Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There were also others besides the gnostics who invented stories about Jesus and His followers and His mother. The gnostics were a problem in the early church in the 1st Century, and is partly the reason behind the epistles of James, John, and Jude. Anything with gnostic content tells me it should be rejected outright. I don't believe a word of it.
What is gnostic about the Infancy Gospel of James? I have looked at the link you provide, and it says nothing at all about anything gnostic in it. Are you getting it mixed up with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which your link does identify as gnostic?
I do not know what gnostic means but I do remember seeing the word.
I am not sure why the Gospel of James was excluded from the Bible. According to AI: "
FYI, the 1st link has this statement in it: "The Nativity reported as taking place in a cave, with its Mithraic overtones..."
What does "knew them socially" mean?
I threw out "stepbrother" as a possible usage of ἀδελφόι.
No. Christianity is not a cargo cult. We didn't receive the Bible without knowledge of a continuous history of the Church, and we know that the consensus of the early Church, and indeed even the early Protestants, was that Mary was ever-virgin.
Here's a source: G80 - adelphos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (nasb95)
If that doesn't meet your requirements which you admit are unreasonable, well, sorry.
I do not think there was much of a link between Mithraism and Gnosticism. But even if there was, I don't think it matters much because the "Mithraic overtones" is questionable. The article offers no information or citation for this. Most likely this is in reference to the fact Mithraists would have ceremonies in caves, as is attested to in the link in your quote. Some have also claimed Mithra was born in a cave, but I have not found actual evidence of this; he was born from a rock, and perhaps the cave idea was a misunderstanding of that.
You don't think that is obvious from the narrative? The people state the obvious, which is typical of those ignorant of spiritual matters. They obviously knew the family.
ECFs were not infallible, and their writings were not inspired of God. I take my doctrine from scripture, not from traditions or opinions of the ECFs. If what they wrote aligns with scripture, then I accept it, but if what they wrote contradicts what I see in scripture, I reject it - regardless of consensus.
The primary def. is "a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother." Again, the context shows which def. to use, and this is the one I get from the context of that scripture. An entirely different context, for example 1 John, the usage as spiritual brothers is obvious. It is the context that defines the word, because of how it is used.
This link says: "Essentially, we should understand Mithraism as the Zoroastrian Gnosticism."
ordoabchao.ca
Maybe the Mithraic overtones is questionable. But by the narrative and the miracles described, it appears at best an embellished story, and at worst completely fabricated, which is what gnostic writers did. After reading the narrative, I wouldn't classify it as gnostic, but I would classify it as a false writing - not written by the apostle James, and a fabricated story (a novel).
I'm pointing out that the phrase "knew them socially" is awkward English, and I'm not sure what you mean to contribute to the sentence by adding "socially."
So if native speakers of classical Greek reading these documents understood Mary to be ever-virgin, but you, not a native speaker, reading a translation of the documents, come to a different conclusion, the proper interpretation is yours and not theirs?
And yet that is not the only definition. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the context is obvious, but obviously it's not because you've come to an extreme minority position, considering how many Christians have come before us and took the historical position that Mary was ever-virgin.
This link says: "Essentially, we should understand Mithraism as the Zoroastrian Gnosticism."
Mithraism: Zoroastrian Gnosticism — Ordo ab Chao
The theory, originally proposed by Franz Cumont, that Mithraism evolved from Persian Zoroastrianism, is now generally dismissed. However, a primitive version of the Mithraic mysteries certainly existed among the Magi, who contributed heavily to the Greek traditions of Orphism, which not only lat
It's not an obsession. But how is this any different than any other controversial issue? People misread scripture quite often, so scripture should be used for correction, should it not?
I thought I was quite clear explaining it. The people who said it were neighbors for almost 3 decades, and knew the family. But apparently it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out.
You're trying to get me to accept "consensus" which I will never do, because it is contrary to the plain and clear reading of scripture.
There were many minority positions that were correct when the consensus was wrong, for example Jan Hus was murdered because the consensus was against his teaching that the church consisted of the whole assembly rather than limited to the clergy. Hus was right, the consensus was wrong. But let's not get into the dozens, or possibly hundreds, of cases where the consensus was wrong. Shall we speak now of Galileo and Copernicus?
Regardless of all this, I say again: by the narrative and the miracles described, it appears at best an embellished story, and at worst completely fabricated. After reading the narrative, I wouldn't classify it as gnostic, but I would classify it as a false writing - not written by the apostle James, and a fabricated story (a novel). Even if all the ECFs considered it authoritative (which they obviously did not), I would still reject it. I consider it fiction. In fact, I've gotten more truth from Moby Dick than that document.
It seems to me that Scripture is somewhat ambiguous on the matter, in that it can allow for both positions depending on how certain passages are understood and which verses are prioritized in the decision. So it's a debateable matter, the impact on how we practice our faith I simply cannot see. If one wants to believe that Mary was ever-virgin, and another wants to believe that she had ordinary marital relations that should be largely irrelevant to how we worship since Mary's sex life is not really a matter of theology or praxis.
What you're saying is a reason why it is controversial. However, in my view, many people (Catholic or otherwise) who venerate Mary with what I consider false narratives about her being a perpetual virgin, and leading ultimately to calling her "Queen of Heaven", praying to her, etc. is idolatry. I realize they have their reasons in which they justify it, but IMO it is nevertheless idolatry. I think if Mary had seen what they have done to her image over the last 2000 years, she would roll over in her grave. And such starts with controversies like this. I don't demean her in any way, as she was blessed more than any other woman in the world; but it doesn't justify all the fabrications about her. In my mind, veneration means worship. This is what the Word History and Origins says about it:
