Was James the First Pope or bishop in Jerusalem?
-
-
Third Member
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
Wow! I just read all over the net that James truly was the first bishop in Jerusalem and he died around age 60-65 also that he was the brother of Jesus Christ,where ever I looked it said this and that the Jews have churches in his name and note him as the brother of Jesus How come? I am just trying to find out the truth that's all.
baby3
Edited by baby3 on 05/09/2012 19:01:54
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
james was the first bishop in jerusalem. the term pope wasn't really used for a few years and when it started it referred to more than just the bishop of rome. the term was also used for the patriarchs in jerusalem, alexandria etc. james is noted along with peter and john as a pillar of the church. it would be wrong though to assume that this means something contrary to the ministry of peter, which is defined by christ and seen in acts.
it's interesting that many people claim there is no such thing as a pope but then try to claim that james was one... but understanding the early church and the apostolic succession is crucial not only to understand the it's history but also the succession we see today.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
A very reasonable question.
James was not the first Pope, but he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He hosted the first Council in Jerusalem as shown in Acts 15.
James was also not the actual brother of Jesus, but was His first cousin. This James was the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas and his wife Mary who is related to Mary the mother of Jesus. This too is in the Bible, see Matthew 10:3 (and other corresponding Gospel accounts) and Acts 1:13 which also connects this James with Judas (who was also a first cousin to Jesus by virtue of having the same father, and the fragments of Papias show that they also share the same mother, Mary wife of Cleophas AKA Alphaeus). For his mother see Luke 10:39, John 19:25 and Matthew 27:56 which also distinguishes this mother of James from the mother from James the son of Zebedee - just two show which James was being referred to.
Further clarification is found in Mark 6:3 which shows that James, Joses, Juda/Judas, and Simon were all related to each other and to Jesus, but James and Judas and Joses (and likely also Simon) are not the children of Jesus' mother, but His Aunt and Uncle.
Mark 15:40 also identifies this James as James the Less or the Small - the Twelve Apostles had a James the Greater and a James the Less to distinguish them - James the Son of Zebedee was the greater - and was martyred earlier in Acts 12 and identified as James the brother of John (sons of Zebedee).
James the Less was well respected in the Church in Jerusalem but he was not the one that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to. James was also not the one to whom Jesus personally asked to feed His sheep - to take over the role of chief shepherd on earth. Peter was the one who had his name changed just as Abram was changed to Abraham. As Abraham became the father of a great nation, so too did Peter become the father of a great Church.
I hope that this helps.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
Both of you helped but in history it said that James was the brother of Jesus and Judas and that his mother was the same as Jesus I looked every where on the net only the Catholic church say's that James is not the brother of Jesus even the Jews believe this in Jerusalem.Is there any way we can prove this to anyone?B3
baby3
Edited by baby3 on 05/04/2012 21:38:28
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
No. Modern revisionists have created stories about James and Judas being the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus and LOOSELY base this on that passage in Mark 6:3; however, historically - based on actualy historical documents - James, Joses, Judas and Simon were the sons of Mary and Alphaeus/Cleophas the Aunt and Uncle of Jesus, not His own mother Mary and Jospeh.
The Web is filled with all sorts of things that are not true. Look at the passages I gave you. They show who the real parents are.
The Early Church Fathers claim that Mary the mother of Jesus was ever virgin. She had no other children.
There are some from the Gentiles that pondered if Joseph had children with a previous wife before Mary, because they too struggled with the Greek use of adelphos without understanding the Aramaic undertones for that usage. Others understood that Joseph was also a virgin. In any case, the siblings in the New Testament are first cousins and their parents are identified as being other than Mary and Joseph.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
Edited by Faith_at_Large on 05/04/2012 19:00:32
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by baby3
Wow! I just read all over the net that James truly was the first bishop in jerusalem and he died around age 60-65 also that he was the brother of Jesus Christ,where ever I looked it said this and that the Jews have churches in his name and note him as the brother of Jesus How come? I am just trying to find out the truth that's all.
James was the first Pastor of Jerusalem, He wasn'r a pope or a catholic type of bishop.
When you see the word, "Elder, Bishop, Overseer and shepherd".
