Tradition - why not?

[aReformedPatriot]

Yes. I'm about 2/3 of the way through my MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Fuller

I only hear good things about that place.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Let me go look it up. They were Germanic theolgoians whose names I can't remember...

Johann Tauler in his letters to Andres Einst said that he had no doubt of the virgin birth but that it was impossible to think that Mary was a virgin her entire life because St James had been the brother of Christ. At one time, the theory was that by brother, James had meant that he was a half brother to Christ, but that the earilest eastern church fathers had rejected the notion because there is no reference in the scriptures of a first marriage for Joseph or for the presence of Joseph's first family which Mary would have been left to raise (and who would have been taken on the trip to Bethlehem since everyone had to travel for the census and not just the father of the household, yet they are not mentioned as being present), and because when the theory was first proposed, some of the siblings of Christ were still alive and did not refute their full relation to Christ. Also, Tauler said, if they were Joseph's children alone, and not Mary's too, they had no claim to being siblings of Christ at all because Christ was related to Mary but not Joseph and they were related to Joseph but not Mary. The closest relationship they could claim was step-sibling, a relationship that was not recognized in Jewish culture. The terminology for such a relationship would have been "father's wife's child," not brother. When James claimed to be the brother of Christ, he could have only meant that he was born of Mary, Tauler stated.

IThank you. If you have any more, I'd appreciate it.

It sounds like Tauler based his position solely on his interpretation of scripture, and not on any historical evidence of early Christian beliefs.

I'll try to come back in a little while and discuss the logical flaws in Tauler's interpretation, but in the meantime, if you can find or remember any of the historical info from before 300 AD (even before 400 would be great!), I'd really appreciate the sources.

Thanks again!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Fuller

I only hear good things about that place.

If you want to know more, just ask!

 

[Monica02]

Add these to the fact that the Catholic church has a 'Mary's equivalent' of the 'Our Father' prayer, namely the 'Hail Mary', the fact that she is referred to as 'Holy Mary, the Mother of God', and a fundamental Catholic prayer ritual, namely the Holy Rosary, is focussed on Mary and endlessly repeating the Hail Mary (remember what I said about ''brain-washing'' - how else do you get a body of believers to acccept and embrace a doctrine that is so blatantly unscriptural?), makes it seem very apparent to me that the Catholic Church was determined to establish a female 'godhead' who is at the very least on a par with Jesus, but actually, is 'God's queen' as it were, all without a shred of Scriptural validity.
?

Actually one is supposed to focus on the mysteries during the praying of the rosary.

www.medjugorje.org/rosary.htm

 

[ZiSunka]

IThank you. If you have any more, I'd appreciate it.

It sounds like Tauler based his position solely on his interpretation of scripture, and not on any historical evidence of early Christian beliefs.

I'll try to come back in a little while and discuss the logical flaws in Tauler's interpretation, but in the meantime, if you can find or remember any of the historical info from before 300 AD (even before 400 would be great!), I'd really appreciate the sources.

Thanks again!

Well, no, Tauler was basing his position on scripture AND on the church fathers in Jerusalem's determination that James was a legitimate brother of Christ. They knew James personally and had determined that he was not lying or mistaken when he claimed to be Christ's brother. Tauler was merely discussing their determination with Einst, and how it corresponded with scripture and with Jewish culture. In his view, three things (scripture, evidence and the knowledge of Jewish culture) all pointed to the fact that Mary birthed other children after Christ. It was a common point of discussion in the late 1400's and early 1500's, the time when Tauler lived. Although it was the official verdict that she remained a virgin, Tauler was convinced that that was based on the abhorence the church had to the idea that Mary's womb ever contained other children, and not on the evidence of the people who were known to be Christ's siblings during and after his life. He thought it to be a tradition and not a fact.

It is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven--because they abhor the idea that her body decayed in a grave because they can't imagine the mother of God being merely human. As you know, when someone is overly adored, they are often given superhuman characteristics by their followers, and Mary's devotees have endowed her with characteristics that have no basis in fact, just like Elvis's fans believe superhuman legends about him or the people who are anticipating David Koreshe's eminent resurrection.

As you probably already know, Tauler was a Catholic theologian and philosopher who lived just prior to the Reformation and was a professor of Luther's, and his teachings contributed profoundly to Luther's development as a theologian and preacher. Einst, of course, was a German priest and philosopher who served as the Vatican's librarian for a time and later served as an envoy to the middle east. I suppose it was there that he came into contact with the differences between the Roman church and the Eastern church.

