|
Post by Greg on Apr 24, 2014 11:33:19 GMT -5
1) Greg wrote: So again....with all his supposed wisdom and knowledge of the then scripture, before his conversion, he did not see Jesus as the Messiah. ~~ You're correct. 2) The 12 did. ~~ Well, many of them were not sure who Jesus was at first but gradually, they came to their understanding Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.... Jesus asked them in Matthew 16:13-18 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
The 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah. They got this understanding from the then scripture and oral teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 24, 2014 14:19:48 GMT -5
The 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah. They got this understanding from the then scripture and oral teachings. If the 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah then why ONLY Peter answered Jesus is the Son of God? Why, the scriptures didn't say all of them believed Jesus is the Son of God or the Messiah at this time? That is another matter. I am addressing your contention that Paul had more wisdom and/or knowledge than the 12. John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 24, 2014 16:00:07 GMT -5
That is another matter. I am addressing your contention that Paul had more wisdom and/or knowledge than the 12. John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Yes, I believe Paul had more wisdom, the grace, and knowledge after his conversion than the 12 of who Jesus was, and his New Testament/Covenant teachings....Okay.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 18:35:41 GMT -5
Dubious ~ Actually the Ebionites, this Jerusalem faction of Christians, had more than the virgin birth that they disagreed with according to StAnne's reference article she supplied me with regarding this group. They actually rejected most of what the apostles themselves taught and died for as martyrs themselves and believers in the resurrection of Jesus, including James, his half-brother who didn't become a believer in Christ until after his death.
Yes, that is correct. Very down-to-earth, works-based, rejecting supernatural doctrine. Like I mentioned earlier, very similar to the book of James. Baukham wrote a good paper on the Ebionites, I'll see if I can dig it up. edit: which "apostles" are you talking about, faune? Exactly 'which apostles'? Since the synoptic gospels where written after the destruction of Jerusalem and not put into a scriptural format under much later, there was plenty of time to doctor the stories to portray Jesus as more divine and his apostles supporting that belief. However, James would know the truth about his brother. He didn't believe he was divine or born of a virgin. When Paul was brought to Jerusalem he was reprimanded and made to do the Jewish rituals that he had spoken against and said Jesus no longer needed done. Why would he have to submit to that if they believed what Paul did about Jewish ritual? Obviously they didn't and they didn't like what Paul was teaching to the Gentiles. These followers of James were the 'thorn' in Paul's side. The original apostles not supporting him didn't give him a lot of credibility. It was much later that his letters and writings gained favor with the Roman church and the rest, as they say, is history.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 18:38:21 GMT -5
The 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah. They got this understanding from the then scripture and oral teachings. If the 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah then why ONLY Peter answered Jesus is the Son of God? Why, the scriptures didn't say all of them believed Jesus is the Son of God or the Messiah at this time? Maybe Peter is just 'said' to have said that at a later date to support the gaining of favor for the belief that Jesus was divine? The apostles did believe Jesus was the Messiah, but you need to define what they felt a 'Messiah' was. The Messiah was to save them from foreign domination. James knew his brother wasn't born of a virgin and he knew he wasn't divine. He did have a high level of respect for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 18:45:52 GMT -5
where did you get that james contested the virgin birth? and he calls him Lord Jesus Christ twice...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 20:31:24 GMT -5
where did you get that james contested the virgin birth? and he calls him Lord Jesus Christ twice... Because he was the leader of the Jewish Christians and that group didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or the virgin birth and a number of other supernatural things attributed to Jesus later on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 20:44:54 GMT -5
okay i worded that wrong....where did you get it...a book, movie, video, john doe?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 21:23:16 GMT -5
okay i worded that wrong....where did you get it...a book, movie, video, john doe? From several books I've read on the early Christian groups. There were quite a few, all of them believing something just a little bit different from the next. The Ebionites were the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The authors of several of the books talked about James the Just being an important member of the group. They weren't called that while he was alive, but the group did get called that by other groups later on. Their one claim that finally got them labelled as heretics was their insistence that Jesus was not born of a virgin. He was considered their Messiah and was of great importance to them and highly respected, but they didn't believe there was anything supernatural about his birth or his existence. We know that James the Just didn't like Paul nor did he agree with his teachings and tried to send people out behind him to salvage some of the damage he felt Paul was doing to the truth about Jesus. It was interesting reading about the various groups that later got labelled heretics by the Christian group that survived with the backing of Rome.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 24, 2014 21:34:39 GMT -5
If the 12 were quite sure Jesus was the Messiah then why ONLY Peter answered Jesus is the Son of God? Why, the scriptures didn't say all of them believed Jesus is the Son of God or the Messiah at this time? Maybe Peter is just 'said' to have said that at a later date to support the gaining of favor for the belief that Jesus was divine? The apostles did believe Jesus was the Messiah, but you need to define what they felt a 'Messiah' was. The Messiah was to save them from foreign domination. James knew his brother wasn't born of a virgin and he knew he wasn't divine. He did have a high level of respect for him. Both of the 'James' were of the Twelve Apostles. So to which James do you refer - who you say ' knew his brother wasn't born of a virgin and he knew he wasn't divine ...' (It's also important because not only were the Apostles present when Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, - Jesus took Peter, James and John to the mountain when He was transfigured - and they witnessed His GLORY). JAMES, THE ELDER
James, the Elder, Boanerges, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John the Apostle; ...
