Jesus' brother, James

[KennySe]

Doesn't the Orthodox church have just as many fallable humans as the new sects? Aren't the people that receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit fallable on both sides? What we will agree on is the Bible is not clear on this issue. What you say is one thing , and we say another. You say it has been said your way longer, but longevity doesn't always make something true.

Isn't it really that the "personal" interpretation runs on both sides of the aisle? You choose external sources to confirm what is not written in the Bible. But, none of these external sources were written by, or hinted at by the apostles.

The ECF were just as fallable as we are. Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for acting differently in front of the Gentiles then he did with the Jews. Peter even argued with God on whether food was unclean or not. How many times did Paul have to rebuke another church for believing false doctrines.

Later on Lord Omar said St. Augustine once found himself faced with a problem. It seems that there was a town in which there were any number of ``heretics.'' However, there were also a fair number of ``good Christians'' and no way to tell them from the heretics. His solution? He told his men to kill everyone in the town, because ``God will know his own.''

So even the ECF were fallable, even though they were Spirit led.

We have no written accounts of the Apostles to back any of these extra Biblical things up. So I guess we (protestants) tend to believe in what we can read in the Bible.

Lollard,
I warn you most sincerely that you are open to accepting very heterodox beliefs.
Heteredox persons use the same and similar arguments, and very eloquently, that you have used above.

You are potentially accessible by the Jesus Seminar; Dr. Elaine Pagels, professor or religion at Princeton University; and other modern scholars.

 

[SumTinWong]

Lollard,
I warn you most sincerely that you are open to accepting very heterodox beliefs.
Heteredox persons use the same and similar arguments, and very eloquently, that you have used above.

You are potentially accessible by the Jesus Seminar; Dr. Elaine Pagels, professor or religion at Princeton University; and other modern scholars.

I read what you typed, walked away in disgust, came back, and I am still in disgust.

I cannot believe what I read. I re-read, my post and I still have no clue as to why you felt the need to say what you said.

I really cannot fathom why I am responding to you after such an insulting post, but I want to make this very clear to anyone reading:
1. I am not nor have I ever been a pagan gnostic like elaine pagels, nor do I aspire to her heretical drivel that she promotes.
2. This is only the second time I have heard the title Jesus Seminar. I have no idea what they are but from what little I saw when I looked them up a second ago they seem to like gnostic gospels as well. No thanks.

This is the second time you have jumped to conclusions about me, and insulted me, the first being in OBOB. I cannot tell you how offended I am by what you typed.

 

[Symes]

I find it a bit odd that anyone would dispute that Mary had other children as the Bible states this fact succintly.

Matt.13:55 says: " Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark.6:3 says: "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?"

Gal.1:19 says: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Are we going to be told now that Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters?

I am not going to say He had none when the Bible says He did.

 

[KennySe]

Lollard,
I am sorry that my sincere warning to you has offended you.

I have not jumped to any conclusions about you and your current beliefs.
I have not accused you of embracing Gnostic beliefs.

The Peace and protection of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Kenny

 

[The Thadman]

~Mod hat on~​

I wish that I had stepped in here earlier and realized what was going on.

I'm not exactly sure how it started, reading back in the pervious posts, or why such a comment was made, and how such a response that this comment was that offensive, so for now I'm going to simply make a general warning here on the thread to keep things toned down and consult some of the other moderators.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[Nickolai]

Are we going to be told now that Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters?
I am not going to say He had none when the Bible says He did.

Noone here has said that. We have said that your definition of the Word Adelphos is Not neccesarily what the Author intended.

 

[Nickolai]

Doesn't the Orthodox church have just as many fallable humans as the new sects? Aren't the people that receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit fallable on both sides? What we will agree on is the Bible is not clear on this issue. What you say is one thing , and we say another. You say it has been said your way longer, but longevity doesn't always make something true.

We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks most clearly in councils of the Church. Hence the reason that the teachings of the 7 Ecumenical councils are so binding for the Church doctrine. We don't interpret alone. The interpretation is done within the grounds of What the Church believes. That is why you cannot properly interpret all of scripture correctly if you don't hold to the teachings of the Church.

