In the New Testament, certain men are described as the “brothers” of Jesus, including “James and Joses and Judas and Simon” (Mark 6:3; and see Matthew 13:55). The Catholic position is that these men are simply male relatives: in the same way that Abraham calls Lot his “brother” (Genesis 13:8), even though he’s actually his nephew (Gen. 12:5).
But the typical Protestant position is that these other men were literally Jesus’ brothers, meaning that the Virgin Mary didn’t remain a Virgin (despite prophesies like Ezekiel 44:2). I’ve handled this before more thoroughly, showing that two of Jesus’ “brothers,” James and Joses, are the sons of another woman, Mary of Clopas (Mark 15:40; John 19:25), and thus, are obviously not His literal brothers.
But I noticed something recently. At the start of the Apostle Jude’s epistle, he introduces himself as, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Jude means the James who is sometimes called “James the Lesser.” We know he’s not referring to James the Greater, because we know more about his family tree: he’s the son of Zebedee, and his brother is the Apostle John (see Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10, Mark 3:17). [Even if he meant “brother” in a looser sense, it wouldn’t make sense to call himself the “brother of James,” rather than the “brother of James and John.” The Apostle John outlived his older brother (Acts 12:2), so it would make more sense to call himself the “brother of John.”] And this James is prominent enough that the Apostle Jude identifies himself by calling himself this guy’s brother. So really, the only person he could be referring to is the other Apostle James, known as James the Lesser.
But this creates some problems for the Protestant interpretation, because James the Lesser is the Apostle called “the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) But if Jude is literally James’ brother, and James is literally Jesus’ brother, then Jude is also literally Jesus’ brother. How could Jude have failed to mention that fact? Why in the world introduce himself as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,” instead of “Jude, a servant and brother of Jesus Christ”? That is, if he’s going to identify his brother who’s an Apostle, why not his Brother who Is God?
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible acknowledges it’s James the Lesser, but tries to explain away this awkward omission with a couple of theories:
(1) that the right to do this did not rest on his mere “relationship” to the Lord Jesus, but on the fact that he had called certain persons to be his apostles, and had authorized them to do it; and,
(2) that a reference to this relationship, as a ground of authority, might have created jealousies among the apostles themselves. We may learn from the fact that Jude merely calls himself “the servant of the Lord Jesus,” that is, a Christian,
(a) that this is a distinction more to be desired than, would be a mere natural relationship to the Saviour, and consequently.
(b) that it is a higher honor than any distinction arising from birth or family. Compare Matthew 12:46-50.
This is some weak exegesis. Jude has no problem pointing out that he’s the Apostle James’ “brother,” even in the exact same breath that he’s allegedly too meek to mention his family connections. Plus, this would require believing that the other Apostles had such huge, sensitive egos that they couldn’t handle the idea that Jude and James were Jesus’ own brothers. Better hope they never read Galatians 1:19. And of course, it also requires believing that the Holy Spirit, in God-breathed Scripture, caters to these massive and vulnerable egos by omitting an important detail about Jude’s connection to Christ.
Incredibly, it gets worse. Acts 1:13 tells us that those present at the replacement of Judas were “Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” You should notice two things:
- James and Judas don’t have the same father;
- Neither of them are sons of St. Joseph.
Obviously, Mary wasn’t previously married (Luke 1:26-27), and St. Joseph is very much alive when Jesus is twelve (Luke 2:41-42). Since Jesus is only about thirty when He starts His public ministry (Luke 3:23), that doesn’t leave a lot of time for Mary to (1) remarry, (2) have another son, (3) have her second husband die, (4) marry a third time, (5) have another son, and (6) have both of these sons grow up to be Apostles. Yet for these to literally be Jesus’ half-brothers, that’s what Protestants are claiming. She would have had to have gone through two extra marriages in only a few years to have two adult sons by husbands besides St. Joseph (and this is excluding all of her other alleged children). And this assumes that St. Joseph right away. Yet Scripture records exactly none of these events.
And that’s not all. Matthew 10:2-4 lists the Apostles, and notes which ones are related. For example, he tells us that Simon Peter and Andrew are brothers, and also that James (the Greater) and John are brothers, and that their Zebedee is the father of the latter two sons. Yet while mentioning James the Lesser is the “son of Alphaeus,” St. Matthew fails to mention that he’s the brother of another Apostle, or that he’s the brother of Jesus. And likewise for Jude, who Matthew calls Thaddaeus — we’re not informed of the fact that he and James are brothers, or that they’re brothers with Jesus. Likewise with the other Gospels: the only thing we’re told is that these men have different fathers.
