If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it

[Sigma]

Matthew 13:55-56

Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 are called His "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. ἀδελφή adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), translated to "brothers" and "sisters" in English. The aforementioned Koine Greek words have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," etc.

The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 shows the meaning "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative" applies to Jesus's brothers and sisters. However, a kinsman/kinswoman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc., and information needed to determine the type of kinship that applies here is lacking in those same verses.

I've shown below the type of kinship Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were to Him.
This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

Early Christian and Scriptural References​

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

James, the brother of the Lord, was the "...author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... 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." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

Additional Scriptural Support

The teaching that Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) was the mother of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), as well as the sister-in-law of Jesus's mother, Mary of Joseph, can be further supported by these verses:

"his (Jesus's) mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas" (Jn. 19:25)
"Mary, mother of James" (Mk. 16:1)
"Mary of James" (Lk. 24:10)
"Mary, mother of James and Joseph" (Matt. 27:56)
"Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph" (Mk. 15:40)

If, at the very least, you agree that "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 63 and the apostle "James" in Gal. 1:19 were the same person,
consider the following about two of the twelve apostles named "James:"
​

Apostle James, son of Zebedee, whose brother [sibling] was Apostle John, and their mother is only known to have been the mother of "the sons of Zebedee." It's indisputable that of the two, this James-apostle doesn't correlate with the "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 4:21;20:20;27:56, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2)

Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, whose brothers [siblings] were Apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) and Joseph. It's indisputable that of the two, this James-apostle correlates more with "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)

Summary

Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD] indicated "Apostle James of Alphaeus" and "James the bishop of Jerusalem" were the same person, as well as the brother [sibling] of Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), and that these four were the sons of Mary and Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas). (Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10)

Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Less," and the "author of the Epistle of James," were the same person. He also said this James was the son of Jesus's mother's sister, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas, cf. Jn. 19:25), which coincides with Papias's testimony, and thus Jerome would've known he was Apostle James of Alphaeus as well. (De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae)

Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Just," and the "author of the Epistle of James," were the same person. He also said, "Apostle Paul makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. I, ch. 23, Bk. II, ch. 1)

Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD] indicated "James the bishop of Jerusalem" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Hypotyposes, Bk. VII)

Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE] indicated "James the brother of the Lord" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD] indicated "James the brother of the Lord" and "James the Just" were the same person. (Hypomnemata)

The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively show that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3;apostle James of Alphaeus; James the Less; James the Just; James the bishop of Jerusalem; James "the brother of the Lord;" and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person, and the son of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alpaheus), and thus he and his siblings Simon, Joseph, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's cousins.​

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 are called His "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. ἀδελφή adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), translated to "brothers" and "sisters" in English. The aforementioned Koine Greek words have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," etc.

The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 shows the meaning "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative" applies to Jesus's brothers and sisters. However, a kinsman/kinswoman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc., and information needed to determine the type of kinship that applies here is lacking in those same verses.

I've shown below the type of kinship Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were to Him.
This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

Early Christian and Scriptural References​

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

James, the brother of the Lord, was the "...author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... 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." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

​

There is no reason why Mary would not have lived a normal lifestyle after being married. To do otherwise would seem odd for her and odd for the husband. Why anyone would want to believe otherwise is outside of my understanding.

 

[Sigma]

There is no reason why Mary would not have lived a normal lifestyle after being married. To do otherwise would seem odd for her and odd for the husband. Why anyone would want to believe otherwise is outside of my understanding.

Joseph and Mary's lifestyle was far from "normal" after being married. The Virgin Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, gave birth to, and raised God Incarnate Who is also the Messiah. That wasn't normal and commonly found in Jewish households lol. For Mary to carry God Incarnate, the most Pure and Holy One, it's odd God would want to reside in the womb of an impure, unholy, and sinful woman, and be raised by impure and sinful parents. Ask yourself, since God made sure the ark that would carry His written Word be made with the purest materials, why would He not make sure the ark that would carry His Word made flesh be made pure, holy, and sinless, so as to carry and raise Himself: the Pure, Holy, and Sinless One? Whether or not you agree on that, what you think is not the same as what I've given you in post #161, which is evidence that proves those believed to be Jesus's siblings were actually His cousins. Did you read it?

 

[Augustin56]

The development of the Christian Bible, including the New Testament and the Old Testament, is a complex historical process that involved many individuals and groups, including early Christian communities, Church councils, and both Catholic and Protestant leaders.

