Jesus and James

marty1985 · 16-09-2010 07:27AM #1

This has probably been discussed before, but I have been wondering about this.

Was James a real brother of Jesus?
Could Jesus have had other brothers?

I understand that most people say the term brother probably meant cousin. But, hypothetically, if Jesus had a brother, would it make a difference?

I would appreciate any thoughts, or to know what you think personally. I believe the official Catholic teaching is that they were not actual brothers - due to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Could James have been a son of Joseph from a previous marriage? Ideas?

PDN · 16-09-2010 07:59AM

marty1985 wrote: »

This has probably been discussed before, but I have been wondering about this.

Was James a real brother of Jesus?
Could Jesus have had other brothers?

I understand that most people say the term brother probably meant cousin. But, hypothetically, if Jesus had a brother, would it make a difference?

I would appreciate any thoughts, or to know what you think personally. I believe the official Catholic teaching is that they were not actual brothers - due to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Could James have been a son of Joseph from a previous marriage? Ideas?

I believe James (and Jude) were literal brothers of Jesus in the sense that they were born of Mary (fathered by Joseph, presumably).

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not a biblical doctrine, but appears to have crept into the Church pretty early on. This could well have been due to the influence of the Gnostics - an early bunch of heretics who often had extreme views about sex (some were very negative towards sex, while others advocated a free for all).

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 08:28AM

Gasp! PDN....... i am afraid you've got it wrong there.

Joseph was also a virgin (life long)

"brothers" is a clumsy modern translation. brethren is better understood.

try this link for more info

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

PDN · 16-09-2010 09:02AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Gasp! PDN....... i am afraid you've got it wrong there.

Joseph was also a virgin (life long)

"brothers" is a clumsy modern translation. brethren is better understood.

Brothers is not a clumsy translation at all. Adelphoi is the plural of adelphos (meaning brother). "Brethren" is simply a rather archaic English translation that once meant "brothers".

James is described in Scripture as "the brother (adelphos) of the Lord" (singular - so 'brethren' is neither here nor there).

As for me getting it wrong, obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree since I base my beliefs on the Scriptures, whereas you would also base yours on Catholic dogma and tradition.

Baggio1 · 16-09-2010 09:06AM

Christ had NO brothers/sisters, Mary was virgin for her whole life and she had NO other children, brothers/sisters was a term widly used in those times to speak of freinds,. etc close to each other.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 09:10AM

Sorry PDN I had presumed fom previous posts that you were catholic.

I agree with you on adelphos, buy I think the same word was used to connect Lot with Abraham ? and they lived in different times -ie not the same generation.

PDN · 16-09-2010 09:22AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I agree with you on adelphos, but I think the same word was used to connect Lot with Abraham ? and they lived in different times -ie not the same generation.

Some Catholic apologetics websites make that claim, which is rather puzzling since they are referring to Genesis 13:8 - and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

Vinny-Chase · 16-09-2010 09:26AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Joseph was also a virgin (life long)

Despite having been married twice?!

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 09:44AM

PDN wrote: »

Some Catholic apologetics websites make that claim, which is rather puzzling since they are referring to Genesis 13:8 - and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

Hah! I can see it won't be easy to pull the wool over your eyes.

How about this- the OT was written in hebrew and when translated to greek, the most suitable word they used was adelphos

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 09:45AM

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Despite having been married twice?!

more info please Vinny. I haven't heard that one before

Seaneh · 16-09-2010 12:08PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Hah! I can see it won't be easy to pull the wool over your eyes.

How about this- the OT was written in hebrew and when translated to greek, the most suitable word they used was adelphos

We have copies of the OT in the original hewbrew, so why would that be an issue?

Vinny-Chase · 16-09-2010 12:19PM

Joseph was a widower when he married Mary.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 01:03PM

Seaneh wrote: »

We have copies of the OT in the original hewbrew, so why would that be an issue?

yes I know, but we are talking about the greek word adelphos. When the OT was translated to greek they used that word as the most suitable to describe the relationship of Abraham and Lot, so presumable it would have the same meaning when used to describe the relationship between Jesus and the others

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 01:05PM

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Joseph was a widower when he married Mary.

OH.... we catholics have a different view there

SonOfAdam · 16-09-2010 01:21PM

georgieporgy wrote:

OH.... we catholics have a different view there

indeed

Vinny-Chase · 16-09-2010 02:30PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

OH.... we catholics have a different view there

Well this Catholic thinks no man is going to stay married to some broad and not get a lil sumsum every now and then, at least on a birthday or anniversary

marty1985 · 16-09-2010 02:51PM

Christianity asks us to believe a lot of things which I can accept, some of them supernatural and miraculous, but Joseph being a lifelong virgin...

philologos · 16-09-2010 03:09PM

I believe that James was the brother of Christ and indeed that He had other brothers and sisters also probably by Mary also. The Gospel accounts also refer to Jesus as having brothers and sisters.

