Mariolatry?

[Xeno.of.athens]

So I assume you share the view too that James was from Joseph's previous wives, who all pass away before he marry Mary?

No.

 

[Guojing]

No.

Then why would Jesus's parents bring up James? How is James related to them?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then why would Jesus's parents bring up James? How is James related to them?

The specifics of his relationship may be subject to speculation, but it is enough that they existed and that he was not born of the Blessed Mary to affirm the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as truth.

 

[Guojing]

The specifics of his relationship may be subject to speculation, but it is enough that they existed and that he was not born of the Blessed Mary to affirm the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as truth.

I see, so no scripture backing, alright then.

You heard of the term, Occam's Razor?

 

[Joseph101]

This is the first time I am reading how Catholics interpret Galatians 1:19 as saying James was actually from Joseph first wife, who passed away before he married Mary.

But if Catholics believed that, then when Joseph and Mary left Jerusalem for Egypt with boy Jesus in Matthew 2:13-16, they have to also believe that Joseph left all his other children, that were supposedly born before Jesus, in Jerusalem, to fend for themselves?

And all these without scripture references? I don't know how you concluded that is the "prevailing beliefs among a plurality or majority of all Christians, even today"

I believe that Mary did not give birth to any other son, other than her firstborn and only begotten son, Jesus. Your question is good and let's apply it strictly in this sense. If Mary and Joseph always ran away, who did they leave their other supposed children with? Why doesn't the Bible use the expression: “brothers of Jesus, children of Mary?” If Mary had other children, why did the Lord on the cross leave her in the care of John and not in the care of her other supposed brothers? Why was it that when Jesus disappeared as a child, only Joseph and Mary desperately searched for him? Who did the other children leave with while the child Jesus was lost?

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Evangelicals have to decide whether they want to maintain the purity of their anti-Catholicism or be open to historic Christianity. Maintaining the purity of their anti-Catholicism also cuts them off from Orthodoxy and traditional Christian beliefs. That may be what lots of Evangelicals want to do and that’s just fine. But since we aren’t hanging together we will be hung separately.

Being open to historic Christianity means accepting that from the beginning Christians recognized the Communion of the Saints and that we can and should all be offering prayers of intercession. The saints in heaven do this already. And that is something Christians knew until the great forgetting began about 500 years ago.

You can say Catholics are idolaters, but all that gets you is cutting yourself off from other believers. If that’s the purity you need, then fine. But a bit of historical study would show that Mary and the saints were known and loved wherever the faith spread. Purity may be important to you, but it means you pretty much have to trashcan all of Christian history to do so.

Well said my friend. As a former protestant, I had difficulty as RandyPNW does. It was finally the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers that showed me the Truth. The Blessed Virgin is mentioned in the very first prophecy in the Bible, is prophesied in Isaiah, the Gospels, in Acts (at the birth of the Church), and in Revelations. From the Beginning to the End she is there. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Ulrich Zwingli, the major Protestant Reformers all agreed on the veneration of the Virgin Mary. It still amazes me that she was the first to truly accept Christ, and for over 30 years she knew Him, unlike the Apostles and other followers. Indeed, there is a reason why the Miracle at Cana happened and Jesus fulfilled his mother's request and turned the water into wine. We would all do well to follow what she told the servants then (and now) 'Do whatever He tells you' (John 2:5).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I see, so no scripture backing, alright then.

You heard of the term, Occam's Razor?

Is it not necessary for your claim to require "scripture," since you assert that the Blessed Virgin Mary had several children? Would not Occam's razor suggest that your claim, being the more complex, is therefore the less likely?

 

[Grip Docility]

Simply put, James is not referred to as Mary's son, nor is Mary acknowledged as his mother.

The moment at the cross, per Hebrew tradition, where Mary is assigned as an adoptive Mother, does give your supposition relevant scriptural support.

