The James's in Scripture.

[Jim B]

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

BROTHERS!!!!!!!!

Matt 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

all Judaea!!!!!!

Get a better Bible, as yours is clearly a poor translation. Genesis 13:8, "Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives." NET, NIV, ESV and many other accurate translations.

Again, Matthew 3:5, " Then people from Jerusalem, as well as all Judea and all the region around the Jordan, were going out to him" It doesn't say everyone!!! People came from Jerusalem and Judea and all the region around the Jordan. That is another lie based on a mistranslation! Can't you even read???

You clearly base your false doctrine on a poor translation, then twist the words to change what God clearly said. May God have mercy on you!

 

[FHII]

You also said, "...the primary meaning of the words sister and brother is "siblings". Thus, that's what you start with and let contexttell you otherwise." So, according to this logic of yours, you should believe Jesus's mother Mary and Mary of Cleophas (Alphaeus) were siblings, since they were called "sisters" in Jn. 19:25, and there's no context in that verse as to what other kind of sisters they were

Again, you are making the same mistake in not understanding how this works. Any fault of logic is yours; not mine. I may be at fault in my explanation of what I thought was pretty simple (but I doubt it). In any sense, I won't explain it a third time as you seem set in your ways. Furthermore, this portion of your defense is a deflection away from the main points.

The Nazarenes in the crowd speaking in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3 were literally referring to Jesus's relatives among them: "...here with us". This context allows for two possibilities: (i) only nuclear, or (ii) nuclear and extended, family were present. Furthermore, the words "brother" and "sister" can be used to refer to various types of kin

No, literally they were referring to the nuclear family: they were called brethren and sisters in Matthew and brothers and sisters in Mark. It would be figuratively if they were calling them various types of kin. The fact that they spoke of mother and father, then brothers and sisters suggests a nuclear family since no uncles, aunts or cousins are spoken of.

We can look into whether it meant that the brothers and sisters really meant cousins, but it mean we automatically accept it as such when it goes against the primary meaning and context, which is what you are doing.

The arguments you've presented thus far don't reflect that. Regarding those early Christian writers in question, the following are summaries of each's testimony regarding James:

Ok, you want to through down the gauntlet? Fine! Let's go!

Papias of Hierapolis

Haven't read him, so perhaps you have a leg up on me if you have read his works. By all means, quote to me exactly what he said! Give me the quote and reference for that quote. I promise I will look into it! I would love to purchase his entire works!

Jerome of Stridon

I have read him... you win... can't remember what he had to say about this.

Eusebius

Ah! Here we go! I have read his work and many commentaries about his work. He was a biographer for Constantine. A borderline antisemite, he was also well noted for his bias writing. Many historian question his work because of his bias. Interestingly enough, he was not a big fan of Papias.

I have also read portions of his other writings. Had to review them for this occasion, but first let's review your quote:

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.'" (Gal. 1:19)

So thuis James was the Bishop, the brother (it doesn't say cousin), the "Just", and the author of the book of James. Ok... so what? How does this make your point because I agree with all that too. Where does he even hint that Jesus and James were cousins? He never does, but you aren't claiming he did. So why is this reference included?

This is what I would call a "junk reference". It's included to add weight to the bibliography. It really offers nothing but is impressive just to have another reference and hope that someone doesn't notice that you are doing it.

One last point on Eusiabus: who does he say the father of James is? Do you know, or shall I give you a direct quote and reference?

Let me know...

Clement of Alexandria

Interesting name. I've read him too. I will submit to this because I can't remember, but like Eusiabus I discern this is a junk reference as well.

Flavius Josephus

Read him...Well favored amongst historians and well known for his lack of lining up with the Bible. Eusiabias marveled at his accuracy except on a few issues. This makes me doubt them both.

His writings were heavily based on Jewish folklore and while extremely entertaining, cannot be taken seriously. He actually said that people other than those in the ark survived the flood. But, once again this a junk reference. And won't bother with the others.

Overall, your sources are seriously lacking. Most of them are junk and even other historians note their Innacuracies.

I hold God as the ultimate source of Truth I trust. This isn't to say the Bible isn't a source of truth and can't be trusted, but for you to say, "I hold the Bible as the ultimate source of truth and the only thing I trust," unintentionally sounds like you're holding it above God.

