Mary's perpetual virginity

[Good_Fella]

I’ll accept your belief once you show me verses explicitly stated that James and the other brothers of the Lord were cousins.

Again, there was no word for cousin in Hebrew-Aramaic.Mark employed the idiomatic term that was used by the people he was quoting. Matthew used the term that his Hebrew audience would have used and understood. The Greek translations preserve the idiom as a form of literary diction.

Indeed Judas is before Simon in Matthew and after him in Mark. James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Jude Lebbaeus Thaddeus weren’t related at all. Do Mark or Matthew go as far as calling them brothers? No they do not.

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

• Matthew 10

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles,[a] to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. - Mark 3

12 Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. - Luke 6

When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of[a] James. 14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. - Acts [NRSVCE]

James, Judas, and Simon are ranked in the same order in Matthew and Mark. Luke has Judas follow Simon in his Gospel and juxtaposed with Judas Iscariot, probably to emphasize that the younger brother of James must not be confused with the apostle who betrayed Jesus. Luke is also the author of Acts. Judas is called Thaddeus in Matthew and Mark probably for the same reason. Some Biblical interpreters argue that James’ younger brother adopted the other name to go by because of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus. Anyway, it is in Mark 6:3 that the names of the brothers of Jesus are recorded, so we should focus on the parallelism between this verse and Mark 3:18 and consider the question from this author’s perspective, which differs from Luke’s. Finally, you’ll notice that in Matthew, Simon goes by the appellation Cananaean, while in Mark and Luke he is called the Zealot, probably because of his exceptional apostolic zeal. So there weren’t two Simons, which you proposed earlier. There was just one Simon, the younger brother of James of Alpheus, who had two titles as James also had in being called the Less and the Just.

I find it hard to believe that I am regarded dubious for getting opinion from the traditions of the Fathers while you get yours from private revelations.

Tradition of the Fathers? Origen and Epiphanius are only 2 of 180 Patristic Fathers. The Fathers were infallible insofar they consistently and unanimously bore witness to what belonged to sacred Tradition. The oral tradition in and of itself is not infallible because it is not the unwritten word of God as sacred Tradition is, but rather only human testimony which isn’t fool-proof. So much of what was handed down was adulterated by human folklore. Read the apocryphal gospels, and you’ll know what I mean. They relate so many fantastic and extravagant things. In any event, Origen and Epiphanius may only have appealed to the tradition of Jesus having step-brothers as a possible explanation for the word “brothers” as opposed to the false belief (oral tradition?) of some people at the time that they were the offspring of Mary and Joseph. The extant works of these two Fathers in which they mention the more orthodox idea are apologetic in nature. Still, I consider the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the greater authority. The visions of Venerable Mary of Agreda are approved by the temporal ruling authority of the Church. They have been accepted to be morally certain.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

• Matthew 10

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles,[a] to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. - Mark 3

12 Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. - Luke 6

When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of[a] James. 14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. - Acts [NRSVCE]

James, Judas, and Simon are ranked in the same order in Matthew and Mark. Luke has Judas follow Simon in his Gospel and juxtaposed with Judas Iscariot, probably to emphasize that the younger brother of James must not be confused with the apostle who betrayed Jesus. Luke is also the author of Acts. Judas is called Thaddeus in Matthew and Mark probably for the same reason. Some Biblical interpreters argue that James’ younger brother adopted the other name to go by because of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus. Anyway, it is in Mark 6:3 that the names of the brothers of Jesus are recorded, so we should focus on the parallelism between this verse and Mark 3:18 and consider the question from this author’s perspective, which differs from Luke’s. Finally, you’ll notice that in Matthew, Simon goes by the appellation Cananaean, while in Mark and Luke he is called the Zealot, probably because of his exceptional apostolic zeal. So there weren’t two Simons, which you proposed earlier. There was just one Simon, the younger brother of James of Alpheus, who had two titles as James also had in being called the Less and the Just.

