Something About Mary (2)

[Root of Jesse]

There is enough knowledge of Jewish practice in the apostolic writings of the New Testament so that the claim to be apostolic is at least historically possible, and culturally valid.
PoJ is later than the apostolic age, dating to 145. The cultural milieu of the tale is not Jewish, as any relative certainly would be.
So we would have an older brother of Jesus born before 1 AD therefore and alive 145 years later in order to write the book. It is not quite of the epic proportions of Methuseleh, but there is reason enough to roll the eyes at the magical claims of apostolic authorship in this case.

Not addressing the point, which was that there is no evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew, etc. That's part of Sacred Tradition.

We don't know when PoJ was written, or by whom, which is why it's not Canon. That doesn't mean that a disciple of James didn't author what James had to say, and it proves that the doctrines of Mary's ever-virginity is earlier than that.

It is worthy of study as a historic piece of the ideas being put out in the early centuries of Christianity. IN terms of doctrine and dogma and actual Christian faith, if what we hold of the early fathers is reliable, then we really ought to go with their decision that this book was not worthy of canon, and therefore not worthy of doctrine, dogma, or Christian belief.

Canonicity was determined by the doctrine/dogma/Christian belief presented therein, meaning those doctrines pre-dated the Scripture.

Step-brother doctrine may well be of the EO Sacred Tradition. It is not of the RCC Sacred Tradition..
As far as EV goes, PoJ makes no comment on that.

It says she was a consecrated Temple virgin. Consecrated means dedicated life-long...

Actually it creates confusion, and creates disbelief when it arbitrarily goes beyond known apostolic teachings, that can validly be tied back to something that the apostles actually taught.

Actually, no. The confusion inspires the definition, not the other way around. For example, the nature of Jesus wasn't questioned, so wasn't defined until someone questioned it. Full man, full God, both, neither, then debated and defined.

Ad 324, the apostles were all asleep in Christ by that time.

Holy Spirit wasn't asleep though...

 

[sculleywr]

If you think that the dating standards I set out are the same, you simply have not been listening, or are unable to comprehend what I am saying.
The source I had said that it was Origen. If Justin Martyr referred to it in 150, I accept that. It confirms the dating, and confirms that the dubious PoJ is the source as well for much of the EO mythology.
Myself, I prefer Scripture, which was agreed upon and canonized by a wide consensus of Christian opinion at a very early date.
Otherwise, it is JM says this, and O says that, and everything remains up in the air.

The canon you refer to was first set out by Athanasius in 367: CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius)

Athanasius also said this: "took human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary."

In fact, here are five people who hold the stance of her Ever-Virginity:

Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);

This is just the 4th century. The Canon of the Scripture was decided in the fifth century. There are many other voices, including the well-known John Chrysostom, whose theological discourse has been respected by East and West, Catholic and Protestant.

The Church you speak of that formed the canon, this was the voice of them: that Mary was Virgin from birth, until death.

 

[sculleywr]

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on St. Matthew's Gospel

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity

read them

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you think that the dating standards I set out are the same, you simply have not been listening, or are unable to comprehend what I am saying.
The source I had said that it was Origen. If Justin Martyr referred to it in 150, I accept that. It confirms the dating, and confirms that the dubious PoJ is the source as well for much of the EO mythology.
Myself, I prefer Scripture, which was agreed upon and canonized by a wide consensus of Christian opinion at a very early date.
Otherwise, it is JM says this, and O says that, and everything remains up in the air.

The Church came before Scripture, not the other way around...

 

[SolomonVII]

The Church came before Scripture, not the other way around...

That is neither here nor there to the argument that I have been setting forth.

It would have been impossible for James, as an apostle and an older brother of Jesus, to have written the PoJ over a century after Jesus had died.
Is it your contention too that James actually wrote his book when he was 150 years old?

 

[sculleywr]

That is neither here nor there to the argument that I have been setting forth.

It would have been impossible for James, as an apostle and an older brother of Jesus, to have written the PoJ over a century after Jesus had died.
Is it your contention too that James actually wrote his book when he was 150 years old?

Is it your contention, then, that the gospels weren't written until they were identified?

 

[SolomonVII]

Is it your contention, then, that the gospels weren't written until they were identified?