Oh really? I do believe that the Bible is the word of God. That Bible says in John 1 that the Word was God, so tell me how I could possibly hold the Word above God! That's downright ridiculous!

 

[theefaith]

The Bible does not say biological brothers!

the Bible does not say they are the children of Mary!

the Bible does say one is of another tribe and cannot be the biological brother of Jesus or a child of Mary ever virgin!

 

[theefaith]

Get a better Bible, as yours is clearly a poor translation. Genesis 13:8, "Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives." NET, NIV, ESV and many other accurate translations.

Again, Matthew 3:5, " Then people from Jerusalem, as well as all Judea and all the region around the Jordan, were going out to him" It doesn't say everyone!!! People came from Jerusalem and Judea and all the region around the Jordan. That is another lie based on a mistranslation! Can't you even read???

You clearly base your false doctrine on a poor translation, then twist the words to change what God clearly said. May God have mercy on you!

KJV
Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

Genesis 13:8
Wycliffe Bible

8 Therefore Abram said to Lot, I beseech thee, that no strife be betwixt me and thee, and betwixt my shepherds and thy shepherds; for we be brethren

Genesis 13:8
Expanded Bible

8 Abram said to Lot, “There should be no arguing between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, because we are ·brothers

Genesis 13:8
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

8 Abram therefore said to Lot: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are brethren.

Genesis 13:8
American Standard Version

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are brethren.

 

[theefaith]

John 20:17, "Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Again, do you think that Jesus didn't know who His brothers were???

Not biological brothers but refers to his apostles

 

[Anima]

You can cite the writings of Catholic teachers " 'til the cows come home" but they didn't write Scripture.

If you were an early Christian who knew "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person, and your testimony wasn't included among the writings chosen to make up the Bible, would that mean what you knew to be a fact suddenly wasn't?

The Bile says that Jesus had brothers (and even names them). All the sophistry in the world won't change that.

One meaning of the word "brother" is "kin," e.g., siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. So, reading Jesus had brothers and automatically concluding they were siblings, or any type of kin, is asinine. One needs more to go on, and I have more than you that illustrates they were His cousins.

 

[theefaith]

If you were an early Christian who knew "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person, and your testimony wasn't included among the writings chosen to make up the Bible, would that mean what you knew to be a fact suddenly wasn't?



One meaning of the word "brother" is "kin," e.g., siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. So, reading Jesus had brothers and automatically concluding they were siblings, or any type of kin, is asinine. One needs more to go on, and I have more than you that illustrates they were His cousins.

Jesus says they are his witnesses acts 1:8

 

[Anima]

Again, you are making the same mistake in not understanding how this works. Any fault of logic is yours; not mine.

You said, "...the primary meaning of the words sister and brother is "siblings". Thus, that's what you start with and let contexttell you otherwise." So, according to this logic of yours, Jesus's mother Mary and Mary of Cleophas (Alphaeus) should've been siblings, since they were called "sisters" in Jn. 19:25, and there's no context in that verse as to what other kind of sisters they were.

However, it's unlikely they were siblings given the same name, and there's evidence in the OP that confirms Jesus's mother Mary and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas (Alphaeus) were sisters, and clarifies them as sisters in-law, because the latter was married to Joseph's brother, Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas).

The fact that they spoke of mother and father, then brothers and sisters suggests a nuclear family since no uncles, aunts or cousins are spoken of.

The Nazarenes in the crowd speaking in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3 were referring to Jesus's relatives among them when they said, "...here with us". This context allows for two possibilities: (i) only nuclear, or (ii) nuclear and extended, family were present.

We know they spoke of nuclear family when they referred to Joseph and Mary, because they called Jesus their son. Regarding Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) called Jesus's brothers and the unnamed sisters, one meaning the words "brother" and "sister" share is "kin," e.g., siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. Therefore, they could've been nuclear or extended, and thus one needs more to go on to know what type of kin they were.

The evidence in the OP confirms those called Jesus's brothers were His kin, and clarifies them as cousins, because they were sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas) and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas (Jn. 19:25). Therefore, His unnamed sisters could've been extended family as well.

