Immaculate Conception

[kepha31]

At a very early date the Christian church developed the theory / dogma of Original Sin based largely on the mythology of the creation as found in Genesis. Not realizing any better, they accepted the story as literal history. We all know, or should know, that the theory of Original Sin is based on the notion that we are a fallen race, unworthy of God because of the sin of our primeval parents Adam and Eve. St Augustine further developed the theory by stating that the stain of the Original Sin was passed on to the children through the seed of the father.

This concept further confirmed the notion in the early church that sex was inherently evil and to be discouraged except for procreation. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.

The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tatamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even wet dreams were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart about 200 years ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

St. Augustine never heard of DNA? What a dummy.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It is not only Protestants who seriously misunderstand the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Surprisingly, various Eastern Orthodox who have traditionally manifested a deep and devout veneration of the Theotokos (Mother of God) are seen to deviate from their own ancient traditions.

No, we still deeply venerate her. We pray to her several times during the liturgy, and most altars have an icon of her above them. On the other hand, we venerate her as "Theotokos"--she is always depicted with Christ, except the the Annunciation. The Catholic habit of depicting her alone and venerating her that way is foreign and perverse to us.

Thus one finds astonishing the views of Archbishop John Maximovitch (1896-1966) who possessed a reputation as a holy ascetic (he was “glorified” [canonized] by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1994, this being later acknowledged by the patriarchate of Moscow in 2008).
In his The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God (given wide circulation by the St. Herman Brotherhood, fourth printing, 1994), he vigorously denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was sinless throughout her life (see pp. 59-60). Regarded as a saint by many Orthodox, he proceeded to contradict the common teaching of other Orthodox who confess “the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God” (cf. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 195).

I'm not interested in touching this without more complete quoting of both.

Most Orthodox don't even consider whether or not Mary is sinless, it was never an issue of concern in our Church. I believe it, many other Orthodox do, I would say that is the "standard" position. Some don't, such as my godfather. Whether or not you believe it is not considered to have any impact on your qualification for sainthood. It's certainly not a dogmatic issue, since dogma is limited to what Christ taught. It also has nothing to do with the immaculate conception, since we don't believe you inherit guilt anyway.

The sinlessness of Mary is professed in various Orthodox catechisms as well as in the Byzantine liturgy and the writings of the Greek Fathers who excluded any possibility of sin in her.

No, most Greek Fathers didn't really talk about it. The Orthodox Liturgy does extol her highly, though.

Exalted in Byzantine Greco-Slav piety as next to Christ and the holiest of human beings,

Ah, no. Christ is God Almighty, there is no "next to" that.

as “full of grace,” “more glorious than the Cherubim and more honorable than the Seraphim,” “more worthy than all creatures and holier than all the Saints,” the Blessed Virgin is praised for surpassing all creatures in purity. Venerable liturgical expressions that the Theotokos was “alone absolutely immaculate” and “alone ever blessed” were understood by centuries of Eastern Christians as meaning she was ever free from actual sin.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Theotokos is held to be above all other creatures, since she gave birth to God Almighty; there is nothing any creature can do which is remotely close to that in holiness.

Ah, not really. "Without corruption you gave birth to God the Logos. Truly you are the Thetokos, you do we magnify." "Corruption" here is obviously referring the absence of sexual conception.

As St. Thomas Aquinas would affirm: “The Blessed Virgin was chosen by Heaven to be the Mother of God; but she would not have been a Mother fitting for God, had she ever sinned. Therefore we must simply confess that the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed any kind of [actual] sin whatsoever” (Summa Theologiae, III, Q. xxvii, art. 4).

Hate to break it to you, we don't regard Aquinas as any sort of authority at all. In fact, he's a heretic of major proportions who preached Sabellianism.

