Hilary of Poitiers on the virginity of Mary

[sculleywr]

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

 

[Standing Up]

Why?

Jesus' brothers weren't believers. John was. Who would you trust your mother to?

 

[sculleywr]

Why?

Jesus' brothers weren't believers. John was. Who would you trust your mother to?

The law God gave in Leviticus forbade such an action.

 

[narnia59]

Why?

Jesus' brothers weren't believers. John was. Who would you trust your mother to?

Um, James, the 'brother' of the Lord who would become a major leader in the church in Jerusalem? Or was he not trustworthy enough? Assuming of course (as you do) he was Mary's son.

 

[Standing Up]

The law God gave in Leviticus forbade such an action.

Did you find the specific reference?

'Course we know how Jesus defined it, "whoever does the will of God".

 

[Standing Up]

Um, James, the 'brother' of the Lord who would become a major leader in the church in Jerusalem? Or was he not trustworthy enough? Assuming of course (as you do) he was Mary's son.

Yes he did. But that was after resurrection, after Jesus appeared to him. James then believed.

I've no idea whether Mary returned to live under his household or remained with John thereafter. Perhaps this is why the two tradtions about Mary's place of death (Jerusalem or Ephesus) coexist.

The point is, it answers the question, why did Jesus commit His mother to John, not James.

 

[narnia59]

Yes he did. But that was after resurrection, after Jesus appeared to him. James then believed.

There is no record in Scripture of James coming to belief after the resurrection.

The assumption that the passage that Jesus brothers did not believe in him is specific (meaning every brother) and not generic is an assumption. For example, Jesus tells the apostles at the last supper that they would all desert him, yet St. John does not. Was Jesus wrong? Hardly. Simply making a general statement that didn't apply to each specifically -- exceptions do occur.

With the lack of any witness in Scripture of the alleged conversion of James after the resurrection there is no real way to know that your assumption is correct.

Or, you could simply agree with some Protestant scholars that James, the 'brother' of the Lord is James the son of Alphaeus who was an apostle and a believer all along. Just not a son of Mary.

I've no idea whether Mary returned to live under his household or remained with John thereafter. Perhaps this is why the two tradtions about Mary's place of death (Jerusalem or Ephesus) coexist.

The point is, it answers the question, why did Jesus commit His mother to John, not James.

No, it really doesn't answer the question at all. Even if your assumption that James was the son of Mary is correct(although never stated in Scripture) and your assumption that he initially was not a believer is correct (never stated in Scripture) and your assumption he was converted after the resurrection is correct (an event not recorded in Scripture) -- even if all those assumptions were true, there is no need for Jesus to place Mary in the care of John. Her son James was less than 48 hours away from becoming 'trustworthy' to care for her. Your scenario requires Jesus to hold some type of petty grudge to forever remind James that he initially was not a believer and therefore not trustworthy enough to care for their mother. That would be the only possible conclusion if Mary had other sons, including James, the great bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[Standing Up]

There is no record in Scripture of James coming to belief after the resurrection.

The assumption that the passage that Jesus brothers did not believe in him is specific (meaning every brother) and not generic is an assumption. For example, Jesus tells the apostles at the last supper that they would all desert him, yet St. John does not. Was Jesus wrong? Hardly. Simply making a general statement that didn't apply to each specifically -- exceptions do occur.

With the lack of any witness in Scripture of the alleged conversion of James after the resurrection there is no real way to know that your assumption is correct.

See below.

Or, you could simply agree with some Protestant scholars that James, the 'brother' of the Lord is James the son of Alphaeus who was an apostle and a believer all along. Just not a son of Mary.

It is impossible for James son of Alphaeus to be the same as James son of Joseph. One was an apostle. One did not believe until after the resurrection. See below.

No, it really doesn't answer the question at all. Even if your assumption that James was the son of Mary is correct(although never stated in Scripture) and your assumption that he initially was not a believer is correct (never stated in Scripture) and your assumption he was converted after the resurrection is correct (an event not recorded in Scripture) -- even if all those assumptions were true, there is no need for Jesus to place Mary in the care of John. Her son James was less than 48 hours away from becoming 'trustworthy' to care for her. Your scenario requires Jesus to hold some type of petty grudge to forever remind James that he initially was not a believer and therefore not trustworthy enough to care for their mother. That would be the only possible conclusion if Mary had other sons, including James, the great bishop of Jerusalem.