I read an English translation Einst's book, "History of the Byzantine Church" years ago when I was trying to figure out where the Byzantine Catholic church (where I had been raised) would fit into my life. It's still a good read if you can get it. Fascinating history. My dad and I discussed it at length. The history of the church and the history of the nations was so intertwined that almost ever historical event of Asia Minor and the lower part of Russia was also an event in church history. Made me feel like I was part of a lineage of faith and tradition, but eventually, that feeling wasn't enough to make me stop searching for grace so I left it behind. But that's a whole different topic.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Johann Tauler in his letters to Andres Einst said that he had no doubt of the virgin birth but that it was impossible to think that Mary was a virgin her entire life because St James had been the brother of Christ. At one time, the theory was that by brother, James had meant that he was a half brother to Christ,

Of course, if you consider Christ's father to be God and the incarnation to be unique, James couldn't have been any closer than a half brother.

but that the earilest eastern church fathers had rejected the notion

This is the part I've never heard before. I'd sure like to have a source for this.

because there is no reference in the scriptures of a first marriage for Joseph

There is no mention one way or the other in scripture. Scripture gives us very, very few facts about Joseph. We have his genealogy, and we are told he was a just man. We know he lived at least until Jesus was 12 years old. That's about it.

or for the presence of Joseph's first family which Mary would have been left to raise (and who would have been taken on the trip to Bethlehem since everyone had to travel for the census and not just the father of the household, yet they are not mentioned as being present),

It is possible (and accords with tradition) that Joseph's older children were already grown by then. Tradition says he was an old man, but he would not need to be all that old to have grown children. If we assume that most Jewish men in Palestine married for the first time in their late teens, and most women in their early teens, he could have a child who would be considered adult by his early 30s. He could have been in his 40s or 50s (not that old to me! ) and have been a widower for 20 years already, with several children.

So the fact that Mary did not raise these children is not conclusive. In fact, it would not at all be remarkable if they were all older than her. This lends a whole different slant to the story where Jesus is told his mother and brothers are outside asking for him. (Be sure to read it all 3 gospels: Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 8.)

and because when the theory was first proposed, some of the siblings of Christ were still alive and did not refute their full relation to Christ. Also, Tauler said, if they were Joseph's children alone, and not Mary's too, they had no claim to being siblings of Christ at all because Christ was related to Mary but not Joseph and they were related to Joseph but not Mary.

You do see that these two arguments are mutually exclusive, don't you? I don't think any of the brothers and sisters would have needed to "refute their full relation to Christ" if "full relation to Christ" means having the same father and mother biologically, do you? If it means having the same mother only, then they had no "full relation to Christ," but only half, no?

These siblings cannot possibly share the identical biological parentage with Christ.

The closest relationship they could claim was step-sibling, a relationship that was not recognized in Jewish culture. The terminology for such a relationship would have been "father's wife's child," not brother.

Exactly! They were not his father's wife's child, but his mother's husband's child. Half siblings who shared the same father were called brothers and sisters. Jewish culture had no other word for this relationship, as it had for those who shared the same mother, but not the same father.

Now, returning to Tauler's statement, "if they were Joseph's children alone, and not Mary's too, they had no claim to being siblings of Christ at all because Christ was related to Mary but not Joseph and they were related to Joseph but not Mary," this statement presupposes only a biological relationship, not a social and cultural one.
[bible]matthew 13:55[/bible]
The same people who called these siblings his brothers also referred to jesus as "the carpenter's son." Socially and legally, he was Joseph's son. Remember, this was long before DNA paternity testing. There was no biological proof. By marrying a pregnant woman, Joseph legitimated her child and became his legal father. No one would say any different. Joseph, although not Jesus' biological father, would be known as his father in the community. In Luke 2:41, Joseph and Mary are referred to as his parents. The rest of the language in the story is carefully constructed so as to call God and not Joseph his father, but still Luke had no problem calling both of them his parents in 2:41.

When James claimed to be the brother of Christ, he could have only meant that he was born of Mary, Tauler stated.

Thanks for posting this. I don't think Tauler's argument holds up. I would not go so far as to say, as Tauler did, that my conclusion is the only plausible one. It is not conclusively proven either way, but I think the evidence preponderates in favor of the siblings being Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

One final bit of evidence - admittedly not conclusive at all, but circumstantial - is James' leadership of the Jerusalem church in Acts. If James was chronologically the oldest of the believers, this would support the apostles' deference to him as chair of their councils. If James was younger, then I think one who had been a disciple for a longer time would have been given that position.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well, no, Tauler was basing his position on scripture AND on the church fathers in Jerusalem's determination that James was a legitimate brother of Christ. They knew James personally and had determined that he was not lying or mistaken when he claimed to be Christ's brother. Tauler was merely discussing their determination with Einst, and how it corresponded with scripture and with Jewish culture. In his view, three things (scripture, evidence and the knowledge of Jewish culture) all pointed to the fact that Mary birthed other children after Christ. It was a common point of discussion in the late 1400's and early 1500's, the time when Tauler lived.