JAMES, THE LESSER (OR YOUNGER)
James, the Lesser or Younger, son of Alpheus, or Cleophas and Mary, lived in Galilee. He was the brother of the Apostle Jude. (another Mary - not the Blessed Mother).
www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-were-twelve-disciples
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 24, 2014 23:51:56 GMT -5
Both of the 'James' were of the Twelve Apostles. So to which James do you refer - who you say ' knew his brother wasn't born of a virgin and he knew he wasn't divine ...' (It's also important because not only were the Apostles present when Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, - Jesus took Peter, James and John to the mountain when He was transfigured - and they witnessed His GLORY). JAMES, THE ELDER
James, the Elder, Boanerges, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John the Apostle; ...
JAMES, THE LESSER (OR YOUNGER)
James, the Lesser or Younger, son of Alpheus, or Cleophas and Mary, lived in Galilee. He was the brother of the Apostle Jude. (another Mary - not the Blessed Mother).
www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-were-twelve-disciples I believe Snow, was talking about James' the Lord/Jesus brother.... Jesus was his brother, or half-brother, Mary (the mother of Jesus) would have told her own children about His miracle birth of Jesus to preserve as family history..... Mary knew Jesus was divine... when she called him, My God and Savior before he was born.
Luke 1:41-47 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe/John the baptist leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” The Song of Mary 46 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."
www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brotherswww.philvaz.com/apologetics/a27.htmand ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 0:34:19 GMT -5
From the Orthodox view ... James (Iakovos) the Apostle, brother of Our Lord Languages Send an Iconogram October 23 Reading: According to some, this Saint was a son of Joseph the Betrothed, born of the wife that the latter had before he was betrothed to the Ever-virgin. Hence he was the brother of the Lord, Who was also thought to be the son of Joseph (Matt. 13: 55). But some say that he was a nephew of Joseph, and the son of his brother Cleopas, who was also called Alphaeus and Mary his wife, who was the first cousin of the Theotokos. But even according to this genealogy, he was still called, according to the idiom of the Scriptures, the Lord's brother because of their kinship. This Iakovos is called the Less (Mark 15:4) by the Evangelists to distinguish him from Iakovos, the son of Zebedee, who was called the Great. He became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, elevated to this episcopal rank by the Apostles, according to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., Book II: 23), and was called Obliah, that is, the Just, because of his great holiness and righteousness. www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=254
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 9:53:32 GMT -5
Dubious ~ Actually the Ebionites, this Jerusalem faction of Christians, had more than the virgin birth that they disagreed with according to StAnne's reference article she supplied me with regarding this group. They actually rejected most of what the apostles themselves taught and died for as martyrs themselves and believers in the resurrection of Jesus, including James, his half-brother who didn't become a believer in Christ until after his death.
Yes, that is correct. Very down-to-earth, works-based, rejecting supernatural doctrine. Like I mentioned earlier, very similar to the book of James. Baukham wrote a good paper on the Ebionites, I'll see if I can dig it up. edit: which "apostles" are you talking about, faune? Dubious ~ the original 12 apostles died martyred deaths except for the Apostle John who died from old age, I believe? However, they did try to kill John by "boiling him in oil" before his exile to the Isles of Patmos where he wrote Revelation. However, James, the half-brother of Jesus was called "James the Just" and the original apostle was called "James the Great," from my recollection. Apparently, that was a common name during the first century as was Judas.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 9:58:10 GMT -5
I believe Snow, was talking about James' the Lord/Jesus brother.... Jesus was his brother, or half-brother, Mary (the mother of Jesus) would have told her own children about His miracle birth of Jesus to preserve as family history..... Mary knew Jesus was divine... when she called him, My God and Savior before he was born.