Sure each "assumption" is in scripture.

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

The word brethren refers to His family, not to His disciples. His brethren (James and the others ) did not believe in him.

1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Jesus appeared to James. James then was in the upper room.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

The only real question is whether Mary continued to live with John or did she move back with James? It's a question scripture does not clearly answer, but we do know of two traditions about her place of death, Jerusalem (James) and Ephesus (John).

PS -wiki- In some versions of the story the event is said to have taken place in Ephesus, in the House of the Virgin Mary, although this is a much more recent and localized tradition. The earliest traditions all locate the end of Mary's life in Jerusalem (see "Mary's Tomb").

So, okay, evidently, John took care of her for a few days and after James believed, she returned to Jerusalem with him.

Don't you love it when scripture and tradition work together?

 

[narnia59]

See below.



It is impossible for James son of Alphaeus to be the same as James son of Joseph. One was an apostle. One did not believe until after the resurrection. See below.



Sure each "assumption" is in scripture.

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

The word brethren refers to His family, not to His disciples. His brethren (James and the others ) did not believe in him.

1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Jesus appeared to James. James then was in the upper room.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

The only real question is whether Mary continued to live with John or did she move back with James? It's a question scripture does not clearly answer, but we do know of two traditions about her place of death, Jerusalem (James) and Ephesus (John).

PS -wiki- In some versions of the story the event is said to have taken place in Ephesus, in the House of the Virgin Mary, although this is a much more recent and localized tradition. The earliest traditions all locate the end of Mary's life in Jerusalem (see "Mary's Tomb").

So, okay, evidently, John took care of her for a few days and after James believed, she returned to Jerusalem with him.

Don't you love it when scripture and tradition work together?

Each of your 'assumptions' is yet an assumption. Where again does Scripture say this James was the son of Mary? It doesn't. Where does Scripture say that this James is one of the brethren who was not a believer? It doesn't. And where does Scripture record his post-resurrection conversion? Nowhere. And where does Scripture record Mary leaving the home of John to return to Jerusalem with James? Nowhere. All fabrications to support your conclusion.

John's is the last of the Gospel's written -- probably written at least 60 years after the death of Christ. You posit that John takes care of Mary for only a couple of days. Yet his Gospel records that "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home". Written 60 years later, John says he took her into his home "FROM THAT HOUR", with no defined end. What part of 'FROM THAT HOUR" is difficult to comprehend? Yet you're willing to make up a story (not recorded in Scripture) that John took care of her for only a couple of days, not "FROM THAT HOUR" as he states, contradicting BOTH Scripture AND tradition.

Per Scripture, John takes care of Mary from the hour of the crucifixion going forward. So, if James was the son of Mary as you profess, Jesus strips her away from her family because the great bishop of Jerusalem wasn't going to be 'trustworthy' enough (according to you) to take care of her. Does that about sum it up?

 

[sculleywr]

Each of your 'assumptions' is yet an assumption. Where again does Scripture say this James was the son of Mary? It doesn't. Where does Scripture say that this James is one of the brethren who was not a believer? It doesn't. And where does Scripture record his post-resurrection conversion? Nowhere. And where does Scripture record Mary leaving the home of John to return to Jerusalem with James? Nowhere. All fabrications to support your conclusion.

John's is the last of the Gospel's written -- probably written at least 60 years after the death of Christ. You posit that John takes care of Mary for only a couple of days. Yet his Gospel records that "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home". Written 60 years later, John says he took her into his home "FROM THAT HOUR", with no defined end. What part of 'FROM THAT HOUR" is difficult to comprehend? Yet you're willing to make up a story (not recorded in Scripture) that John took care of her for only a couple of days, not "FROM THAT HOUR" as he states, contradicting BOTH Scripture AND tradition.

Per Scripture, John takes care of Mary from the hour of the crucifixion going forward. So, if James was the son of Mary as you profess, Jesus strips her away from her family because the great bishop of Jerusalem wasn't going to be 'trustworthy' enough (according to you) to take care of her. Does that about sum it up?