Ok, you want to through down the gauntlet? Fine! Let's go!

Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], who's said to have been a disciple of Apostle John, indicated "Apostle James of Alphaeus" and "James the Bishop of Jerusalem" were the same person, as well as the brother of Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), and that these four were the sons of Mary and Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas). (Fragment 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)​

You've said you agree James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the Brother of the Lord, James the Just, and author of the Epistle of James, were the same person. Therefore, how can you say you doubt Eusebius's and Josephus's testimony, or any of the other's above, and call them "junk references," when there's crossover agreement between you all, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source?

One last point on Eusiabus: who does he say the father of James is? Do you know, or shall I give you a direct quote and reference?

Eusebius indicated James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord, and James the Just, etc, were the same person, and said this James,"...was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph," Jesus's father (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. I, ch. 1). Papias and Jerome said that same James was the son of Cleophas or Alphaeus. Now, obviously, James couldn't have been the biological son of Joseph and Cleophas/Alphaeus. So, how do I reconcile this? See below.

• "...His (Jesus's) mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas" (Jn. 19:25)

• Papias said "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus" was the mother of "James the bishop and apostle," Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) (Fragment of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3)

• Jerome said "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," etc, was a son of the "sister of the mother of our Lord" and "wife of Alphaeus" (cf. Jn. 19:25)

• Hegesippus said Joseph's brother was named "Clopas" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. II, ch. 1).

• Hegesippus said a man named "Simon," who was a "son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas," became the next bishop, because he was a "cousin of the Lord" (Hypomnemata)

• Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, whose siblings were Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) and Joseph. Thus it is indisputable this James correlates more with the James-apostle Papias spoke of above

When you tie these verses, testimonies, and the fact all the early Christians I've quoted are referring to the same James, together, it illustrates this James was the biological son of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas) and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas. Now, I know why he was known as a son of Joseph by people too though, because according to another source you would call "extra-biblical," Maria Valtorta, the youngest sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), James and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus), grew up with Jesus and all three were taught by Mary in She and Joseph's home. So, they were as close as siblings to Jesus and like sons to Joseph and Mary.

 

[FHII]

You've said you agree James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the Brother of the Lord, James the Just, and author of the Epistle of James, were the same person. Therefore, how can you say you doubt Eusebius's and Josephus's testimony, or any of the other's above, and call them "junk references," when there's crossover agreement between you all, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source?

Because they don't prove your point. These junk references don't say that James was a cousin of Jesus. They prove a different point which never really needed to be proved. They appear to be there simply to pad the reference list.

Eusebius indicated James the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord, and James the Just, etc, were the same person, and said this James,"...was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph," Jesus's father

That's right! Even your own references don't fully agree with you!

Papias said "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus" was the mother of "James the bishop and apostle," Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) (Fragment of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3)

Well thank you for that! I gave it a read... Pray tell... how did Papias come to get this information?

I am about to wrap this up... are you still calling these things indisputable?

 

[Anima]

These junk references don't say that James was a cousin of Jesus.

There's more than one way to something. There's crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, and collectively they show "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Joseph's brother, which makes him the cousin of Jesus.

I'll briefly go over the evidence that shows Apostle James of Alphaeus was a cousin of Jesus. Since he's shown to have been James the Bishop and the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, etc, that means he was the brother of Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus).

One of my sources, Hegesippus, said a man named "Simon," who was a "son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas," became the next bishop, because he was a "cousin of the Lord" (Hypomnemata). Eusebius even wrote "For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. III, ch. 11).

Jerome said "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," etc, was a son of the "sister of the mother of our Lord" who was the "wife of Alphaeus" (cf. Jn. 19:25)

Papias said "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus" was the mother of "James the bishop and apostle," Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) (Fragment of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3). In Scripture we read, "...His (Jesus's) mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas or Clopas," depending on the translation you use (Jn. 19:25).

It may look confusing, esp the Alphaeus/Cleophas/Clopas stuff, but those are just different names for the same person, which isn't uncommon in the Bible.

Anyway, in general, all the testimonies and verses from Scripture I've presented form a collectively weighty argument that illustrates "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Joseph's brother, which makes him the cousin of Jesus.