Moreover, such expressions as the above would soon be seen as pointing to her being conceived without original sin and so graced as to never having been under the power of the Devil. When Blessed Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 to the consternation of some Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox theologian Professor Christopher Damalas stated in 1855: “We have always held and taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels.” The Russian Orthodox theologian Lev Gillet would affirm more recently that “not only does the Immaculate Conception not contradict any Orthodox dogma, but that it is a necessary and logical development of the whole of Orthodox belief.”

All of earthly creation is under power of the Devil.

Quoting people who aren't canonized saints, especially in fragments without a larger context (when Catholics have a reputation for mutilating Patristic quotes to suit their agenda), and just your word they're talking about what you say they are, isn't authoritative for me or any other Orthodox.

However, Archbishop Maximovitch combined his assault on the “Papal Church” with rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which, in fact, finds support in the teaching of Eastern Fathers and saints and later Greek and Russian theologians. “This [Catholic] teaching denies all her virtues. After all, if Mary by the grace [of the Immaculate Conception] was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her merit exist?”

The Dormition of Mary has been celebrated in the East since before the schism, so obviously she wasn't born immortal. She also didn't inherit any guilt, as no one does. Since both of these elements are involved in the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it's blatantly incoherent for us.

The quote above exactly the sort of mendacity I am talking about. What the Archbishop is saying, is that if Mary was prevented from sinning by her conception, then her sinlessness would not be worthy of praise in her, would not make her special as a person; it would just mean she was "designed" sinless apart from others. The Orthodox who believe Mary is sinless, don't think it was because she had a superhuman conception, but because she was totally humble and submissive to God in free response to his grace.

It was precisely her cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit that enabled the All-Holy Virgin Mary to freely surrender herself to the will of God at the Annunciation. As Dr. Stackpole observed, “It is in this surrender to God that her merit consists.”

What? Her cooperation during her conception? I don't think so.

The Orthodox archbishop also mistakenly charged St. Augustine and St. Ambrose as including Mary among those infected with the taint of original sin.

I don't know if he said that or not, and I'm not talking your word on it.

Neither St. Augustine nor St. Ambrose may be said to have explicitly taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., she was holy in her very conception) but neither can it be said that they (and other fathers of the ancient Church) contradicted it.

No, of course not, since the doctrine didn't even exist yet.

In Orthodox devotional practice, Mary is also proclaimed ‘co-redemptrix,’ ‘mediatrix,’ ‘advocate’.”

"Co-redemptrix" is an heretical title for her, so if anyone is using that in their prayers (which I have never heard of), it is not from an Orthodox prayer book, and it is without Church sanction. The Theotokos does not participate in Christ's redemption of us.

We do say, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, save us." Although we also say "Through the prayers of" other saints, and as well as through the prayers of other people who are still walking around on this planet. She is an intercessor, as is anyone who prays for you.

 

[kepha31]

No, we still deeply venerate her. We pray to her several times during the liturgy, and most altars have an icon of her above them. On the other hand, we venerate her as "Theotokos"--she is always depicted with Christ, except the the Annunciation. The Catholic habit of depicting her alone and venerating her that way is foreign and perverse to us.

I contest that assumption. MOST depictions in painting or statues have Jesus in the foreground. IF Mary is depicted alone it's to highlight one aspect where being depicted with Christ would be inappropriate. It depends on what the artist is trying to invoke. (her maternity, sufferings, grief. crowning, etc. But in my 65 years as a Catholic, an alone Mary is rare.

Redeemer in the Womb

The Miraculous Image of Guadalupe
​

Most Orthodox don't even consider whether or not Mary is sinless, it was never an issue of concern in our Church. I believe it, many other Orthodox do, I would say that is the "standard" position. Some don't, such as my godfather. Whether or not you believe it is not considered to have any impact on your qualification for sainthood. It's certainly not a dogmatic issue, since dogma is limited to what Christ taught. It also has nothing to do with the immaculate conception, since we don't believe you inherit guilt anyway.

"It's dogmatic for Catholics because we don't ignore or diminish the significance of Luke 1:28.