1. New Testament: The New Testament, as a collection of Christian texts, was formed over several centuries. The process of determining which books were to be considered part of the New Testament was largely complete by the 4th century. This was done through a series of councils and synods, where bishops and other church leaders discussed and debated the merits of various texts. The Catholic Church, as it existed before the Protestant Reformation, played a significant role in this process. However, it's important to note that this was before the split between Catholic and Protestant traditions, so it wasn't a case of the Catholic Church "giving" the New Testament to Protestants.
2. Old Testament: Regarding the Old Testament, the Catholic Church traditionally uses a version that includes the books of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint includes several books not found in the Hebrew Bible, known in Protestant circles as the "Apocrypha." When the Protestant Reformation occurred, reformers like Martin Luther chose to use the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament, which does not include these additional books. Thus, Protestants typically have a slightly different Old Testament than Catholics.

In summary, while the Catholic Church played a crucial role in the formation of the Bible as we know it, the situation is more nuanced than simply saying they "gave" the New Testament to Protestants or selected the Septuagint version of the Old Testament for them. The formation of the Christian biblical canon was a complex and gradual process influenced by many historical and theological factors.
go Chat!

Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, long after the Bible was assembled in the late 4th century.

The Catholic Church, at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, met and prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Then, they analyzed over 300 documents, books, letters, etc., coming up with the 27 books that we all call the New Testament. Many documents that most assumed would make the cut, didn't, such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Some, most people had never heard of.

Maybe the word "gave" could certainly be replaced with a better word with regard to the Protestants having the Bible. The Bible they have, however, is from the Catholic Church, with the exception of some Bibles that no longer use the Septuagent (Greek) version of the Old Testament, from which most of the direct and indirect references to the Old Testament in the New Testament come from.

From a 10,000 ft. view, it seems that those closest in time one gets to the time that groups of Protestants that splintered off from the Church, the closer to the teaching of the Church they are. In other words, the Lutherans are closer than, say, the Baptists, etc. And, vice versa. The further in time they splintered from one another, the further they get from the original teachings given the Church by Christ, ending up with more heretical beliefs.

 

[Jn1.Chris]

There is no reason why Mary would not have lived a normal lifestyle after being married. To do otherwise would seem odd for her and odd for the husband. Why anyone would want to believe otherwise is outside of my understanding.

I really don't care if Mary was a PV or not but while reading through this thread I kept thinking 'why wouldn't she have sex with her husband?'. It's perfectly normal, men really want it and it's a gift from God to married couples. Imagine going 20-30 years without starting from when you were in your tliterally sleeping in a bed right next to another human but "no we can't!". Sorry if this too graphic, feel free to report the post.

 

[thelord's_pearl]

Who cares? society views sex as so important or so highly but it's not.

 

[Marymog]

Properly translated?

After the Papal palace council of Trent's acts against God and Christ?
You make Mary a perpetual virgin, despite having other children,and label the Magdalene an adulteress when she was no such thing.

Stay with your pagan church.

Protestors centuries ago realized that's what it is,and walked into the path of the real Jesus.

Hate us?
We can live with that and with God, eternally.

No dead emissaries asking God to do us favors. We have a direct line to the Father.

BTW? God does not have a mother.

Hello blessedpeace,

Yes, when properly translated/interpreted Scripture does NOT flat out say that Mary had other children. That is why this debate has been raging for 500 years. For the first 1,500 years of YOUR Christian history Christianity held fast to that tradition, just like Scripture tells us to do (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Your Protestant revolutionaries then threw out 2 Thessalonians 2:15 because it didn't fit what THEY believed.

First off....Have you and your ilk 'properly translated' Scripture when it comes to Mary Magdalen? Mary Magdalen is so called because she is either from Magdala near Tiberias on the west shore of Galilee OR possibly from a Talmudic expression MNRLA SY`RA NSYYA, i.e.” curling women’s hair”, which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

2nd off, The Church lists Mary Magdalene in the book of saints. Can you show me in official Church teaching that it is taught she was a prostitute?

3rd off, I know that you believe that you and your ilk 'walked into the path of the real Jesus' after you left The Church. If your theory was true, which ONE of you is walking the path of the real Jesus? All of you believe/teach different salvific doctrine. Sooooo which one of your denominations are truly walking that path? I suspect anyone that agrees with YOU are walking that path?

No, The Church doesn't hate you.