Finally, remember again that James the Lesser and Joses are listed as the sons of another woman as well, known as Mary of Clopas (Mark 15:40; John 19:25), who is not listed as Jude’s mother. That’s important for two reasons.
 |
| Detail from Rogier van der Weyden’s Descent from the Cross (1435) showing Mary of Clopas, the Apostle John, and Salome (the Virgin Mary has collapsed in John’s arms) |
- First, it shows that James the Lesser and Jesus weren’t literally Brothers. James the Lesser isn’t Mary’s son from a subsequent marriage, or Joseph’s son from a previous marriage.
- Second, it shows that James the Lesser and Jude weren’t literally brothers, either. James the Lesser is the son of Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas. Jude is the son of someone named James, and apparently not Mary of Clopas (or we’d see his name listed in Mark 15:40).
If “brothers” is understood to be a generic term for male relatives, all of this works. Jesus, James, Joses, and Jude are “brothers” in this broad sense. Likewise, the Virgin Mary and the other Mary are “sisters” in this sense (John 19:25). That is, the Catholic interpretation makes a lot of sense.
It also comports with ancient Church Tradition that held that Mary was ever-Virgin, and that She fulfilled the prophesy of the Temple Gate (Ezekiel 44:2) — that in giving birth to Christ, she was consecrated to Him in a radical way, and became a new Ark of the Covenant. Under this view, the Apostle James was probably cousins with Jesus on one side of the family, and with the Apostle Jude on the other.
I don’t know about Judas, but I read somewhere that James could be the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. I even read that some Eastern artwork has James as a youth going into Egypt with the Holy Family. Ever heard any of this Joe?
I thought today is the Feast of Great St. Andrew?
Father Merrin,
I have. But I don’t see how to rectify that theory with the full Scriptural evidence. In Mark 6:3, the four “brothers” of Jesus include James and Joses. In Mark 15:40, St. Mark refers to one of the women watching the Crucifixion from afar as “Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joses.” So James the Lesser’s mother is still alive. And James’ father is Alphaeus (Acts 1:13).
Some Orthodox and Protestants resolve this by claiming that “James the Less” and “James, the brother of Jesus” are two separate people. That strikes me as incredibly unlikely, given the parallel between Mark 6:3 and Mark 15:40. We’d have to say that both men were named James and had brothers named Joses, despite the rarity of the latter name (it appears nowhere else in Scripture). And if there were two close followers of Christ named James, each of who had a brother named Joses, why would Mark choose this way of distinguishing them? It wouldn’t distinguish them at all.
As an aside, James’ mother is described in John’s parallel account as “Mary of Clopas” (John 19:25). The “of Clopas” leaves ambiguity as to whether she was Clopas’ daughter or wife. Papias says she’s Clopas’ wife, and that Clopas and Alphaeus are the same person. Hegesippus disagrees, claiming that this Mary is Clopas’ daughter, in which case Alphaeus is Clopas’ son-in-law. Hegesippus also tells us outright that Clopas is “the Lord’s uncle,” and that he’s also the father of Symeon, who became the second bishop of Jerusalem. If that’s true, it would also explain the third of the four “brothers” mentioned in Mark 6:3.
Father Andrew,
Happy name day! Sounds like somebody should write a post on the great St. Andrew!
I.X.,
Joe
@Joe: OK, now everyone knows that you think it’s not possible for two people to have the same name. Anyways, look at Psalm 69 (a messianic prophecy). Now look at: “a stranger to my mother’s children” (Psalm 69:8). Do you actually think it wasn’t talking about the Lord?
“James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” You should notice two things:
James and Judas don’t have the same father;
Neither of them are sons of St. Joseph.”
And neither are “Brothers of the Lord.”
The list of the Twelve list two James, neither who is James the Brotehr of the Lord, as he was not one of the Twelve. Hence the two James, the Greater and the Lesser, and the Brother of the Lord.
Two works deal with these matters in some detail:
James, brother of Jesus Pierre-Antoine Bernheim
http://books.google.com/books?id=GagWAQAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Pierre-Antoine+Bernheim%22&dq=inauthor:%22Pierre-Antoine+Bernheim%22&hl=en
Jude and the relatives of Jesus in the early church By Richard Bauckham
http://books.google.com/books?id=nYcUCufJ6L0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
The view of St. James and St. Jude being step-brothers of the Lord (sons of a widower St. Joseph) is the only one which has the support of Tradition. The “cousin” explanation originates with St. Jerome (with some convoluted reasoning), in an effort to produce a totally virginal Holy Family more in line with St. Jerome’s views on marriage. Hegesippus describes St. Simeon as the Lord’s cousin, differently from the rest of the Desposynoi “the Lord’s Brothers.”