I hadn’t considered this.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Witness, for instance, the famous homily on the Dormition of the Theotokos given by HH Pope Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 567), the last patriarch to be recognized by Egyptian and Greek alike (though only for his first year by the Greeks, after which he was replaced by a Chalcedonian for the Greeks):

Please note the date of this extrabiblical writing - As successor to Timothy III (IV), at the request of the Arab king Al-Harith ibn Jabalah al-Ghassani and Empress Theodora's efforts, Jacob Baradaeus ordained a universal bishop in 543/4 AD by Mor Theodosius.

That would be 540 year after the Gospels and Epistles - It is re enforcing my point - the teaching was not accepted by the church for several hundreds of years, but when the church became westernized these teachings became prevalent.

Also I’d like to see where Scripture says it is the sole authority and therefore just because the Bible doesn’t speak on it, doesn’t mean that we embrace or deny it just based on that. The beauty and history of the Church through its centuries has shown through its Holy Tradition (Since the Church gave us the Bible) that she is the Mother of God and as she so interceded at the Wedding in Cana, she too serves as as an intercessor, “as one with a motherly favor”. - Ode 6 of the Small Paraklesis to the Most Holy Theotokos.

It is found in Paul's exhortation to Timothy

2 Tim 3:12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.​

​

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work​

​

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Please note the date of this extrabiblical writing - As successor to Timothy III (IV), at the request of the Arab king Al-Harith ibn Jabalah al-Ghassani and Empress Theodora's efforts, Jacob Baradaeus ordained a universal bishop in 543/4 AD by Mor Theodosius.

That would be 540 year after the Gospels and Epistles - It is re enforcing my point - the teaching was not accepted by the church for several hundreds of years, but when the church became westernized these teachings became prevalent.

It is found in Paul's exhortation to Timothy

2 Tim 3:12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.​

​

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work​

​

Hmm, when was the New Testament finally decided on? Would you concede that it was well beyond the first century….indeed, it would be centuries until finally decided on. When the Mary was openly being venerated. The scriptures also allude and quote sources that were not included in the NT canon. However, the Fathers of the Church knew which should be considered and those that should not be.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The specifics of his relationship may be subject to speculation, but it is enough that they existed and that he was not born of the Blessed Mary to affirm the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as truth.

Correct it is needed to confirm the dogma - however the dogma is not confirmed, nor supported in Scripture.

Matt 27: 55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.​

Remember those names - James and Joses

Mark 6:22 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.​

​

James and Joses​

​

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

​

Gal1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother​

​

Notice, he did not call Peter the Lord's brother - but James.​

​

From a purely exegetical stance - There is sufficient mention of Jesus' brothers to realize that indeed He had brothers from Mary.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Hmm, when was the New Testament finally decided on? Would you concede that it was well beyond the first century….indeed, it would be centuries until finally decided on. When the Mary was openly being venerated. The scriptures also allude and quote sources that were not included in the NT canon. However, the Fathers of the Church knew which should be considered and those that should not be.

Granted - but the article cited from 534 was not canon, nor it is embraced as Scripture. The vast majority of sources quoted in the NT are direct quotes from the OT - Scripture quoting Scripture -

 

[dzheremi]

Please note the date of this extrabiblical writing

Yep. That was the point of posting it. As I wrote, "The funny thing about this, given our friend's aversion to sources outside of the literal text of the Bible, is that the sources that would point to her dying are just as extra-Biblical as any source that would say she did not die." The point is that it is extra-Biblical either way.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The point is that it is extra-Biblical either way.

My point is that it did not become dogma, nor even an extra biblical teaching for hundreds of years after her death

There is no writings regarding the subject, so how did people come to the conclusion 500 years later. What did they base it on?

 

[dzheremi]

My point is that it did not become dogma, nor even an extra biblical teaching for hundreds of years after her death

The dormition of Theotokos is celebrated in the Coptic Orthodox Church on the 21st of Tobi (Coptic month), which corresponds to January 30th. Being officially on our Church calendar indicates that it is dogmatically believed in by us.

