Is James, Jesus' real brother?

Why, because if the Catholic Church can be proved wrong on the topic of Mary's perpetual virginity, Sandy, then she can also be proved wrong on all other aspects of her doctrine, including Purgatory, Apostolic Sucession, indulgences, celibacy, veneration of saints, the Immaculate Conception, the Deuterocanonical books, papal supremacy, and so on.

The whole purpose is to discredit the Catholic Faith.

See, speaking as a confirmed skeptic, I say "sure, all of those things *COULD* be wrong, and the moment anyone has solid proof against any of them, I'll care". I don't see them as quite so intertwined...

Originally posted by Wolseley
Sacred Tradition affirmitively asserts that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and as such, none of the three James was the son of Mary.

Click to expand...

Not only does Sacred Tradition do such, but the Reformers as well believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary (I can post some quotes if anyone desires).  The problem the Reformers had with Mary wasn't her perpetual virginity, it was with the Church's teaching on the Communion of the Saints.  They didn't believe Mary or any other saint could intercede for us.  However, they still believed her to be a perpetual virgin.  It really wasn't until the 20th Century when hard core anti-Catholicism surfaced and thus efforts to discredit her perpetual virginity.  As I've stated before, there is no theological benefit to disprove her a virgin; rather it is done in an attempt to prove Catholicism wrong. 

The only problem I have is these two thoughts.

1) In Matthew we read that Joseph did not "know" his wife until after the child was born. So he did (according to Scripture) consumate (sp) the marriage after Jesus was born. So this would seem to cancel out the perpetual virginity.

2) The Scripture also makes it a point ot say that Jesus was the firstborn son. Why would there be a need to call him the firstborn if there was no other siblings? Why not just say their only son

Just my thoughts.

I'd assume He was described repeatedly as a firstborn to mirror the repeated focus on how Isaac was the firstborn of Abraham.

Sacred CATHOLIC tradition if you please. The Messianic Jewish tradition is not in agreement.
ZOOMOM,
You ask why we must consider the other family members. The comments from Amazed by Grace above is a couple good reasons.

Beyond that read the scriptures:

Mark 6:2 On Shabbat he started to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They asked, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom he has been given? What are these miracles worked through him? 3 Isn’t he just the carpenter? the son of Miryam? the brother of Yaakov and Yosi and Y’hudah and Shim‘on? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 But Yeshua said to them. “The only place people don’t respect a prophet is in his home town, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”
The Jewish New Testament, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications) 1996.

The word for "brother" inthe Greek that is used here according to strongs, means 1 womb, born of the same womb. Notice also in this passage that Yeshua refers to them as his own personal family living in the same house.
Recent historical finding like the ostuary box of James, has a hebrew inscription which also indicates James (Yaacov) to be the actual brother to Jesus (Yeshua).

You all seem to be well versed concerning Mary's doctrine, as if she established some doctrines. Am I misunderstanding?

Charles YTK

Sacred Traditions Must be rooted in the Tanakh otherwise they are fruitless. Paul says all "OLD TESTAMENT" scripture is good for reproof and for the establishment of dactrine. All the traditions of the church of the Gentiles is from the third and fouth centuries and must be approached very carefully, because the Romans and the Greeks brought with them many of their own traditions and gave them new christian meaning.

Long before the birth of Jesus the cult of Mithrias was well established. Within this cult which was the leading religion of Rome, you find these common items being practiced,

A virgin birth of Mithra
The perpetual virginity of the mother of Mithra
Killing and resurrection
eating the flesh and blood of Mithra, by substitution of bread and wine.
a Birthdate on December 25th, (Actually the 4th day after the winter soltice)
The priests of Mithra would shave a bald spot on top of their head to represent the disc of the sun. These preists were called Tunsure.
The high priest was called the Pontif Maximus. sp?


and many more.

This is not an attack against Roman Catholicism. It is historical information which should at least touch off some bells and wistles. Since none of these traditions have a root in the Tanakh, and are not taught by Yeshua, we should at least be wary of their origins, especially when they appear in christomdom 300 years after Yeshua and come out of the people who were predominately Mitrians.

Charles YTK

Originally posted by Charles YTK
Sacred CATHOLIC tradition if you please. The Messianic Jewish tradition is not in agreement.

Click to expand...

No, we don't please to do so.  Catholics use the term Sacred Tradition and will continue to do so.  And, in the Catholic area, that's not up for debate.  Consider this a friendly reminder.

Originally posted by Charles YTK
Sacred Traditions Must be rooted in the Tanakh otherwise they are fruitless. Paul says all "OLD TESTAMENT" scripture is good for reproof and for the establishment of dactrine. All the traditions of the church of the Gentiles is from the third and fouth centuries and must be approached very carefully, because the Romans and the Greeks brought with them many of their own traditions and gave them new christian meaning.

Long before the birth of Jesus the cult of Mithrias was well established. Within this cult which was the leading religion of Rome, you find these common items being practiced,

A virgin birth of Mithra
The perpetual virginity of the mother of Mithra
Killing and resurrection
eating the flesh and blood of Mithra, by substitution of bread and wine.
a Birthdate on December 25th, (Actually the 4th day after the winter soltice)
The priests of Mithra would shave a bald spot on top of their head to represent the disc of the sun. These preists were called Tunsure.
The high priest was called the Pontif Maximus. sp?


and many more.

This is not an attack against Roman Catholicism. It is historical information which should at least touch off some bells and wistles. Since none of these traditions have a root in the Tanakh, and are not taught by Yeshua, we should at least be wary of their origins, especially when they appear in christomdom 300 years after Yeshua and come out of the people who were predominately Mitrians.

Charles YTK

Click to expand...