Btw, the four names of the Brothers are, including Joses, are among the most popular in Palestine at the time, and elsewhere. The names of the sisters, however, were popular in Palestine, but nowhere else.
Thanks for this post. It has always puzzled me, why Jesus on the Cross, in John 19:25-27, would place Mary in John’s care (ecce Mater tua) if Jesus had brothers. Any thoughts, Joe? Spiritual sonship?
Michael,
I don’t mind people disagreeing in the comments around here, obviously — there are often great conversations that go on. But as I’ve asked many times, try to contribute something productive. Look at how you approached this:
OK, now everyone knows that you think it’s not possible for two people to have the same name.
That’s obviously not what I said, nor what I meant, and you know it. If nothing else, you should have been tipped off by the fact that I distinguished between James the Greater and James the Lesser in the post. In no world could what I said have been reasonably been construed as “it’s not possible for two people to have the same name.” In intentionally mischaracterizing my argument, you’re just being dishonest. It doesn’t fool anybody, it undermines your actual arguments, and it’s no service to the Gospel. Compare your comment with Isa’s: he raises a similar counter-argument, but in a charitable and thoughtful way.
I’ve been extremely patient with you, given the number of times you’ve done this. But my patience isn’t endless, so at least make an effort to contribute something honest and constructive to the conversation. Basically, I’m asking you to approach me as if we’re both Christians seeking to serve Christ and understand the Gospel, rather than as if we’re rival politicians trying to destroy one another’s reputations.
On to your question regarding Psalm 69. I’d say a few things. First, the Psalms are distinct from traditional prophesy (like Isaiah or Ezekiel, e.g.). The present concerns of the Psalmists are blended with foreshadowing of Christ. Psalm 69 is no exception. On one level, this Psalm is about someone who was falsely accused of theft (Psalm 69:4). Plenty of things in Psalm 69 foreshadow Christ, but that doesn’t mean every element is true of Him. For example, Psalm 69:5 says, “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.” And Christ is sinless, of course. So the first option is simply that v. 8 isn’t strictly Christological.
Second, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, the “mother” may not be Mary – it may mean Israel. The full sentence (v.8-9), taken as a whole, says, “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons; for zeal for Your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” That is, the image is of mother Israel, and her sons, the Jewish people, in their home, the house of the Lord, the Temple of Jerusalem.
Third, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says that the Mother of Christ’s children are “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”
So the three options are that v. 8 refers to (1) something exclusive to the Psalmist, (2) Israel, and (3) Christians. Of the three, I think (2) is the strongest, but any are possible.
I.X.,
Joe
@Isa: If the first-born has the right to the throne, then Yeshua (Jesus) isn’t King if Joseph had sons from his ‘widow’. But, as a student of Dake (so to speak), I agree with Lesser, Greater, and Brother of the Lord, concerning the James’ probabilities.
@Joe: I know it’s your blog and everything, but my first comment that upset you is almost exactly how you ‘refute’ protestantism. And no, my comment wasn’t because I didn’t have anything to say because your article put an end to it all as you seem to say. Look at my comment to Isa. There were many James’, Jude’s, etc. in the NT. So your blog was close-minded. Anyways, yea, the Psalms (Psalm 69 included) can have dual or sometimes more than two meanings. But, in context, Psalm 69:8 is referring to the Lord (not that it isn’t also referring to David).
Isa,
I haven’t read Jude and the relatives of Jesus in the early church, but I read most of Richard Bauckham’s more succinct presentation of the same argument from Themelios over dinner (it’s available here). My thoughts:
(1) It’s very well-written, and he does a good job laying out the three camps: Hieronymian (that the “brothers” were cousins, — my view); Helvidian (that the “brothers” were St. Joseph’s sons from a late first wife — your view) and Epiphanian (that the “brothers” were the children of St. Joseph with the Virgin Mary — apparently, Michael’s view). A Catholic can hold to either the Hieronymian or Helvidian view. So there’s no theological reason your view has to be wrong. Having said that, I still think that the Helvidian view is wrong.
(2) Bauckham makes a somewhat different argument than you do. He argues that of the “brothers” of Jesus, one of them (Simon) is actually His cousin, while the others are His literal brothers. See his proposed family tree here. He admits that Clopas is the uncle of Jesus, and then says:
“In fact, the second-century writer Hegesippus, who calls James and Jude ‘brothers of the Lord’, calls Simeon the son of Clopas the ‘cousin of the Lord’, evidently distinguishing the two relationships.”