Scripture says and The Church teaches, WE do have a direct line to the Father. The Church further teaches what Scripture says, that those in heaven are still alive in Christ, just like you and I. Those alive in Christ can pray for us to our Father. You and your ilk throw out those parts of Scripture.

Thank you for your opinion....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yawn

the people chose Barabbus over Jesus

Go ahead and follow your men

I will follow God

Here is the truth EG.

I follow the men of The Church (plural). Just like the NT Christians did and were told to do.

You follow YOU. You follow a (wo)man (singular). Where does Scripture tell you to do that?

Curious

 

[Marymog]

Its not win or lose

you believe what you are told. No one will convince you otherwise.

they call that being imprisoned. .

You believe what you are told. No one will convince you otherwise.

 

[Marymog]

Yawn

the people chose Barabbus over Jesus

EG,

So you are equating members of The Catholic Church to the people who chose Barabas over Jesus? Catholics want Jesus crucified but you and your Protestant brethren don't? Your logic is illogical.

There is One teaching under One Church with One salvific teaching for us Catholics with One message.

Under Protestantism there are multiple messages with multiple churches with multiple salvific teachings. Some of those Protestant denominations have the same salvific teachings as The Church does. Yet you and your ilk with multiple different salvific teachings that has torn Christianity apart since the Revolution 500 years ago are NOT killing Jesus over and over again? Can you not see how your theory is not logical? Jesus is good with the Revolution 500 years ago that tore his church apart? Seriously????

Oh goodness EG....What man taught you that?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

EG,

So you are equating members of The Catholic Church to the people who chose Barabas over Jesus? Catholics want Jesus crucified but you and your Protestant brethren don't? Your logic is illogical.

There is One teaching under One Church with One salvific teaching for us Catholics with One message.

Under Protestantism there are multiple messages with multiple churches with multiple salvific teachings. Some of those Protestant denominations have the same salvific teachings as The Church does. Yet you and your ilk with multiple different salvific teachings that has torn Christianity apart since the Revolution 500 years ago are NOT killing Jesus over and over again? Can you not see how your theory is not logical? Jesus is good with the Revolution 500 years ago that tore his church apart? Seriously????

Oh goodness EG....What man taught you that?

Catholic is just one denomination of many

You kill jesus over and over again every week.

Your are stuck, like calvinist and arminians are and quite a few others, in the view your view is right and everyone elses is wrong. So you put them all under the same umbrella.

My Gospel did not start 500 years ago. it started in the OT and continued in the NT and even continued after the roman church paganised it with works, and history and all these traditions.

You say your not like the jews, Yet your just like them,

They wanted Jesus, but they wanted the law with it. Paul taught them his entire ministry. Because they wanted to add grace ad works and say that is how you get to heaven,

Your church does EXACTLY that. They want grace and works also. Only they do not want works of the law. The only difference is they chose pagan works and added them to the equation and called it from God. They use the same arguments

History proves us right
Sola Scripture is a lie. We have our own added books and they are just as inspired as the word (Jews did the same thing)


Like I said You want to follow men, Feel free.

But eternity is to long for me to make the same mistake the jews made.

 

[Peterlag]

I really don't care if Mary was a PV or not but while reading through this thread I kept thinking 'why wouldn't she have sex with her husband?'. It's perfectly normal, men really want it and it's a gift from God to married couples. Imagine going 20-30 years without starting from when you were in your tliterally sleeping in a bed right next to another human but "no we can't!". Sorry if this too graphic, feel free to report the post.

I rest my case.

 

[Peterlag]

Joseph and Mary's lifestyle was far from "normal" after being married. The Virgin Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, gave birth to, and raised God Incarnate Who is also the Messiah. That wasn't normal and commonly found in Jewish households lol. For Mary to carry God Incarnate, the most Pure and Holy One, it's odd God would want to reside in the womb of an impure, unholy, and sinful woman, and be raised by impure and sinful parents. Ask yourself, since God made sure the ark that would carry His written Word be made with the purest materials, why would He not make sure the ark that would carry His Word made flesh be made pure, holy, and sinless, so as to carry and raise Himself: the Pure, Holy, and Sinless One? Whether or not you agree on that, what you think is not the same as what I've given you in post #161, which is evidence that proves those believed to be Jesus's siblings were actually His cousins. Did you read it?

Oh so you think God was born from Mary and then God was spit on and nailed to a tree and then God died. Right.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You believe what you are told. No one will convince you otherwise.