No, most Greek Fathers didn't really talk about it. The Orthodox Liturgy does extol her highly, though.
Ah, no. Christ is God Almighty, there is no "next to" that.

He said she is the holiest of human beings. That makes her "next" to Christ in the sense of her humanity. Your twisting his quote.

as “full of grace,” “more glorious than the Cherubim and more honorable than the Seraphim,” “more worthy than all creatures and holier than all the Saints,” the Blessed Virgin is praised for surpassing all creatures in purity. Venerable liturgical expressions that the Theotokos was “alone absolutely immaculate” and “alone ever blessed” were understood by centuries of Eastern Christians as meaning she was ever free from actual sin.

Hate to break it to you, we don't regard Aquinas as any sort of authority at all. In fact, he's a heretic of major proportions who preached Sabellianism.[/quote]
Horse muffins. Provide quotes in context.
This idea of Aquinas' is not actually his own, but in fact goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers who formalized the understanding of the Trinity in the first place. This is important to note because the people involved in that discussion will say that Aquinas was breaking from Patristic teaching, especially from Eastern teaching, when in fact they're merely demonstrating their own ignorance of traditional Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox) theology.

All of earthly creation is under power of the Devil.
Quoting people who aren't canonized saints, especially in fragments without a larger context (when Catholics have a reputation for mutilating Patristic quotes to suit their agenda), and just your word they're talking about what you say they are, isn't authoritative for me or any other Orthodox.

Please quote Catholics who mutilate Patristic quotes instead of making it up.

The Dormition of Mary has been celebrated in the East since before the schism, so obviously she wasn't born immortal. She also didn't inherit any guilt, as no one does. Since both of these elements are involved in the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it's blatantly incoherent for us.

When you trash the doctrine of Original Sin then why do we need a savior?

The quote above exactly the sort of mendacity I am talking about. What the Archbishop is saying, is that if Mary was prevented from sinning by her conception, then her sinlessness would not be worthy of praise in her, would not make her special as a person; it would just mean she was "designed" sinless apart from others. The Orthodox who believe Mary is sinless, don't think it was because she had a superhuman conception, but because she was totally humble and submissive to God in free response to his grace.

The "design" began at Genesis 3:15.
[/quote]What? Her cooperation during her conception? I don't think so. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with the quote. It reads:
It was precisely her cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit that enabled the All-Holy Virgin Mary to freely surrender herself to the will of God at the Annunciation. As Dr. Stackpole observed,“It is in this surrender to God that her merit consists.”
Your misrepresentation of a quote ise dishonest.

No, of course not, since the doctrine didn't even exist yet.

Truths always predate writings, and doctrines don't develop until they are challenged. But they don't develop out of thin air.

"Co-redemptrix" is an heretical title for her, so if anyone is using that in their prayers (which I have never heard of), it is not from an Orthodox prayer book, and it is without Church sanction. The Theotokos does not participate in Christ's redemption of us.

Yea, right, and Jesus didn't need a mother since He came to earth in a space ship, so she wasn't a participant. Luke 2:25-35 is just meaningless Bible filler.

"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assists in our mediation with Christ.

This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.

In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.

The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to".

As for Judas, no he was NOT co-redeemer. Jesus could have been crucified without Judas' help. Jesus could have been arrested at any time whenever he was in public. In fact, Jesus mentions this in the Garden when he was arrested. Judas happened to be the instrument of Jesus' arrest, but was not necessary for Jesus' arrest. This is different than with Mary...

Mary's role was not incidental but REQUIRED. Jesus, to be incarnated, HAD to be born of a woman, otherwise he would not be human and thus could not be the redeemer.

Mary's collaboration was required; Judas' participation was not, but was incidental.

At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of "co".

 

[bbbbbbb]

In all my 65 years of life, growing up in a very Catholic city the only occupant of the upended cast iron bathtubs on the lawns was Mary alone. Here is just a tiny sampling of Catholic images of Mary alone.