But the woman described as “Mary of Clopas” in John 19:25 is described as “Mary the mother of James and Joses” in Matthew 27:56, and “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses” in Mark 15:40. In other words, James and Joses are sons of Jesus’ aunt Mary. Which is to say, His cousins.
(3) As to your own argument, it is certainly possible for there to be multiple families with sons named James and Joses, but there are three reasons I think we can say with a good deal of certainty that’s not the case here. First, from what I’ve read, “Joses” is a far less common than you suggest: while “Joseph” was a very common name, “Joses” was an unusual permutation (the difference between Megan and Meaghan, perhaps). That exact name isn’t found elsewhere in Scripture (and for what it’s worth, Wikipedia agrees with me). Second, we’ve already seen that Jesus has cousins named James and Joses (the sons of Mary of Clopas). So that’s a bit unusual, too.
But still, I can imagine a situation in which Jesus has brothers named James and Joses and cousins named James and Joses, both sets of whom are sons of women named Mary, and both sets of whom could be called “brothers” of the Lord. However, in such a situation, we’d see the Gospel writers distinguishing between which set of James and Joses they mean — by exclusively referring to her as Mary of Clopas, or to them as sons of Alphaeus, or something.
Instead, Matthew 27:56 says, “Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” That passage makes sense from the Hieronymian view: there’s only one “Mary the mother of James and Joses,” so we know who he means. But from the Helvidian view, you’d have to ask, which one?
(cont.)
(cont.)
(4) On a more basic level, this is a question about whether there are two Jameses (the Greater and the Lesser), or three (the Greater, the Lesser, the Brother of the Lord). In Galatians 1:18-19, St. Paul says the only Apostle besides Peter that he saw in Jerusalem was “James, the Lord’s brother.” This suggests that “James, the Lord’s brother” was either James, the son of Zebedee (“James the Greater”), or James, the son of Alphaeus (“James the Lesser”). After all, these are the two Apostles named James (Matthew 10:2-3).
(5) St. Jerome also points out that titles like “James the Greater” and “James the Lesser” make sense in distinguishing two people, but not three. That sort of intuitively makes sense, I guess.
(6) As for the claim that the Helvidian view is the more traditional one, that’s only true in the East. And even there, the Helvidian view is suspect, since it’s first clearly found in three spurious Syrian writings: the Infancy Gospel of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. Bauckham notes that these may reflect an ancient Syrian Christian Tradition. Perhaps, but they’re hardly a reliable foundation. Jerome points this out as part of his reason for rejecting it.
(7) It’s flatly untrue that the Hieronymian view originates with Jerome. Papias (c. 70-155) explicitly says “James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s.” He seems far more reliable than three forged “Gospels.”
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. Sorry for such a long response — you gave me a lot to work with!
Sr. Lisa Marie,
Great question. I forgot to mention this in my reply to Isa (which was already too long), but it’s a good point. If Jesus had brothers, or even step-brothers, Jewish tradition would say that Mary would be cared for by them.
It would have been an enormous insult to entrust Mary to the Apostle John if St. James the Just were her biological son.
As it was, Jesus uses this as an opportunity to establish Mary’s spiritual Motherhood over all Christians. St. John presents himself as the Beloved Disciple, and a model for us to follow. Revelation 12:17 also shows followers of Jesus Christ as sons and daughters of His Mother.
Michael,
If you feel like I’m being dishonest in my presentation of Protestantism, don’t respond in kind. Instead, just correct me on it, please! If I’m doing it, it’s only by mistake. The last thing that I want to do is mischaracterize the Protestant argument, because what’s the point in spending my time refuting a position that nobody holds?
I.X.,
Joe
If the first-born has the right to the throne,
IF
But he has the throne of David his father. Did Solomon just get the throne as the firstborn? No — Bathsheba did some mighty finagling to get him something that on that theory is his or isn’t.
Good insight into the letter of Jude, thanks for pointing it out.
I don’t think your point from Galatians works though, because James, “the brother of the Lord” need not have been one of The Twelve in order to be the other apostle besides Peter. After all, Paul identifies himself as an apostle right at the beginning of the letter.
It seems to me that “a stranger to my mother’s sons” should be read literally/poetically as “even those closest to me don’t/won’t recognize me”. Someone who is such a finicky literalist as to insist on a perfect fit down to the minutest detail doesn’t have enough of a poet’s soul to recognize the Psalm as a prophecy in the first place. Until the Reformation invented fever-swamp literalism, no Christian read the Scriptures that way anyhow. I remember being struck one time by this passage in Psalm 50: “But to the wicked God says … If you see a thief, you are a friend of his and you keep company with adulterers.” That is exactly the reproach leveled at Jesus, and it was true! Naturally, no one thinks that God reproaches His own Son as One Who is wicked. But we should be somewhat clear about how something is a prophecy, and how it is not.