Thanks for the additional information!

His 3 reasons were (1) scripture, (2) Jewish culture, and (3) the Jerusalem church's determination. I think I discussed (1) and (2) in my post above.

The problem I see with (3) is that we have no evidence of any controversy in the Jerusalem church as to whether or not James was a legitimate brother of Jesus. I don't see any need of a "determination." ISTM more reasonable that they simply called him that because that is how he was known.

Why would a biological relationship be necessary for the Jerusalem church to accept him? I simply see no reason or evidence for any "determination" to have been made at all.

ISTM, Tauler's doubtful assumption of a need to determine a controversy seems to be a major part of his argument. As you mentioned, this seems to have been controversial in the 1400s and 1500s, but as far as I can see, it does not seem to have been controversial in the 30s and 40s.

 

[SumTinWong]

It is not conclusively proven either way, but I think the evidence preponderates in favor of the siblings being Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

What evidence would that be? You mentioned tradition, you weren't refering to the Protovangelion of James I hope? That book is so full of holes it whistles when the wind blows. Really Liz, I am not in favor of tossing out all tradition, but there is no evidence to support a theory that Mary and Jospeh did not have other children. None. Just as there is no evidence Mary remained ever virgin, was a temple virgin, or was born without any sin. None.

 

[ZiSunka]

Thanks for the additional information!

His 3 reasons were (1) scripture, (2) Jewish culture, and (3) the Jerusalem church's determination. I think I discussed (1) and (2) in my post above.

The problem I see with (3) is that we have no evidence of any controversy in the Jerusalem church as to whether or not James was a legitimate brother of Jesus. I don't see any need of a "determination." ISTM more reasonable that they simply called him that because that is how he was known.

Why would a biological relationship be necessary for the Jerusalem church to accept him? I simply see no reason or evidence for any "determination" to have been made at all.

ISTM, Tauler's doubtful assumption of a need to determine a controversy seems to be a major part of his argument. As you mentioned, this seems to have been controversial in the 1400s and 1500s, but as far as I can see, it does not seem to have been controversial in the 30s and 40s.

It must be very diffcult for you to learn anything in divinity school, since you seem to think you know everything and are perfectly logical in everything.

You are the one who brought up the idea that James was NOT an actual brother of Christ because he didn't object to the theory that he was merely a step-brother during his lifetime. So how can you know have it that there would have been no controversy during his lifetime? Your whole argument is now reduced to nothing. You can't state that there was a controversy which was resolved and then state that there was no controversy at all.

It's no use talking to you on this subject any longer. You aren't wanting to discuss and learn, you are wanting to prove you are smarter than me. Fine, I now pin that badge upon your chest. But I think you need to check your attitude. I'm trying to discuss legitimate alternate views of the universe to the exclusively catholic ones you have evidently been feasting on in seminary, but you are unwilling to think outside the box they have built around your mind. There is a world of faith and a history of faith that doesn't center on Rome. I urge you to go out and find it.

 

[Crazy Liz]

What evidence would that be? You mentioned tradition, you weren't refering to the Protovangelion of James I hope? That book is so full of holes it whistles when the wind blows. Really Liz, I am not in favor of tossing out all tradition, but there is no evidence to support a theory that Mary and Jospeh did not have other children. None. Just as there is no evidence Mary remained ever virgin, was a temple virgin, or was born without any sin. None.

I'm sure I've discussed several times before my view of the Protevangelion of James. I do not think it is historical.

However, just as reading a novel written in a particular time and place can give insights into the ways people thought and what kinds of things they believed during the period in which it was written, I think the PoJ does provide clues about what Christians thought about Mary during the mid-second century. I look at it as a piece of "holy fiction," similar to a lot of the Christmas stories with which we are familiar. The innkeeper of Bethlehem and the little drummer boy are fictional characters in fictional stories, but people reading these stories 2000 years from now will get some ideas about how 20th century Christians thought and what they believed by reading them.

I think its widespread acceptance during the second century is good evidence that Mary's perpetual virginity was already a well-established belief. I agree with you that there is no evidence anywhere else (at least that I can find, and I have looked) of virgins dedicated to the Jerusalem Temple. The PoJ was written nearly 100 years after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, although pagan temples were still common then. The descriptions of what may have happened there were probably fanciful, and not something Christians of the time would have been interested in refuting. However, the claim that Joseph was a widower who already had grown children is plausible, and if untrue, the great-grandchildren of James, or people who knew them, might still have been around to refute that part. It seems to me that the PoJ is a fictional story built around some facts that were accepted at the time. These few facts are both plausible and likely to be historical.