Doesn't the Scripture refer to Christ as THE Son (singular) of Mary?

 

[Standing Up]

Each of your 'assumptions' is yet an assumption. Where again does Scripture say this James was the son of Mary? It doesn't.

I know you know these things, but don't believe them. Nonetheless, for others, here's the sequencing from the fact of brothers who didn't believe, to James' conversion (like Paul's), to Pentecost.


Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Mary, James, and others were in the upper room in one accord (believers).

Where does Scripture say that this James is one of the brethren who was not a believer? It doesn't. And where does Scripture record his post-resurrection conversion? Nowhere. And where does Scripture record Mary leaving the home of John to return to Jerusalem with James? Nowhere. All fabrications to support your conclusion.

John's is the last of the Gospel's written -- probably written at least 60 years after the death of Christ. You posit that John takes care of Mary for only a couple of days. Yet his Gospel records that "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home". Written 60 years later, John says he took her into his home "FROM THAT HOUR", with no defined end. What part of 'FROM THAT HOUR" is difficult to comprehend? Yet you're willing to make up a story (not recorded in Scripture) that John took care of her for only a couple of days, not "FROM THAT HOUR" as he states, contradicting BOTH Scripture AND tradition.

Per Scripture, John takes care of Mary from the hour of the crucifixion going forward. So, if James was the son of Mary as you profess, Jesus strips her away from her family because the great bishop of Jerusalem wasn't going to be 'trustworthy' enough (according to you) to take care of her. Does that about sum it up?

I agree from that hour probably includes more time than a couple days. But remember how important tradition is. It is that she died in Jerusalem.

In what year did she probably die?

 

[sculleywr]

I know you know these things, but don't believe them. Nonetheless, for others, here's the sequencing from the fact of brothers who didn't believe, to James' conversion (like Paul's), to Pentecost.

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Mary, James, and others were in the upper room in one accord (believers).

I agree from that hour probably includes more time than a couple days. But remember how important tradition is. It is that she died in Jerusalem.

In what year did she probably die?

If we know something, then there is no belief needed because faith is excluded by knowledge

 

[Scottish Knight]

I don't think Jesus was giving Mary to John instead of his brothers. I'm sure Mary's other sons would also have looed ater her and been there for her too, but to replace Himself with John. In other words He was telling Mary gently that He is no longer her son, and she no longer His mother role-wise. "Look take John instead of Me" is how I would interpret it.

This is the final act in various passages in the bible where Jesus shows the change in relationship between them. Like when he calls Mary "woman" and not mother, when He rebukes her at Cana, where He refuses to see Mary and His brother but insted all who do the will of God are my brothers and mother.

 

[sculleywr]

I don't think Jesus was giving Mary to John instead of his brothers. I'm sure Mary's other sons would also have looed ater her and been there for her too, but to replace Himself with John. In other words He was telling Mary gently that He is no longer her son, and she no longer His mother role-wise. "Look take John instead of Me" is how I would interpret it.

This is the final act in various passages in the bible where Jesus shows the change in relationship between them. Like when he calls Mary "woman" and not mother, when He rebukes her at Cana, where He refuses to see Mary and His brother but insted all who do the will of God are my brothers and mother.

But John took her in his house

 

[Standing Up]

I don't think Jesus was giving Mary to John instead of his brothers. I'm sure Mary's other sons would also have looed ater her and been there for her too, but to replace Himself with John. In other words He was telling Mary gently that He is no longer her son, and she no longer His mother role-wise. "Look take John instead of Me" is how I would interpret it.

This is the final act in various passages in the bible where Jesus shows the change in relationship between them. Like when he calls Mary "woman" and not mother, when He rebukes her at Cana, where He refuses to see Mary and His brother but insted all who do the will of God are my brothers and mother.

Interesting. And yes scripture is full of those ideas. As well, there's a certain foreshadowing at the cross of our adoption as children today. IOW, as flesh and blood, there's no right to anything in the kingdom, but our belonging is by spiritual adoption, those who do the will of God (what is it? believe on the One He sent).