John 7:5 says that at the “brothers” of Jesus did not believe in Him. “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” If these were Mary’s son’s, how could that be? They would have grown up in Mary’s household and she certainly believed in Him. She had the gold and other gifts from the three wise men. It is inconcieveable that Mary’s own son’s would not believe in their older brother. Now, if they were only cousins…
Perhaps even more to the point, his brothers rebuke him over it. This would be deemed unspeakably rude if it had been a younger brother rebuking an older.
Joe, off topic, but have you ever tackled the issue of Matthew primacy or Mark primacy or a Q text?
I would love to see what you and the brains on here can come up with. 🙂
Daniel I’d love to see a post on that that too. One of my professors had a theory that despite the fact that modern scholars consider Mark to predate Matthew, he [my professor] postulated that could have been a consequence of underlying anti-Catholicism among Biblical scholars of the late 19th century, especially those from Germany, because Matthew gives such weight to the Church (Matt 16, etc) and was traditionally (ie, by the same tradition that assembled the Scriptures, that is, the Church Fathers and earliest earliest councils) placed first in the NT because it was once thought to be written before Mark’s Gospel…. but it was just a hunch he had.
But yes, some Q, Mark, and Matthew talk would be great!
My working hyposthesis is that Tradition affirms that St. Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and later it was translated into Greek. This logia was Q. St. Mark, collecting the teachings of St. Peter used this Hebrew/Aramaic Q, which may have already been translated into Greek, as the outline of his Gospel. St. Matthew then revised his text of logia into a full narrative in Greek.
“It is inconcieveable that Mary’s own son’s would not believe in their older brother. Now, if they were only cousins…”
or if they were only step-brothers, and older ones at that. There is tradition that the brothers, except for St. James, did not want to share the inheritance of St. Joseph with Jesus when their father reposed.
Btw, the step brother “tradition” (as opposed to the Helvidian (sons of Mary) and Hieronymean (cousins) theories) is what is called “Epiphanian.” The Papias quote is attributed to Papias, but the identification is dubious and late, and problematic as the only ancient correlation comes from self-confessed forgers. Lord willing, I’ll post something on that. (got to get to the bill paying work).
How reliable is Papies…I mean re: Judas for example.
Isa,
1) We agree regarding Matthewan priority. I think that to the extent there’s a “Q,” it’s probably the original Aramaic version of St. Matthew’s Gospel that the Fathers mentioned. That theory strikes me as the best way of accounting for both the Patristic and stylistic evidence.
2) Regarding Eusebius, where does he admit to being a forger? He’s a generally quite reliable source.
3) Even if it was originally Eusebius, and not Papias, who said that these were Jesus’ cousins and not brothers, it’s still not true that Jerome was the first to make this argument, as you claim. Eusebius was dead before Jerome was even born. So either way, your claim that Jerome made this theory up out of some warped view of virginity is plainly debunked.
I.X.,
Joe
This post contains excellent argumentation. I am definitely convinced that the authors of the Gospels thought Mary was perpetually a virgin, or at least wanted others to believe this.
Besides, is it more incredible to believe that Mary never had sex after Jesus was born, or that Mary never had sex before Jesus was born?
The second is far more incredible, and seems far more ridiculous to me than the first claim (which many women probably have fulfilled).
Eusebius wasn’t a forger, but neither does he provide the “Papias” (Eusebius didn’t think much of Papias, btw). I was refering to St. Anastasius of Sinai (much of whose work is interpolated, and who admited to forging documents in his polemics), who some have cited as the source of the Papias fragment (confusing it seems the Ante-Nicea Father series’ notes). The fragment of “Papias” that make the brothers cousins is not Papias of Hieropolis, but Papias a Latin (I’ve only seen it in Latin:no one has ever offered the “Greek”) lexiconographer of the twelth century, IOW based on, rather than providing the basis for, St. Jerome.
Eusebius does not confuse the Lord’s brother Simeon for His cousin St. Simeon, who succeeded His brother St. James. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James…After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.” The rest of Tradition up to St. Jerome is also clear on the difference. Only with St. Jerome does the “cousin theory” appear. It has no basis in tradition.
Oops! Left out a quote (of St. Clement) from Eusebius: “Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ.”
Anyone interested in a longer account based on the Bible could refer to this webite and article: Who was “James, the Brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19) at
atma-o-jibon.org/english/articles.htm
Protestant interpreration r all rubbish.