Des Carter · 16-09-2010 05:32PM

Yep he had a few brothers and sisters.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/sisters.html

Lots of bible quotes backing this stuff up also.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 06:39PM

So that is one of the big differences between protestant (excuse the all encompassing umbrella term please) and catholics then. I hadn't realised that.

I thought Martin Luther and Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. But I confess I am not up to date in all this and am relying on stuff I read 20 years ago.

That means the Protestant view is basically Joseph and Mary had a nice family and one of the kids turned out to be something real special. And some of his siblings became his followers.
How about the virgin birth. Do you mean Ps acknowledge Jesus' conception was the result of a miraculous intervention by God? (Joseph in separate bedroom). But all the other kids came about naturally so to speak.

Seaneh · 16-09-2010 06:44PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

So that is one of the big differences between protestant (excuse the all encompassing umbrella term please) and catholics then. I hadn't realised that.

I thought Martin Luther and Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. But I confess I am not up to date in all this and am relying on stuff I read 20 years ago.

That means the Protestant view is basically Joseph and Mary had a nice family and one of the kids turned out to be something real special. And some of his siblings became his followers.
How about the virgin birth. Do you mean Ps acknowledge Jesus' conception was the result of a miraculous intervention by God? (Joseph in separate bedroom). But all the other kids came about naturally so to speak.

Jesus would have been Mary's first child (but not necessarily Joseph's first). Mary was after all very, very young when she was pregnant with Jesus. All Christians believe in the Virgin Birth and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. It's whether or not herself and Joseph had kids after the birth of Jesus that the debate comes in.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 06:56PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Yep he had a few brothers and sisters.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/sisters.html

Lots of bible quotes backing this stuff up also.

I went to that site and read through it. I understand where you guys are coming from now. Thanks for the link.

In future discussions then we will know where we stand and not fall out over it.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 07:00PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Jesus would have been Mary's first child (but not necessarily Joseph's first). Mary was after all very, very young when she was pregnant with Jesus. All Christians believe in the immaculate conception and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. It's whether or not herself and Joseph had kids after the birth of Jesus that the debate comes in.

we say Mary was about 13-14 and Joseph about 30.

What say you?

And have you a quick reference to where it suggests he was a widower?

PDN · 16-09-2010 07:27PM

Seaneh wrote: »

All Christians believe in the immaculate conception and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

No, Seaneh, you're confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth.

The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary herself was conceived without original sin, and many of us most definitely do not believe that.

Seaneh · 16-09-2010 07:28PM

PDN wrote: »

No, Seaneh, you're confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth.

The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary herself was conceived without original sin, and many of us most definitely do not believe that.

wait, really?
In that case, an edit is due.

georgieporgy · 16-09-2010 07:29PM

marty1985 wrote: »

Christianity asks us to believe a lot of things which I can accept, some of them supernatural and miraculous, but Joseph being a lifelong virgin...

Marty it is only in recent years that people have been so hung up about sex (getting sex that is). since the second world war, the 1960's etc

PDN · 16-09-2010 09:21PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Marty it is only in recent years that people have been so hung up about sex (getting sex that is). since the second world war, the 1960's etc

The survival of the human race would suggest people have always wanted to have sex.

Fanny Cradock · 16-09-2010 10:00PM

Seaneh wrote: »

wait, really?
In that case, an edit is due.

Don't worry. Loads of people get that mixed up for some reason. I guess because conception has often been associated with birth :pac:

strobe · 17-09-2010 12:26AM

Baggio1 wrote: »

Christ had NO brothers/sisters, Mary was virgin for her whole life and she had NO other children, brothers/sisters was a term widly used in those times to speak of freinds,. etc close to each other.

Is that in the Bible? That Mary was a virgin for life? After the death of Jesus how often is Mary mentioned, chronologically(not sure if that's a word, "linearly in time")

georgieporgy · 17-09-2010 02:01AM

would protestants consider virginity to be a strong noble virtue or some kind of geeky yucky thing reserved for wierdos?( or maybe something else....)

marty1985 · 17-09-2010 04:49AM

Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without sin, whereas Jesus's conception can be referred to as the Miraculous Conception, am I right?

I've noticed a lot of people getting mixed up about this. I noticed recently Bruce Springsteen getting it wrong when he uses the term Immaculate Conception in one of his songs.

I find it a nice thought that Jesus might have had brothers, like myself, and argued with them, like myself. In my opinion, it's another thing that would make him fully human. I think the Church has had some hangups about sex for a long time. It always seems to be that if anyone is to be regarded as holy, then they can never have had a basic human desire for sex.

Jesus and James

Comments