James, the step brother of the Lord

Yeshua HaDerekh · Apr 1, 2019

myst33 said:
John and Mary were with Him when He was dying, therefore He wanted them to create a more close relationship, like mother and son.

Others were hiding, scattered, unbelieving... but these ones were with Him.

Well no actually. Mary lived with John until her death...
He knew He would die on the cross and would have provided care to His Mother beforehand to another male within His immediate family. He gave her care to John.

Mountainmike · Apr 1, 2019

On perpetual virginity.

This verse from scripture Luke 1:34 at the annunciation proves it:

Mary was betrothed which is not engaged in our sense, it means actually married pending husband setting up a home, so legally inevitable unless dissolved. So marital life was expected to be inevitable. The angel speaks of future conception, not of present, so she was not pregnant at the time of the annunciation.

So when Mary says to the angel "how can this be" : It was blindingly obvious how she could be with child (future) if she intended normal marital relations , so her statement indicates an intention of perpetual virginity or it would have been no surprise at all to her! How else is it possible to reconcile that statement?

That is not a surprise culturally amongst the devout of the time. Some essenes of that era certainly did practice celibacy in marriage , there are writings surviving.

Also there are other arguments not so far raised in addition to "brother" not restricted to sibling, protoevangelium etc

A biological brother would have looked after Mary after Jesus's death, instead it was left to John

The tradition is also important. The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin. If you do not trust him, how can you trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity It is not just a catholic or orthodox thing.

In fact the entire church believed it catholics and reformationists until a few after the reformation decided they knew better... as Luther said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

Monk Brendan · Apr 1, 2019

myst33 said:
Mary had more children:

a) that she had sex with Joseph is implied from "until":
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν
and he did not "know" her (sexually) until she brought forth the son

b) that she had more children is implied from "first born" - opposite to "only son"
καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον
and she brought forth her first(born) son

So there is no biblical or theological problem with James being a real brother of Jesus (as bible says) . Its just your tradition that forces you to dance around these words - "brother" is not brother, "until" is not until, "first" is "only" etc.

I've explained elsewhere on this thread what "firstborn son" means in a Jewish context.
If "eos" in your verse means they had sex afterwards, then "eos" means that Jesus will no longer be with us at the end of Matthew.

prodromos · Apr 1, 2019

myst33 said:
a) that she had sex with Joseph is implied from "until":
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν
and he did not "know" her (sexually) until she brought forth the son

The children worked quietly until the teacher returned to the classroom. Does this imply that they stopped working quietly after the teacher returned? Nope. It says nothing about a change in condition.

b) that she had more children is implied from "first born" - opposite to "only son"
καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον
and she brought forth her first(born) son

An only son is also a firstborn son.

Fidelibus · Apr 1, 2019

myst33 said:
Others were hiding, scattered, unbelieving... but these ones were with Him. She was his mother and John was his beloved and closest disciple.

I find this statement most interesting. When you say "others", are you meaning these other 'so-called' blood relatives of Jesus, such as His brothers and sisters born from Mary, Jesus' mother? If so, how do you know this? By who's or what authority? If you are a believer of the Bible Alone (sola scripturist) as a sole rule of faith, you should not have a problem showing a book, chapter, or verse in the bible that say's this. If you cannot, could you please explain why what you stated and believe in the above statement of your's to be true? And by who's or what authority do you believe this? If you cannot, would you agree that this could be a problem for someone who believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? (the bible alone)

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

mindlight · Apr 1, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
If James was His biological brother, why did He give His mother's care to John at the cross and not to one of His other brothers?

Maybe cause they were not there and not even saved at that point

Yeshua HaDerekh · Apr 1, 2019

mindlight said:
Maybe cause they were not there and not even saved at that point

What would that have anything to do with it?

Petros2015 · Apr 1, 2019

mindlight said:
This gospel sounds like it was made up to satisfy a craving for details about the baby Jesus and to answer various problems in the culture with sex and the idea of Mary as a flesh and blood woman with normal sexual feelings. It is not written in the same style as James in the bible and does not have the same authentic feel and it was rejected from the canons of all the churches

There certainly was a lot of fan fiction.

nonaeroterraqueous · Apr 1, 2019

Mountainmike said:
The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin.