Eusebius. Seriously, Simon the Zealot is recorded to have been sawed in half. Simeon Jesus’ cousin was killed by crucifixion at 120 years of age. So yes, there were three Simons. Simon the Zealot may actually have been called the Zealot because of his zeal for the Law.
And ranking has nothing to do with it. Scripture gives us no reason to think that. And yes there might have been four, if not three guys named James. Judas Thaddeus is called son of James. Jesus’ grandnephews James and Zoker were farmers owning land passed on to them by Jude the brother of Jesus. If Jude Thaddeus owned land, he didn’t leave all to follow the Lord.
Good Fella;14011120:

Tradition of the Fathers? Origen and Epiphanius are only 2 of 180 Patristic Fathers. The Fathers were infallible insofar they consistently and unanimously bore witness to what belonged to sacred Tradition. The oral tradition in and of itself is not infallible because it is not the unwritten word of God as sacred Tradition is, but rather only human testimony which isn’t fool-proof. So much of what was handed down was adulterated by human folklore. Read the apocryphal gospels, and you’ll know what I mean. They relate so many fantastic and extravagant things. In any event, Origen and Epiphanius may only have appealed to the tradition of Jesus having step-brothers as a possible explanation for the word “brothers” as opposed to the false belief (oral tradition?) of some people at the time that they were the offspring of Mary and Joseph. The extant works of these two Fathers in which they mention the more orthodox idea are apologetic in nature. Still, I consider the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the greater authority. The visions of Venerable Mary of Agreda are approved by the temporal ruling authority of the Church. They have been accepted to be morally certain.

PAX

:heaven:
Indeed many heretical sects believed that Jesus had halfbrothers. The Collyridians were among this group, and they actually worshipped Mary. They were the ones who Ephiphanius was addresing.

 

[Good_Fella]

The main reason Rome is the headquarters of the Church is because Peter and Paul died there. There were Christians living in Rome even before Peter came. It is also known Peter took residence in Antioch and that there were Christians living in Ethiopia. So yeah, it went from the East to the West.

The main reason is that the Chair of Peter was situated at the Church of Rome which deposed the anti-type of the OT whore of Babylon - pagan Rome. Peter took residence in Antioch, but he didn’t stay there and was martyred at Rome where he completed his mission and fulfilled his final purpose. The Church also went from East to West when appeals were made by orthodox bishops to the Holy See at Rome to help resolve the heretical controversies that arose in the East among the clerics there.

Jude and Simon are regarded in Latin tradition to have spread the gospel as partners. Why do you think Jude is always portrayed with a club and Simon with a saw? .

Because they were apostles and “blood” brothers.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Eusebius. Seriously, Simon the Zealot is recorded to have been sawed in half. Simeon Jesus’ cousin was killed by crucifixion at 120 years of age. So yes, there were three Simons. Simon the Zealot may actually have been called the Zealot because of his zeal for the Law.

Folklore isn’t a reliable source of history. Eusebius had no way to confirm anything in the face of conflicting traditions.

And ranking has nothing to do with it. Scripture gives us no reason to think that.

James, son of Zebedee, is paired with “his brother John” and named first because he is his elder brother. This was the literary custom of the time. You’ll notice that John isn’t situated between Philip and Bartholomew or between Thomas and Matthew; nor are Judas and Simon. James, Judas, and Simon are grouped and ranked by Mark in his list of the Apostles exactly as they are in 6:3 because they are blood brothers, James being the eldest.

And yes there might have been four, if not three guys named James. Judas Thaddeus is called son of James. Jesus’ grandnephews James and Zoker were farmers owning land passed on to them by Jude the brother of Jesus. If Jude Thaddeus owned land, he didn’t leave all to follow the Lord.