This strongly reinforces the scriptural ideas shown above. James is the son of Mary/Joseph, the brother of Christ. But did not believe until after a direct appearance by Christ. James is then in the upper room, not because of his physical lineage (like with Levi as priest), but because of spiritual things.

 

[Standing Up]

If we know something, then there is no belief needed because faith is excluded by knowledge

Perhaps. We know Jesus asked Thomas, feel My hands, in order to provide knowledge as belief. This is written said John so that you might believe.

Blind faith is belieiving without understanding. It's okay.

 

[narnia59]

I know you know these things, but don't believe them. Nonetheless, for others, here's the sequencing from the fact of brothers who didn't believe, to James' conversion (like Paul's), to Pentecost.

Yes indeed, let's step through it for the sake of others....

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Noted many times on these forums, but in the Greek, his "adelphoi" -- a generic term used in Scripture to denote uncle and other types of 'kinsman'. Since this Scripture does not identify James as being the son of Mary (and later identifies James and Joses and being the sons of another woman entirely) -- James could be a son of Joseph from a prior marriage (as some believe), any other type of relative, etc. So one can only assume from this Scripture that James is a son of Mary.

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
v5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Any of his brethren? As I pointed out before, Jesus tells the apostles at the Last Supper that they would "all" desert him -- yet one did not. An explicit statement that James did not believe him would make your claim. With this Scripture you are assuming the author intends to convey specifics about each individual family member rather than a generic statement about the family.

1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Paul begins with noting he appears to Peter; then to the twelve (of which Peter was one); he concludes with that he was seen of James; then of all of the apostles (of which James is one).

We do know there were two named apostles named James -- James the son of Zebedee (John's brother), and James the son of Alpheus, who traditionally has been known as James "the Less".

And which James was this? Based on these Protestant commentaries, it looks like of those who identify this James, 4 out of 5 name him as James, the son of Alpheus, i.e. James-the-Less. The one which does not (People's New Testament) doesn't seem to be aware there were two original apostles named James, which would seem to put their scholarship in doubt. So while you are busy assuming that this James is the son of Mary and Joseph, scholary minds make no such assumption at all.

Barnes Notes on the Bible: This James, the fathers say, was James the Less, the brother or cousin-german of the Lord Jesus. The other James was dead (see Acts 12:1) when this Epistle was written

Clarke's commentary on the Bible: After that, he was seen of James - But where, and on what occasion, we are not told; nor indeed do we know which James is intended; James the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alpheus.

Gill's Exposition of the Bible: After that he was seen of James,.... Not James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, though he was seen by him with other disciples, John 20:19 who was now dead when the apostle wrote this, having been killed by Herod many years ago, Acts 12:2 and so not quite so proper a witness to be mentioned; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, a man of great fame and credit with the Jews, and still living, and therefore a proper and pertinent evidence.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:seen of James-the Less, the brother of our Lord (Ga 1:19).

People's New Testament: 15:7 After that, he was seen of James. James, the Lord's brother, not James the apostle. This James was prominent, when Paul wrote, as the chief bishop at Jerusalem (Ac 15:13 21:18) and the author of the epistle of James. James, the apostle, had been killed by Herod

1 Corinthians 15:7 Bible Commentary

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Mary, James, and others were in the upper room in one accord (believers).

There were a handful of women identified in Scripture as "the" women who accompanied Jesus -- for grins let's say 12. And 12 apostles. And Mary. That makes 25. The next verse says there were 120 gathered who constituted the apostles, the women, Mary and Jesus' brethren. Just how many children do you think Mary and Joseph had anyway? Were they all converted after the resurrection too? In context, this is clearly talking about a group of faithful disciples, rather than your assumption they are relatives of Jesus, and even more assuming, specifically includes a "James" who is not one of the 12.

And I noticed you provided no Scriptural evidence of this amazing conversion of this supposed "James" after the resurrection that you keep citing? Why is that?

I agree from that hour probably includes more time than a couple days. But remember how important tradition is. It is that she died in Jerusalem.

In what year did she probably die?

How important tradition is to whom? You? The only tradition that is important to me is that apostolic tradition which supports doctrine -- and where Mary died does not fall into that category. So I'm assuming that tradition is important to you for some reason.