No.
It is my contention, and always has been, that the Gospels were written in the era of the apostles, which is to say from the decades after the death of Jesus until 110 AD.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that though.

 

[sculleywr]

No.
It is my contention, and always has been, that the Gospels were written in the era of the apostles, which is to say from the decades after the death of Jesus until 110 AD.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that though.

I seem to have a hard time understanding how you think that they were identified as Scripture at that time, since nobody until 160 called them that, and until 160, there were no names attached to them.

You have judged that the PoJ was written in 150 because its author's identification is in 150.

Using that same logic, I could say that the gospels weren't written until 160, since their authors weren't identified until 160.

See the point? Your logic would necessarily destroy the credibility of the gospels in order to destroy the credibility of the PoJ.

Therein lies your problem: your standard for the PoJ is not the same as your standard for the gospels. It is, indeed, higher. The standard for Scripture must be higher than non-scriptural books. Therefore, we must raise the standard to which the gospels must meet, or we must lower the standards which other books must meet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is neither here nor there to the argument that I have been setting forth.

It would have been impossible for James, as an apostle and an older brother of Jesus, to have written the PoJ over a century after Jesus had died.
Is it your contention too that James actually wrote his book when he was 150 years old?

Anyone here saying that James wrote it? Show of hands? Nope? Ah, dead issue.

The point is that the document, regardless of who actually wrote it, probably a disciple of James, wrote a document that talks about what the Church believed. And still believes.

The first point I'm making is that, at the time of the Resurrection, for quite some time after, there was no Christian scripture. There was Christian doctrine. Most of the doctrine about Mary came after she left this Earth. The fact that we know little about her birth, for that matter, little about Jesus' birth, speaks about how birthdate, etc wasn't an important topic at the time. (Then again, there's reason to believe Christ was born Dec 25). Since we didn't know who Christ was until after he died, we couldn't have known much about his mother, except in retrospect. But the doctrines are apostolic.

Your Marian doctrines are very much later, though. Like 15-1800 years later?

 

[Root of Jesse]

No.
It is my contention, and always has been, that the Gospels were written in the era of the apostles, which is to say from the decades after the death of Jesus until 110 AD.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that though.

What's your proof about when and who wrote the Gospels?

 

[Standing Up]

I didn't quote Peter Priest. I didn't quote any priest. I quoted reputable sources.

You probably believe that Ignatius was the first one to use the word Catholic in reference to the Catholic Church, too, but we can infer, since he wrote it, that people reading it knew what it referred to.

I know what you're saying, and I see your point, if the author of what I quoted was someone out of the blue, as if Dan Brown had a real reputable source in the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (I forget their names, but they're forgettable).

I only quoted a couple of sources so we wouldn't get so bogged down in the muck and mire, but there are countless sources. Also, the fact that Bernadette Soubrious quoted the vision saying "I am the Immaculate Conception", when the title had just been promulgated, and not widely distributed, and when she was illiterate and had no way of knowing what the vision told her; says something about the truth of that doctrine. We also have typology that shows why Mary could be and is all those things.

As you say, do you get it? Even if you don't agree? Why would God want to subject himself to a sinful womb for 9 months? We believe he made for himself a perfect creature, and honored her for living up to what he expected, when Eve did not.

Your quotes were from folks in the 350 and later range IIRC.

Ignatian works are hopelessly interpolated.

I get your point.

 

[Standing Up]

Anyone here saying that James wrote it? Show of hands? Nope? Ah, dead issue.

The point is that the document, regardless of who actually wrote it, probably a disciple of James, wrote a document that talks about what the Church believed. And still believes.

The first point I'm making is that, at the time of the Resurrection, for quite some time after, there was no Christian scripture. There was Christian doctrine. Most of the doctrine about Mary came after she left this Earth. The fact that we know little about her birth, for that matter, little about Jesus' birth, speaks about how birthdate, etc wasn't an important topic at the time. (Then again, there's reason to believe Christ was born Dec 25). Since we didn't know who Christ was until after he died, we couldn't have known much about his mother, except in retrospect. But the doctrines are apostolic.

Your Marian doctrines are very much later, though. Like 15-1800 years later?