Protestant interpretation r all rubbish.
Mary offered.a Sin Offering and Burnt Offering in Luke 2:22-24. Both these offered were for sin. Leviticus 4 teaches the sin offering was ONLY offered after someone sinned. Mary was not Sinless!!!
AFTER ALL ARE 2, 3 OR 4 JAMES IN THE BIBLE?
REJECTING LIES AND HERESIES CREATED BY PROTESTANTS:
FIRST:
THIS STATEMENT IS LIAR AND BIZARRE BEYOND BEING PRIMARY AND CRIMINAL THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE BIBLE.
AND NOT EVEN IN THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
IN SHORT:
THIS FALLACE ONLY EXISTS IN THE PROTESTANT’S HEAD WITH ITS INCOMPLETE AND ADULTERED BIBLES.
HERE I WILL REFURBISH THESE MISTAKES USING THE BIBLE ONLY:
LETS GO:
WHO IS JAMES OF GALATIANS 1.19 QUOTED BY SAO PAULO?
GRADES:
Protestants, in order to attribute more children to Mary, they claim that James, brother of Jesus, mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1.19, is not one of the apostles, even though the text says so.
And they go further: They quote Acts 14:14 and Romans 16:7, texts in which Andronicus, Junias and Barnabas receive the title of apostles, although they are not.
TO REFUSAL THESE PARROTS:
We just look at the list of apostles and we see that such names are not present there…
Protestants argue using their views that only generate doctrinal heresies Protestants say that the apostle in Galatians is symbolic, to exclude James, brother of Jesus, from their respective apostleship.
THEN THEY WITH THEIR INCOMPLETE AND ADULTERED BIBLES USING THEIR POINTS OF VIEW:
They claim there is more James in the Bible.
According to them, there are at least 4 James in the NT:
THERE IS A REFUSAL TO THIS BIZARRE ARGUMENT:
SHOW US THE BIOGRAPHY OF THESE OTHER TWO JAMES AND WHOM THEY ARE THEY REALLY CHILDREN? FOR THE BIBLE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THEY ARE THE CHILDREN OF ALFEU AND THE OTHER OF ZEBEDEU.
According to the lists of Matthew, Mark and Luke, there were only two apostles named James.
LET’S SEE:
“Behold the names of the twelve apostles: first Simon, named Peter; then Andrew his brother. James his brother Zebedee, and John his brother. Philip and Bartholomew. Thomas and Matthew the tax collector. James son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus. Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor” (Mt 10, 2-4) (emphasis mine).
“He chose these twelve: Simon, whom he called Peter; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, whom he called Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder. He also chose Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew , Matthew, Thomas, James, son of Alphaeus, Thaddaus, Simon the Caretaker, and Judas Iscariot, who delivered him” (Mk 3,16-19) (emphasis mine).
“At dawn he called his disciples and chose twelve among them whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he gave the surname of Peter; Andrew, his brother; James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, son of Alphaeus ; Simon, called the Caretaker; Judas the brother of James; and Judas Iscariot, the one who was the traitor” (Luke 6:13-16) (emphasis mine).
As we can see, one James was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus.
Now a simple question for Protestants: what do Zebedee and Alphaeus have with St. Mary, Mother of Jesus?
YOU BRAZILIAN TO SUPPORT YOUR HERESIES:
Do you want to convince us that James of Galatians 1.19 is not an apostle? As for Andronicus, Junias and Barnabas it is easy to see that they are not in fact apostles.
Just read, as I have already shown the list of apostles in Matthew, Luke and in the Acts of the apostles and we will see that. As for James, however, the situation is complicated for the Protestant thesis, because in the apostolic lists there are no more than two Jameses.
NOW ARE THEY DISPUTE SHOW US THE BIOGRAPHY OF THE OTHER TWO TIAGOS?
And try to prove to us that James, mentioned by Paul, is not one of the twelve of those lists?
AND ANSWER US?
Why does St. Paul call James, brother of the Lord, an apostle, knowing that there are in the twelve, two James?
Is this not a coincidence? One of Jesus’ brothers is James.
And that same James, brother of Jesus, is called an apostle and is in the apostolic lists in the Bible.
Where we have 2 James logo.
So By virtue of reason, James of Galatians 1.19 can only be one of the two.
NOW PROTESTANTS IF IT IS NOT? PROVE US BY SHOWING US THE BIOGRAPHY OF THIS TIAGO AND WHOSE SON IS HE USING HIS ADULTERED BIBLES?
They say that St. Paul there only insinuated that James of Galatians 1.19 was an apostle, but then show us the biography of this James and who he really is.
