James half brother of Jesus


#1

This morning we have a speaker and i dont know their religion but i know they are christian. The speaker say that James, the HALF BROTHER of Jesus Christ is the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME. Is this true for i know that Peter is the first bishop of rome and he is a cousin of jesus and not his hlf brother.


#2

[quote=viktor aleksndr]This morning we have a speaker and i dont know their religion but i know they are christian. The speaker say that James, the HALF BROTHER of Jesus Christ is the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME. Is this true for i know that Peter is the first bishop of rome and he is a cousin of jesus and not his hlf brother.
[/quote]

Jesus had no siblings, half or not. Mary maintained perpetual virginity her entire life, never consumating her marriage with Joseph. I don’t understand how anyone could imagine the perfect womb that carried GOD being defiled by a common sinner like us…it’s just not possible. Mary’s womb was Jesus’ temple, it was shared by no one else.


#3

[quote=CheesusPowerKid]Jesus had no siblings, half or not. Mary maintained perpetual virginity her entire life, never consumating her marriage with Joseph. I don’t understand how anyone could imagine the perfect womb that carried GOD being defiled by a common sinner like us…it’s just not possible. Mary’s womb was Jesus’ temple, it was shared by no one else.
[/quote]

Be careful when you say for certain that it was impossible for Jesus to have half brothers. One stance is that the “Jesus’ brothers” (or brethren as in the RSV-CE) mentioned in the gospels could have been children from a previous marriage of Joseph. From what I understand, the Church is not dogmatic on whether or not Joseph had other children. Also, due to the lack of Joseph in the majority of the New Testament (I think the last time we see him is when Mary and Joseph go back to the temple to find Jesus after realizing he wasn’t with the rest of their group), and the fact that Jesus had the responsibility to leave Mary to someone while on the cross, it is safe to assume Joseph passed away before Jesus did. This may also mean, and the Scriptures are quiet on this, that Joseph was much older than Mary and thus could have been a widower when they married. Perhaps this is lots of speculation, but as far as I can tell, it would not be contrary to any teachings in the Bible.

[quote=viktor aleksndr]The speaker say that James, the HALF BROTHER of Jesus Christ is the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME. Is this true for i know that Peter is the first bishop of rome and he is a cousin of jesus and not his hlf brother.
[/quote]

Saying James was the first Bishop of Rome, however, is totally contrary to Church teaching. I would be interested to see what sort of references are used to support that argument. Also, I wasn’t aware that Peter was a cousin of Jesus. That’d be interesting to see, too, but I’m not sure it’s really crucial to anything.

Blessings,

Q


#4

[quote=viktor aleksndr]James…is the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME.
[/quote]

James was first Bishop of Jerusalem, not Rome. The See of Jerusalem existed before Peter established his See at Rome, so there was a period of time in the very, very early days of the Church when the See of Jerusalem was the preeminent (and only) See. So Jerusalem was the epicenter of the Church in those very early days. Maybe that’s where he got mixed up.

As far as the half-brother thing goes, Karl Keating does an excellent job of refuting this - Biblically! It can be PROVEN from Scripture that James was not the son of Mary. Well, he was the son of Mary, but not *THAT *Mary. See:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp


#5

[quote=Quatsch]Be careful when you say for certain that it was impossible for Jesus to have half brothers. One stance is that the “Jesus’ brothers” (or brethren as in the RSV-CE) mentioned in the gospels could have been children from a previous marriage of Joseph. From what I understand, the Church is not dogmatic on whether or not Joseph had other children.
[/quote]

CheesusPowerKid is correct. The term “half-brother” means that the people in question share one biological parent. Since we know that God begat only one Son, and we also know from Sacred Tradition that Mary was perpetually virgin, it is impossible for Jesus to have had half-brothers. Your scenario of Joseph having had children from a previous marriage would mean that Jesus had step-brothers, not half-brothers.


#6

[quote=DavidFilmer]James was first Bishop of Jerusalem, not Rome. The See of Jerusalem existed before Peter established his See at Rome, so there was a period of time in the very, very early days of the Church when the See of Jerusalem was the preeminent (and only) See. So Jerusalem was the epicenter of the Church in those very early days. Maybe that’s where he got mixed up.

As far as the half-brother thing goes, Karl Keating does an excellent job of refuting this - Biblically! It can be PROVEN from Scripture that James was not the son of Mary. Well, he was the son of Mary, but not *THAT *Mary. See:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
[/quote]

I thought St Peter was the first bishop of Jerusalem, later moving his seat of government of the Universal Church to Antioch, and then to Rome, leaving James and Ignatius respectively as the second bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch.