 

[Terri]

Crazy Liz are you Catholic?

 

[ZiSunka]

However, the claim that Joseph was a widower who already had grown children is plausible, and if untrue, the great-grandchildren of James, or people who knew them, might still have been around to refute that part. These few facts are both plausible and likely to be historical.

I couldn't tell you how many times my great, great grandfathers were married. I can't even tell you their names. What makes you think James's great grandchildren would even be aware of how many times Joseph was married, or even that they were related to Joseph?

How can you even begin to say something is fact just because it is a widespread belief. The concept of conservation of area is a widespread belief, but it is quite false. The idea that you can't get pregnant from your first sexual experience is a widespreak belief, but it is false, too. There are a lot of people that believe all right is spelled alright, or that irregardless is a real word. Belief is nothing. There are many people who believe that eating garlic will reverse a heart attack. or that vampires really exist. or that Elvis is still alive.

I could go on and on with widespread beliefs that are completely false, but still believed because they serve a purpose to the believer. Such, by all logical accounts, is the case with the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity. It serves the purpose of denying the humanness of Mary by claiming that the only child who ever inhabited her womb was God. In catholic minds, it would be a defilement of Mary's holy womb for her to have birthed other children, so they deny reality by making up ways for James to be something other than who he says he was, Christ's brother.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Crazy Liz are you Catholic?

No, but I consider Catholics my brothers and sisters and do not like seeing them ridiculed, or their beliefs discounted simply because "they" believe them.

 

[Terri]

No, but I consider Catholics my brothers and sisters and do not like seeing them ridiculed, or their beliefs discounted simply because "they" believe them.

Well, I don't think anyone should be ridiculed, but I don't see it ridiculing someone to say that their beliefs are wrong.

And, I don't believe that anyone here has discounted their beliefs just because "they" believe them, but simply believe that what "they" believe is wrong.

It appears that you believe that people don't like them and then set out to disagree with their beliefs. The truth is that people disagree with their beliefs and some people distort that to say that they don't like them because they dare to disagree with them.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I like my Roman Catholic Buddies, their system intrigues me, but I disagree with a lot of it. I think the Baptist Forum is slowly growing torward respectable discussion of RC Doctrine.

 

[BT]

I like my Roman Catholic Buddies, their system intrigues me, but I disagree with a lot of it. I think the Baptist Forum is slowly growing torward respectable discussion of RC Doctrine.

I hope we're at least moving towards the ability to acknowledge the difference between Catholicism and Catholics.

 

[SonOfThunder]

You learn heaps in these forums, thanks guys

 

[SumTinWong]

I'm sure I've discussed several times before my view of the Protevangelion of James. I do not think it is historical.

I apologize it is very hard to keep track of what and who believes what around. Please forgive me for asking it again if i have asked before.

However, just as reading a novel written in a particular time and place can give insights into the ways people thought and what kinds of things they believed during the period in which it was written, I think the PoJ does provide clues about what Christians thought about Mary during the mid-second century. I look at it as a piece of "holy fiction," similar to a lot of the Christmas stories with which we are familiar. The innkeeper of Bethlehem and the little drummer boy are fictional characters in fictional stories, but people reading these stories 2000 years from now will get some ideas about how 20th century Christians thought and what they believed by reading them.

I agree with the premise that reading a novel can give us all an idea of what in fact people believed in any time period, but this fictional work is believed by many to be true, when clearly it is not. It very well may be true that a few people believed this back then, but it in no ways means that they all did or that the claim was in fact based on any factual information.Knowing that era it might help to know that many if not 99% of the people that were Christians of that time did not have the capability to read, and did not know of the inspired words of the Bible except for in snipets, or in stories. So they did not have the abilty to compare teh word of God, to these stories, and therefore had to except was taught to them as truth.

I will not say that they were decived on purpose, but do think there was a bending of truth at times.

I think its widespread acceptance during the second century is good evidence that Mary's perpetual virginity was already a well-established belief.

It is very possible what you say is true, I have done some digging and have found but a few who say otherwise. Let's just say for giggles sake that it was true, and that she did remain a virgin her entire life. Who cares? What could it possibly matter? What is it to me if Mary never had intercourse? What does that have to do with our walk with God? Nothing. But what if it were not true, and she did not remain a virgin and the story was developed to make sure people never had doubts that she was a virgin when she had Jesus?