That's right! Even your own references don't fully agree with you!

Incorrect, because I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas) and like a son to his brother, Joseph.

...how did Papias come to get this information?

According to Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 120/140-200/203 AD), Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD] was a "hearer of John" (Adversus Haereses, Bk. V, ch. 33, para. 4), as in the apostle. I say this because Papias stated he "learned from the elders" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. 3, ch. 39, para. 3). A few sentences later, Papias describes the "words of the elders" as "What Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying” (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. 3, ch. 39, para. 4). In other words, it seems that Papias uses the word “elders” to refer to the apostles. So, perhaps he got that information from Apostle John?

 

[FHII]

It may look confusing, esp the Alphaeus/Cleophas/Clopas stuff, but those are just different names for the same person, which isn't uncommon in the Bible.

Well, God is not the author of confusion, is he?

Yes, it. Is confusing. What makes it confusing isn't how it's hard to untangle (it is, but it's not impossible) but rather where they came up with some of their assertions. They did not get them all from the Bible, so where then? They (like you) rely on the instances in the Bible where brother or brethren can mean cousin while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the time it means sibling. Frankly, they have their theory and fill in voids with assertions that have no documentation.

Incorrect, because I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas) and like a son to his brother, Joseph.

It is correct [that your own sources don't fully agree with you]. You say James is the son of Alphaeus, which is Cleophas (without any biblical documentation) and Eusebius said it was Joseph. That is a plain a d simple disagreement. He didn't say "like a son to Joseph". To say he did is a spin job.

According to Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 120/140-200/203 AD), Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD] was a "hearer of John" (Adversus Haereses, Bk. V, ch. 33, para. 4), as in the apostle. I say this because Papias stated he "learned from the elders" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. 3, ch. 39, para. 3). A few sentences later, Papias describes the "words of the elders" as "What Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying” (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. 3, ch. 39, para. 4). In other words, it seems that Papias uses the word “elders” to refer to the apostles. So, perhaps he got that information from Apostle John?

Ahh... not he didn't! Not according to the referenced link you gave me!

Here is the introduction to those writings:

The writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. Thus wrote Irenæus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words

Irenæus said he was a hearer of John. He also said he was a friend of Polycarp (who allegedly was a disciple of John). BUT according to the intro Papias says he wasn't a hearer. And when you read his first Fragment, that is proven true. Papias is either the third or fourth man in the grapevine.

Bottom line: no, Papias never learned directly from John according to the references you gave me.

 

[Anima]

Yes, it. Is confusing. What makes it confusing isn't how it's hard to untangle (it is, but it's not impossible)...

Everyone's comprehension level is different, so formatting that's easy for me to understand won't be for everyone. So, I've been trying to lay it all out as clear as possible, but I don't think I can simplify it anymore than I have.

I have faith you can come to see how collectively the evidence I've presented illustrates "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Joseph's brother, which makes him the cousin of Jesus. I may not know where exactly my sources got their information for this, but after hundreds of years, it's incredible we even have their testimonies. Thus far, I have no reason as to why any of them aren't credible on this matter.

You say James is the son of Alphaeus, which is Cleophas (without any biblical documentation) and Eusebius said it was Joseph. That is a plain and simple disagreement.

They're both right. I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus, and there's scriptural verses to support, and like a son to his brother, Joseph.

Bottom line: no, Papias never learned directly from John according to the references you gave me.

I didn't say he did, but Papias having learned from others who followed the apostles is just as good! Also, he cared about accuracy and truth, so I don't see him having lied in his testimony about James.

 

[FHII]

Everyone's comprehension level is different, so formatting that's easy for me to understand won't be for everyone. So, I've been trying to lay it all out as clear as possible, but I don't think I can simplify it anymore than I have.

You did well. I understood because it's not the first time I've read this argument. As for your efforts, it's hard to straighten out a bowl of cooked spaghetti.

I have faith you can come to see how collectively the evidence I've presented illustrates "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Joseph's brother, which makes him the cousin of Jesus.

I understand how you came to the conclusion. As I've said, I have read it all before (on this forum, by the way). I simply am not buying the notion that it's indisputable, as you have stated.