In the list of the Apostles, Matthew calls Simon the Cananean, while Mark and Luke call him the Zealot. The problem with your reasoning is that because we have a man called James the Less on one occasion and James the Just on another occasion, it follows that there were three James (including the son of Zebedee) to start with. Both Simon and James went by two titles. I’m afraid you’re creating fictional characters based on your assumptions while ignoring established facts. To arrive at any certain conclusion, we must start with the facts, or at least not ignore them.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella can also claim that his opinions are justified by the ECFs here: It is an ANCIENT tradition (especially in the West --our beloved Latin Church-- which has never fallen into heresy or schism) that St. Joseph too, was a perpetual virgin. How many ways does this makes sense? It is hard to count the many ways that this seems an appropriate part of God’s plan of Salvation and why there was an earthly virginal trinity to complement the Heavenly one. Sorry it doesn’t mesh with your own favorite errors.

It’s sad, really, how some people don’t mind converting the Holy Family to a mundane dysfunctional family consisting of warring siblings fit for reality TV. I agree that the Holy Family reflects the Holy Trinity in God’s perfect plan. There’s a tendency in the East to perceive God as taking half-measures in His work. The EO, for example, reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but at the same time believe Mary led a personally sinless life; some even believe that Mary stopped sinning as soon as the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Thank God, we have the Vicar of Christ to infallibly confirm what we all in unity should believe as Catholics.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Mintaka]

Nothing against Maria de Jesus de Agreda or her visions… but “morally certain” doesn’t mean “every single thing in these visions is factually true.”

When a visionary writes down visions, the question for the Church is, “Are these visions saying anything against faith and morals?” Beyond that, the Church is not concerned.

Sometimes God does reveal factual matters to a visionary, either in real time or in the past or future. But that is not God’s primary concern. His first concern, as St. John of the Cross points out, is molding the visionary’s soul. In response to this, the visionary may see things in the imaging parts of his brain or with his eyes. God may present certain things directly, or He may just give an impression which is shaped by the visionary’s mind. The same visionary can have all different sorts of visions at various times.

The interpretation of visions and prophecies is a specialized field. Very seldom are we supposed to regard visions of past events as literally true; they are usually all about the symbolism. Some visionaries are careful to ask God (or Mary, or the angel, or whoever they’re seeing) to explain the vision, while others just leave it to us.

The Mystical City is an edifying work to read. The important bit is how it builds your soul up by the thoughts and emotions it inspires in the reader, not whether or not Mary actually historically had angels help her sweep the house. Using the book as an indication of Ven. Maria’s understanding of church traditions would be correct; using it as an indication of what actually happened in Jesus’ family would be pushing it further than intended. It is not the Bible, and it comes with no guarantees of anything except it being okay to read about faith and morals issues.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It’s sad, really, how some people don’t mind converting the Holy Family to a mundane dysfunctional family consisting of warring siblings fit for reality TV. I agree that the Holy Family reflects the Holy Trinity in God’s perfect plan. There’s a tendency in the East to perceive God as taking half-measures in His work. The EO, for example, reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but at the same time believe Mary led a personally sinless life; some even believe that Mary stopped sinning as soon as the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Thank God, we have the Vicar of Christ to infallibly confirm what we all in unity should believe as Catholics.

PAX
:heaven:

Even with the two sinless persons, there was Joseph. And still, Mark records that his relatives came to restrain him because they thought He was crazy. So, yeah.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Even with the two sinless persons, there was Joseph. And still, Mark records that his relatives came to restrain him because they thought He was crazy. So, yeah.

You’re going to hate this…

There is another ancient tradition in the West, that St. Joseph was sanctified in the womb like St. John the Baptist, and that he led a sinless life. How can we suppose otherwise? Who would be a worthy spouse to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, The Mother of God? Who would be worthy of teaching and guiding Our Blessed Lord, and living in Union with Him? If it was fitting for the Incarnation to be born of the Immaculate Conception, it would certainly be just as fitting that His Foster Father would be Sanctified in the womb as was St. John the Baptist.

So yeah.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You’re going to hate this…

There is another ancient tradition in the West, that St. Joseph was sanctified in the womb like St. John the Baptist, and that he led a sinless life. How can we suppose otherwise? Who would be a worthy spouse to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, The Mother of God? Who would be worthy of teaching and guiding Our Blessed Lord, and living in Union with Him? If it was fitting for the Incarnation to be born of the Immaculate Conception, it would certainly be just as fitting that His Foster Father would be Sanctified in the womb as was St. John the Baptist.