There is no writings regarding the subject, so how did people come to the conclusion 500 years later. What did they base it on?

This is the preserved tradition in Egypt as shown at the time of HH Pope St. Theodosius. Since this is not an area of specific interest of mine, I cannot testify as to earlier sources than this, as I've never had reason to look for them, but it is important to note as a general principle that we do not have this mindset whereby something is only demonstrated as being believed or part of our normative practice once it is written down. If that were the case, then (for example) Coptic chant would not predate the 18th century or so, as it was not traditionally written down (traditionally our greatest cantors were blind, so it wouldn't make sense to write it down), but has been passed down orally for more centuries than anyone truly knows. At any rate, nobody believes it was somehow constructed by the European musicologists who first wrote it down. It clearly predates that time period. The belief in St. Mary's dormition can be viewed in a similar manner.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Correct it is needed to confirm the dogma - however the dogma is not confirmed, nor supported in Scripture.

Matt 27: 55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.​

Remember those names - James and Joses

Mark 6:22 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.​

​

James and Joses​

​

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

​

Gal1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother​

​

Notice, he did not call Peter the Lord's brother - but James.​

​

From a purely exegetical stance - There is sufficient mention of Jesus' brothers to realize that indeed He had brothers from Mary.

It is accurate to state that Jesus had brothers, but it is incorrect to claim that these brothers were born from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Adding ideas and relationships beyond what is written in the holy scriptures is not exegesis; rather, it is known as eisegesis.

 

[Grip Docility]

It is accurate to state that Jesus had brothers, but it is incorrect to claim that these brothers were born from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Adding ideas and relationships beyond what is written in the holy scriptures is not exegesis; rather, it is known as eisegesis.

I haven't really pondered on this entire matter, before. That said, Hebrew right is very unique when it comes to listing family. Heli is listed as Joseph's Father, in the book of Luke. It takes understanding to realize that per Hebrew Genealogical recall, the Patriarchal approach must be understood, in the matter. Heli is actually Mary's Father, but because the Hebrew Patriarchal Genealogy traces through the Father, Heli, though Joseph's Father-in-Law, is listed as his Father.

In fairness, this does lead to further support of your position. Again, Jesus would not have named John as Mary's adopted son, if Mary had Male son's to fill that position, by proper Hebrew tradition.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It is accurate to state that Jesus had brothers, but it is incorrect to claim that these brothers were born from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Adding ideas and relationships beyond what is written in the holy scriptures is not exegesis; rather, it is known as eisegesis.

Neither is claiming she did not. Scripture clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Scripture calls Mary the mother of James and Joses.

The same exegesis negates the perpetual virgin teaching.

 

[Grip Docility]

Neither is claiming she did not. Scripture clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Scripture calls Mary the mother of James and Joses.

The same exegesis negates the perpetual virgin teaching.

There's a problem, however. Jesus, as the sole Male relative of Mary, assigns John as Mary's son, from the cross. If "James" the apostle is stated to be a blood son of Mary, then the Hebrew practice of ensuring that the Mother has a Male caretaker of sorts would not have been necessary in that moment, at the cross. By Hebrew custom, Jesus assigning a son to Mary insinuates, exegetically, historically and hermeneutically, that Mary did not have a living male Blood relative.

I don't say this to be difficult, but it is a fact. Also, per the book of Luke, Heli is "Joseph's" Father. is that correct in frame of blood?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't say this to be difficult, but it is a fact. Also, per the book of Luke, Heli is "Joseph's" Father. is that correct in frame of blood?

Read Matt the lineage of Jesus was through both Joseph and Mary.

I don’t focus on extra biblical writings and this is the crux of our differences.

Notice we are in a circular pattern here?

My points are clearly stated have a great day. Where there is no meeting of the minds even to what is used as a measure of authority, there can be no mutual correlation nor agreement

Love you guys! Stay close to God.