Luke 1:41-47 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe/John the baptist leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” The Song of Mary 46 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."
www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brotherswww.philvaz.com/apologetics/a27.htmand ... StAnne ~ Thanks for your post about the different ones called James found within the Bible. In answering Dubious' post about James and his possible relationship to the Ebionites, I somehow missed this posting of yours. By the way, perhaps you can clarify this Ebionite confusion here, too, as you did on another thread recently?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 10:23:14 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Thanks for your post about the different ones called James found within the Bible. In answering Dubious' post about James and his possible relationship to the Ebionites, I somehow missed this posting of yours. By the way, perhaps you can clarify this Ebionite confusion here, too, as you did on another thread recently? James the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem, did not teach a different gospel - or he would not have been allowed to remain in the office of Bishop. I'm not sure if that's what you're asking here - or not. James in the Scriptures
Had we not identified James, the son of Alpheus with the brother of the Lord, we should only know his name and his Apostleship. But the identity once admitted, we must consequently apply to him all the particulars supplied by the books of the New Testament. We may venture to assert that the training of James (and his brother Jude), had been that which prevailed in all pious Jewish homes and that it was therefore based on the knowledge of the Holy Scripture and the rigorous observance of the Law. Many facts point to the diffusion of the Greek language and culture throughout Judea and Galilee, as early as the first century B.C.; we may suppose that the Apostles, at least most of them, read and spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, from their childhood. James was called to the Apostolate with his brother Jude; in all the four lists of the Apostles, he stands at the head of the third group (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Of James individually we hear no more until after the Resurrection. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) mentions that the Lord appeared to him before the Ascension.
Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. Of the Twelve Apostles he saw only Peter and James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19; Acts 9:27). When in the year 44 Peter escaped from prison, he desired that news of his release might be carried to James who held already a marked preeminence in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). In the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 51) he gives his sentence after St. Peter, declaring as Peter had done, that the Gentile Christians are not bound to circumcision, nor to the observance of the ceremonial Mosaic Law, but at the same time, he urged the advisability of conforming to certain ceremonies and of respecting certain of the scruples of their Jewish fellow-Christians (Acts 15:13 sqq.). On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9). He publicly commended the great charter of Gentile freedom from the Law, although he still continued the observance in his own life, no longer as a strict duty, but as an ancient, most venerable and national custom, trusting to "be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:11). When afterwards some came from James to Antioch and led Peter into dissimulation (Galatians 2:12), his name was used by them, though he had given them no such commandment to enforce their interpretation of the concordat which, on his proposal, had been adopted at the Council of Jerusalem. When St. Paul after his third missionary journey paid a visit to St. James (A.D. 58), the Bishop of Jerusalem and "the elders" "glorified the Lord" and advised the Apostle to take part in the ceremonies of a Nazarite vow, in order to show how false the charge was that he had spoken of the Law as no longer to be regarded. Paul consented to the advice of James and the elders (Acts 21:1 sqq.). The Epistle of St. James reveals a grave, meek, and calm mind, nourished with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, given to prayer, devoted to the poor, resigned in persecution, the type of a just and apostolic man.
James outside of the Scriptures
Traditions respecting James the Less are to be found in many extra-canonical documents, especially Josephus (Antiq., XX, ix, 1), the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (St. Jerome, Illustrious Men 2), Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church History II.23), the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Ep. of Peter) and Recognitions (I, 72, 73), Clement of Alexandria (Hypot., vi, quoted by Eusebius, Church History II.1). The universal testimony of Christian antiquity is entirely in accordance with the information derived from the canonical books as to the fact that James was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who lived about the middle of the second century, relates (and his narrative is highly probable) that James was called the "Just", that he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor ate animal food, that no razor touched his head, that he did not anoint himself or make use of the bath, and lastly that he was put to death by the Jews. The account of his death given by Josephus is somewhat different. Later traditions deserve less attention. www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 10:38:35 GMT -5