You throw around hundreds of years as though it were nothing. We have a very different understanding of the word, "early." You discuss a period of time similar to the age of the United States, and we can see how far this country has changed in so little time. The early "fathers" were the ones who knew Jesus, personally. No one after that was early. You need a better example than Origen, who was known to say a lot of other untruth.

If you do not trust him, how can you trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..

The councils may have selected the works, but we certainly must hope that the councils did not write them. What your church tradition holds is often contradictory to the written tradition of the Bible. If both are tradition, then your tradition is self-defeating. This dilemma is easily overcome by trusting the earlier and better documented form, known as the Bible.

Mountainmike said:
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity It is not just a catholic or orthodox thing.

Ah, yes, the appeal to the protestant popes. The reformers necessarily bore a residue of the doctrine from which they had come. The followers of Athena did the same. Both were responsible for continuing the theme of perpetual virginity.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
What would that have anything to do with it?

You don't hand your mother over to someone that you know you can't trust. It was a necessary transaction if he didn't want the job to fall to an unbelieving brother. It was a wise move, in my opinion.

mindlight · Apr 1, 2019

Mountainmike said:
On perpetual virginity.

This verse from scripture Luke 1:34 at the annunciation proves it:

Mary was betrothed which is not engaged in our sense, it means actually married pending husband setting up a home, so legally inevitable unless dissolved. So marital life was expected to be inevitable. The angel speaks of future conception, not of present, so she was not pregnant at the time of the annunciation.

So when Mary says to the angel "how can this be" : It was blindingly obvious how she could be with child (future) if she intended normal marital relations , so her statement indicates an intention of perpetual virginity or it would have been no surprise at all to her! How else is it possible to reconcile that statement?

That is not a surprise culturally amongst the devout of the time. Some essenes of that era certainly did practice celibacy in marriage , there are writings surviving.

Also there are other arguments not so far raised in addition to "brother" not restricted to sibling, protoevangelium etc

A biological brother would have looked after Mary after Jesus's death, instead it was left to John

The tradition is also important. The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin. If you do not trust him, how can you trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity It is not just a catholic or orthodox thing.

In fact the entire church believed it catholics and reformationists until a few after the reformation decided they knew better... as Luther said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

It matters that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Why does it matter afterwards?

There were a lot of things the church accepted in the early church period that might not of been in the spirit of the scriptures and Christs teachings e.g. slavery.

This whole thing about Mary remaining a virgin reeks of some kind of Gnostic separation between spirit and flesh with flesh and therefore sex regarded as impure and worldly. If it was not necessary that Peter the man pope be a virgin why should the woman Mary be one after Jesus was born.

Blade · Apr 1, 2019

Same mother...yet some see it believe a different way praise GOD. Hmm

Der Alte · Apr 1, 2019

Anto9us said:
Some people believe just the opposite -- same father but different mothers -- that James was Joseph's son from an earlier marriage.
People who believe in perpetual virginity of Mary see it this way.
ADELPHOI in Koine Greek can mean 'close relative' and is not limited to actual brother.

You are mistaken. "Adelphos", the Greek word translated "brother," does not mean a close relative. Here is the complete definition of "adelphos" from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. Note, "cousin" or "close relative" is not one of the meanings.

