Interesting News article

No, not really. There are two traditions concerning James.

1)That he was a cousin of Jesus.

2)That he was the half brother of Jesus. Son of Joseph by a deceased wife before Mary.

 

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "The inscription may lead to more problems concerning the RCC beliefs concerning Mary."

How would it cause a problem for Catholic dogma? Or more precisely, Luther's dogma?

Andre Lemaire, a researcher at the Sorbonne in Paris, says all three names were commonplace and estimates that there were only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

So, in estimate, there is a 1 in 20 chance of this relating to our Lord and Savior. Secondly, this may account for a cousin or kinsman (as I'm sure you're very aware of use of "brethren" in that culture is the same as many cultures in other countries other than the US today - where it is used of relatives who are not brothers, strictly put) of Jesus who had a father with the same name as Jesus' father: Joseph.

And if this does accurately represent the James of the NT who is strictly Jesus' brother (and not cousin or kinsman), there is a strong tradition in the East, dating back to 120 A.D. - with the Protoevangelium of James - that Joseph, a widower with children, betrothed himself to Mary who herself had taken a vow of virginity to serve in the Herodian Temple. In this tradition, Joseph married Mary to serve as her guardian, and so Jesus had step-brothers through his foster father.

The article quotes Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, who served as the doctoral director of one of my Scripture professors: Andrew Minto, PhD.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Still beating on that dead horse? Luther admitted that it was possible she did not remain a virgin and defended people's right to believe that she did not remain a virgin afterwards.</font>[/QUOTE]And yet condemned the notion of Transubstantation in favor of a view of the Lord's Supper that requires just as much faith as the Catholic view. Any Baptist here will tell you that it is NOT clear that the Lord' Body and Blood are physically present. And yet, Lutherans will condemn the belief that it is not.

The fact of the matter is that Lutherans hold to what they want to hold and reject what they want to reject. If it's too "Romish," out the window it goes.

Oh, and can you provide me with a sermon or anything in which Luther defends people's rights to believe that she had children? I would seriously be very interested to read such a work, as I've never encountered it. Thanks, and God bless,

Grant

 

Hi there,
the ICEJ site had this on it.
"Although Jesus, Joseph and James were all common Jewish names in this
period, it is a rare coincidence for them all to be linked in this manner,
and very unusual for a brother to be named on a burial box unless he was
prominent figure in his own right. This has led Paleographer Andre Lemaire,
to conclude that the inscription is authentic.

The box, purchased by an anonymous Israeli collector some fifteen years ago
for a few hundred dollars, is believed to be from the Silwan neighborhood
in east Jerusalem. Historically, the area corresponds to David's City, the
most ancient part of the Israeli capital.

According to Hershel Shanks, editor in chief of the Biblical Archeological
Review, the finding, "confirms the Jewishness of both James and Jesus," and
is perhaps, "the most important find in the history of New Testament
archaeology."

While the above is interesting but not conclusive, passages such as Mat 12:46 (Luke 8:19, Mark 3:32), Mat 13:55, seem very clear that Jesus had brothers. My question is, why would you want Mary not to have had a normal, happy marriage with Joseph? Why would her joy in having more children offend you?
Genuinely puzzled, Colin

 

That one doesn't really work. Jesus was not the son of Joseph (except in the legal sense) and so unless James shares Mary as mother with Jesus, there is no basis to call him the half brother of Jesus.

 

Hi Colin,

You wrote, "While the above is interesting but not conclusive, passages such as Mat 12:46 (Luke 8:19, Mark 3:32), Mat 13:55, seem very clear that Jesus had brothers.

This is dealt with extensively (and I would almost say, exhaustively) in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article on "The Brethren of the Lord":

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

My question is, why would you want Mary not to have had a normal, happy marriage with Joseph? Why would her joy in having more children offend you?

Because she did not have a normal (comparatively speaking with what we are used to today, of course) marriage with Joseph. Doctrinal truth comes before personal wanting for the committed Catholic. It isn't a matter of our pleasure in deciding the status of Mary's conjugal relations. Our wishes have nothing to do with the faith as passed down. Personal pleasures give way to guarding doctrine faithfully in this matter.

It should also be noted that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome wrote an entire treatise on this issue: "Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary", in which he defends the Perpetual Virginity with amazing clarity; it can be found here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm

Mary took a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph and their betrothal ocurred for the sake of providing Mary with a guardian/protector.

Cf. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

http://www.catholicoutlook.com/objmary2.html

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Keith,

You originally wrote, "The inscription may lead to more problems concerning the RCC beliefs concerning Mary" and after my explanation, you countered with "Note I said this find could lead, not will cause problems on its own"

Note what? I don't see the distinction that you're making. Are you changing the original intention of your primary post? If not, what was the original intention? I don't understand how "may lead to more problems concerning the RCC beliefs concerning Mary" can meaning anything other than what it says. Are you splitting hairs to save face?