okay i worded that wrong....where did you get it...a book, movie, video, john doe? From several books I've read on the early Christian groups. There were quite a few, all of them believing something just a little bit different from the next. The Ebionites were the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The authors of several of the books talked about James the Just being an important member of the group. They weren't called that while he was alive, but the group did get called that by other groups later on. Their one claim that finally got them labelled as heretics was their insistence that Jesus was not born of a virgin. He was considered their Messiah and was of great importance to them and highly respected, but they didn't believe there was anything supernatural about his birth or his existence. We know that James the Just didn't like Paul nor did he agree with his teachings and tried to send people out behind him to salvage some of the damage he felt Paul was doing to the truth about Jesus. It was interesting reading about the various groups that later got labelled heretics by the Christian group that survived with the backing of Rome. Snow ~ I seem to be picking up on this same impression in my own study of the ECF's and early apostles, like James the Just, who was head of the Jerusalem Church. One of the earlier church fathers actually referred to Peter as being the mediator between them on occasion in one of his writings. They definitely had their differences from what I have read so far, IMHO. Also, there are so many different James mentioned in the Bible, that it can get confusing trying to sort out who is who as you read the different accounts found within the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 25, 2014 10:41:04 GMT -5
The James I am talking about was not a bishop he was a temple priest that got killed. He was also the brother of Jesus. Until his death he was the new leader of the apostles. Some scholars believe he was murdered.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 11:05:50 GMT -5
The James I am talking about was not a bishop he was a temple priest that got killed. He was also the brother of Jesus. Until his death he was the new leader of the apostles. Some scholars believe he was murdered. There are two James accounted for - the parentage probably known (duly referenced in my prior posts from Catholic and Orthodox tradition) - one whose mother was also named Mary - sister or cousin of the Blessed Mother. The James to whom you refer is either a cousin (likely) or a step-brother of Joseph's probable first marriage. There was no new leader of the Apostles - Peter was First among the Apostles - appointed by Christ - scripturally - and supported by numerous accounts. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was murdered - martyred.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 11:12:56 GMT -5
The James I am talking about was not a bishop he was a temple priest that got killed. He was also the brother of Jesus. Until his death he was the new leader of the apostles. Some scholars believe he was murdered. Is this the same James who was a leader in the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 or are we speaking about another James from the many referenced within the Bible? I believe I read somewhere that it was rumored that James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death? However, please forgive me if I appear confused, because that would describe my state of mind at the present?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 25, 2014 11:21:19 GMT -5
The James I am talking about was not a bishop he was a temple priest that got killed. He was also the brother of Jesus. Until his death he was the new leader of the apostles. Some scholars believe he was murdered. There are two James accounted for - the parentage probably known (duly referenced in my prior posts from Catholic and Orthodox tradition) - one whose mother was also named Mary - sister or cousin of the Blessed Mother. The James to whom you refer is either a cousin (likely) or a step-brother of Joseph's probable first marriage. There was no new leader of the Apostles - Peter was First among the Apostles - appointed by Christ - scripturally - and supported by numerous accounts. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was murdered - martyred. I don't agree. And I don't agree that James was a step brother. He was a brother. James was most likely murdered and he was the leader of the church after Jesus death. Only the Catholics have claimed that Peter was the leader. I don't believe the Catholics. There were no bishops until there were Catholics. I recognize that you need to believe differently so there is no use to any discussion between us.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 25, 2014 11:24:26 GMT -5
The James I am talking about was not a bishop he was a temple priest that got killed. He was also the brother of Jesus. Until his death he was the new leader of the apostles. Some scholars believe he was murdered. Is this the same James who was a leader in the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 or are we speaking about another James from the many referenced within the Bible? I believe I read somewhere that it was rumored that James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death? However, please forgive me if I appear confused, because that would describe my state of mind at the present? He was first 'cast down' and did not die so they decided to finish it by stoning him in the temple courtyard.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 11:49:31 GMT -5
There are two James accounted for - the parentage probably known (duly referenced in my prior posts from Catholic and Orthodox tradition) - one whose mother was also named Mary - sister or cousin of the Blessed Mother. The James to whom you refer is either a cousin (likely) or a step-brother of Joseph's probable first marriage. There was no new leader of the Apostles - Peter was First among the Apostles - appointed by Christ - scripturally - and supported by numerous accounts. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was murdered - martyred. I don't agree. And I don't agree that James was a step brother. He was a brother. James was most likely murdered and he was the leader of the church after Jesus death. Only the Catholics have claimed that Peter was the leader. I don't believe the Catholics. There were no bishops until there were Catholics. I recognize that you need to believe differently so there is no use to any discussion between us. The Catholic AND Orthodox churches - who were there - and who are still here. There were no bishops until there were Catholics.No bishops until there were Catholics you say ... well that all works out then - since it was the only and universal church (kath oles in scripture) and Catholic as written of by Ignatius (of the first century) - and since ' bishop' is indeed scriptural. Bible Search Titus 1:7 Because a bishop is a supervisor appointed by God, he must have a good reputation.