[size=6=ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ [/size](Hom. [ἀδελφεός]+; accord. to B-D-F §13; Schwyzer I 555; Mlt-H. II 58; PKatz, TLZ 83, ’58, 315f vocative ἄδελφε should be accented on the antepenult in Ac 9:17; 21:20 contrary to the practice of the editions; also GPt 2:5.)
① a male from the same womb as the reference pers., brother, Mt 1:2, 11; 4:18, 21 al.; τὸν ἀ. τ. ἴδιον J 1:41 (s. Jos., Ant. 11, 300). Of Jesus’ brothers (passages like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6 do not establish the mng. ‘cousin’ for ἀ.; they only show that in rendering the Hebr. אָח ἀ. is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masc. relatives of various degrees. The case of ἀδελφή [q.v. 1] is similar Gen 24:59f; Tob 8:4, 7 [cp. 7:15]; Jos., Ant. 1, 211 [ἀδελφή = ἀδελφοῦ παῖς]. Sim. M. Ant., who [1, 14, 1] uses ἀ. for his brother-in-law Severus; the same use is found occas. in the pap: JCollins, TS 5, ’44, 484–94; s. VTscherikover HTR ’42, 25–44) Mt 12:46f; 13:55; Mk 3:31f; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5. James ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Gal 1:19. The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1, 47 ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐκείνου κ. ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί; Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy 713, 21f [97 A.D.] ἀδελφοῖς μου Διοδώρῳ κ. Θαΐδι; schol. on Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5, 9] δύο ἐγένοντο ἀδελφοί, Φάλαγξ μὲν ἄρσην, θήλεια δὲ Ἀράχνη τοὔνομα. The θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί, a married couple consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the Ptolemies: OGI 50, 2 [III B.C.] and pap [Mitt-Wilck. I/1, 99; I/2, 103–7, III B.C.]). In all these cases only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there are also passages in which ἀδελφοί means brothers and sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses (Polyb. 10, 18, 15 ποιήσεσθαι πρόνοιαν ὡς ἰδίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ τέκνων; Epict. 1, 12, 20 ἀδ. beside γονεῖς, τέκνα, γείτονες; 1, 22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich 214, 12 [296 A.D.] οἱ ἀδελφοί σου seems to be even more general=‘your relatives’). Hence there is no doubt that in Lk 21:16 ἀδελφοί=brothers and sisters, but there is some room for uncertainty in the case of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus in Mt 12:46f; Mk 3:31; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14.
② a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate fig. ext. of 1.
ⓐ one who shares beliefs (for an associated duality, s. Did., Gen. 127, 6 ἀ. ἐστι τοῦ φαινομένου ἔξω ἀνθρώπου ὁ κρυπτὸς καὶ ἐν διανοίᾳ ἄνθρωπος=brother to the man as he appears from without is the man who is hidden in thought): Jesus calls everyone who is devoted to him brother Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35, esp. his disciples Mt 28:10; J 20:17. Hence gener. for those in such spiritual communion Mt 25:40; Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23), 17 al. Of a relationship w. a woman other than that of husband Hs 9, 11, 3 al.; 2 Cl 12:5.—Of the members of a relig. community (PParis 20 [II B.C.] al. of the hermits at the Serapeum in Memphis; UPZ 162 I, 20 [117 B.C.] ἀδελφοὶ οἱ τὰς λειτουργίας ἐν ταῖς νεκρίαις παρεχόμενοι; IG XIV, 956 B, 11f. ἀ.=member of the ἱερὰ ξυστικὴ σύνοδος; IPontEux II, 449f εἰσποιητοὶ ἀ. σεβόμενοι θεὸν Ὕψιστον [Ltzm. ZWT 55, 1913, 121]. Mystery pap [III A.D.]: APF 13, ’39, 212. Essenes in Jos., Bell. 2, 122. Vett. Val. 172, 31; Cleopatra ln. 94. See GMilligan 1908 on 1 Th 1:4; Ltzm. Hdb. on Ro 1:13 [lit.]; Dssm. B 82f, 140 [BS 87f, 142]; Nägeli 38; Cumont3 276). Hence used by Christians in their relations w. each other Ro 8:29, 1 Cor 5:11; Eph 6:23; 1 Ti 6:2; Ac 6:3; 9:30; 10:23; Rv 1:9; 12:10; IEph 10:3; ISm 12:1 al. So esp. w. proper names (for ἀδ. in a figurative sense used with a name, cp. the address of a letter PMich 162 verso [II A.D.] ἀπὸ Ἀπλωναρίου ἀδελφοῦ) to indicate membership in the Christian community Ro 16:23; 1 Cor 1:1; 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; 1 Th 3:2; Phlm 1; 1 Pt 5:12; 2 Pt 3:15; AcPl Ha 1, 30 al. Completely ἀδελφὸς ἐν κυρίῳ Phil 1:14. Oft. in direct address 1 Cl 1:1 (cod. A); 4:7; 13:1; 33:1; 2 Cl 20:2 al.; B 2:10; 3:6 al.; IRo 6:2; Hv 2, 4, 1; 3, 1, 1; 4; AcPl Ha 7, 4; 8, 21; AcPlCor 1:16. ἀδελφοί μου B 4:14; 5:5; 6:15; IEph 16:1; ἄνδρες ἀ. Ac 1:16 (rabb. par. in EStauffer, TLZ 77, ’52, 202); 15:7, 13; 1 Cl 14:1; 37:1; 43:4; 62:1. To interpret ἀ. in Ac 15:23 as ‘colleague’ (e.g. PGaechter, Petrus u. seine Zeit, ’58, 141f) is speculative; and the interpretation of ἀ. in 3J 5 and 10 as itinerant preachers (AKragerud, D. Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, ’59, 105) is based entirely on the context.
ⓑ a compatriot (cp. Pla., Menex. 239a ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι, μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες ἀδελφοὶ φύντες; Lev 10:4; Dt 15:3, 12; 17:15 al.; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2, 79f ‘ἀ.’ τὸν ὁμόφυλον εἶπεν he termed a compatriot ‘brother’; Jos., Ant. 10, 201; 7, 371 after 1 Ch 28:2) Ac 2:29; 3:17, 22 (Dt 18:15); 7:2, 23 (Ex 2:11), 25f al.; Ro 9:3.
ⓒ without ref. to a common nationality or faith neighbor (of an intimate friend X., An. 7, 2, 25; 38. Specif. in the sense ‘neighbor’ Gen 9:5; Lev 19:17 al.) Mt 5:22ff; 7:3ff; 18:15, 21, 35; Lk 6:41f; 17:3; B 19:4; Hm 2:2 al.
ⓓ Form of address used by a king to persons in very high position (OGI 138, 3; 168, 26; 36 [both II B.C.]; Jos., Ant. 13, 45; 126) Herod says ἀδελφὲ Πιλᾶτε GPt 2:5.—JO’Callaghan, El vocativo sing. de ἀδελφός, Biblica 52, ’71, 217–25.—B. 107. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 18–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maria Billingsley · Apr 1, 2019