I may not know where exactly my sources got their information for this, but after hundreds of years, it's incredible we even have their testimonies.

So not knowing where they got the information from as a possible flaw is countered by the fact that after hundreds of years we have their testimonies?

We also have many gnostic writings that have wild claims that are hundreds of years old too. We even have works of Arius available. You may know his name as his doctrine was one of the major reasons for the Nicene Council. Isn't that incredible that we have his testimony? We have Julius Caesar's autobiography. Incredible!

Are you seriously going to tell me the source of information isn't important, but that because we have them they should be believed regardless of whether they can be proven true?

I am not buying that line of thinking, and I would be truly surprised if anyone else is. I am not saying they are lying, nor am I saying they are telling the truth. It's just important to know where they got their information from.

Thus far, I have no reason as to why any of them aren't credible on this matter.

Well what about the fact that I have proven that they didn't always agree with each other and at times didn't like each other? What about the fact that they called each other biased? What about the fact that historians then and now have questioned their bias and their teachings?

They're both right. I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus, and there's scriptural verses to support, and like a son to his brother, Joseph

No. They disagreed on who James's father was. You are spinning this.

I didn't say he did, but Papias having learned from others who followed the apostles is just as good! Also, he cared about accuracy and truth, so I don't see him having lied in his testimony about James.

Ah! Well I didn't say you said he did! Very interesting dialogue between us there, but I let that be for the time being.

So he cared about accuracy and truth. How do we know this? Because he said he did? Well, that doesn't make it correct; does it? When I turn on my TV tomorrow morning before the 7 AM news, there is going to be a preacher on that will probably say he cares about accuracy and truth. Shall I then believe him just because he says he cares?

As for him learning from those who learned from the Apostles... I could ask who and ask for solid proof, but I won't. Personally, I believe he was. But remember the grapevine effect.

 

[Anima]

So not knowing where they got the information from as a possible flaw is countered by the fact that after hundreds of years we have their testimonies?

Are you seriously going to tell me the source of information isn't important, but that because we have them they should be believed regardless of whether they can be proven true?

You don't listen well. Again, I may not know where all my sources got their information, but I have their testimonies which is better than nothing, esp after hundreds of years, and thus far I have no reason as to why any of them aren't credible on this matter.

Well what about the fact that I have proven that they didn't always agree with each other and at times didn't like each other? What about the fact that they called each other biased? What about the fact that historians then and now have questioned their bias and their teachings?

The disagreement you pointed out actually isn't one, and I explained why, and saying they called each other bias about things is so weak a reason as to why they're automatically wrong about James in particular, esp when people can be wrong and right at times.

No. They disagreed on who James's father was. You are spinning this.

No need to spin it. They're both right. I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus, and there's scriptural verses to support, and like a son to his brother, Joseph.

So he cared about accuracy and truth. How do we know this? Because he said he did? Well, that doesn't make it correct; does it?

It doesn't make it not correct either and I have no reason as to why Papias would lie about James.

 

[FHII]

You don't listen well. Again, I may not know where all my sources got their information, but I have their testimonies which is better than nothing, esp after hundreds of years, and thus far I have no reason as to why any of them aren't credible on this matter.



The disagreement you pointed out actually isn't one, and I explained why, and saying they called each other bias about things is so weak a reason as to why they're automatically wrong about James in particular, esp when people can be wrong and right at times.



No need to spin it. They're both right. I explained why James was the biological son of Alphaeus, and there's scriptural verses to support, and like a son to his brother, Joseph.



It doesn't make it not correct either and I have no reason as to why Papias would lie about James.

Yeah... and with your own words... I rest my case!

We are done here. If you want to dig your hole more, by all means, go ahead!

 

[Anima]

Yeah... and with your own words... I rest my case!

We are done here. If you want to dig your hole more, by all means, go ahead!

Of course you're done. You're the one who doesn't have any substantial counter-arguments.

 

[RedFan]

To my mind the matter remains unsettled.

Eusebius, writing in the Fourth Century, quotes a chronicler named Hegesippus (his original works are no longer extant) who wrote several centuries earlier that Joseph had a brother named Clopas. Before I decide to take Hegesippus' statement as gospel truth, Is there any other source that tells us Clopas was Joseph's brother?