Isn't it really that the "personal" interpretation runs on both sides of the aisle? You choose external sources to confirm what is not written in the Bible. But, none of these external sources were written by, or hinted at by the apostles.

Do you think the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church into proper belief after the Apostles died?

The ECF were just as fallable as we are. Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for acting differently in front of the Gentiles then he did with the Jews. Peter even argued with God on whether food was unclean or not. How many times did Paul have to rebuke another church for believing false doctrines.

We don't attempt to say that the ECF are infallible. But they DID teach what the Early Church believed. We know we should follow that example.

Later on Lord Omar said St.

Augustine once found himself faced with a problem. It seems that there was a town in which there were any number of ``heretics.'' However, there were also a fair number of ``good Christians'' and no way to tell them from the heretics. His solution? He told his men to kill everyone in the town, because ``God will know his own.''

First of all I question the truth behind that story due to the high amount of Anti-Catholic babble that was created. Augustine is well liked in the West and they attack him to attack the Catholic church.

Secondly Augustine is NOT infallible.

So even the ECF were fallable, even though they were Spirit led.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth. I will leave it at that.

We have no written accounts of the Apostles to back any of these extra Biblical things up. So I guess we (protestants) tend to believe in what we can read in the Bible.

Why do you need everything written down. Your saying that you will only believe divine revelation if it's written in a book.

 

[SumTinWong]

Lollard,
I am sorry that my sincere warning to you has offended you.

I have not jumped to any conclusions about you and your current beliefs.
I have not accused you of embracing Gnostic beliefs.

Forget it...

 

[Crazy Liz]

Doesn't the Orthodox church have just as many fallable humans as the new sects? Aren't the people that receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit fallable on both sides?

[...]

Isn't it really that the "personal" interpretation runs on both sides of the aisle?

[...]

The ECF were just as fallable as we are.

[...]

So even the ECF were fallable, even though they were Spirit led.

We have no written accounts of the Apostles to back any of these extra Biblical things up. So I guess we (protestants) tend to believe in what we can read in the Bible.

I'm beginning to think many differences between protestants and Eastern Orthodox can be summed up in the following two statements:

Protestant: "You are fallible."

Orthodox: "I am fallible."

 

[Symes]

Noone here has said that. We have said that your definition of the Word Adelphos is Not neccesarily what the Author intended.

We had all better think again because the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

 

[SumTinWong]

Who wrote the Protovangelion of James?

Who was James to Jesus?

When was it written?

 

[Oblio]

We had all better think again because the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

I have a brother and sister. Neither one of us share the same mother. We and all our family and friends never use a term other than brother, sister, or mother when speaking of our family.

The term brother and sister does not affirm a blood relationship.

 

[Philip]

We had all better think again because the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Why do you continue to force a meaning on to the text that is not necessarily there? Neither the Greek language nor the Semetic culture of the time require 'brother and sister' to mean 'have the same mother'.

 

[Philip]

Who wrote the Protovangelion of James?

Either St James, the brother of the Lord, or someone recording his words.

Who was James to Jesus?

He identifies himself as the son of Joseph, making him a step-brother in modern terms.

When was it written?

The exact date is not known. Some scholars date it to around AD 50. Others as late as AD 180.

 

[SumTinWong]

Either St James, the brother of the Lord, or someone recording his words.

He identifies himself as the son of Joseph, making him a step-brother in modern terms.

The exact date is not known. Some scholars date it to around AD 50. Others as late as AD 180.

Thanks Philip!

Here is my problem.

The Protevangelion of James was originally composed in Hebrew. Some have said, because of the style, and the dialect, that this book was not written until the mid second century(between 120 and 150AD).

With that in mind (the date it was written), this is recorded by Josephus: "James and certain others condemned to death by stoning under Ananus the High Priest, who is deposed by Albinus, Roman governor for this action (62 CE)." There are also reports: According to tradition, James was executed by the the Sanhedrin. He was thrown from the temple walls and afterwards clubbed to death around 62 A.D. Now obviously James couldn't have written this document in the mid second century, so who did? If we knew it was an underling, like John Mark who penned the Gospel from what he heard from an Apostle, okay then, but we don't know at all who wrote this. It is signed James, but if we can conclude that it wasn't him, then how can we be sure of the rest of the content?

Also, this is a minor point that bugs me a little maybe you all can help me with this:
Jesus was born roughly 4BC and died roughly 31-33 AD. If Joseph had other children before Mary(remember some have stated that he was around 80 when Jesus was born), how old would his kids(James, Jude, etc...) be at the time of Jesus' birth?

Some have mentioned that perhaps his kids were grown and had families of their own so that they would report for the census with their own families(which is why they aren't accounted for on the way to Bethleham).

I know it is not entirely uncommon for people in the Bible to live long lives, but according to the math it seems that James would have been at least 80-85 (which makes him 18-23 or so when Jesus was born, and gives him time to get married and have his own family by that point) when he was killed. Joseph would have been 57 or 62 when James or Jude were born. That isn't even unheard of either I guess.

What about Jude, how old was he? A date that has been suggested for the writing of the Letter of Jude is around A.D. 70 and possibly as late as A.D. 80. He must have been close to 100 by then using the same calculations. Not unheard of but not common either in that time period(when the lifespan was around 30-35 years).

It just seems to make more sense that they were in fact younger than Jesus, and not older, and the kids of Mary and Joseph.

I belive the when ECF collected the books for the NT Canon they were all looking at books written by the apostles and sub-apostles. But what books were accepted and proven as genuine? The answer lies in our New Testament. There were at that time many false and spurious gospels and epistles(the Nag Hamadi stuff for instance)but careful, prayerful, and deliberate examination, proved which were genuine and which were false. The genuine were received by the congregation as the inspired writings of the apostles and others whose names the books bear.

If James "the Just" one of the "brothers/cousins/half brothers" of Jesus Christ, wrote a letter or a paper dictating the early life of his step-mom/mom/aunt why wasn't that included in the early canon? He was in fact an Apostle (head of the church in Jerusalem), and one of the big three of the early church. They included other works that were attributed to both him and his brother, so why not this one, as it did supposedly include a prologue to the beginnings of the church?

One could conclude from this that:

1. It was not a reliable document,
2. It wasn't written by James
3. The content was not germaine to our salvation, and therefore not worthy

I am leaning towards all three.

 

[Symes]

Why do you continue to force a meaning on to the text that is not necessarily there? Neither the Greek language nor the Semetic culture of the time require 'brother and sister' to mean 'have the same mother'.

I can say the same thing.

Why do people here say that it does not mean what it says?

You will say the Greek this or that but what about those who do not know Greek?

Does God say we must know Greek before we can understand His Word?

Jesus says we must become as little children. I do not think we must be able to understand Greek to know God's will.

I will stick with what is in God's Word.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Lollard, I hope Philip replies to you with his own POV. He is not going to agree with everything I am about to say. I just want to give the perspective of a protestant who thinks most probably Mary did remain perpetually a virgin.

With that in mind (the date it was written), this is recorded by Josephus: "James and certain others condemned to death by stoning under Ananus the High Priest, who is deposed by Albinus, Roman governor for this action (62 CE)." There are also reports: According to tradition, James was executed by the the Sanhedrin. He was thrown from the temple walls and afterwards clubbed to death around 62 A.D. Now obviously James couldn't have written this document in the mid second century, so who did? If we knew it was an underling, like John Mark who penned the Gospel from what he heard from an Apostle, okay then, but we don't know at all who wrote this. It is signed James, but if we can conclude that it wasn't him, then how can we be sure of the rest of the content?

You do realize there was more than one James in the Jerusalem church, don't you? (Actually, at least 3.) The martyrdom of one of them is recorded in Acts, while other actions of James, the Lord's brother, occur after that.