FOR IN COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS OF THE BIBLE:
In Galatians 1.19, the connective “if not” or “not to be” is used (EIMÉ in Greek) which proves that James, brother of the Lord, and one of the twelve.
NOW 4 TIAGO IN THE BIBLE IS A PURE BIZARRE PROTESTANT INVENTION:
This is proven in Galatians 1.19 in which St. Paul speaks of the twelve who were apostles before him, proof of this St. Paul still quotes St. Peter (which was one of the twelve) and ends by saying: “And I did not see any other of the apostles .
THESE APOSTLES ARE THE 12 FIRST FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST:
ASK THE PROTESTANTS WHO WERE THE FIRST 12 APOSTLES CHOSEN BY JESUS CHRIST? DO WE ANSWER?
WITH YOUR BIBLES INCOMPLETE AND ADULTERED AND TELL US WHY YOU?
They interpret the Greek word (((((((((EI MÉ)))))))), in this text, as “however”, not as “otherwise”.
WHY CRIMINALY ADULTERATE THIS PASSAGE IN YOUR BIBLES TO FORGE YOUR LIES:
Even in your versions, you translate this word as “if not”, and not as “but”. So this is enough to show the inconvenience of the objection.
Because the word “apostle” is taken from Galatians 1.19 and is in a real sense, it is expressly said: “And I saw none other of the apostles, but James, brother of the Lord.
The first sense of a word can only give way to the figurative sense in the exegesis of the text when it is not possible to interpret it literally, as it is seen that Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias are not included in the lists of the twelve apostles. Furthermore, we have to agree on the following: in Gal 1.19, the connective “if not” or “unless” is used (EIMÉ in Greek) which proves that James, brother of the Lord, is one of the twelve.
NOW LET’S SEE WHO THIS JAMES BROTHER OF THE LORD IN GALATIANS 1.19:
GRADES:
St. Paul calls one of the “James” the “brother of the Lord” in (cf. Galatians 1:19). But who is this James whom the Holy Apostle refers to? The Elder (son of Zebedee and brother of John) or the Lesser (son of Alphaeus and brother of Judas)?
In Acts we read that John’s brother James was killed after Herod’s persecution: “At that same time, King Herod had some members of the Church arrested to mistreat them. So he slew James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12.1-2) (my emphasis). This happened after St. Paul was in Jerusalem to see the Apostles, as his account in Galatians 1:18-19 is the same event narrated by St. Luke in Acts 9: “Coming to Jerusalem, [Paul] tried to join the disciples, but all feared him, not wanting to believe that he had become a disciple. So Barnabas, taking him with him, introduced him to the apostles, and told them how Saul had seen the Lord on the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus had unashamedly preached the name of Jesus. Thereafter he remained with them, going out and entering Jerusalem, and fearlessly preaching the name of the Lord” (Acts 9, 26-28). Thus, when St. Paul was in Jerusalem to meet the apostles, the two “James” were alive, but if we pay attention to the sequence between chapters 1 and 2 of the letter to the Galatians, we will see that the James referred to in Galatians 2.9 is the even from Galatians 1.19. Chapter 2 of the letter to the Galatians refers to the Council of Jerusalem, narrated in Acts 15, when James the son of Zebedee had already been killed (cf. Acts 12:1-2).
the list with the names of the 12 apostles both in the gospel of Matthew 10:2-5; Mark 3.18-19;
IN BRIEF I CHALLENGE PROTESTANTS TO SHOW ME IN THEIR INCOMPLETE AND ADULTERED BIBLES THE LINEAGE OF THIS TIAGO AND SHOW US WHO HE IS AND WHO IS HIS FATHER AND MOTHER?
Identifying Jesus’ “Brothers”
We have seen that St. Paul testifies to the Apostolic Tradition of identifying James, son of Alphaeus, as the brother of the Lord Jesus. Let us remember that this James has with brothers Judas Thaddeus and Joseph.
Now, exactly the names James, Judas and Joseph that head the list of the “brothers” of Jesus in the list of the Evangelists, let us remember:
“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Do not his sisters also live here among us? And they were perplexed about him” (Mk 6:3) (emphasis added my).
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t Mary your mother? Aren’t your brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Mt 13.55) (my emphasis).
7. Identifying the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”
To make it even clearer that James, Joseph, and Judas are Jesus’ cousins, let’s identify their mother.
The evangelists reported that in addition to the Mother of Jesus, other women were close to Calvary. Let’s see:
“There were also some women there [on Calvary] who watched from afar; they had followed Jesus from Galilee to serve him. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” ( Mt 27.55-56) (my emphasis).