Jerome, writing a little later than Eusebius, argues that Jesus' four "brothers" (James, Simon, Jude and Joses/Joseph) were the children of Jesus' maternal aunt "Mary of Clopas" (presumably a reference to Aunt Mary being the wife of Clopas). Before I decide to take Jerome's statement as gospel truth, is there any corroboration of his musings in another early writing? And if the fragment of Papias is the only one, then why didn't Jerome quote it? (I know Lightfoot's answer to this question: the fragment in question was of medieval origin.)

I note in passing that if both Jerome and Hegesippus are correct, then two brothers (Joseph and Clopas) married two sisters (Mary and Mary) -- which seems almost as unlikely as parents giving two sisters the same name.

The only reference to a "Mary of Clopas" in the gospels is John 19:25 ("ειστηκεισαν δε παρα τω σταυρω του ιησου η μητηρ αυτου και η αδελφη της μητρος αυτου μαρια η του κλωπα και μαρια η μαγδαληνη") ("Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."). At first reading is difficult to say whether John is referencing three people or four (two pairs, the members of each couplet having "καὶ" between them). Matt. 27:56 mentions as being present "Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James and Joseph), and the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee." Mark 15:40 identifies the same three as being present, although naming the latter as "Salome." If we add Jesus' mother to the group as John does, then to make John and the Synoptics at least somewhat consistent there were four women at the crucifixion, and we must interpret John 19:25 as referencing four, i.e., as NOT equating "his mother's sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas." (I will leave for another day discussion of why John would fail to mention his own mother as being present.)

 

[Marine0311]

This verse alone exposes that RC’s are living a lie. Matthew 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[Anima]

This verse alone exposes that RC’s are living a lie. Matthew 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There's another explanation for what "knew her not until" means and it applies here. Even if what you understand it to mean were true, it doesn't prove Jesus had siblings, because a man and woman can have intercourse with each other, but some cannot procreate together. The evidence I've presented illustrates those believed by some to be Jesus's siblings were rather His cousins.

 

[Anima]

Eusebius, writing in the Fourth Century, quotes a chronicler named Hegesippus (his original works are no longer extant) who wrote several centuries earlier that Joseph had a brother named Clopas. Before I decide to take Hegesippus' statement as gospel truth, Is there any other source that tells us Clopas was Joseph's brother?

Jerome, writing a little later than Eusebius, argues that Jesus' four "brothers" (James, Simon, Jude and Joses/Joseph) were the children of Jesus' maternal aunt "Mary of Clopas" (presumably a reference to Aunt Mary being the wife of Clopas). Before I decide to take Jerome's statement as gospel truth, is there any corroboration of his musings in another early writing? And if the fragment of Papias is the only one, then why didn't Jerome quote it? (I know Lightfoot's answer to this question: the fragment in question was of medieval origin.)

I note in passing that if both Jerome and Hegesippus are correct, then two brothers (Joseph and Clopas) married two sisters (Mary and Mary) -- which seems almost as unlikely as parents giving two sisters the same name

Again, Joseph and Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus) were brothers (siblings), Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus) was married to Joseph's brother, and thus she and Mary of Joseph were sisters-in-law.

If we add Jesus' mother to the group as John does, then to make John and the Synoptics at least somewhat consistent there were four women at the crucifixion, and we must interpret John 19:25 as referencing four, i.e., as NOT equating "his mother's sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas." (I will leave for another day discussion of why John would fail to mention his own mother as being present.)

• Mary of Joseph (Jn. 19:25)

• Mary of Clopas/Cleophas (Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law, Jn. 19:25) who was the same person as "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" (Matt. 27:56) and "Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph" (Mk. 15:40)

• Mary Magdalene (Matt. 27:56, Mk. 15:40, Jn. 19:25)

• Salome (Mk. 15:40) who was the same person as "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56)

So, there were four women present and we can equate "his mother's sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas," as I've given evidence in previous posts they were the same person. Additionally, it's not a problem that John didn't mention his own mother, Salome, in his account. Matthew and Mark didn't even mention Mary of Joseph in their accounts, and she was the mother of Jesus, the man She and the other women were watching be crucified.