 

[kepha31]

I said MOST show Jesus with his mother. It was an opinion, not a statistical fact. Cherry picking images to prove me wrong? I'll not engage in a picture war, it doesn't prove anything. Thank you for the nice images, but you have no way of knowing if she is pregnant.

U.S. city OKs Satanist’s blood spill on Virgin Mary
Satanist Will Pour Blood on Virgin Mary for Christmas
Okla. Christians counter Satanic mockery of Virgin Mary with prayer

This is the extreme end of the Mary bashing spectrum. Some place themselves at various points. I know where I stand.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I said MOST show Jesus with his mother. It was an opinion, not a statistical fact. Cherry picking images to prove me wrong? I'll not engage in a picture war, it doesn't prove anything. Thank you for the nice images, but you have no way of knowing if she is pregnant.

This is the extreme end of the Mary bashing spectrum. Some place themselves at various points. I know where I stand.

I thought you would appreciate the pictures and am glad to know that you did, indeed. My only point was that in my limited experience MOST of the Roman Catholic images of Mary have been of her as a sole individual, usually the Perpetual Virgin.

 

[kepha31]

This whole theory is rife with potential difficulties, as you well know, not the least of which is if Mary was born sinless, and her parents were sinful themselves, what happened? And, if that could happen with Mary, why was it that it could not have happened with Jesus Christ?

There are only 2 places in scripture where kecharitomene is found. One is Luke 1:28, (Full of Grace) the other is John 1:14, describing Jesus Christ. Mary's Full of Grace, kecharitomene , or sinlessness, is dependent on the merits of the cross, retrospectively. That's how David was forgiven of his sin, by the merits of the cross, retrospectively. God can do that because He is God.

14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

23 out of 25 translations say full of grace and none of them say "highly favored", yet the same Greek word is used.

 

[kepha31]

TRIVIA

Acts 1:13-14 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

A list of 11 apostles are given, then the women, then Mary, the only woman mentioned by name. She is called "the mother of Jesus", not the mother of anybody else.

Jesus' "brothers"
Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Brethren...

If "brethren" is interpreted to be Jesus' biological brothers, on the basis of a gestation period of 9 months per person for 120 "brothers", Mary would have to be pregnant for 90 years!

It's just as dumb as saying there is a Honda in Acts 1:14:
"the apostles were in one Accord"

 

[bbbbbbb]

Mark 3:31 Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

"It's dogmatic for Catholics because we don't ignore or diminish the significance of Luke 1:28. He said she is the holiest of human beings. That makes her "next" to Christ in the sense of her humanity. Your twisting his quote.

Christ's humanity is not to be venerated distinct from his divinity, that's Nestorianism. The whole reason we dogmatically call Mary the Mother of God, is to prevent this sort of thing. You don't say, "Mary is second to Christ when it comes to his humanity," because Christ as a human person is not distinct from Christ as God.

Horse muffins. Provide quotes in context.

I go through it thoroughly here: The Trinity in Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy

Please quote Catholics who mutilate Patristic quotes instead of making it up.

From this site: Saints - Teachings of Church Fathers :: CNA
"On him (Peter) He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair (cathedra), and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

But if we show was was conveniently removed by the ellipsis here, we see Saint Cyprian was talking about Episcopal authority in general:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.

Your misrepresentation of a quote ise dishonest.

I'm illustrating why there is an objection to the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox understand Mary as full of grace because she completely humbled herself and cooperated with God. The Catholics understand her as that because she had a special conception that regular human beings don't. In Catholicism, Mary is born with a nature different from everyone else born since Cain. How are we supposed to see such a woman as a model? She isn't a model for us, because she was exempted from our burden, and that is why she was so holy.

When you trash the doctrine of Original Sin then why do we need a savior?