Scullewyr believes James step brother wrote the PoJ.

The PoJ's author most likely was Marcion, Valentinus, or one of them who fourished in Rome c150ad. They believed a virgin gave birth and remained a virgin. Polycarp corrected Rome, but they disagreed on the issues (see Irenaeus). Scripture says, Christ came by water and blood (a normal birth).

PS. It's a dead giveaway that a teaching is false, when it has to borrow a reputable name to be "sold". Think of all the forgeries passed on as true.

 

[Standing Up]

Wrong, the first to mention the PoJ is Justin Martyr. He calls it the Book of James, but the Scriptural letter of James mentions nothing of a cave birth. The only book which mentions a cave birth with the name of James attached to it is the PoJ. Thus, when Justin Martyr says that the Book of James talked about a cave birth, and there is only one written work of James we know of that does, we must assume he spoke of that. Justin Martyr references the PoJ in his letters to Tryphon and in his apologies, one for the cave birth, and the other for the virginity of Mary.

Again, the standards the PoJ needs to meet should be the same. Since they meet the dating standard YOU have set forth, you need another standard.

Third time. Let's see your quote from Martyr to back up your belief.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your quotes were from folks in the 350 and later range IIRC.

Ignatian works are hopelessly interpolated.

I get your point.

Wrong Ignatius, I think. I was talking about Ignatius of Antioch.

So now, we can see that criticism of our devotion to Mary is little more than a dispute over how much honor we give her. Most Protestants are content to sing Silent Night at Christmas, and then put her in the attic with the Santa Claus, and be done with her. We honor her motherhood of our Lord.

 

[SolomonVII]

Anyone here saying that James wrote it? Show of hands? Nope? Ah, dead issue.

See Post 3
No need to say your sorry though.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wrong Ignatius, I think. I was talking about Ignatius of Antioch.

So now, we can see that criticism of our devotion to Mary is little more than a dispute over how much honor we give her. Most Protestants are content to sing Silent Night at Christmas, and then put her in the attic with the Santa Claus, and be done with her.
We honor her motherhood of our Lord.

I am more partial to this Christmas song, which never goes out of season

O Holy Night : Kings College, Cambridge - YouTube

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am more partial to this Christmas song, which never goes out of season

O Holy Night : Kings College, Cambridge - YouTube

And has little to do with Mary...btw

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And has little to do with Mary...btw

That is being a little nit-picky me thinks.
Who is more important, Mary, or the Son of God, Jesus, whom she gave birth to?

O Holy Night by
O holy night, the stars are brightly shining;
It is the night of the dear Savior’s birth!
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope, the weary soul rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

Fall on your knees, O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born!
O night, O holy night, O night divine!

Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand.
So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming,
Here came the wise men from Orient land.
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger,
In all our trials born to be our friend!

Fall on your knees, O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born!
O night, O holy night, O night divine!

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is being a little nit-picky me thinks.
Who is more important, Mary, or the Son of God, Jesus, whom she gave birth to?

O Holy Night by
O holy night, the stars are brightly shining;
It is the night of the dear Savior’s birth!
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope, the weary soul rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

Fall on your knees, O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born!
O night, O holy night, O night divine!

Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand.
So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming,
Here came the wise men from Orient land.
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger,
In all our trials born to be our friend!

Fall on your knees, O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born!
O night, O holy night, O night divine!

The point is just this: Without a mother, we don't have a child. The song is beautiful, I love it too. We're talking about Mary, and she's not mentioned by name in the song. We honor Mary every day the way most children honor their mothers, in America, on Mother's Day. In fact, to think that Mom has a special day is ridiculous. I honor my mother every day. As we do Jesus' mother..Christ was born, Mary bore him. Had she said no, God would have found another way, but she said Yes, so she's honored.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The point is just this: Without a mother, we don't have a child. The song is beautiful, I love it too. We're talking about Mary, and she's not mentioned by name in the song. We honor Mary every day the way most children honor their mothers, in America, on Mother's Day. In fact, to think that Mom has a special day is ridiculous. I honor my mother every day. As we do Jesus' mother..Christ was born, Mary bore him.

Had she said no, God would have found another way, but she said Yes, so she's honored.

Good point



.