#7

[quote=juno24]CheesusPowerKid is correct. The term “half-brother” means that the people in question share one biological parent. Since we know that God begat only one Son, and we also know from Sacred Tradition that Mary was perpetually virgin, it is impossible for Jesus to have had half-brothers. Your scenario of Joseph having had children from a previous marriage would mean that Jesus had step-brothers, not half-brothers.
[/quote]

Yes, technically speaking, you’re right. But technically speaking, that would also discount Jesus from being a descendant of the Davidic line; in the same way, if Joseph had other children before Jesus, they could be his “half-brothers” even though not strictly biologically related. Food for thought:)

Blessings,

Q


#8

[quote=Quatsch]Yes, technically speaking, you’re right. But technically speaking, that would also discount Jesus from being a descendant of the Davidic line; in the same way, if Joseph had other children before Jesus, they could be his “half-brothers” even though not strictly biologically related. Food for thought:)

Blessings,

Q
[/quote]

If Mary was decended from David’s line, then Jesus had to be too.

See my signature, taken from Saint Anthony’s brief.
**The Root of David has conquered, alleluia! **


#9

[quote=Eireann]If Mary was decended from David’s line, then Jesus had to be too.

See my signature, taken from Saint Anthony’s brief.
**The Root of David has conquered, alleluia! **
[/quote]

I’ve heard too, that Mary is possibly descended from David’s line, but I was referencing the genealogies in Mt 1 and Luke 3. If drawing Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph is good enough for the evangelists, it’s good enough for me:D

-Q


#10

At most, James was step-brother of Jesus, not half-brother. Even then, he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, not of Rome. In the homily by St. John Chrysostom, quoted in my signature below, this distinction is drawn. Peter, consequently, was never the Bishop of Jerusalem, as in Apostalic times that would imply founding, or succeeding, the See in question.

Peter did indeed found the See of Antioch, and every Bishop of Antioch ordained going back to the first is a successor of Peter in that See, but they are not the successor of the Petrine Office, which is the voice of the Apostles and Holder of the Keys. That position was passed on in Rome, upon the death of Peter. The difference is between Peter as a bishop, and Peter as The Rock; the fact that the Rock is also called the Bishop of Rome is incidental.

Peace and God bless!


#11

[quote=CheesusPowerKid]Jesus had no siblings, half or not. Mary maintained perpetual virginity her entire life, .
[/quote]

There is a tradition, particularly in the Eastern Churches, that Joseph was a widow with children when he married, so Jesus may have indeed have had step-brothers and sisters (not half brothers). This of course would have not impact on Mary’s perpetual virginity. there is an equally strong tradition in the western Church that Joseph was an elderly man and a virgin when he married Mary. The Gospels are silent on this matter. The references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus refer, in the original language, to his relatives or cousins, not siblings.

This has been exhaustively covered here before, and if we had remembered to do our homework we would have checked out the relevant article on the CA homepage.

OP refers to a non-Catholic radio preacher, leading us to wonder why we waste our time listening to someone who preaches without authority when we could be reading the Word of God himself or listening to Catholic radio and television?


#12

[quote=Eireann]If Mary was decended from David’s line, then Jesus had to be too.

See my signature, taken from Saint Anthony’s brief.
**The Root of David has conquered, alleluia! **
[/quote]

There is no evidence to substantiate some people’s claim that Mary was from the line of David.
Anyway Jesus would officially be from the line of David through Joseph because Joseph was his foster father and legal guardian.


#13

[quote=Quatsch]Yes, technically speaking, you’re right. But technically speaking, that would also discount Jesus from being a descendant of the Davidic line; in the same way, if Joseph had other children before Jesus, they could be his “half-brothers” even though not strictly biologically related. Food for thought:)

Blessings,

Q
[/quote]

no, half-brothers means you share either the same mother or father in blood. If your mother marries someone who already has sons, they become your step-brothers. However such fine distinctions did not occur in the original language of the gospel passages usually quoted regarding the family of Jesus.

by the fact that Joseph married Mary and acknowledged Jesus as his son, to the Jews Jesus now shared his ancestry. There is also reason to believe Mary herself was descended from the line of David, especiallly since at that time it was still common for Jews to marry within their own clan.

This topic also has been discussed before, and is covered in the CA homepage articles, also just recently in This Rock.

No need to debate it all again, just go to the relevant sources.

I still think the issue is why we listen to speakers who have no authority.


#14

[quote=puzzleannie] This topic also has been discussed before, and is covered in the CA homepage articles, also just recently in This Rock.

No need to debate it all again, just go to the relevant sources.

I still think the issue is why we listen to speakers who have no authority.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I thought I had a valid point. Jews at the time certainly would have thought of Joseph’s other sons (if he indeed had any) as Jesus’ half brothers since Jesus was born after Joseph wed Mary.