According to St. Matthew they were: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joseph and the mother of Zebedee’s children. In fact, James and Joseph, who are also brothers of Judas Thaddeus, have as their mother a Mary who is not the mother of the Lord. Zebedee’s sons are James the Greater and St. John, whose mother was also in the crucifixion scene.
“And there were also some women there, watching from afar. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James the Lesser and of Joseph, and Salome” (Mk 15:40).
They were Saint Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joseph who are also brothers of Judas and Salome. In agreement with Saint Matthew, Salome can only be the mother of the sons of Zebedee, that is, the mother of James the Greater and Saint John. Again Mary mother of James, Judas and Joseph is not Mary mother of Jesus. This Maria had Alphaeus as her husband.
“At the cross of Jesus were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary [wife] of Cleopas, and Mary of Magdala” (Jn 19:25).
St. John identifies Mary, Cleopas’ wife, as Jesus’ aunt, that is, St. Mary’s sister. Now, we know that James the Greater and St. John are not Jesus’ cousins, otherwise they would be called “brothers of the Lord”; thus Salome is not Mary the wife of Cleopas.
This Mary, wife of Cleopas, is the mother of James, Joseph and Judas. Therefore, these “brothers” of Jesus are actually his cousins, children of Mary, Jesus’ aunt.
As in antiquity men were usually known by two names, some believe that Cleopas is the other name of Alphaeus. Others support the thesis that Cleopas is the husband of a second marriage to Mary, Jesus’ aunt. Indeed, only James is referred to as the son of Alphaeus (see item 2 of this article), while only Judas and Joseph are said to be his brothers.
Whether Alphaeus and Cleopas are the same person or not, this does not pose any problem, for in fact James, Judas and Joseph are children of Mary, aunt of Jesus; it doesn’t matter if James the Minor is the son of Alphaeus and Judas and Joseph the sons of Cleopas.
THE FOURTH TIAGO INVENTED BY THE PROTESTANTS STILL COMES ADULTERATE:
THE FOURTH TIADO IS ADULTERED IN MANY PROTESTANT BIBLES BEING TIAGO FATHER OF JUDAS SEE:
Judas, son of James; and Judas Iscariot, who turned out to be the traitor. 6.16 https://www.bibliaon.com/versiculo/lucas_6_16/
More about the original text You must provide the original text to see more information about the translation
BUT THIS PASSAGE OF LUCAS, 16 IN COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS OF THE BIBLE OF ALMOST 2000 THOUSAND YEARS IS READ
“Judas, brother of James; and Judas Iscariot, he who was the traitor. Crowd of disciples” Luke 6:16
Saint Luke, 6 – Catholic Bible Online
Read more at: https://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/biblia-ave…/sao-lucas/6/
FINISHING:
Here is a list with the names of the 12 apostles both in the gospel of Matthew 10:2-5; Mark 3.18-19; Luke 6.13-16 and Acts of the Apostles 1.13.
Let’s look at the list of names given by Matthew: “2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew, the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him”. (Matthew, 10, 2-5) Almeida Bible. Points to consider: Jesus early in his public ministry called disciples by choosing twelve, whom he named apostles.
note:
The names of the parents of the apostles at the time of Jesus, surnames for people were not yet used, this custom began in the Middle Ages.
Families were patriarchal, and the parents’ names were highly valued. In Judaism it was customary to place oneself to identify a person whose son he was. Thus in the synoptic text we find many names with the specification “BAR”, which in Hebrew means son, for example: blind Bartimaeus (meaning son of Timaeus), Simon Barjonas (meaning son of Jonah) etc… The name of the apostles and filiation: We found in the list of names three pairs of brothers: 1) Peter and Andrew; they were sons of Jonah or John. We don’t find the mother’s name. 2) James and John; they were sons of Zebedee and Salome 3) Matthew and James: they were sons of Alphaeus 7 – Judas (not Iscariot). Son of Lebeu 8 – Bartholomew son of Tolmai 9 – Thomas, the name of his country does not appear. He bore a great resemblance to Jesus. 10 – Felipe – his parents’ names do not appear. He was a native of Bethsaida. 11 – Simon the Zealot, were born in Cana, some authors say that he would be the bridegroom at the wedding of the Wedding of Cana. The membership does not appear. 12 – Judas Iscariot was Simon’s son. The only one who was not from Galilee. – Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee choosing 11 of his natural disciples from Galilee, most of them worked in the fishing industry and only Judas Iscariot who was from Judea.
Mais sobre o texto originalÉ necessário fornecer o texto original para ver mais informações sobre a tradução
Enviar feedback
Painéis laterais