We have a doctrine of original sin, it's not Augustinian. We don't believe God will judge people for ancestral sin (Jeremiah 31:29). We believe we inherit mortality (all of the earthy creation does, the very earth became cursed with the fall--the devil, the lord of death, became prince when the world fell under the law of death and an eye-for-an-eye), as well increased weakness to sin, but we also believe God does not allow any temptation to sin which is beyond our strength (1 Corinthians 10:13). Christ reconciles humanity to God, and establishes the law of mercy.

Truths always predate writings, and doctrines don't develop until they are challenged. But they don't develop out of thin air.

"Doctrinal development" and "heresy" are synonymous in Orthodoxy, all heresy is doctrinal development, and all doctrinal development is heresy. Terms like "Trinity" can develop and be used to express certain doctrines always taught, but unless something was taught by Christ and the Apostles, and always taught by the Church, everywhere, it cannot be dogma. You can develop theological opinions, but not dogma.

"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assists in our mediation with Christ.

Incorrect, she did not die for us, and was not raised for us. Certainly Christ's birth was necessary, but Christ's birth doesn't redeem us.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.

It was through all of Christ's ancestors that he came into the world, that does not make it proper to say Adam is co-redeemer.

The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to".

I never said it does, I say Mary did not participate in Christ's redemptive act. His birth was not his redemptive act, even if was necessary for that.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Why is it that Christ is so de-emphasized in Guadalupe, anyway? He's just this guy on the margins the Virgin is standing on. What a reversal! She is supposed to be the Throne of God (often pictured with Christ on her lap), and here God has become her throne!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Mark 3:31 Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

This really has nothing to do with the doctrine of Mary as Theotokos. Luke 1:43 is more pertinent to that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This really has nothing to do with the doctrine of Mary as Theotokos. Luke 1:43 is more pertinent to that.

I did not intend it to address that issue, but to address Kephas concept that the doctrine of Mary as Theotokos requires the perpetual virginity of Mary such that Mary could not have been the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I did not intend it to address that issue, but to address Kephas concept that the doctrine of Mary as Theotokos requires the perpetual virginity of Mary such that Mary could not have been the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Well, no, I don't think it technically does, but Mary was of course not the mother of Christ's brothers and sisters, or else Christ would not have had to entrust her care to Saint John. Christ had legal brothers and sisters because Joseph was married prior to Mary, but his wife passed away and he was quite old when he became betrothed to Mary. It is true that those sorts of details are not in the Bible, but they were commonly taught, and if you try to disregard them, you have a lot of difficulty explaining why Christ needs to entrust Mary to John, since she would have many other legal children to look after her--note, he did not do this during his regular ministry, and if he did, it might be understood a different way; he rather did this on his deathbed.

There are a lot of details in the Bible that aren't clear just based on Scripture. Such as the Zachariah Christ said was killed before the altar: this was John the Baptist's father. People listening to, or reading, Scripture back then would know that, because they would have been taught all these details. Now, of course, these details are not fundamental to following Christ or receiving salvation from him, and that is why they were not included in Scripture (writing and copying and propagating written works back then was an awful lot of work, so the Gospels, compared to all the data they could have included, were made as lean as possible). They are peripheral matters. However, there are still historical facts about holy people close to Christ, and they should be taught and learned--or, lacking that, at the very least, it is improper to relate untruths about Christ and his family, such as his siblings being the offspring of Mary, which was not taught by any of the Fathers, and even strongly rejected by Luther and Calvin. That this belief is popular among Protestants today, is a modern phenomenon, not based on any ancient reading or understanding of Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, no, I don't think it technically does, but Mary was of course not the mother of Christ's brothers and sisters, or else Christ would not have had to entrust her care to Saint John. Christ had legal brothers and sisters because Joseph was married prior to Mary, but his wife passed away and he was quite old when he became betrothed to Mary. It is true that those sorts of details are not in the Bible, but they were commonly taught, and if you try to disregard them, you have a lot of difficulty explaining why Christ needs to entrust Mary to John, since she would have many other legal children to look after her--note, he did not do this during his regular ministry, and if he did, it might be understood a different way; he rather did this on his deathbed.