You're trying to make a case that because Mary died in Jerusalem she left the house of John? You do know that tradition also places John not leaving Jerusalem for Ephesus until after Mary's assumption, correct?

Bottom line is that John, writing 50+ years after the crucifixion records that "FROM THAT HOUR" he took Mary into his home. "FROM THAT HOUR" means exactly what it says -- he took Mary into his home at that point, and fails to mention anything about her ever leaving. If this was a short-term arrangement until James came around he most surely would not have not left that unstated, or would simply not have mentioned the incident at all. Your house of cards becomes more and more fragile with every wild-goose chase path you follow.

It boils down to this -- you're assuming there is a son of Mary named James. You're assuming he was not a believer. You're assuming he was converted after the resurrection. You're assuming he became an apostle, and bishop of Jerusalem (even though scholars identify that James as the son of Alpheus). You're assuming he takes over care of Mary at some point in time, even though John records that from the hour of the crucifixion he took Mary into his home.

Bottom line -- you can assume all you want, but if you're going to assume that James is a son of Mary, you also have to admit that when Jesus places Mary into the care of John(even while he's asking the Father to forgive his executioners), he's punishing James by separating him from his mother for not being a believer, because as you said, he isn't "trustworthy" enough for the task.

 

[narnia59]

I don't think Jesus was giving Mary to John instead of his brothers. I'm sure Mary's other sons would also have looed ater her and been there for her too, but to replace Himself with John. In other words He was telling Mary gently that He is no longer her son, and she no longer His mother role-wise. "Look take John instead of Me" is how I would interpret it.

This is the final act in various passages in the bible where Jesus shows the change in relationship between them. Like when he calls Mary "woman" and not mother, when He rebukes her at Cana, where He refuses to see Mary and His brother but insted all who do the will of God are my brothers and mother.

So does Jesus shed his humanity after the crucifixion? Because last I noted, humans have mothers. Aside from that, if Mary ceases to be the mother of Jesus after the resurrection, then Scripture errs in calling her so.

Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother, and he does call her woman. There is certainly a valid theological reasoning for this. You however,seem to view this as a distancing of himself from Mary. Please read Mark 7:9-13 where Jesus tears into the Pharisees because they're teaching it's okay to ignore the commandment to honor their parents as long as it's for "religious" reasons. It's a command he took quite seriously, and to imply that he wouldn't even acknowledge Mary as his mother charges him with failing to keep it, while admonishing others of its importance. Is he to be our model in all things, except this? Or perhaps you've misinterpreted.

 

[sculleywr]

Perhaps. We know Jesus asked Thomas, feel My hands, in order to provide knowledge as belief. This is written said John so that you might believe.

Blind faith is belieiving without understanding. It's okay.

However, in the same book, he also said he did not write everything down. We know for a fact that Christ did not only teach the Bible.

When the early church, in the majority of their writings, tend to agree with St. Hilary, why would we not accept it?

 

[Standing Up]

Yes indeed, let's step through it for the sake of others....


Noted many times on these forums, but in the Greek, his "adelphoi" -- a generic term used in Scripture to denote uncle and other types of 'kinsman'.

I'm not really interested in rehashing things we've been through that lead nowhere. Suffice to say here, you started your argument with "in the Greek" then conflating it with a definition of brother from both OT (Hebrew) and NT. IOW, the Greek itself in fact has a term for aunts and uncles, but the author chose not to use it when defining the brothers of Jesus.

Since this Scripture does not identify James as being the son of Mary (and later identifies James and Joses and being the sons of another woman entirely) -- James could be a son of Joseph from a prior marriage (as some believe), any other type of relative, etc. So one can only assume from this Scripture that James is a son of Mary.

Lots of people have lots of different names. Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters.

Any of his brethren? As I pointed out before, Jesus tells the apostles at the Last Supper that they would "all" desert him -- yet one did not. An explicit statement that James did not believe him would make your claim. With this Scripture you are assuming the author intends to convey specifics about each individual family member rather than a generic statement about the family.


Paul begins with noting he appears to Peter; then to the twelve (of which Peter was one); he concludes with that he was seen of James; then of all of the apostles (of which James is one).