So yeah.

Is it dogma?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The main reason is that the Chair of Peter was situated at the Church of Rome which deposed the anti-type of the OT whore of Babylon - pagan Rome. Peter took residence in Antioch, but he didn’t stay there and was martyred at Rome where he completed his mission and fulfilled his final purpose. The Church also went from East to West when appeals were made by orthodox bishops to the Holy See at Rome to help resolve the heretical controversies that arose in the East among the clerics there.

Because they were apostles and “blood” brothers.

PAX
:heaven:

Peter went to Rome, but Babylon is refering to Jerusalem.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You’re going to hate this…

There is another ancient tradition in the West, that St. Joseph was sanctified in the womb like St. John the Baptist, and that he led a sinless life. How can we suppose otherwise? Who would be a worthy spouse to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, The Mother of God? Who would be worthy of teaching and guiding Our Blessed Lord, and living in Union with Him? If it was fitting for the Incarnation to be born of the Immaculate Conception, it would certainly be just as fitting that His Foster Father would be Sanctified in the womb as was St. John the Baptist.

So yeah.

So Joseph wasn’t intending to sin when he decided to put Mary away quietly?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Folklore isn’t a reliable source of history. Eusebius had no way to confirm anything in the face of conflicting traditions.

James, son of Zebedee, is paired with “his brother John” and named first because he is his elder brother. This was the literary custom of the time. You’ll notice that John isn’t situated between Philip and Bartholomew or between Thomas and Matthew; nor are Judas and Simon. James, Judas, and Simon are grouped and ranked by Mark in his list of the Apostles exactly as they are in 6:3 because they are blood brothers, James being the eldest.

In the list of the Apostles, Matthew calls Simon the Cananean, while Mark and Luke call him the Zealot. The problem with your reasoning is that because we have a man called James the Less on one occasion and James the Just on another occasion, it follows that there were three James (including the son of Zebedee) to start with. Both Simon and James went by two titles. I’m afraid you’re creating fictional characters based on your assumptions while ignoring established facts. To arrive at any certain conclusion, we must start with the facts, or at least not ignore them.

PAX
:heaven:

So the writings of Hegesippius, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and many texts which distinguish the brothers of Jesus from the Twelve are fictional? Give me a break!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter went to Rome, but Babylon is refering to Jerusalem.

Peter, Mark and Rufus in Rome
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-biblical-easter-egg-in-passion-of.html

First, St. Peter says in 1 Peter 5:13:

She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

“Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Sts. Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome.

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter’s disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon “She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son.” So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

This makes Mark’s Gospel all the more powerful: he’s declaring that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true Son of God from the heart of the Roman Empire.

That first point is pretty well known, but this next one is not (at least, as far as I know): Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, was a Christian living in Rome. So was Simon’s wife. We know this from a seemingly throwaway line in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:13),

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

This explains why Mark would choose to mention that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus and Alexander: those wouldn’t have been random names to his original readers, but actual people that they knew. This detail is significant for several reasons.

First, it’s another indication of the historicity of the Gospel: anyone doubting the veracity of Mark’s account could go ask Rufus and Alexander.

Second, it shows the harmony of the New Testament accounts: by comparing multiple sources (Mark and Paul), a more coherent picture emerges.

Finally, it points to something momentous and beautiful: that Simon of Cyrene’s encounter with the Cross brought about his conversion, and the conversion of his whole family.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter went to Rome, but Babylon is refering to Jerusalem.

Peter in Rome – Longer Explanation

In Acts 12, we read the following:

Acts 12:1-3
1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Herod had just killed James, and it was almost certain that he would have killed Peter, also. Peter’s death must have been imminent, because God intervened by sending an angel to help Peter escape. Naturally, Herod would not have been pleased to learn of Peter’s escape, and Peter was in greater peril than ever. Consequently, he fled the region. This is evident from the following:

Acts 12:17
17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What is this other place? Rome. We learn from Peter’s own hand that he was in Rome in the following passage:

1 Peter 5:13 (Knox)
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Rome is also referred to as “Babylon” repeatedly in the Book of Revelation.