They all mean "The Pastor of the local Church".
In Eph 4: 11, We see that Jesus gave,
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists Pastors and Teachers.
Where is the pope?? Where is the Bishop???, Where is the priest??.
It's about time the catholics WOKE UP TO THE TRUTH.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
james was the first bishop in jerusalem. the term pope wasn't really used for a few years and when it started it referred to more than just the bishop of rome. the term was also used for the patriarchs in jerusalem, alexandria etc. james is noted along with peter and john as a pillar of the church. it would be wrong though to assume that this means something contrary to the ministry of peter, which is defined by christ and seen in acts.
it's interesting that many people claim there is no such thing as a pope but then try to claim that james was one... but understanding the early church and the apostolic succession is crucial not only to understand the it's history but also the succession we see today.
James was the Pastor at Jerusalem, No Christians ever say He was a pope, Because ther is no such office of a pope in the Bible.
You said,
[Quote].
but understanding the early church and the apostolic succession is crucial not only to understand the it's history but also the succession we see today.
[End quote].
That rules out the catholic church, Because they weren't formed by the devil untill at least 300-600 years later, And the pope even later then that.
SO, How can the catholic church find it's way back to Peter???.
IT'S ABOUT TIME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WOKE UP AND STOP TELLING LIES.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
A very reasonable question.
James was not the first Pope, but he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He hosted the first Council in Jerusalem as shown in Acts 15.
James was also not the actual brother of Jesus, but was His first cousin. This James was the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas and his wife Mary who is related to Mary the mother of Jesus. This too is in the Bible, see Matthew 10:3 (and other corresponding Gospel accounts) and Acts 1:13 which also connects this James with Judas (who was also a first cousin to Jesus by virtue of having the same father, and the fragments of Papias show that they also share the same mother, Mary wife of Cleophas AKA Alphaeus). For his mother see Luke 10:39, John 19:25 and Matthew 27:56 which also distinguishes this mother of James from the mother from James the son of Zebedee - just two show which James was being referred to.
Further clarification is found in Mark 6:3 which shows that James, Joses, Juda/Judas, and Simon were all related to each other and to Jesus, but James and Judas and Joses (and likely also Simon) are not the children of Jesus' mother, but His Aunt and Uncle.
Mark 15:40 also identifies this James as James the Less or the Small - the Twelve Apostles had a James the Greater and a James the Less to distinguish them - James the Son of Zebedee was the greater - and was martyred earlier in Acts 12 and identified as James the brother of John (sons of Zebedee).
James the Less was well respected in the Church in Jerusalem but he was not the one that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to. James was also not the one to whom Jesus personally asked to feed His sheep - to take over the role of chief shepherd on earth. Peter was the one who had his name changed just as Abram was changed to Abraham. As Abraham became the father of a great nation, so too did Peter become the father of a great Church.
I hope that this helps.
For the truth about Mary having other children, See my post.
"Mary did have other children".
And STOP TWISTING THE BIBLE, YOU NAUGHTY EVIL WOMAN.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by baby3
Both of you helped but in history it said that James was the brother of Jesus and Judas and that his mother was the same as Jesus I looked every where on the net only the Catholic church say's that James is not the brother of Jesus even the Jews believe this in Jerusalem.Is there any way we can prove this to anyone?B3
Thats because only the catholic church tell lies about Mary not having other children.
Both the Bible and the Greek prove that Mary had other children, But the catholics say the Bible and the Greek are wrong, And the catholics are right.
See My post,
"Mary did have other children", It proves that she did.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
No. Modern revisionists have created stories about James and Judas being the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus and LOOSELY base this on that passage in Mark 6:3; however, historically - based on actualy historical documents - James, Joses, Judas and Simon were the sons of Mary and Alphaeus/Cleophas the Aunt and Uncle of Jesus, not His own mother Mary and Jospeh.
The Web is filled with all sorts of things that are not true. Look at the passages I gave you. They show who the real parents are.
The Early Church Fathers claim that Mary the mother of Jesus was ever virgin. She had no other children.