1 Peter 2:25 You were like lost sheep. Now you have come back to the shepherd and bishop of your lives. ...
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a statement that can be trusted: If anyone sets his heart on being a bishop, he desires something excellent. ...
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop must have a good reputation. He must have ...
Acts 1:20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take. ...
from biblos.com
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 11:58:06 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Can you provide any scripture references that would give the impression that Joseph was married before Mary, the mother of Jesus? I have yet to find any evidence to this fact and it seems all based upon conjecture within the RCC from what I'm lead to believe to justify Mary remaining a perpetual virgin for the rest of her married life? Somehow that just doesn't goes along with married life as we know it today? What about that verse in the Bible which says that Joseph didn't "know" Mary until after the birth of Jesus, which seemingly suggest conjugal rights of a husband being exercised? Then, later we read of these other kids who came along and were part of Jesus' followers along with his mother. If there were kids from a previous marriage, why didn't Joseph bring them along with them to Bethlehem where Jesus was born?
Also, to back up my own thoughts along this matter, I would like to present this article which goes into more detail surrounding the RCC concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which was later adopted as dogma within the RCC in 451 A.D. What's ironic about this article is that it is the result of the alleged findings of James bones, the brother of Jesus, in some (bone box) ossuary, which I believe later was discovered to be a hoax, but I may be wrong here?
www.christiancourier.com/articles/600-alleged-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-the
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 11:58:42 GMT -5
There are two James accounted for - the parentage probably known (duly referenced in my prior posts from Catholic and Orthodox tradition) - one whose mother was also named Mary - sister or cousin of the Blessed Mother. The James to whom you refer is either a cousin (likely) or a step-brother of Joseph's probable first marriage. There was no new leader of the Apostles - Peter was First among the Apostles - appointed by Christ - scripturally - and supported by numerous accounts. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was murdered - martyred. StAnne ~ Can you provide any scripture references that would give the impression that Joseph was married before Mary, the mother of Jesus? I have yet to find any evidence to this fact and it seems all based upon conjecture within the RCC from what I'm lead to believe to justify Mary remaining a perpetual virgin for the rest of her married life? Somehow that just doesn't goes along with married life as we know it today? What about that verse in the Bible which says that Joseph didn't "know" Mary until after the birth of Jesus, which seemingly suggest conjugal rights of a husband being exercised? Then, later we read of these other kids who came along and were part of Jesus' followers along with his mother. If there were kids from a previous marriage, why didn't Joseph bring them along with them to Bethlehem where Jesus was born?
Also, to back up my own thoughts along this matter, I would like to present this article that goes into the RCC concept of perpetual virginity, which was adopted as dogma within the church later on.
www.christiancourier.com/articles/600-alleged-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-the
No, it doesn't go along with married life as we know it in the natural sense. Neither does the supernatural Annunciation, Conception by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, or the Ascension of Jesus go along with what we know in the natural sense. The entire Bible as we know it is Tradition of the Church. As are the extant Traditions and traditions of the Church that tell us that Mary was and is a perpetual virgin.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 12:16:02 GMT -5
StAnne ~ In other words, everything is related to the traditional views of the RCC, if I understood your post correctly?
By the way, here is the rest of that article I referenced previously regarding to Mary's perpetual virginity which also goes into the roots of such teachings back in the first century.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 12:20:46 GMT -5
StAnne ~ In other words, everything is related to the traditional views of the RCC, if I understood your post correctly? It is implicit in Sacred Scripture in several places - it is explicitly taught by the Church (Catholic and Orthodox). It comes down in the Tradition of the Church - handed down by the Apostles in the deposit of faith (and attested by the ECFs). To your question, yes, Sacred Scripture is indeed the Tradition of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 12:41:31 GMT -5
StAnne ~ In other words, everything is related to the traditional views of the RCC, if I understood your post correctly? It is implicit in Sacred Scripture in several places - it is explicitly taught by the Church (Catholic and Orthodox). It comes down in the Tradition of the Church - handed down by the Apostles in the deposit of faith (and attested by the ECFs). To your question, yes, Sacred Scripture is indeed the Tradition of the Church. StAnne ~ I realize that "sacred scripture" is part of the "tradition of the Church," however, there are no "sacred scriptures" found within the New Testament to validate this claim relating to Mary's perpetual virginity, which is the whole point of my argument.
However, this article that the author referenced in his article is quite interesting and I would like to share it here for its contents along with the National Geographic article which definitely reflects the first century time in which Jesus lived.
www.christiancourier.com/articles/588-another-voice-from-the-tomb
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070508-herod-tomb.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 12:50:17 GMT -5
|
|