There are a lot of details in the Bible that aren't clear just based on Scripture. Such as the Zachariah Christ said was killed before the altar: this was John the Baptist's father. People listening to, or reading, Scripture back then would know that, because they would have been taught all these details. Now, of course, these details are not fundamental to following Christ or receiving salvation from him, and that is why they were not included in Scripture (writing and copying and propagating written works back then was an awful lot of work, so the Gospels, compared to all the data they could have included, were made as lean as possible). They are peripheral matters. However, there are still historical facts about holy people close to Christ, and they should be taught and learned--or, lacking that, at the very least, it is improper to relate untruths about Christ and his family, such as his siblings being the offspring of Mary, which was not taught by any of the Fathers, and even strongly rejected by Luther and Calvin. That this belief is popular among Protestants today, is a modern phenomenon, not based on any ancient reading or understanding of Scripture.

I am surprised that you appear to be unaware of the prophet Zechariah who authored the book in the Old Testament of the same name. He was the individual mentioned by the Lord Jesus. The reason is quite simple. In the Jewish canon of scripture the first book is Genesis which records the first murder (Abel). The final book is Zechariah whose author was the last individual of the Old Testament to be murdered.

I will not continue to discuss the sibling of Jesus Christ because this is not the topic of this thread. There are, however, several threads on the topic should you like to continue the discussion with me. Please let me know if you do so. Thank you.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I am surprised that you appear to be unaware of the prophet Zechariah who authored the book in the Old Testament of the same name. He was the individual mentioned by the Lord Jesus. The reason is quite simple. In the Jewish canon of scripture the first book is Genesis which records the first murder (Abel). The final book is Zechariah whose author was the last individual of the Old Testament to be murdered.

I will not continue to discuss the sibling of Jesus Christ because this is not the topic of this thread. There are, however, several threads on the topic should you like to continue the discussion with me. Please let me know if you do so. Thank you.

No, I am quite aware of him. There is no record of any teaching by Jews or anyone else that he was killed by the altar of the Temple.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, I am quite aware of him. There is no record of any teaching by Jews or anyone else that he was killed by the altar of the Temple.

I hope you will find this article to be helpful - Zechariah ben Jehoiada - Wikipedia

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I hope you will find this article to be helpful - Zechariah ben Jehoiada - Wikipedia

I can only find reference to his death in the courtyard (I don't know if stoning would even be feasible in the temple itself).

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can only find reference to his death in the courtyard (I don't know if stoning would even be feasible in the temple itself).

The temple consisted of a variety of spaces. For example, there was the outer court of the Gentiles to which Gentiles could enter and pray. It was divided by a wall (see Ephesians 2) from the court of the Jews. On Paul's last visit to Jerusalem a riot occurred because he had been seen with Timothy, a Gentile, and was suspected of having taken him into the court of the Jews. If you remember, it was in these courts that the moneychangers and sellers of animals did their business and where Jesus caused a major ruckus by chasing them out with a whip. Thus, it would certainly be possible to form a mob and murder someone in the temple precincts.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The temple consisted of a variety of spaces. For example, there was the outer court of the Gentiles to which Gentiles could enter and pray. It was divided by a wall (see Ephesians 2) from the court of the Jews. On Paul's last visit to Jerusalem a riot occurred because he had been seen with Timothy, a Gentile, and was suspected of having taken him into the court of the Jews. If you remember, it was in these courts that the moneychangers and sellers of animals did their business and where Jesus caused a major ruckus by chasing them out with a whip. Thus, it would certainly be possible to form a mob and murder someone in the temple precincts.

The courtyard actually isn't specified in the verse of driving out the money changers, at least not in the Greek or any literal translation. Furthermore, mentioning the altar seems out of place if you're talking about the courtyard.