There are some from the Gentiles that pondered if Joseph had children with a previous wife before Mary, because they too struggled with the Greek use of adelphos without understanding the Aramaic undertones for that usage. Others understood that Joseph was also a virgin. In any case, the siblings in the New Testament are first cousins and their parents are identified as being other than Mary and Joseph.
Both the Bible and the Greek prove that Mary had other children, As I have proved.
Remember, The devil formed the catholic church, And he is the father of lies, So it's no wonder that he inspires catholics to tell lies.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
James was the Pastor at Jerusalem, No Christians ever say He was a pope, Because ther is no such office of a pope in the Bible.
yes james was a pastor at jerusalem.. but he was also the overseer.. (you greek scholar you).. anyway i never said he was pope.. that term came a little later and for a time meant more than just the bishop of rome.
quote:
You said,
quote:
.
but understanding the early church and the apostolic succession is crucial not only to understand the it's history but also the succession we see today.
[End quote].
That rules out the catholic church, Because they weren't formed by the devil untill at least 300-600 years later, And the pope even later then that.
it doesn't do any such thing. you have been asked several times to back up your claim and you haven't.. that's because you cannot. the catholic church did not start in 300.. that's just your ignorance and willingness to believe whatever your told by anti catholic losers. not my fault if you can't do your own thinking or research but i did mine and that led me right out of your cult g4.. which by the way wasn't formed by the devil untill the 1900's.. 
[quote]SO, How can the catholic church find it's way back to Peter???.
IT'S ABOUT TIME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WOKE UP AND STOP TELLING LIES.
it's about time you woke up and stopped telling lies. at the very least try to provide some kind of proof for your claims. if you cannot then i will assume that your just telling porkies again.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
James was the Pastor at Jerusalem, No Christians ever say He was a pope, Because ther is no such office of a pope in the Bible.
yes james was a pastor at jerusalem.. but he was also the overseer.. (you greek scholar you).. anyway i never said he was pope.. that term came a little later and for a time meant more than just the bishop of rome.
quote:
You said,
quote:
.
but understanding the early church and the apostolic succession is crucial not only to understand the it's history but also the succession we see today.
[End quote].
That rules out the catholic church, Because they weren't formed by the devil untill at least 300-600 years later, And the pope even later then that.
it doesn't do any such thing. you have been asked several times to back up your claim and you haven't.. that's because you cannot. the catholic church did not start in 300.. that's just your ignorance and willingness to believe whatever your told by anti catholic losers. not my fault if you can't do your own thinking or research but i did mine and that led me right out of your cult g4.. which by the way wasn't formed by the devil untill the 1900's..
[quote]SO, How can the catholic church find it's way back to Peter???.
IT'S ABOUT TIME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WOKE UP AND STOP TELLING LIES.
it's about time you woke up and stopped telling lies. at the very least try to provide some kind of proof for your claims. if you cannot then i will assume that your just telling porkies again.
The Greek meaning for,
"An overseer, Bishop, Shepherd and Elder", Are all the same office, And that is, The Pastor of the local Church.
There is bo catholic type of bishop or priest or pope in the Bible.
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
The RCC wasn't formed untill at least 300-600 years later..FACT.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
The Greek meaning for,
"An overseer, Bishop, Shepherd and Elder", Are all the same office, And that is, The Pastor of the local Church.
so then by your own claim james could have been a bishop right? so why did you say there were no such things as bishops?
quote:
When you see the word, "Elder, Bishop, Overseer and shepherd".
They all mean "The Pastor of the local Church".
In Eph 4: 11, We see that Jesus gave,
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists Pastors and Teachers.
Where is the pope?? Where is the Bishop???, Where is the priest??.
you ask where is the bishop only to say that the bishop is a pastor.. well duh.. we know that. if you knew half the stuff you claim you would know that a bishop even carries a shephers staff as a symbol of that pastorship. but just because he is a pastor doesn't mean he isn't a bishop, which is a biblical office. that's where the bishop is. you 5 fold ministry idiots always leave out those scriptures.. you naughty men.. ha ha.. anyway the priest we have already been through. not my fault you cannot understand simple etymology of a word like presbyter.. but for those of us who can still use our brains we know that the presbyters are the preists. the pope as i said did come later as a title but so what? the title of youth pastor, televangelist, head pastor, reverend, all came even later than the use of pope. it merely designates... just like the even later use of the word trinity or bible.. yeah thats right you wont find the word bible in the bible either.. and if we used your reasoning then we would have to conclude that the bible is not biblical...
quote:
There is bo catholic type of bishop or priest or pope in the Bible.
