“Brethren of the Lord”

https://www.catholic.com ^ | August 10, 2004 | Bernadeane Carr

[Mrs. Don-o]

One question: were ANY of the Jameses ever identified as “son of Mary,” as Jesus was?

[ealgeone]

You really want to start citing the ECFs who contradict each other on these issues??

[ealgeone]

The simple context of the passages in question will answer the question in the affirmative that Joseph and Mary did indeed have children after Jesus was born.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Just the other day one of your fellow Roman catholics had a thread up that the purpose of marriage was for children and that if you entered into a marriage without intending to have children that was a no-no.

Based on Roman Catholic teaching, if Joseph and Mary did not have children, their marriage, in the eyes of the RCC would be invalid.

[unlearner]

“Are you saying that you don’t believe in the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit?”

From which of my comments are you construing this?

Certainly I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God. Three Divine Persons.

[ealgeone]

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

However, there is a word in the Greek, which is the language of the NT, for cousin.

[rjsimmon]

James the Just was and is identified with James, son of Alphaeus and James the Less, by the historic Church (Greek and Latin, East and West) and there is no evidence in the New Testament that positively establishes otherwise.

Not even close. James, son of Alpahaeus is Matthew the Apostle. Those that associate him as James the Just are mostly the Catholics and follow the opinion of Jerome and Hippolytus simply because they both were stoned to death. If that is the litmus test, then Stephen fits that description as well. The Jews stoned people.

There goes your "universal acceptance" that there was a James who was the Lord Jesus Christ's biological brother from Jesus' birthmother Mary.

Not quite. Outside of the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the Protestant church accepts James as the brother of Jesus, as was Jude, Joses, and Simon. The most significant source is Paul in his letter to the churches in Galatia and Corinth. Next is Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. His list of blood-related brothers comes from Matthew and Mark where they list his mother, brothers, and mention sisters. This is not a cousin nor generic 'bretheren' but physical relations. Whether they were kin from a never mentioned previous marriage of Joseph is also, NEVER mentioned. The simple fact that his blood family is listed should end all controversy, but the Catholic church insists on worshipping Mary.

This is the Mary known from antiquity as Aeiparthenos (Greek: ἀειπαρθὲ) or Semper Virgine, in both languages, literally 'Ever-virgin'.

Once again, following man's tradition vice the Word of God. NOTHING in scripture says Mary was a perpetual virgin. Isaiah prophesied that "A virgin shall conceive..." which is what happened. But here is the biological truth, virgins can conceive on their first try! But they don't remain virgins.

[rjsimmon]

One question: were ANY of the Jameses ever identified as “son of Mary,” as Jesus was?

And what has that to do with anything? The Gospels and epistles were written about Jesus, not James.

[ealgeone]

Ignore the deflection attempt. It’s a ploy often used when the person has no answer to your question.

[Salvation]

**One question: were ANY of the Jameses ever identified as “son of Mary,” as Jesus was?**

No

[Mrs. Don-o]

What that "has to do with" is that you are claiming precisely that James was the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the Gospels are silent on that point..

Surely they would have identified James the same way they identified Jesus --- as "Mary's son"--- if this were so, considering the distinction of being Jesus' actual biological brother.

[rjsimmon]

**One question: were ANY of the Jameses ever identified as “son of Mary,” as Jesus was?**

No

Maybe not, but Mary was called the Mother of James.

Matthew 27:56
Mark 15:40 and 47
Mark 16:1
Luke 24:10

[ealgeone]

However, James (and the others) are clearly identified as His brothers and sisters.

Again, the context of the passages in question indicate these to be His brothers.....the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary.

The Roman Catholic wants the texts to say Joseph and Mary had relations (but I imagine the RC would debate this term as well) and produced James.

[ealgeone]

Welcome to the party!

[rjsimmon]

What that "has to do with" is that you are claiming precisely that James was the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

Yes. And James is the brother of Jesus.

The problem is that the Gospels are silent on that point..

No, it is not.

Matthew 27:56 "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children."

Surely they would have identified James the same way they identified Jesus --- as "Mary's son"--- if this were so, considering the distinction of being Jesus' actual biological brother.

Only if the Gospels were about James. The writers obviously did not care if the reader knew that James was a blood relative, neither should you. They probably went off of the presumption that the audience knew Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, as was listed in the Gospel of Mark. Pretty definitive.

[rjsimmon]

Welcome to the party!

Thanks...

[ealgeone]

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

No. This false theory is derived from the Protoevangelium of James IIRC.

There is nothing in the NT account that indicates Mary was making a perpetual vow of virginity.

What the passage does indicate is Mary knew she and Joseph, nor any other man, had had sex.

I agree she knew the biology behind baby making.

Her dilemma was in the timing of this. How can there be a baby if she hasn't had sex with anyone? A very natural question to ask if you haven't had sex and you're told you're going to have the Son of God.

If Rome were so confident of this account they could have incorporated the Protoevangelium in the NT canon at Trent when they formalized their canon.

That they didn't is telling.

[boatbums]

Dragging out a 14 year old article to provoke discord?

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

[boatbums]

Then why wasn’t James with his “mother” at the foot of the cross?

Probably the same reason Peter wasn't - too scared.

[ealgeone]

Another reason could be is that perhaps James wasn’t a believer at this point in his life.

[boatbums]

Another reason could be is that perhaps James wasn’t a believer at this point in his life.

That too. Of the eleven Apostles remaining, only John even showed up. We have the accounts of Jesus getting grief from his family. A few:

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his own brothers did not believe in him. (John 7:1-5)

Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat. When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.” (Mark 3:20,21)