You wrote, "It was rejected because it went to far and is counter to the claims of 1 Cor 11 that both the bread and the body are physically present."

Both the bread and the body are present according to the Catholic dogma of the Real Presence. However, terms need to be defined.

The accidents of the bread and wine remain whereas the substance (from "sub" = "under" and "sto" = "stand") changes into the resurrected God-man's body, blood, soul, and divinity.

In this way, Jesus can rightly have held up the bread and chalice and proclaimed that the bread is his body (without lying), that the chalice is his blood and we (including Paul) can rightly refer to the elements by their sensual accidents.

In this way, Justin Martyr could write, "When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the 'eucharisted' bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent" while also writing elsewhere, "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

I also have a question for you, if you don't mind answering.

Since Jesus is really present alongside the bread and wine according to your Lutheran tradition, do you have Eucharistic Adoration? Would you concur with Augustine that not to adore the Eucharist would be to sin?

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi, thanks for your quick response! I read through two of the sites, but could find no Scriptural reasons why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin. The idea that she took a vow of such is not Biblical, and Scripture clearly states that the marriage bed is undefiled.

Sex within marriage is no sin or short fall. It is a blessing of God, and one we could wish for Joseph and Mary.
Take care, Colin

 

Wow. I am totally confused. Where does the
Bible say that Mary took a vow of celibacy?
And how could she be sinless, because in
refusing to have intercourse with her husband,
she would be going against the idea in the
Bible that we are not to withhold intercourse
from our spouses (1 Ccor 7:5). She would also
be deliberately and premeditatedly breaking the
command to "go forth and multiply. And how is
Matthew 1:25 explained?

The idea of Mary remaining a virgin is fanciful,
but that is all.

I am not one to believe that our Lord neces-
sarily had physical half-brothers, because
there is obviously more than one meaning to
the word brother, but to claim that Mary
remained celibate? No. There is no biblical
proof for that.

 

Nowhere in the Bible does Mary take a vow of virginity. It's not there.

 

Be careful Dualhunter. By your logic then, saying that James is the brother of Jesus would necessarily mean that they had the same parents.

So by your logic, either Joseph was the father of both James and Jesus or God is the Father of both James and Jesus.

Which position are you choosing to defend?

Ron

 

I have been avoiding the board lately, though I have been lurking. Had to jump in here to correct something.

In the above, Carson claims Chemnitz might be 'splitting hairs to safe face'. I would like to point out that Chemnitz has been up front with this from the beginning. Using words like 'could' and 'may', not 'would' and 'will'. With this qoute, Carson shows his lack of understanding of this by implying it 'would' cause more problems for lutherans than catholics:

By using 'would', Carson switches the context from which Chemnitz started it. Carson would only have been correct to use 'could', not 'would'. The error is on Carson's side. Either this, or Carson intentionally switched to 'would/will' from the 'could/can/may' to build a strawman. Either way, Chemnitz is in no way wrong or out out of line.

I am only writing this because Carson felt the need to belittle and berate Chemnitz on the board. A very unchrist like thing to do, not to mention silly when he himself was in the wrong, not Chemnitz

In Christ,
jason

EDITED to fix names. I goofed on em.

[ October 23, 2002, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

Be careful Dualhunter. By your logic then, saying that James is the brother of Jesus would necessarily mean that they had the same parents.

So by your logic, either Joseph was the father of both James and Jesus or God is the Father of both James and Jesus.

Which position are you choosing to defend?

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]NO. Wow. I didn't think I would have to give a lecture on family relations and makeup today.

If James is the son of Joseph, but not Mary, he is not the half brother of Jesus (son of Mary and God). He is the step brother of Jesus (Coming from a guy whose parents are each on their third marriage)

If James is the son of Mary and Joseph, he is the half brother of Jesus (son of Mary and God).

Jesus need not have both Mary and Joseph be his parents to be the half brother of James. It is just that simple. That debunks your above objections quite nicely.

Or...more generally:

HALF SIBLINGS:
1. Share one parent genetically, not both (get it..half?)

STEP SIBLINGS:
1. No genetic link to parents

In Christ,
jason

 

"The inscription, in the Aramaic language, appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones. It reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Lemaire dates the object to 63 A.D."

This doesn't say "half brother".

Also, in my initial post to this thread, I said that a tradition holds James to be the son of Joseph by a wife (deceased) prior to Mary.

Could it be that "brother" had a different and broader meaning in that time? I believe so.

Ron

 

Why does it matter if James was a step-brother, half-brother, cousin, boyhood chum, or family gardener? It seems entirely irrelevant to me.

 

Ron, where did you hear/read about 'a tradition' holds James to be the son of Joseph by a wife (deceased) prior to Mary.

MEE

 

If James is the son of Joseph but not of Mary, there is no real basis to call him the brother of Jesus. If on the other James is the son of Mary and therefore half brother of Jesus, there is a basis to call him the brother of Jesus because the two share a common parent.