HTacianas said:
Why does the bible refer to James as the brother of the Lord and not the step brother of the Lord? Why not half brother of the Lord?

Why would he be a step brother? Their parents are Mary and Joseph.

HTacianas · Apr 1, 2019

Maria Billingsley said:
Why would he be a step brother? Their parents are Mary and Joseph.

Where does it say that?

Maria Billingsley · Apr 1, 2019

HTacianas said:
Where does it say that?

No where does it say half. This is just one example.
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Daniel Martinovich · Apr 1, 2019

☦Marius☦ said:
I really grow weary of hearing the same four or five generic "catch phrases" from evangelicals. "Man made institutions" is one of these. There is nothing "Man Made" about the Church of the apostles, as the men who led it were elected by the apostles and elected their own successors. Read the writings of the first century elders long before any person in power (king or emperor) had any influence within the church. You will find them (especially St. Ignatius), solidly Catholic in theme. You can say Tradition doesn't mean alot to you, but then you would be breaking Paul's command to keep the traditions that were passed down, the exact reason I went looking for them as a Baptist. The words of monks and holy fools hold more sway in Orthodoxy then that of powerful leaders.

Well, that is what the apostles were always arguing about. Just like all men do. Who among them "would be the greatest." Meaning which one of them will be the leader, (under Jesus of course.) But Jesus answered them it doesn't work that way in my kingdom. Apparently though. The various Catholic institutions have figured it out,: who would be the greatest.

HTacianas · Apr 1, 2019

Maria Billingsley said:
No where does it say half. This is just one example.
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Wouldn't that make them half brothers?

Maria Billingsley · Apr 1, 2019

HTacianas said:
Wouldn't that make them half brothers?

It was never revealed until the last three years of Christ's ministry that He was not the son of Joseph. This is why He was never referred to as their half sibling and a true full blood brother. Later it was revealed that He was of the order of Melchizedek , with no mother or Father. Read up on it.
Blessings

HTacianas · Apr 1, 2019

Maria Billingsley said:
It was never revealed until the last three years of Christ's ministry that He was not the son of Joseph. This is why He was never referred to as their half sibling and a true full blood brother. Later it was revealed that He was of the order of Melchizedek , with no mother or Father. Read up on it.
Blessings

I've read up on it. Thank you for the advice.

☦Marius☦ · Apr 1, 2019

Daniel Martinovich said:
Well, that is what the apostles were always arguing about. Just like all men do. Who among them "would be the greatest." Meaning which one of them will be the leader, (under Jesus of course.) But Jesus answered them it doesn't work that way in my kingdom. Apparently though. The various Catholic institutions have figured it out,: who would be the greatest.

There is only one Catholic Institution. The one with Christ at head and no men.

James, the step brother of the Lord

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Nonexistent Member

See in the dark

Veteran

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Murican

Similar threads