Hi Charles!  You can take your anti-Catholicism elsewhere.  It is touching off some bells because we believe that the Church teachings were handed down by Jesus (that's Latin for Yeshua) and his disciples. To remotely imply that the Church got her teachings on Mary and the Eucharist from some pagan is offensive.  Take your subtle attempts to rouse feathers elsewhere.  You will not receive another friendly reminder.  If I see anything like the post I quoted from you again, you will receive a warning for trolling.  Ave Maria.

Oh and BTW, if you read your history, you will see that Justin Martyr, who lived in the first century, wrote about the Eucharist being flesh and blood.  So, it didn't take 300 years to appear as you implied. 

JukesK9,

I am asking a question that really is deserving of an answer without your emotional outbursts. If the sacred traditions do not come from Judaism, which is the religion practiced by Jesus and by the apostles then where do they come from? They do not connect with anything in the bible at all in a direct fashion do they? Now if pre-existing Mithian practices are the same, how do you explain this coincidence? Again no attack to catholics, because Protestant also for the most part adhere to these traditions to a great extent.

Charles YTK

Charles, you wanting a warning? Read rule #7 about public disagreements with staff. What I've posted stands. It ain't up for debate........

Sorry JukesK9,

I did not realize that I was breaking a rule at all by engaging you in conversation. Please pardon my error, and I will drop the subject.

Charles YTK

Originally posted by VOW
To Defender:

The words you are giving for family members are GREEK.

Jesus and the disciples spoke ARAMAIC. And in ARAMAIC, one word is used for brother, cousin, distant male relative, and so forth.


Peace,
~VOW

Click to expand...

What we read however is GREEK. Everything in the New Testament, the foundation of what we believe, is in GREEK.

I do believe the Holy Bible is divinley inspired. It should be understood that even "jot and tittle" mean a lot to Him. I believe you can bet your bottom dollar that God superintended that the BIble be written as it is. Plus it was knowledge, since James alive at the time, if he was his cousin as you believe, that they were brothers. He was alive, and they were written by people that knew James. James even appears in a few books other than the gospels. Yet, the word "brother" and not "cousin" is used.

Also, saying that he had a close relationship with Him, and was considered a brother though actually a cousin, is jumping to conclusions away from Scripture I believe. Because James was ashamed of Him. They were absolutely embarrased that their brother claimed this (read John 5, maybe 7) As a result, when they arrive, He says "My true brothers and mother are those who follow Me." Cause at the time, they didn't folllow Him. It is assumed that Mary did believe He was the Messiah, but we don't know. Just cause she was at the foot of the cross; I believe this is because she was His mother, and when He said, "Woman, behold your Son." She was just so confused and her heart was breaking so bad. Why would He do this to Himself and not defend Himself in court?

Then He was resurrected. Now Mary is among the apostles (first time) at Pentecost, and James is with the Christians (first time) in Acts. This is how we see it. That the first converts were those He didn't know. AFter the glory of the resurrection, they believed. TTYL Jesus loves you!

To Defender:

I have never said the Bible was not divinely inspired!

However, it's necessary to take everything into consideration. Hence the difference between Aramaic and Greek, not only for the "brother-cousin" definition, but also for the "Peter-rock" argument.

The USE of Greek was to facilitate the spread of the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. But you still must understand that Jesus was a "commoner" in Palestine, and He DID speak Aramaic.

With that in mind, PLUS the use of Sacred Tradition, we have a complete picture for the teachings of the Catholic Church on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And I also remind you that the "One Bread, One Body" is NOT a forum to debate the Catholic Church.



Peace be with you,
~VOW

"And I also remind you that the "One Bread, One Body" is NOT a forum to debate the Catholic Church."

I think confusion comes in then with the title of this forum:

A forum open to all Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.

It should really state.

A forum open to all Christians to discuss but NOT DISAGREE on various Catholic beliefs and issues.

That would make things a lot clearer.

To Project:

We believe the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is adequate.


Peace,
~VOW

"We believe the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is adequate."

Ok. I believe the debate part would be more for the:

Protestants, Catholics & Jewish Meeting Place
A forum for Protestants, Catholics & Jews (people who believe in the first 5 books of the Bible) to discuss doctrinal differences.

Am I correct? See, I have been here about as long as anyone and still don't have all the catagories figured out 100% so I can understand people that only been posting for a few months to totally get confused easily.

P.S. I know maybe I should be PMing you this but I think this is helpful for many reading this right now.

To Project:

You are absolutely right. If someone wishes to debate Catholic teaching, the PCJ Meeting place is the forum for that.

OBOB is for folks who have questions about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and wish to learn more.

Thanks for helping to clarify.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

I feel no need to debate here; I feel oddly enough, that every objection that you pointed out was in the post just prior to the one you wote. I really don't have the initiative desire to discuss this further, but if you want to continue, then why not set up a thread on PCJ? PM me, I'll meet you there if you do. If you don't feel like discussing this further, that's cool too. TTYL Jesus loves you!

If the sacred traditions do not come from Judaism, which is the religion practiced by Jesus and by the apostles then where do they come from? They do not connect with anything in the bible at all in a direct fashion do they? Now if pre-existing Mithian practices are the same, how do you explain this coincidence?

Click to expand...

Oh, it's probably just the same sort of coincidence that caused the Jewish people to absorb traditions from the surrounding pagan peoples, like animal sacrifices from the Ugaritic Canaanites and Sumerians, harvest festivals from the Egyptians and Akkadians, and belief in a physical resurrection from the Persians.

If we're going to go into this baloney about how "Christianity is pagan" because it absorbed some beliefs and practices from pagan sources, let us not forget that all religions (including Judaism) do the same.

IMHO they absorb such things by the instruction of God.