Actually that is you.

I do not blindly follow men, you do.

I have changed my views when I am proven wrong

 

[Pierac]

False.
I'll show you why below.

Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 are called His "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. ἀδελφή adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), translated to "brothers" and "sisters" in English. The aforementioned Koine Greek words have multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," etc.

The context of Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 shows the meaning "a near kinsman/kinswoman, or relative" applies to Jesus's brothers and sisters. However, a kinsman/kinswoman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc., and information needed to determine the type of kinship that applies here is lacking in those same verses.

I've shown below the type of kinship Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were to Him.
This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

Early Christian and Scriptural References​

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

James, the brother of the Lord, was the "...author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... 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." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)...

​

Wrong again....
G80
ἀδελφός
adelphós; gen. adelphoú, fem. adelphḗ (G79), masc. noun from the collative a (G1), denoting unity, and delphús (n.f.), a womb. A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family

Let's review.....
Think of it this way, If we only had the writings of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus we would only know about John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ, and James the brother, but we would not know that, for example, Peter or Paul ever existed. And if we calculated comparative importance by amount of space, the ranking would be, first, James with 27 lines of Greek in the Jewish Antiquities 20.199-203, then John with 24 lines in 18.116-19, and finally Jesus with 13 lines in 18.63-64. James, in other words, gets twice the space of his brother Jesus.

Around the end of the first century C.E., Luke records in the second volume, Acts, that the Roman appointed ruler of Palestine Herod Agrippa I, executed "James, the brother of John" (Acts 12:2). Both James and John had been identified as "sons of Zebedee" in his gospel (Luke 5:10). Agrippa also imprisoned Peter at that time in 41 C.E., and when he escaped, Peter said, and Acts 12:17, to "tell this to James," clearly not the just-executed James but another with the same name. Luke never identifies this second James any further but his authority is indicated as recipient of that message and I conclude that he is the same James who later acts the most authoritatively in Acts 15:13 and 21:18. Furthermore, the earliest gospel, Mark, identifies a James in the first place among the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3), and Matthew 13:55 followed Mark in that listing, but Luke omitted it entirely.

In summary, then you would know from Luke that there was a second and very important James but you would never know from either of Luke's volumes that James was in fact the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand, none of Paul's letters in the New Testament dating to the 40s and 50s ever mentioned James, son of Zebedee, brother of John.

Note, too! James had lived in Jerusalem for at least 30 years without incurring anti-Christian persecution and his execution toppled a high priests. James was clearly important not just to the Christian Jews but also to non-Christian Jews and presumably to Pharisaic Jews in Jerusalem, who called for the removel of the high priests Ananite for the crime of executing James “the Just”.

Really.... Mary never did the dirty with her husband! LOL
Even jesus turned water in to wine...

You keep going like this and the next thing your going to say is the human Mary was the mother of God... LOL

As the creator of all things has a Mom... LOL

Pay attention!
On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could you guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Your posting like a Heathen...
Paul

 

[Sigma]

Oh so you think God was born from Mary and then God was spit on and nailed to a tree and then God died. Right.

I don't think, I know. God is Spirit, He Incarnated Himself through Mary, a part of Himself becoming human. Jesus Himself said He was God, some believed Him, some didn't, like the Pharisees.

In Jn. 1:1 we read,

'In beginning was the Word"
"Ἐν (In) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word)..."

"the Word was with God"
"καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God),..."

"and God was the Word"
"καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word)..."

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
"Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας." "Καὶ (And) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) σὰρξ (flesh) ἐγένετο (became) καὶ (and) ἐσκήνωσεν (dwelt) ἐν (among) ἡμῖν (us)..." (Jn. 1:14)

We read Jesus is the Word Who became flesh (Jn. 1:14), the same Word identified as God in Jn. 1:1: "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (and God was the Word), and thus the Jesus the Messiah was God Incarnate: the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33).

Additionally, Moses said to God that the children of Israel will ask the name of the one who sent him, then asked what name shall he tell them: "Καὶ εἶπε Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξελεύσομαι πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς: ἐρωτήσουσί με, τί ὄνομα αὐτῷ; τί ἐρῶ. πρὸς αὐτούς; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ "Qu: (I AM THE BEING): καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὧν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς (say to the children of Israel THE BEING has sent me to you)." (Ex. 3:13-14)

Fast forward to the scene of Jn. 8:58, where Jesus claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself: "...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) γενέσθαι ἐγὼ (I) εἰμί (AM)." The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God”. How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for claiming to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death): "ἦραν (picked) οὖν λίθους (stones) ἵνα (to) βάλωσιν (throw) ἐπ' (at) αὐτόν (him): Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ," but He escaped them (Jn. 8:59).