Anyway, it’s all good, I’ve learned something:)

-Q


#15

[quote=Quatsch]Be careful when you say for certain that it was impossible for Jesus to have half brothers. One stance is that the “Jesus’ brothers” (or brethren as in the RSV-CE) mentioned in the gospels could have been children from a previous marriage of Joseph. From what I understand, the Church is not dogmatic on whether or not Joseph had other children. Also, due to the lack of Joseph in the majority of the New Testament (I think the last time we see him is when Mary and Joseph go back to the temple to find Jesus after realizing he wasn’t with the rest of their group), and the fact that Jesus had the responsibility to leave Mary to someone while on the cross, it is safe to assume Joseph passed away before Jesus did. This may also mean, and the Scriptures are quiet on this, that Joseph was much older than Mary and thus could have been a widower when they married. Perhaps this is lots of speculation, but as far as I can tell, it would not be contrary to any teachings in the Bible.

Saying James was the first Bishop of Rome, however, is totally contrary to Church teaching. I would be interested to see what sort of references are used to support that argument. Also, I wasn’t aware that Peter was a cousin of Jesus. That’d be interesting to see, too, but I’m not sure it’s really crucial to anything.

Blessings,

Q
[/quote]

If Joseph had children by another spouse, he was still not the “father” of Jesus, so any child of Joseph could not have really been a half brother, just a step brother.


#16

I think that these verses prove that Zebedee is Joseph, and James the less, John (aka Joses), simon (aka peter), and Juda (aka Judah, Judas), are Mary’s and Joseph’s.

Mat 13:54-57 “And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this [man] this wisdom, and [these] mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.”

Mar 6:1-4 “And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

Luk 5:10 “And so [was] also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.”

Mar 1:16-19 “Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.”

Mar 10:35-41 “And James **and John, ** the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard [it], they began to be much displeased with James **and John.”. **

Mat 20:20-24 “**Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, ** worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.”

Mat 27:56-58 “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children. When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.”

Mar 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;


#17

[quote=thistle]There is no evidence to substantiate some people’s claim that Mary was from the line of David.
Anyway Jesus would officially be from the line of David through Joseph because Joseph was his foster father and legal guardian.
[/quote]

Well thanks for getting me thinking on this one, :slight_smile: yes I’m sure it’s been discussed many times on this forum.
Well do you say that Jesus was justified as being from the David’s line just through Joseph ?

I find that more than a little strange because if Mary remained ever virgin then there was no fleshy link.
Unless in a spiritual sense where the two married people in the sight of God become one flesh.

This here sure puzzeles me then >>Romans 1:3 **Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh, **

This is I’m sure where part of my signature was taken from >REV 5: 5 And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
fisheaters.com//stanthonysbrief.html

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests

Paul too testifies that Jesus Christ “was made to him [God] of the seed of David, according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be “of the seed of David”. Hence commentators tell us that in the text “in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause “of the house of David” does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary’s Davidic descent.
source >mcdevitths.org/special/mary/

See Mary’s Davidic Ancestry newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Anyway thistle thanks for getting me head scratching, :confused:

It has been said that Joachim Mary’s father decended from the tribe of Judah, and King David decended from the tribe of Judah, therefore linking Mary to David.

At the end of the day there are little bits of info on this that link Mary to David, but nothing to get our teeth into, the search sure was fun. :nope:


#18

[quote=thistle]There is no evidence to substantiate some people’s claim that Mary was from the line of David.
Anyway Jesus would officially be from the line of David through Joseph because Joseph was his foster father and legal guardian.
[/quote]

Then again, there is no direct evidence to categorically discount the possibility. The speculation that it could be so is based on the fact that it was quite common at the time for people to marry within their own clan, albiet outside of illicit lines of sanguinuity.

On the other hand, Mary and Elizabeth were described as kinswomen, and Elizabeth was married into the priestly line of Levi, as her husband Zechariah served in the temple (Luke 1). This could also only mean of course that Elizabeth was of another clan and married into the house of Levi but, again, there’s no way to tell.

The point is, there’s no way to tell Mary’s linage. It may or may not have been of David’s house, but without explicit biblical testimony it is impossible to either confirm OR deny it.

In all, it is a rather moot point, since Jesus’ geneology is necessarily and clearly stated through Joseph, his legal gaurdian. The rest is merely interesting.


#19

[quote=rhymer2]I think that these verses prove that Zebedee is Joseph, and James the less, John (aka Joses), simon (aka peter), and Juda (aka Judah, Judas), are Mary’s and Joseph’s.
[/quote]

Right now time beats me, apart from read this. >globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/brothers.htm
If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense.


#20

For the benefit of Rhmer2.

Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.