Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
It is well that you rest your case.
Mopy Dopaughtoper spopeaks Oppoppopish, shope's hopere ropight nopow!
Certainly a cousin could have a family resemblance...but this James was not called an "Anepsios" (cousin) in scripture. He was always referred to as an "Adelphos" (brother).
Our Lord did have a cousin named James....the brother of John and also called the sons of Salome and of Zebedee (Thunder). This was the John who took the responsibility for the care of Mary at the crucifixion. Salome is identified here by Mark.
[Mark 15:40] There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome
John identifies her as the sister of Mary [John 19:25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
From this we know that Salome is Mary's sister and of course, the wife of Zebedee [Matthew 27:56] Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
And of course we know that Zebedee is the father of James and John [Matthew 4:21] And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
So....yes, Jesus had a first cousin named James. He also had a brother named James....but because of his tentative relationship with his brethren [John 7:14-5] he entrusted the care of his mother to his first cousin, John, brother of this James, sons of Salome and Zebedee.
I think you are reading too much into what Ignatius has written. I believe he is only commenting on the family resemblance. I don't believe I said that James was his twin brother. I do believe that this James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was his half brother, because scripture itself tells us The Lord will have siblings. [Psalm 69:8-9] I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
John tells us about the disciples remembering this prophecy here: [John 2:17] And his disciples remembered that it was written, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up".
And one that makes it absolutely impossible. On the Cross, Jesus gives Mary to John as his mother. The Gospel says John took her eis ta idia, "to his own [people]".
As stated in my previous post #704, the reason Jesus gave the care of his mother to his "cousin" James was because of the family strife He had encountered from his brethren [John 7:1-5]. His cousin, John, being the next closest family relative....and a trusted disciple to boot, is the next obvious choice. After all.....his brethren not only did not believe him.....they tried to get him killed!
Just who do you think "My Mother's children" would be referring to?
Wow, I really don't know when I have become so irate over an article with absolutely no backbone and no Scriptural backing. Where are all the verse proving his blatant lies? He apparently doesn't study the Bible well enough to miss over all the important stuff...like the Mass and establishing Peter as the Vicar of Christ, but then again, you can nitpick pretty much anything you don't want to see in the Bible. It's kind of like closing your eyes and denying that there is a computer monitor sitting right in front of you...even though you have to look at it to read this post.
And, hey, it is Lent. We ARE due for more persecution anyway (Along with the Discovery Special: Lost Tomb of Jesus)?
In a way, though, I am slightly grateful for reading it (having the patience and all), it completely reinforced everything I believe. Good day.
-Glass
I did not offer them as proof. My exact words are here: There is a good indication here.....that Ignatius thought he was. Offered as food for thought only.
Please read #704 & #705.
see post #707.
this of course should say "cousin" John....not James!
Catholics who receive salvation by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ are saved. Those that add works have not saving faith and are not saved. The Roman Catholic Church is not part of the church of Jesus Christ but I know catholics who have Christ. I also know and have met catholics that only hope to enter heaven and put their faith in something other than the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, such as purgatory. It is more than sad it is evil and God will not be mocked by this religion of man.
It sounds like it. I grew up in southern NM where rude people spoke Spanish when they didn't want you to understand, we learned to speak it really well and fast and it shut the others up.
Written by Jimmy Akin, apologist:
here are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).
More from him (I didn't want a super long post):
It is unlikely that the term "brother" is being used figuratively or mystically because all Christians are Christ's brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. Full brother is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. Half-brother is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin. It is possible they were adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record.
More plausibly, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage. There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have--in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)--states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin. Though not inspired, the document was written within living memory of Mary, when Christ's family was still well known, as other sources attest (e.g., second century historian Hegisippus). It may contain accurate traditions regarding the family structure.
The step-brother hypothesis was the most common until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth century), who popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins. One would not guess this from a casual reading of the New Testament, but many have tried to deduce it from statements in the New Testament.
Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word "brother." Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.
The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).
This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.
In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”
The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).
Both postings above from catholic.com .
Why forgive? There was no slight given...unless you take offense at the insinuation that protestants know little of scripture. Of course, doing that would be no different than us Catholics finding the initial article of this thread insulting.
Actually you're wrong here. the Church in scripture is always referred to as "The Church of God"....eleven times. It is referred to as The Church of Christ once.....never being referred to as "The Catholic or universal Church".
Jesus himself [John 17:11] prays that God The Father will keep the Church in His (God's) own name. He was never called Mr. Universal. The Church of God has been in existence from the Day of Pentecost. The Catholic Church came along much, much later.
Straw man, son.
The Catholic Church, while not "named" in the Bible, was established by Christ Himself when He built His Church upon the rock known as Peter...our first Pope.
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
**Catholics who receive salvation by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ are saved. Those that add works have not saving faith and are not saved.**
It seems you are talking in circles here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.