It should be obvious that since Peter’s life was in danger due to Herod’s desire to arrest and kill him, neither Peter nor Paul would have specified Peter’s exact whereabouts in any written communications that could have been confiscated from any courier by Roman soldiers. This explains the use of the word "Babylon’ and the silence about Peter’s location in the rest of the book of Acts.

From all of this, we can be confident that Peter was in Rome beginning around AD 42-45 and that he built up the church in that city which began when the first believers returned from Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. In AD 49, Claudius expelled all Christians from Rome, and Peter returned briefly to Jerusalem in time for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter probably slipped in and out of Rome for the next few years before being martyred there around AD 67.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So Joseph wasn’t intending to sin when he decided to put Mary away quietly?

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Righteous Man

Matthew 1:19
19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Two interpretations attempt to explain why Joseph decided to separate from Mary. They give opposite answers to the question: Who did Joseph think was the unworthy partner in the betrothal?

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Peter in Rome – Longer Explanation

In Acts 12, we read the following:

Acts 12:1-3
1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Herod had just killed James, and it was almost certain that he would have killed Peter, also. Peter’s death must have been imminent, because God intervened by sending an angel to help Peter escape. Naturally, Herod would not have been pleased to learn of Peter’s escape, and Peter was in greater peril than ever. Consequently, he fled the region. This is evident from the following:

Acts 12:17
17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What is this other place? Rome. We learn from Peter’s own hand that he was in Rome in the following passage:

1 Peter 5:13 (Knox)
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Rome is also referred to as “Babylon” repeatedly in the Book of Revelation.

It should be obvious that since Peter’s life was in danger due to Herod’s desire to arrest and kill him, neither Peter nor Paul would have specified Peter’s exact whereabouts in any written communications that could have been confiscated from any courier by Roman soldiers. This explains the use of the word "Babylon’ and the silence about Peter’s location in the rest of the book of Acts.

From all of this, we can be confident that Peter was in Rome beginning around AD 42-45 and that he built up the church in that city which began when the first believers returned from Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. In AD 49, Claudius expelled all Christians from Rome, and Peter returned briefly to Jerusalem in time for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter probably slipped in and out of Rome for the next few years before being martyred there around AD 67.

www.defendingthebride.com/ch/whore2.html

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Righteous Man

Matthew 1:19
19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Two interpretations attempt to explain why Joseph decided to separate from Mary. They give opposite answers to the question: Who did Joseph think was the unworthy partner in the betrothal?

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

The context given in Matthew was that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary not to expose her to shame, not as the second theory indicates.

 

[Randy_Carson]

www.defendingthebride.com/ch/whore2.html

The Whore of Babylon
catholic.com/tracts/the-whore-of-babylon

Please note that Catholic Answers never even mentions Babylon of 1 Peter 3:15 in this article.

Why?

Because while the Whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation could be either Rome or Jerusalem, the “Babylon” of 1 Peter is unquestionably Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The context given in Matthew was that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary not to expose her to shame, not as the second theory indicates.

I hear you. But Scott Hahn (author of the commentary referenced above) is no slouch when it comes to exegesis.

 

[Good_Fella]

So the writings of Hegesippius, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and many texts which distinguish the brothers of Jesus from the Twelve are fictional? Give me a break!

Their writings weren’t infallible. In 3rd century Egypt, Origen argued against the large camp of Christians, including clerics, who believed that the so-called brothers of Jesus were the offspring of Mary and Joseph. Origen appealed to the Gospel of Peter to support the view of his camp that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. Clement, apparently, relied on the Nativity Gospel of James. The apocryphal texts do contain much fiction. Meanwhile, it appears Mark draws no distinction when we compare 6:3 with the list of the Apostles. Hegesippus was more of a church chronicler of fallible oral traditions than a genuine historian. He was in no position to determine for himself who these brothers of Jesus actually were. Nor was Eusebius.

PAX
:heaven: