired help, do you not? You wouldn’t put the hired help’s names up on the sign, but not your sibling’s name, right?

 

[BrianH]

We see no Apostles outside of the Twelve until after Christ’s ascension. If Christ’s own uterine sibling were an Apostle, his name would have certainly been listed along with the rest of the originals - why leave him out? It makes no sense to leave him out.

If you and your siblings go into business together, you put your own names on the sign ahead of the hired help, do you not? You wouldn’t put the hired help’s names up on the sign, but not your sibling’s name, right?

His brothers did not believe in him until post resurrection

John 7:3-5 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that **thy disciples **also may see the works that thou doest. For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Mar 6:1-4 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

James was not an apostle during the early ministry pre resurrection. When Paul made his trip to Jerusalem, he was. The other apostles were not mentioned prior to his resurrection either as you know.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I guess, I am a little curious why his brother James would have needed to be called an apostle? Please clarify. When I read back on your posts you SEEM to have some incorrect ideas about the use of brethren in additon to apostle. But please clarify your reasoning.

Aramaic uses brother for siblings and cousins. There is no Aramaic word for “counsin” outside of the “son of my uncle.” Arabs today call one another “brother” even when not related. Christians refer to fellow Christains and brothers and sisters.

Joseph was Mary’s protectorate, as Mary was consecrated to the Temple. It is possible that Joseph was married before and had children, which would make them Jesus’s step-bretheren.
This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.

3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3-8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18-25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, &c.” (5-8).
2. The second (c. 9-17) turns upon the words “first-born son” (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11-16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17).
3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity*
   newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
Chapter 1.
The blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mary, sprung from the royal stock and family of David, born in the city of Nazareth, was brought up at Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord. Her father was named Joachim, and her mother Anna. Her father’s house was from Galilee and the city of Nazareth, but her mother’s family from Bethlehem. Their life was guileless and right before the Lord, and irreproachable and pious before men. For they divided all their substance into three parts. One part they spent upon the temple and the temple servants; another they distributed to strangers and the poor; the third they reserved, for themselves and the necessities of their family. Thus, dear to God, kind to men, for about twenty years they lived in their own house, a chaste married life, without having any children. Nevertheless they vowed that, should the Lord happen to give them offspring, they would deliver it to the service of the Lord; on which account also they used to visit the temple of the Lord at each of the feasts during the year.

newadvent.org/fathers/0849.htm

 

[qui_est_ce]

Joseph was Mary’s protectorate, as Mary was consecrated to the Temple. It is possible that Joseph was married before and had children, which would make them Jesus’s step-bretheren.

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
Chapter 1.
The blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mary, sprung from the royal stock and family of David, born in the city of Nazareth, was brought up at Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord. Her father was named Joachim, and her mother Anna. Her father’s house was from Galilee and the city of Nazareth, but her mother’s family from Bethlehem. Their life was guileless and right before the Lord, and irreproachable and pious before men. For they divided all their substance into three parts. One part they spent upon the temple and the temple servants; another they distributed to strangers and the poor; the third they reserved, for themselves and the necessities of their family. Thus, dear to God, kind to men, for about twenty years they lived in their own house, a chaste married life, without having any children. Nevertheless they vowed that, should the Lord happen to give them offspring, they would deliver it to the service of the Lord; on which account also they used to visit the temple of the Lord at each of the feasts during the year.

newadvent.org/fathers/0849.htm

This book, among other early writings, while not (name removed by moderator)ired of God, reflects traditions and beliefs of the early Christians.
(*a) Apocryphal Gospels of Catholic Origin
The Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James

It purports to have been written by “James the brother of the Lord”, i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age. For instance it is the “Protoevangelium” which first tells that Mary was the miraculous offspring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service, in fulfilment of her parents’ vow. When Mary was twelve Joseph is chosen by the high-priest as her spouse in obedience to a miraculous sign – a dove coming out of his rod and resting on his head. The nativity is embellished in an unrestrained manner. Critics find that the “Protoevangelium” is a composite into which two or three documents enter. It was known to Origen under the name of the “Book of James”. There are signs in St. Justin’s works that he was acquainted with it, or at least with a parallel tradition. The work, therefore, has been ascribed to the second century. Portions of it show a familiarity with Jewish customs, and critics have surmised that the groundwork was composed by a Jewish-Christian. The “Protoevangelium” exists in ancient Greek and Syriac recensions. There are also Armenian and Latin translations. *

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III1

 

[BrianH]

Aramaic you say…

"Catholics like to argue there is no Aramaic (the native language of Jesus) word for cousin. This is usually when to point out that the New Testament was not written in Aramaic (except a couple of words here and there) but Greek and what was said in Aramaic is pure speculation. IF indeed, it was said in Aramaic. We do not know what language Jesus spoke at any given time, except those few specific examples previously mentioned. It could have been Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew (he did read from Hebrew in Luke 4:16-19), or even Latin when he spoke to Pilate! It is a rather desperate tactic to have to rely on a nonexistent Aramaic transcript as opposed to God’s holy inspired word written in Greek by the New Testament writers. "

Protoevangelium you say…

“So is the Protoevangelium even a reliable source?
Let us take a brief detour and look at this “historical document”. It claimed to have been written at least 50 years before any New Testament book, right after Herod the Great died in 4 BC! It claims as its author the brother of Jesus, James, whom we know was not even born then! It also details the birth of Jesus in a cave.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

Aramaic you say…

Please site your source

Catholics are not desperate. We are very secure in our knowledge, history, and faith, based on Jesus’ own words that He would give the Church the Holy Spirit.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. But like Latin in the Catholic Church, Jews had to study Hebrew. They did not converse in Hebrew, except maybe some scholars, just as in the Catholic Church, official writings of the Pope are in Latin, the universal language of the Church. Unfortunately, the study of Latin as a required course has been dropped by many Catholic and secular schools. Jews today study Hebrew to make their Bar Mitzvah.

Protoevangelium you say…

Again, please site your source.
You completely ignored the part in my post about this protoevangelium being part of other uninspired writings in the day.
My point in quoting this particular one, is that it among other Gospels reflects traditions of early Christians. There were many writings about Jesus, Gospel of Thomas, etc. which we still have today. They are not considered inspired, but they do give us clues as to the lives of the early Christians.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Please site your source

If you don’t feel New Advent is a credible source, then please refer to Wikipedia:

Aramaic is a group of Semitic languages with a 3,000-year history. It has been the language of administration of empires and the language of divine worship. It is the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud. Aramaic was the native language of Jesus (see Aramaic of Jesus).[4] Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by numerous, scattered communities, most significantly by Assyrians. The language is considered to be endangered.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui est ce;2901118:

Please site your source

The point of below, is the fake ossuary was written in Aramaic. Why? Unless scholars and antiquarians knew that Aramaic was the language of Jesus. Protestants seized on this counterfeit to prove Catholics were wrong. They failed.

*I *[James Aiken, scholar of Aramaic] *had a couple of cordial exchanges with Witherington. He seems to be a nice guy, but it does not appear to me that he knows Aramaic. New Testament professors in Protestant seminaries are well trained in Greek and have some background in Hebrew but almost none in Aramaic. In our first discussion, Witherington referred me to one of his colleagues, whom he described as “the real expert” and who had “assured” him that there was a word for “cousin.”

Witherington’s lack of ease with Aramaic is apparent by the fact that, in his part of The Brother of Jesus, he freely explains Greek words for things but tends to fall silent when it comes to Aramaic. From what I can tell at present, he was just basing his argument on what he has heard from others.

Those others would not seem to include his co-author, Shanks. In his part of The Brother of Jesus, Shanks writes things that undercut Witherington’s claim. For example, he quotes the paleographer Emile Peuch, O.P., as saying “the specific relationship of James and Jesus in our ossuary is quite simply indeterminable. . . . The term ‘brother’ actually concurrently [in the first century] meant blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion” (51).

To my knowledge, I am the only full-time Catholic apologist who makes a study of Aramaic. I’ve paid particular attention to the cousin issue because of its apologetic implications. Still, I am not an expert, so I consulted several people who are more knowledgeable.

Next, I visited my Aramaic teacher, Fr. Michael Bazzi, a Chaldean Catholic priest from Mosul, Iraq. He is a native speaker of Aramaic (the ethnic language of Chaldeans) and the author of several textbooks on both modern and classical Aramaic. Fr. Bazzi confirmed that there is no term for “cousin,” and whenever one wishes to pick out the cousin relationship, one uses one of the various possible circumlocutions. Neither did the dictionaries that Fr. Bazzi and I checked produce words for “cousin.”

Finally, I corresponded with Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. Though scholarly reserve would prevent him from saying so, he is regarded as an 800-pound gorilla among American scholars of Aramaic. In The Brother of Jesus, Shanks notes, “No one wants to get into the ring with Joe Fitzmyer when it comes to Aramaic” (47).

Fr. Fitzmyer was quite helpful and direct: “In first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin,’ but one used the circumlocution, ‘son of the uncle.’” Further, he added, “I do not know of any word for ‘cousin’ [apart from the circumlocution] in any other Aramaic dialects.”

Concerning the word for “brother,” Fitzmyer noted, “The word did not simply mean ‘blood brother,’ and you will find in the book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: ‘compatriot,’ ‘kinsman,’ ‘relative,’ and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobias even calls the angel Raphael (in disguise), ‘Brother Azariah’ (Tob. 6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean ‘blood brother.’”

While I was checking with my experts, Witherington was checking with his, and by the time of our second exchange, he was prepared to concede the key points. In an e-mail he wrote, “In Aramaic there is no technical singular term for cousin, unlike anepsios in Greek, so a circumlocution must be used in Aramaic if you want to affirm that someone was a cousin and not a blood brother.”

He further noted, “The term ahui [the word corresponding to brother on the ossuary] can of course be used in a broader sense to mean ‘relative.’”

While Witherington does not support a Catholic interpretation of the brethren of Christ, he now tacitly acknowledges that he was wrong, and there is no Aramaic word for “cousin.”*

 

[BrianH]

Please site your source

I am the source.

Catholics are not desperate. We are very secure in our knowledge, history, and faith, based on Jesus’ own words that He would give the Church the Holy Spirit.