Look at it this way and say her and Joseph never had kids. No one in their right mind would say that they knew or asked Mary what her sexual relationship was with Joeseph, right? I mean she would not have worn a tee-shirt that said Virgin and proud of it or anything. So where did this idea come from? Fanciful stories like these. You say below here that you have found no record that there were in fact temple virgins. I believe that to be a correct finding as I have found no mention of them anywhere but in Pagan cultures. But it is believed and fancified that Mary was a temple virgin and was given to Joseph as a charge under his care really because she came of age.

People wil say that Mary's shock when the angel comes to her and says, you are going to have a child and "Maryluk1_notes.htm#1110 said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations withluk1_notes.htm#1111 a man?”". Now the belief of some is that Mary was shocked because she had sworn a life of virginhood and she would not have been so shocked had she thought she might have intercourse at a later time. Perhaps. But it could have also meant that she had not had them yet so how could she be with child. She was only contracted to Joseph at this point but had not finalized the "deal" so this was a shock to her. Plus we have the angel telling Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife and that he did not know her until after Jesus was born. The word ginōskō is a Jewish idiom for sexual relations. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this matter.

I agree with you that there is no evidence anywhere else (at least that I can find, and I have looked) of virgins dedicated to the Jerusalem Temple. The PoJ was written nearly 100 years after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, although pagan temples were still common then. The descriptions of what may have happened there were probably fanciful, and not something Christians of the time would have been interested in refuting.

When you add int he fact that it was supposedly written in the hand of James, and is told that way today, as inspired. It does not matter that good learned people have studied this book and have found it to be so baseless it borders on the laughable. I mentioned before that it seems to be a book that has taken all kinds of legends and heaps them together and calls it truth.

However, the claim that Joseph was a widower who already had grown children is plausible, and if untrue, the great-grandchildren of James, or people who knew them, might still have been around to refute that part. It seems to me that the PoJ is a fictional story built around some facts that were accepted at the time. These few facts are both plausible and likely to be historical.

It is a plausable theory, I will give you that, but I would not stake my life on it, nor would I subscribe to it's belief, nor would I even say that it was historically accurate.

 

[Palatka44]

Great thread! Tradition does not speak from the individual's heart. Christ wants us to make unique individual heart felt commitments to Him. Tradition takes that away.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I apologize it is very hard to keep track of what and who believes what around. Please forgive me for asking it again if i have asked before.

It's OK.

It is very possible what you say is true, I have done some digging and have found but a few who say otherwise. Let's just say for giggles sake that it was true, and that she did remain a virgin her entire life. Who cares? What could it possibly matter? What is it to me if Mary never had intercourse? What does that have to do with our walk with God? Nothing. But what if it were not true, and she did not remain a virgin and the story was developed to make sure people never had doubts that she was a virgin when she had Jesus?

[snip]

It is a plausable theory, I will give you that, but I would not stake my life on it, nor would I subscribe to it's belief, nor would I even say that it was historically accurate.

This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in for me. If it's plausible and makes no difference to you, why put so much energy into debunking it?

I have never made any argument except that it is plausible, and that, based on the scant historical evidence, I personally think it more likely. I think the weight of the evidence favors the siblings being Joseph's children by a previous marriage. I didn't think it was necessary to say that it is also plausible that they were the younger children of Mary and Joseph. Everybody here knows that is also plausible. But if I had to choose between the two plausible theories one or the other that I think is more probable that they were Joseph's children by a previous marriage. I think the weight of the evidence leans that way, but, as I have said before, by no means conclusively.

I have never taken a position on Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary's PV is not important to me, either. I just think, for one reason or another, she probably never had any other children. I have no opinion on Mary's PV. I am not arguing Mary's PV, but that she probably had no other children. (Did I repeat that enough times? :o )

So I am baffled at the vehemence of the arguments, and a few personal attacks, against me just because I'm arguing something is plausible, and probably more so than the other theory, on a matter nearly everyone here seems to claim is unimportant.

You may wonder why I waste my own keystrokes arguing it, considering that I feel this way. Here's the explanation. I think quite a few protestants (and non-protestant Baptists ) have a tendency to disbelieve everything Catholic, without carefully thinking it through. Some too easily accept all anti-Catholic arguments without weighing them to see that some have more merit than others. The argument that Mary had other children is plausible, but, I think, weak. There is no conclusive proof, only a reference to "brothers and sisters," spoken by unbelievers who also considered Joseph to be Jesus' father.

I would like to encourage protestants (and Baptists, too) to recognize our biases and employ a higher degree of intellectual rigor in evaluating competing claims.