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
The RCC wasn't formed untill at least 300-600 years later..FACT.
get your own facts straight. please just use your head as something other than a place to hang a cow bell. i clearly see the papacy in the bible, i clearly see the bishops, i clearly see the priesthood what i don't see is protestantism, or pentacostal sects or you. i have yet to hear you say one thing right on this board g4 and that is sad. you are either the biggest dumb ass the world has ever known or your the biggest manipulator that cannot fool anyone. cause i really don't think anyone here, except maybe evangelist believes anything you say. your just a clangin symbol.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
quote:
The Greek meaning for,
"An overseer, Bishop, Shepherd and Elder", Are all the same office, And that is, The Pastor of the local Church.
so then by your own claim james could have been a bishop right? so why did you say there were no such things as bishops?
quote:
When you see the word, "Elder, Bishop, Overseer and shepherd".
They all mean "The Pastor of the local Church".
In Eph 4: 11, We see that Jesus gave,
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists Pastors and Teachers.
Where is the pope?? Where is the Bishop???, Where is the priest??.
you ask where is the bishop only to say that the bishop is a pastor.. well duh.. we know that. if you knew half the stuff you claim you would know that a bishop even carries a shephers staff as a symbol of that pastorship. but just because he is a pastor doesn't mean he isn't a bishop, which is a biblical office. that's where the bishop is. you 5 fold ministry idiots always leave out those scriptures.. you naughty men.. ha ha.. anyway the priest we have already been through. not my fault you cannot understand simple etymology of a word like presbyter.. but for those of us who can still use our brains we know that the presbyters are the preists. the pope as i said did come later as a title but so what? the title of youth pastor, televangelist, head pastor, reverend, all came even later than the use of pope. it merely designates... just like the even later use of the word trinity or bible.. yeah thats right you wont find the word bible in the bible either.. and if we used your reasoning then we would have to conclude that the bible is not biblical...
quote:
There is bo catholic type of bishop or priest or pope in the Bible.
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
The RCC wasn't formed untill at least 300-600 years later..FACT.
get your own facts straight. please just use your head as something other than a place to hang a cow bell. i clearly see the papacy in the bible, i clearly see the bishops, i clearly see the priesthood what i don't see is protestantism, or pentacostal sects or you. i have yet to hear you say one thing right on this board g4 and that is sad. you are either the biggest dumb ass the world has ever known or your the biggest manipulator that cannot fool anyone. cause i really don't think anyone here, except maybe evangelist believes anything you say. your just a clangin symbol.
James was a Biblical Bishop,[A Pastor], Not the catholic kind of bishop.
READ THE 5 FOLD MINISTRY AGAIN.
Apostles, Prophets, Evengelists, Pastors and Teachers.
WHERE IS THE BISHOP??.
nowhere does presbuteros, Presbyter mean a priest, That is another one of the catholic lies.
If catholics were God's true Church, They would use the Biblical word, Which is,"Pastor".
PLEASE NOTE.
Is PASTOR in the Bible??, So whats wrong with a youth Pastor??
Is Evengelist in the Bible??. So wahts wrong with tele-Evangelists??.
You are just being silly.
I don't know what Bible you use, But every Bible I have seen, Doesn't have, pope, priest or the rcc bishop in it.
YOUR TELLING LIES..AGAIN...AREN'T YOU.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
One does not mean the other, one IS the other. Same word. Hiereus did not evolve into Priest, Presbyteros did.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6723 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
One does not mean the other, one IS the other. Same word. Hiereus did not evolve into Priest, Presbyteros did.
Forget what the English meaning for "Priest" is, It's the original Greek word and meaning that counts, NOT THE ENGLISH WORD OR MEANING.
And nowhere does the Greek word "Presbyters" mean priest.
The Greel word for priest, "Hiereus", Will always mean priest.
The Greek word, "Presbyter" will NEVER mean priest.
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS