Protestant: [Meme on the Matthew 13:55-56 (brothers of the Lord)]
Catholic: deal with Galatians 1:19 EXPLICITLY naming a brother of the Lord as an apostle
Protestant: Catholic is really ignorant of the fact that others became "apostles" (Paul, Barnabas, Silas, James the brother of Jesus) later and that Jesus's brother James, who wasn't a believer or follower during Jesus's ministry, became an apostle and leader in the early church after Jesus appeared to post-resurrection. How not surprising!! 🤣
Catholic:
I am not ignorant of that. They were only made apostle after Acts 13:1-2 and and called apostles in Acts 14:14. Galatians 1:19 refers to Acts 9:27 where ONLY the twelve were called Apostles. Furthermore, James the Apostle the Son of Alphaeus perfectly fits the brother of Jude, and the Son of Mary in Matthew 27:56
Protestant: //They were only made apostle after Acts 13:1-2//
Majorly begging the question, for one, as Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles. And Jesus's brother James was already a leader in the church by Acts 12:17, as the apostle James the son of Zebedee had already been killed (cf. v. 2) and James the son of Alphaeus was never a major player in Acts nor even mentioned by name. Additionally, Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11, and James's post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship was before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, which puts him prior to Acts 9.
//Galatians 1:19 refers to Acts 9:27 where ONLY the twelve were called Apostles.//
Your comment breaks down—and thus is false—because:
• Acts 9:27 has "Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles" whereas Gal 1:18 has "I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." Paul's stated intention in Gal 1 is to visit Cephas whereas Acts 9 has him rather "attempt[ing] to join the disciples" and Barnabas having to step in.
• Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea."
• You also claim Acts 9:27 refers to "ONLY the twelve . . . Apostles" whereas Gal 1:18–19 has him only seeing the apostles Peter and Jesus's brother James. Yet if your comment is true, "Barnabas took him and brought him to the ['ONLY the twelve'] apostles," thus making Paul lie in Galatians since he would've really seen all the apostles.
• After the Jerusalem visit Gal 1:21 has "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia" whereas Acts 9:30 has him first going to Caesarea. I think anyone would acknowledge that it's *possible* he stopped in Caesarea prior to going to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but it's still interesting that the geographical narrations are different.
[GIF]
Catholic:
I am begging the question? You INVENTED a 3rd James in the Luke-Acts narration. Luke's gospel only mentions 2 people named James--the son of zebedee and James son of Alphaeus. Luke's gospel never mentions a 'brother of the Lord' named James.
You agree this James was a major player but you think Luke never bothers to mention who his parents are or to distinguish him from the son of Alphaeus.
The burden is on you to prove James who was NOT one of the 12 is a brother of the Lord is the one in Acts 12:17. It provides 0 context except he is logically not the son of Zebedee. That leaves us with the son of Alphaeus!
Barnabas was NOT considered an apostle until Acts 13. The text emphasis this is when the were SENT (G630), sent is related to the word APOSTLE.
BEFORE you make more baseless claims about me ADMIT you are the one who has to explain why Luke SUDDENLY has a 3rd James without introduction in Acts.
Your comment on Acts 9:27/Galatians 1 aren't mutually exclusive and there are even more seemingly contradictory accounts in the Bible that have to be reconciled. This doesn't even have contradiction you just imply there is.
My point about Acts 9:27 wasn't that it was referring to the whole 12 but only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14.
Also,did you catch your own contradiction about Barnabas? You he was an apostle BEFORE Acts 13 yet Acts 9 says Barnabas took Paul to apostles, suggesting he IS NOT an apostle.
Protestant:
//I am begging the question? You INVENTED a 3rd James in the Luke-Acts narration//
Uh, James wasn't mentioned by name in Luke because the brothers were non-believes during Jesus's earthly ministry (Luke only records an abbreviated version of the same passage in Mt and Mk in 8:20–21) and thus were irrelevant, and the evidence proves James wasn't converted until after Jesus's resurrection—making Acts the only time he really becomes relevant. That's not "inventing" a 3rd James—it's called not cherry picking the NT.
Your argument also falsely assumes an author can't introduce other characters later—why is that? But Jesus's mom and his brothers were already brought into the book in 1:14, and it's an identical reference to his Lk 8:20–21 (note also the coupling of "your/his mother" and "your/his brothers" in each, while Matthew includes his father and Mark includes his sisters). Additionally, James the son of Alphaeus is not depicted as having a leadership role in the Jerusalem church anywhere in Acts, other New Testament writings, or extrabiblical writings. However, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 is seen as a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and this aligns with how Jesus's brother James is portrayed elsewhere, not only in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 but early church tradition as well, which consistently identifies Jesus's brother James as the leader of the Jerusalem church (e.g., writings by Eusebius and Hegesippus).
There is no historical or biblical evidence suggesting James the son of Alphaeus held an influential position like the one Jesus's brother James has in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15 and elsewhere. The early church clearly understood the James in leadership as Jesus's brother, not the apostle son of Alphaeus, with no historical records suggesting otherwise.
It's more than evident to anyone reading along that you started with your conclusion (based on an inability to distinguish authentic sources from later forgeries with late legendary superstitions) and then are forcing whatever material you can to fit, however unnatural it may be.
//Barnabas was NOT considered an apostle until Acts 13. The text emphasis this is when the were SENT (G630), sent is related to the word APOSTLE.//
That's why I wrote, "Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11." Maybe review also 11:22.
//Your comment on Acts 9:27/Galatians 1 . . .//
I think the strongest part is that Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea."
But somehow you expect us to believe that "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" while nearly all the apostles are still there (see John in 8:14, 25) but he just happened to not encounter any.
//only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14.//
Still begging the question since Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles, the above evidence strongly indicates Jesus's brother James was the one in view in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15, Barnabas already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) and being a known leader and being "sent" by the church in chapter 11, and James's (Jesus's brother) post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship being before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, putting him prior to Acts 9.
//Also, did you catch your own contradiction about Barnabas? You he was an apostle BEFORE Acts 13 yet Acts 9 says Barnabas took Paul to apostles, suggesting he IS NOT an apostle.//
There's a reason I've only mentioned chapter 11 this whole time….
Catholic:
Protestant said: "James wasn't mentioned by name in Luke because the brothers were non-believers...., and the evidence proves James wasn't converted until after Jesus's resurrection—making Acts the only time he really becomes relevant. That's not "inventing" a 3rd James—it's called not cherry picking the NT."
My response: your position is absurd--Joseph and Mary have subsequent kids but they fail to instill in them that their miraculous older brother is God in the flesh? If they all lived together its hard to imagine them losing faith in Christ. Regardless, it doesn't say ALL his family outside of Mary and Joseph were unbelieving.
You would expect him to be NAMED in early Acts when he supposedly became a believer who would hold a very important role, but he wasn't named, only two James are named. Your 3rd James appears with no clarification who he is, nothing in the narrative of Luke saying there's a separate James who is a brother.
Protestant said: Your argument... falsely assumes an author can't introduce other characters later.... But Jesus's mom and his brothers were already brought into the book in 1:14... Additionally, James the son of Alphaeus is not depicted as having a leadership role in the Jerusalem church anywhere in Acts, other New Testament writings, or extrabiblical writings. However, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 is seen as a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and this aligns with how Jesus's brother James is portrayed elsewhere, not only in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 but early church tradition as well, which consistently identifies Jesus's brother James as the leader of the Jerusalem church (e.g., writings by Eusebius and Hegesippus).
My response: Luke can introduce a 3rd James...if he states who he is. Good point about Acts 1 listing apostles and mentioning Jesus' brother! Acts 1 does not mention your James at all by name? Why?? Why confuse Theophilus later with another prominent member of the Church named James that he spontaneously introduced with no information about his father? Imagine you are Theophilus, who would you assume James in Acts 15 to be? Luke 8 only mentioned 2 James, and never said there was another James. You would logically think he was the 2nd apostle named James. If what you say is true Luke caused utter confusion. How can his audience think James in Acts 15 is anyone but the son of Alphaeus?
You mentioned Eusebius--Eusebius says James the brother of the Lord is 'know as the son of Joseph' then later he says James was 'called a brother of the Lord' and later when speaking of Jude (Judas) he speaks of the 'so-called brothers of the saviour' in Book III.
In book II Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria saying there are *two James*, if he believed as you do then there should be *three*:
"But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. 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."
It's odd you appeal to such late writers as Eusebius, considering this is the time the doctrine of semper virgin was being promoted more than before! Origen in the 3rd century said Jesus was an only child. John Chrysostom in the 4th century said James the Brother of the Lord is the son of Cleophas according to the gospels. There were a few that said there was a 3rd James but they still held to Mary being ever virgin.
I fully agree James the bishop of Jerusalem is brother of the Lord! His father just happens to be Alphaeus aka Cleophas as St John Chrysostom said.
Protestant said: "There is no historical or biblical evidence suggesting James the son of Alphaeus held an influential position like the one Jesus's brother James has in Acts 12:17....The early church clearly understood the James in leadership as Jesus's brother...not...son of Alphaeus, with no historical records suggesting otherwise."
my response: Again, Luke himself only explicitly names 2 James, if there's a third James there's no way we can know that from his gospel or Acts. If he meant a 3rd James then he was a HORRIBLE narrator. Also, go back to Eusebius' quote on Clement saying there are *two James* and Eusebius calls them 'so-called brothers'.
My position has it Luke doesn't say James is a brother, but simply gives him a patronymic. Yours is he is a brother but never once called such explicitly by Luke. You view causes confusion, mine makes Luke coherent.
Protestant said: It's more than evident to anyone reading along that you started with your conclusion..... and then are forcing whatever material you can to fit, however unnatural it may be.
My reponse: anyone reading will see you did this, you had to introduce a 3rd James where Acts 12 does not clarify which of the 2 James Peter left instructions for. But Luke is not this incompetent, he only introduces 2 James in his narrative--both mentioned in Luke 8 and Acts 1. Right exactly where you would expect Luke to name your 3 James along side the "brothers" he doesn't. Your James goes from obscurity to the point he doesn't have a name to the bishop of Jerusalem with no patronymic, no appellation as being a 'brother of the Lord'. If my position is true, this is not necessary because one James died and which James this is is OBVIOUS.
My position can be reached by reading Luke's narration in Luke-Acts by itself without referring to outside sources you believe vindicate you position to clean up the mess Luke made.
Protestant said: That's why I wrote, "Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11." Maybe review also 11:22.
My response: Christ had 70 people preaching but they were not called apostles, Barnabas later got the title after being CALLED by the Spirit. Their mission was short-lived, Barnabas was sent by Jerusalem to work with Antioch, he was working under others, in Acts 12:25 his mission ended, and that's where he was made an apostle along with Paul where God directly called them to be ordained. In Acts 14 they now had the ability to ordained elders in the places they went to, rather than be under the Jerusalem church directly.
Protestant said: I think the strongest part is that Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea."
Acts 22:17 says his first visit to Jerusalem ended with him being asked to get away from Jerusalem and preach to gentiles, he didn't hang around to preach outside the city, and Cilicia and Syria were mostly gentile.
But somehow you expect us to believe that "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" while nearly all the apostles are still there (see John in 8:14, 25) but he just happened to not encounter any.
Catholic response: most Protestant commentaries I checked don't dispute Acts 9:27/Galatians 1:19 is the same event. He did meet at least 2, he preached boldly who a little while then was told to go the gentiles.
Look at how Protestant commentators cross reference Galatians 1:19 when commenting on Acts 9:27
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/9-27.htm
He did meet two apostles. Also, your reference to Acts 8 is the last time the Apostle John is named in Acts. Who knows what he did after that until the wrote his books, maybe attended the Council of Jerusalem. In Acts 10 it seems to have Peter traveling without John.
Also you have a similar issue--Galatians 1:19 says he only met 2 apostles despite being in Jerusalem TWO WEEKS.
Protestant said:
//only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14.//
Still begging the question since Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles, the above evidence strongly indicates Jesus's brother James was the one in view in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15, Barnabas already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) and being a known leader and being "sent" by the church in chapter 11, and James's (Jesus's brother) post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship being before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, putting him prior to Acts 9.
Catholic:
they being sent from the Jerusalem church for a specific and temporary mission and it expired. When the arrived back it says the Spirit Himself ordered them to be ordained. If they already were apostles, what's the point in the ritual and saying to set them aside.
Again I have no issue with him being Jesus' 'brother'
Protestant said: There's a reason I've only mentioned chapter 11 this whole time….
Catholic: fine, but you still have Acts 13 having them being called by name and ordained then sent off.
