Jesus' brother, James

[Symes]

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

They would be children of Mary and her husband.

 

[SumTinWong]

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.

There are actually possibly eight different James judging bythe names. Most scholors who believe it to be true(the proto), believe it was James the Just who wrote it. James the Lord's brother are one in the same.

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.

The first I ever heard of Jewish Temple virgins was in the proto, so I can't help you there. There were alot of infancy gospels out there, and most of them were gnostic in nature, most said they were by an Apostle, so I am asking why can't this be one of them? We have no idea who penned it.

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.

True and I have said that it IS possible that she was a PV. But this document does nothing to prove that for me. It reaks with myth. For instance: Why does Joseph start taking over the narrative in XVII Saying "Now I Joseph was walking, and I walked not. And I looked up to the air and saw the air in amazement. And I looked up unto the pole of the heaven and saw it standing still, and the fowls of the heaven without motion. And I looked upon the earth and saw a dish set,..." If James wrote it, why was he speaking as if he were Joseph? Just little things like that...

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.

They very well may have thought it, but I am still not convinced that this book, is any proof of what they believed.

 

[Philip]

There were alot of infancy gospels out there, and most of them were gnostic in nature, most said they were by an Apostle, so I am asking why can't this be one of them? We have no idea who penned it.

We look to how it was received by the Early Church. The Protoevangelium was widely accepted in the East. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, was widely rejected.

 

[SumTinWong]

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?

You are correct the scholars could be wrong about when the proto was written, but I will explain why I don't think so in a minute.
I would love to know your sources for when people think these things could have been written. The Bible I have sitting right next to me has these dates set at:
1 Peter 60-68AD
2 Peter 65-67AD
Ephesians 60-62
2 Thess 50-52
1 Tim 62-64
2 Tim 64-68
1,2,3, John 85-89, 85-89, 80-90

So to be honest I don't care what the scholars say about when these were written. We know who wrote them(with the exception of Hebrews), and we can take historical facts from the time period, and line them up with authorship, and date them in that way.

The truth is there aren't any original surviving texts, so trying to date them by the earliest copy we might have is idiotic(which is why I said this is a minor point). The earliest copy we have the proto for instance, is dated from 300 or so, and we know that isn't right.

From what I understand Origen (185-204)was the first to mention the proto in writing, so there is some evidence it was around at least by then. But we don't have any earler mention (that I am aware of) of the proto which makes me believe it was much later then the Gospels, and Epistles, which are mentioned in various forms before then by different writers. It has been said that the story of the death of Zacharias (chs. xxii-xxiv) does not properly belong to the proto. Origen and other early writers give a different account of the cause of His death: it was, they say, because, after the Nativity, he still allowed Mary to take her place among the virgins in the Temple.

Can you explain the part in the proto: XVIII where Joseph takes over the narriation of the story? Then in XIX it switches back without any warning after a paragraph? Can we be sure whether or not this means that a fragment of a 'Joseph-apocryphon' was introduced at this point and, if so, how far it extends?

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.

The book is not attributed to St James, it is signed by James. There is a difference. Paul it is believed did not write all of the letters to the churches, in fact he may have had someone write them for him, but he was at least dictating the letters. At one point he makes a statement, "look what big letters I use", to emphasize it was him on one occasion. There were a great many false stories out there about the infancy, how do we know which is real and which is not? They all claimed to be written by Apostles didn't they?

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.

I would ask you why the proto wasn't recieved by the whole church? Obviously the East sent something to the West to read didn't they? Did they send this? If not why not? Was the East out of the loop, when the canon was created?

Isn't the truth really:
The Protestants cannot prove they were brothers
The Orthodox cannot prove that they were step brothers
The Catholics cannot prove they were cousins?

So how come all three claim to have the truth on the matter then?

Liz gives a far better reason to believe in the PV of Mary than anyone so far by what she said about how many people mention it. Her approach seems to be the best route to take. I am at least willing to admit that I may be wrong to this point, but not based on this work.

 

[SumTinWong]

We look to how it was received by the Early Church. The Protoevangelium was widely accepted in the East. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, was widely rejected.

How far back do you go, to mean the early church?As I said before, Origen was the first to write about it in the mid to late second century. And because he wrote about it, does that mean we assume that it was widely accepted? By whom? The congregation or the priesthood?

 

[Philip]

How far back do you go, to mean the early church?As I said before, Origen was the first to write about it in the mid to late second century.

The same can be said of Titus, 1&2 Timothy. There is no external reference to them before Irenaeus c. AD 170. They are missing from Marcion's canon from AD 140. I don't think there is any reference to 2 Peter before Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century. Is there any mention of 3 John before Origen? How should we interpret this? Can we apply the same standard to the Protoevangelium?

And because he wrote about it, does that mean we assume that it was widely accepted? ?

What did Origen say about it? Did he consider it authentic? (Yes.) Is there any reason to believe that his opinion of the book is not reflective of the Church at large?

By whom? The congregation or the priesthood

Why not both?

 

[SumTinWong]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Take it easy

 

[Nickolai]

That's a little unfair to us Orthodox and Catholics though lollard.

This is something we've believed since the Beginning of Christianity. And the new guys wanna come in and say we are wrong and that their belief is just as good as ours. 2000 years or 150? I'm gonna go with the 2000

 

[SumTinWong]

That's a little unfair to us Orthodox and Catholics though lollard.