Also, this is a minor point that bugs me a little maybe you all can help me with this:
Jesus was born roughly 4BC and died roughly 31-33 AD. If Joseph had other children before Mary(remember some have stated that he was around 80 when Jesus was born), how old would his kids(James, Jude, etc...) be at the time of Jesus' birth?

Some have mentioned that perhaps his kids were grown and had families of their own so that they would report for the census with their own families(which is why they aren't accounted for on the way to Bethleham).

I know it is not entirely uncommon for people in the Bible to live long lives, but according to the math it seems that James would have been at least 80-85 (which makes him 18-23 or so when Jesus was born, and gives him time to get married and have his own family by that point) when he was killed. Joseph would have been 57 or 62 when James or Jude were born. That isn't even unheard of either I guess.

I think I posted something before about how it makes more sense for James to have become the recognized leader of the Jerusalem church if he was older, rather than younger, than all or most of the apostles.

What about Jude, how old was he? A date that has been suggested for the writing of the Letter of Jude is around A.D. 70 and possibly as late as A.D. 80. He must have been close to 100 by then using the same calculations. Not unheard of but not common either in that time period(when the lifespan was around 30-35 years).

It just seems to make more sense that they were in fact younger than Jesus, and not older, and the kids of Mary and Joseph.

I don't want to debate dates or authorship of the books of the NT. However, recent scholarship (by liberals who do not believe the scriptures, as well as by conservatives who do hold them as sacred) has been leaning toward earlier and earlier dates for the NT books. It has long been assumed that all or nearly all the letters were written before the gospels, and it is today considered quite a respectable opinion to hold that all the gospels were written between 40 and 90. So your date for Jude may be quite late among the opinions of scholars. I haven't studied what scholars think about the date of that particular book, so it could be believed to be among the last. However, based on the obscurity of its content, I would not be surprised if it was quite early.

I belive the when ECF collected the books for the NT Canon they were all looking at books written by the apostles and sub-apostles. But what books were accepted and proven as genuine? The answer lies in our New Testament. There were at that time many false and spurious gospels and epistles(the Nag Hamadi stuff for instance)but careful, prayerful, and deliberate examination, proved which were genuine and which were false. The genuine were received by the congregation as the inspired writings of the apostles and others whose names the books bear.

If James "the Just" one of the "brothers/cousins/half brothers" of Jesus Christ, wrote a letter or a paper dictating the early life of his step-mom/mom/aunt why wasn't that included in the early canon? He was in fact an Apostle (head of the church in Jerusalem), and one of the big three of the early church. They included other works that were attributed to both him and his brother, so why not this one, as it did supposedly include a prologue to the beginnings of the church?

One could conclude from this that:

1. It was not a reliable document,
2. It wasn't written by James
3. The content was not germaine to our salvation, and therefore not worthy

I am leaning towards all three.

I would say probably all Christians would agree with #3. It dealt more with the history of Mary, not with the history of Jesus himself.

With all due respect to Philip and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, I think it was written in the second century, and not by James himself. It may have been a translation or recollection of James' stories. It may have been a piece of "holy fiction," much like tales of the innkeeper of Bethlehem that were so popular during my childhood. This is the main reason I asked earlier if there was any evidence elsewhere of Jewish virgins dedicated to the Temple. I am still trying to decide what to make of this document.

However, the fact that such a document was written during the second century and gained such wide popularity is strong evidence that Christians of that time did generally believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. If they didn't already believe this, they would not have accepted a story (whether historical or fictional) that goes to such pains to explain how this came about. Instead, they would have discarded it, saying things like, "Polycarp was a disciple of John and once met Mary, and she had other children." "So-and-so among us are grandchildren of James or Jude and they tell us this document is silly. James, Jude and the others were Mary's children, born after Jesus."

The value to me of the Protevagelion is not as evidence of the facts it relates, but rather that its acceptance during the second century is evidence that believers at that time already believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. If that were not true, given the popularity of this book, which became the basis of a major Feast of the Church (analogous to Chanukah becoming a Jewish feast, although the events it celebrates are extra-canonical?) would not have arisen. During the second century it could have been debunked if Mary had younger children.

I'm keeping an open mind toward the historicity of the Protevangelion itself. But I find it very persuasive as secondary evidence of what second century Christians thought about Mary.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I can say the same thing.

Why do people here say that it does not mean what it says?

You will say the Greek this or that but what about those who do not know Greek?

Does God say we must know Greek before we can understand His Word?

Jesus says we must become as little children. I do not think we must be able to understand Greek to know God's will.

I will stick with what is in God's Word.

Symes, it would enhance your own credibility greatly if you would simply acknowledge what others have said and engage in a discussion of how you disagree with their points.

Maybe you can answer one question:

Do you believe Jesus' brothers and sisters were the children of God and Mary?

I'm sure you do not. The scriptures that refer to his brothers and sisters also refer to Jesus as the son of the carpenter. So if Jesus' brothers and sisters share only one parent in common with Jesus, and those who referred to them as brothers and sisters think Jesus is the son of a carpenter, how do you know (from scripture) which parent these people think Jesus has in common with his brothers and sisters?

 

[Philip]

The Protevangelion of James was originally composed in Hebrew. Some have said, because of the style, and the dialect, that this book was not written until the mid second century(between 120 and 150AD).

There are at least two major problems with your dating. First, the same scholars who date the Protoevangelium based on content, dialect and style assign late dates to Scripture as well.

I Peter is usually dated AD 80-120
II Peter after AD 100. Some even place it at AD 160.
Ephesians and II Theselonians after AD 80.
I and II Timothy and Titus after AD 100.
The three epistles of St John as late as AD 120.

These dates seem to have a problem, don't they? If they are correct, none of these books could have been written by their supposed authors. If you believe the scholars to be wrong about these, is it such a strech that they could be wrong about the Protoevangelium too? Maybe even Jude?

The second error is this: The ancient concept of authorship is radically different from the modern. If an author wrote down the words of St James, even 100 years after they were spoken, after they had been passed on by several intermediaries, the book would still be ascribed to St James.

If James "the Just" one of the "brothers/cousins/half brothers" of Jesus Christ, wrote a letter or a paper dictating the early life of his step-mom/mom/aunt why wasn't that included in the early canon? He was in fact an Apostle (head of the church in Jerusalem), and one of the big three of the early church.

The answer to this is easy. The Protoevangelium was not circulated in the West. (This is why St Jerome was confused and believed that James was the cousin of Christ.) Since it was not received by the entire Church, it was not counted in the canon.

 

[Philip]

I would say probably all Christians would agree with #3. It dealt more with the history of Mary, not with the history of Jesus himself.

I would agree with this. I think all Orthodox would. While the vast majority of us believe Mary to be Ever-Virgin, it is not a dogma of our faith.

With all due respect to Philip and our Orthodox brothers and sisters, I think it was written in the second century, and not by James himself. It may have been a translation or recollection of James' stories.

I take no offense at this. I consider it well within the realm of possiblility that the Protoevangelium was not penned by St James. I do believe that it records his words.

It may have been a piece of "holy fiction," much like tales of the innkeeper of Bethlehem that were so popular during my childhood.

There was certainly plenty of this floating around. The Protoevagelium may even include some embelishments, but I think the basics are accurate.

If you want some truly fictional writing, try the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

The value to me of the Protevagelion is not as evidence of the facts it relates, but rather that its acceptance during the second century is evidence that believers at that time already believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Quite so. If James and Jude were Mary's younger sons, it is not unreasonable for use to postulate that her grandchildren would have been around during the second century. Certainly, they would have objected.

If memory serves, St Justin Martyr mentions the descendants of James and Jude. Since he wrote after even the latest date given for the Protoevagelium, we must wonder what they thought of it.

(analogous to Chanukah becoming a Jewish feast, although the events it celebrates are extra-canonical?)

Well, extra-canonical to some.