Now, how was Jesus existing before Abraham was born? As He's always existed: as the Word with God (ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God), and at the same time also as God (θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) (Jn. 1:1), the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33), and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14).

In Jn. 10:22-36, again the Pharisees understood Jesus was calling Himself God, and they wanted to kill him for it, for they said: "ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν (stone) σε (you) ἀλλὰ περὶ (for) βλασφημίας (blasphemy), καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς (making) σεαυτὸν (yourself) θεόν (God)" (Jn. 10:33), and Jesus didn't deny it because He did as He's God Incarnate.

The same Jesus said to be God by His apostle, Thomas: "ἀπεκρίθη (replied) Θωμᾶς (Thomas) καὶ (and) εἶπεν (saying) αὐτῷ (to), Ὁ κύριός (Lord) μου (my) καὶ (and) ὁ θεός (God) μου." (Jn. 20:28)

The apostles knew Jesus was God, even the Pharisees understood Jesus called Himself God, and Jesus never denied it when they said He claimed to be so, because He is. Therefore, how can you doubt it?

 

[Peterlag]

I don't think, I know. God is Spirit, He Incarnated Himself through Mary, a part of Himself becoming human. Jesus Himself said He was God, some believed Him, some didn't, like the Pharisees.

In Jn. 1:1 we read,

'In beginning was the Word"
"Ἐν (In) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word)..."

"the Word was with God"
"καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God),..."

"and God was the Word"
"καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word)..."

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
"Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας." "Καὶ (And) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) σὰρξ (flesh) ἐγένετο (became) καὶ (and) ἐσκήνωσεν (dwelt) ἐν (among) ἡμῖν (us)..." (Jn. 1:14)

We read Jesus is the Word Who became flesh (Jn. 1:14), the same Word identified as God in Jn. 1:1: "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (and God was the Word), and thus the Jesus the Messiah was God Incarnate: the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33).

Additionally, Moses said to God that the children of Israel will ask the name of the one who sent him, then asked what name shall he tell them: "Καὶ εἶπε Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξελεύσομαι πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς: ἐρωτήσουσί με, τί ὄνομα αὐτῷ; τί ἐρῶ. πρὸς αὐτούς; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ "Qu: (I AM THE BEING): καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὧν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς (say to the children of Israel THE BEING has sent me to you)." (Ex. 3:13-14)

Fast forward to the scene of Jn. 8:58, where Jesus claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself: "...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) γενέσθαι ἐγὼ (I) εἰμί (AM)." The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God”. How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for claiming to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death): "ἦραν (picked) οὖν λίθους (stones) ἵνα (to) βάλωσιν (throw) ἐπ' (at) αὐτόν (him): Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ," but He escaped them (Jn. 8:59).

Now, how was Jesus existing before Abraham was born? As He's always existed: as the Word with God (ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God), and at the same time also as God (θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) (Jn. 1:1), the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33), and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14).

In Jn. 10:22-36, again the Pharisees understood Jesus was calling Himself God, and they wanted to kill him for it, for they said: "ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν (stone) σε (you) ἀλλὰ περὶ (for) βλασφημίας (blasphemy), καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς (making) σεαυτὸν (yourself) θεόν (God)" (Jn. 10:33), and Jesus didn't deny it because He did as He's God Incarnate.

The same Jesus said to be God by His apostle, Thomas: "ἀπεκρίθη (replied) Θωμᾶς (Thomas) καὶ (and) εἶπεν (saying) αὐτῷ (to), Ὁ κύριός (Lord) μου (my) καὶ (and) ὁ θεός (God) μου." (Jn. 20:28)

The apostles knew Jesus was God, even the Pharisees understood Jesus called Himself God, and Jesus never denied it when they said He claimed to be so, because He is. Therefore, how can you doubt it?

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

 

[Sigma]

Wrong again....
G80
ἀδελφός
adelphós; gen. adelphoú, fem. adelphḗ (G79), masc. noun from the collative a (G1), denoting unity, and delphús (n.f.), a womb. A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family

Incorrect again.

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
ἀδελφός, -οῦ, ὁ
Greek transliteration: adelphos
Simplified transliteration: adelphos

Numbers
Strong's number: 80
GK number: 81

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 343
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-2a

Gloss: brother, fellow countryman, neighbor (often inclusive in gender); by extension a fellow believer in the family of faith; in the plural brothers regularly refers to men and women

Definition: a brother, near kinsman, or relative; one of the same nation or nature; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate, a member of the Christian community

Your posting like a Heathen...

You're just speaking out of ignorance, so I don't take that personally. Before I address the rest of your post, you haven't even attempted to refute the scriptural verses and testimonies in post #161 that prove those believed to be Jesus's siblings were actually His cousins.

 

[Sigma]

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

In Jn. 1:14, Jesus is referred to as "the Word made flesh," the same Word identified as God 13 verses prior to in Jn. 1:1: "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (and God was the Word), and thus Jesus the Messiah is God Incarnate: the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33).

Additionally, Moses said to God that the children of Israel will ask the name of the one who sent him, then asked what name shall he tell them: "Καὶ εἶπε Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξελεύσομαι πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς: ἐρωτήσουσί με, τί ὄνομα αὐτῷ; τί ἐρῶ. πρὸς αὐτούς; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ "Qu: (I AM THE BEING): καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὧν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς (say to the children of Israel THE BEING has sent me to you)." (Ex. 3:13-14)

Fast forward to the scene of Jn. 8:58, where Jesus claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself: "...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) γενέσθαι ἐγὼ (I) εἰμί (AM)." The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God”. How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for claiming to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death): "ἦραν (picked) οὖν λίθους (stones) ἵνα (to) βάλωσιν (throw) ἐπ' (at) αὐτόν (him): Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ," but He escaped them (Jn. 8:59).

Now, how was Jesus existing before Abraham was born? As He's always existed: as the Word with God (ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God), and at the same time also as God (θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) (Jn. 1:1), the eternal God "Θεὸς αἰώνιος" (Gen. 21:33), and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14).

In Jn. 10:22-36, again the Pharisees understood Jesus was calling Himself God, and they wanted to kill him for it, for they said: "ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν (stone) σε (you) ἀλλὰ περὶ (for) βλασφημίας (blasphemy), καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς (making) σεαυτὸν (yourself) θεόν (God)" (Jn. 10:33), and Jesus didn't deny it because He did as He's God Incarnate.

The same Jesus said to be God by His apostle, Thomas: "ἀπεκρίθη (replied) Θωμᾶς (Thomas) καὶ (and) εἶπεν (saying) αὐτῷ (to), Ὁ κύριός (Lord) μου (my) καὶ (and) ὁ θεός (God) μου." (Jn. 20:28)

The apostles knew Jesus was God. Even the Pharisees understood Jesus called Himself God, though they didn't believe Him, which is why they tried to kill Him for blasphemy, and Jesus never denied it when they acknowledged He claimed to be God, because He is. Therefore, how can you doubt it?

 

[Augustin56]

Catholic is just one denomination of many

You kill jesus over and over again every week.

Your are stuck, like calvinist and arminians are and quite a few others, in the view your view is right and everyone elses is wrong. So you put them all under the same umbrella.

My Gospel did not start 500 years ago. it started in the OT and continued in the NT and even continued after the roman church paganised it with works, and history and all these traditions.

You say your not like the jews, Yet your just like them,

They wanted Jesus, but they wanted the law with it. Paul taught them his entire ministry. Because they wanted to add grace ad works and say that is how you get to heaven,

Your church does EXACTLY that. They want grace and works also. Only they do not want works of the law. The only difference is they chose pagan works and added them to the equation and called it from God. They use the same arguments

History proves us right
Sola Scripture is a lie. We have our own added books and they are just as inspired as the word (Jews did the same thing)


Like I said You want to follow men, Feel free.

But eternity is to long for me to make the same mistake the jews made.

Sorry, but the Catholic Church is not a denomination, strictly speaking. The word denomination has its roots in Latin and indicates that it comes "from" something else. The Catholic Church is THE Church founded by Christ. Unlike all the tens of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations that were started over the last 500 years, the Catholic Church is not a mere institution. It is a Divine entity. It is the Body of Christ. It has Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul.

When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his (high) horse. Then, Jesus asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! If you persecute Christ's Church, you persecute Christ!

Historically, Christ's Church cannot possibly be any Protestant denomination since none existed until the 16th century!