We do know there were two named apostles named James -- James the son of Zebedee (John's brother), and James the son of Alpheus, who traditionally has been known as James "the Less".

And which James was this? Based on these Protestant commentaries, it looks like of those who identify this James, 4 out of 5 name him as James, the son of Alpheus, i.e. James-the-Less. The one which does not (People's New Testament) doesn't seem to be aware there were two original apostles named James, which would seem to put their scholarship in doubt. So while you are busy assuming that this James is the son of Mary and Joseph, scholary minds make no such assumption at all.

Barnes Notes on the Bible: This James, the fathers say, was James the Less, the brother or cousin-german of the Lord Jesus. The other James was dead (see Acts 12:1) when this Epistle was written

Clarke's commentary on the Bible: After that, he was seen of James - But where, and on what occasion, we are not told; nor indeed do we know which James is intended; James the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alpheus.

Gill's Exposition of the Bible: After that he was seen of James,.... Not James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, though he was seen by him with other disciples, John 20:19 who was now dead when the apostle wrote this, having been killed by Herod many years ago, Acts 12:2 and so not quite so proper a witness to be mentioned; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, a man of great fame and credit with the Jews, and still living, and therefore a proper and pertinent evidence.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:seen of James-the Less, the brother of our Lord (Ga 1:19).

People's New Testament: 15:7 After that, he was seen of James. James, the Lord's brother, not James the apostle. This James was prominent, when Paul wrote, as the chief bishop at Jerusalem (Ac 15:13 21:18) and the author of the epistle of James. James, the apostle, had been killed by Herod

1 Corinthians 15:7 Bible Commentary

Don't forget there were 3 James---the greater (son of Zebedee), the less (son of Alphaeus), and the just (son of Joseph).

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.ii.xiii.html

There were a handful of women identified in Scripture as "the" women who accompanied Jesus -- for grins let's say 12. And 12 apostles. And Mary. That makes 25. The next verse says there were 120 gathered who constituted the apostles, the women, Mary and Jesus' brethren. Just how many children do you think Mary and Joseph had anyway? Were they all converted after the resurrection too? In context, this is clearly talking about a group of faithful disciples, rather than your assumption they are relatives of Jesus, and even more assuming, specifically includes a "James" who is not one of the 12.

And I noticed you provided no Scriptural evidence of this amazing conversion of this supposed "James" after the resurrection that you keep citing? Why is that?

Except I did provide the scripture. You just don't believe it.

How important tradition is to whom? You? The only tradition that is important to me is that apostolic tradition which supports doctrine -- and where Mary died does not fall into that category. So I'm assuming that tradition is important to you for some reason.

You're trying to make a case that because Mary died in Jerusalem she left the house of John? You do know that tradition also places John not leaving Jerusalem for Ephesus until after Mary's assumption, correct?

Bottom line is that John, writing 50+ years after the crucifixion records that "FROM THAT HOUR" he took Mary into his home. "FROM THAT HOUR" means exactly what it says -- he took Mary into his home at that point, and fails to mention anything about her ever leaving. If this was a short-term arrangement until James came around he most surely would not have not left that unstated, or would simply not have mentioned the incident at all. Your house of cards becomes more and more fragile with every wild-goose chase path you follow.

It boils down to this -- you're assuming there is a son of Mary named James. You're assuming he was not a believer. You're assuming he was converted after the resurrection. You're assuming he became an apostle, and bishop of Jerusalem (even though scholars identify that James as the son of Alpheus). You're assuming he takes over care of Mary at some point in time, even though John records that from the hour of the crucifixion he took Mary into his home.

Bottom line -- you can assume all you want, but if you're going to assume that James is a son of Mary, you also have to admit that when Jesus places Mary into the care of John(even while he's asking the Father to forgive his executioners), he's punishing James by separating him from his mother for not being a believer, because as you said, he isn't "trustworthy" enough for the task.

Thank you for the further information about John remaining in Jerusalem as per Acts. So, no problem that Mary remained with him, until she died, and he left.

I'm still interested in hearing the OT law about putting one's mother only with physical siblings.