This is something we've believed since the Beginning of Christianity. And the new guys wanna come in and say we are wrong and that their belief is just as good as ours. 2000 years or 150? I'm gonna go with the 2000

Actually what is unfair Nickolai is for you to try and tell me that this what was thought of for 2000 years, when you have no proof that it was even believed during Jesus life, or the life of the Apostles afterwards. None.

The Prot is invalid to me, because the council did not validate it as a canon book. Besides no one has even tried to explain the errors between what Origen said and what the book says, or for that matter why was Joseph talking in the first person in the story. So that book is a non issue with me.

The "new guys" don't want to tell you that you are wrong, you are telling the new guys they have to believe something that is clearly cannot be proven and is not even a matter that is worth believing. I said it before, she may have remained a PV. I will say this as clearly as I can so you all get the point:

WHO CARES???

What weight does this hold for our salvation? NONE. What possible difference does it make? NONE. Jesus never mentioned asking Mary for help to come to Him, or speaking to Mary for any reason. It was/is about Him. There is only one mediator, only one gate in which we have for salvation, and it isn't Mary. The Grace of God comes from the throne of God, through Jesus Christ. No one else.

What I am saying about the subject of Marys' PV: It is a non issue.

 

[Philip]

The Prot is invalid to me, because the council did not validate it as a canon book.

An interesting statement since every Council that has commented on the canon includes the Deuterocanon.

 

[Oblio]

What weight does this hold for our salvation? NONE. What possible difference does it make? NONE.

The difference is that it is the truth, the word of God handed down by word and epistle.

Jesus never mentioned asking Mary for help to come to Him, or speaking to Mary for any reason.

How do you know this ? Scripture itself states that there are many things that Christ did that are not written down.

It was/is about Him.
There is only one mediator, only one gate in which we have for salvation, and it isn't Mary. The Grace of God comes from the throne of God, through Jesus Christ. No one else.

No one said any different. The verse you are thinking of:

1Ti 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Is speaking of Christ as the God-man reconciling us to God the Father through His death on the Cross. To take this to mean intercessory prayer, would be to contradict Scripture which states:

Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

and

2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

What I am saying about the subject of Marys' PV: It is a non issue.

For you perhaps, I respect that. Realize that for many Christians, it is part of the fullness of the truth of God's word.

 

[Symes]

This whole thing about Jesus having brothers is all about the integrity of The Catholic Church.

If Mary had other Children (as the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters) then where does the Church stand?

Could we believe anythng else that comes from the Church?

It really comes down to what do people want to believe. The Bible and the Bible only or the Bible and tradition.

 

[Nickolai]

No, It's not about the integrity of the Roman system you call the Catholic Church. Orthodox are not part of that system. And we believe the PV as well. It's not about integrity it's about truth. This is a case where either your right about the PV or your wrong. The overwhelming evidence of History, Scripture, Church Tradition, and common sense tell us that she was perpetually a virgin. Now the protestants want to come in and tell us were wrong becuase they interpret scripture wrongly? Please, don't try to use the Church's book to contradict the Church. You have no authority to do so, and The Church knows the Bible better than you do.

 

[Oblio]

Could we believe anythng else that comes from the Church?

You mean, for instance, what Books are in the Bible ?

Or the doctrine of the Trinity ?

Or the Christological doctrine of the dual nature of Christ ?


There is a poll elsewhere that shows that classic heresies are held by many professed Christians on this board. I submit that this is because many of them hold to the JBM (Jesus, Bible & Me) theological model rather than looking to the pillar and foundation of truth for doctrine.

 

[Crazy Liz]

This whole thing about Jesus having brothers is all about the integrity of The Catholic Church.

If Mary had other Children (as the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters) then where does the Church stand?

Could we believe anythng else that comes from the Church?

It really comes down to what do people want to believe. The Bible and the Bible only or the Bible and tradition.

I'm trying to understand your point. Please allow me to rephrase what I think you said and ask you to correct my errors, as I'm sure I will make some.

I think you are saying that we should not believe anything the Roman Catholic Church teaches that is not in the Bible. If the RCC teaches something that is not in the Bible, we should believe the opposite. We should try to prove the teachings of the RCC false at every opportunity so as to undermine its credibility.

I'm sure what I just said is an exaggeration, but I'd like you to point out exactly in what respects I have exaggerated or misstated your position.

 

[Symes]

I'm trying to understand your point. Please allow me to rephrase what I think you said and ask you to correct my errors, as I'm sure I will make some.

I think you are saying that we should not believe anything the Roman Catholic Church teaches that is not in the Bible. If the RCC teaches something that is not in the Bible, we should believe the opposite. We should try to prove the teachings of the RCC false at every opportunity so as to undermine its credibility.

I'm sure what I just said is an exaggeration, but I'd like you to point out exactly in what respects I have exaggerated or misstated your position.

Crazy Liz

Are you trying to tell me to believe something that is not in the Bible.

 

[Philip]

Are you trying to tell me to believe something that is not in the Bible.

Accepting the Bible is believing something that is not in the Bible -- we must rely on extra-Biblical sources to establish the contents of the Bible.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Crazy Liz

Are you trying to tell me to believe something that is not in the Bible.

I was not trying to tell you anything. I was asking you whether I correctly understood something you said.

I was (and still am) asking you to clarify something you said so I can understand what you meant.

BTW, I think we all believe a lot of things that aren't in the Bible. I believe the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, even though it's not in the Bible.