Some examples of ECF's (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733).....

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary was born with sin? Explain the logic behind as to why God who is perfect and pure,would want a defiled creature to conceive His Son-who by the way is God? God Incarnated and conceived by a sinner? :confused:
Well then if that is the case, why would God step into the world at all and and allow His Son touch sinners, eat with them, heal them, and die for them? If you carry this logic, Jesus should have never entered the world at all.

Why would God allow this? So He could redeem us, plain and simple.

Phil 2

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The fact that He chose Mary to bear Jesus is just part of that. Mary is a blessed woman, a Christian, and a great example for Christians.

But you take it too far with the fact she had too be sinless to preserve Jesus in someway.
 
So they are all wrong and you are right?
well, if they say what you claim that they say then, yes, they (and you) are wrong and me and a bunch of extremely learned theologians (inculding Catholic ones) are right in believing that Mary wasn’t free from sin.
The following doesn’t deny Mary’s sinlessness.
it has her in the same pot as his brothers…the pot of “not believing in Jesus” …but if you want to argue that Tertullian still believed that Mary was free from sin, notwithstanding her lack of belief, feel free (I’ll just think that you are wrong in that regard too.)
Radical, do you trust the Catholic church made the correct decisions below?
that should be “christian church” and not “Catholic church”…as the use of “Catholic” is misleading
Codification of scripture. The canon of Scripture was not finalized until 397.
this is debatable, but in any event I believe that the early church did a reliable job with respect to identifying, preserving and copying works that reflected the early apostolic teaching and that such works have been properly set apart as scripture…a big dfifference is that we can see the ECFs using those works as scripture right from the start…we have continuity. In contrast, the NT and the apostolic fathers are pretty well silent wrt Mary…she doesn’t attract much interest from the get go…
The 2 Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills (Monothelitism; the orthodox doctrine holds that He had two wills) went on for a few centuries more.
I sure wouldn’t claim that they nailed it…this was the product of their reasoning…not an infallible tool.
 
The logic involves the observation that sin isn’t like dirt…Mary’s sin couldn’t stain either Jesus’s soul or his flesh. It is exactly b/c God is perfect and pure that he doesn’t have to worry about being tainted by Mary’s imperfection…IIRC it is a sort of “logic” (coupled with the belief that a perfect and pure God could not involve himself with impure matter) that led to certain Gnostic views.
Interesting,but that does not jive at all my friend. You make it sound as though God 'settled" with Mary.
 
Quote:Joe
Radical, do you trust the Catholic church made the correct decisions below?
Quote:Radical
that should be “christian church” and not “Catholic church”…as the use of “Catholic” is misleading
Misleading? Tell me which “christian church” are you mentioning? Tens of thousands of different denominations exist,your term: Christian church is more misleading.
 
I disagree. By making this claim you are assuming that the Church Jesus founded for the salvation of souls and to bestow His grace necessary for salvation, and to combat evil in this world is in error. It may seem like a minor point to you but it points to a much greater problem in which souls are affected.
I don’t understand your sentence. I think you might have accidentally left out a word or two. Could you rephrase it please? 🙂
 
You may want to review many of the threads concerning the Blessed Mother to get an idea of what I am talking about. Also just a note I did not mean all Protestants think this way, just many. A long, long time ago in my personal life in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be just as blinded and bigoted towards anything Catholic and believed all the anti-Catholic falsehoods out there, and the Blessed Mother is in the top three for attack mode either subtlety or directly.
I think i have misunderstood your personal experiences with anti-catholicism, for which I apologize. I live just north of Boston so there are lots of Catholics, I just don’t see it up here I think. I probably shouldn’t have involved myself in this conversation because I think Anglicans are just in another place compared to both Sola Scriptura protestants and Roman Catholics, and I don’t mean that as a good thing or a bad thing, just a thing lol. I do see the fault in Radicals argument but I also see similar faults in the Catholic argument. Think I’ll just walk away from this one… 😃
 
This is a perfect example of the use of the protestant term “necessary inference”.
It seems that you are making the bad inference here.
One must assume something can’t be true if they, in the privacy of their room, interpret that what is said can’t be correct.
My opinion on this matter is based (almost entirely) on the historical record. The NT does not put forward this claim (notwithstanding Catholic efforts to read between the lines and force meanings into passages). The apostolic fathers are also silent regarding this claim. Some of the NT and the works of the Apostolic Fathers were written at a time when Gnosticism was gaining influence. Some of these works attempted to refute Gnosticism and would have had a grand tool to use in that refutation if they could have pointed to Mary’s sinlessness. The argument would have been that Christ must have actually come in the flesh, otherwise there would have been no need for Mary to be sinless etc. Great argument, but never made. Why?..most likely b/c Mary’s sinlessness hadn’t been invented at that time.
 
Some of the Catholic beliefs seems to depend more upon Jesus claiming Peter to be the rock and thus has the authority to bind us to what he along with the other bishops say. This is disturbing in light of the recent revelation that some bishops are exhibiting poor, if not sinful, behavior publically. This is the part causing me to struggle right now. How can God allow this? How can this be true then? etc. So getting into ECF doesn’t always help in today’s world. How does anyone know for sure? How can anyone believe the other group is not saved? How can anyone determine who is culpable? etc.
The Church is made up of sinners, including the bishops, and it’s been that way since the beginning. You need to look no farther than the men Jesus chose to be apostles to see that, Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter denied him.
 
I do not believe that being closer to the event in anyway assured correct doctrine. In fact, the Bible, New Testament and Old Testament alike, have people holding incorrect views within decades, years, months, weeks and even DAYS after God has given them a correct teaching. That is what the majority of scripture is, a correction of incorrect beliefs and actions in the form of the writing and oracles of the prophets, teachings of Christ or an epistle.
So, yes. They are wrong.
 
Some examples of ECF’s (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733) - supporting the belief that Mary was in fact sinless. For those non-Catholics who do not believe this to be true: were they wrong?

Hello, Joe. I am interested in your topic. I am in need of some edification, if you would so help me.

What is “ECF”?

and

Many ot the quotes you gave are from authors that I do not know nor would I know where to find their works.

Appreciate any info you might have on this.
 
Some examples of ECF’s (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733) - supporting the belief that Mary was in fact sinless. For those non-Catholics who do not believe this to be true: were they wrong?

Hello, Joe. I am interested in your topic. I am in need of some edification, if you would so help me.

What is “ECF”?

and

Many ot the quotes you gave are from authors that I do not know nor would I know where to find their works.

Appreciate any info you might have on this.
ECF is short for early church fathers. 👍
 
This seems pretty straight-forward Joe. If they:

a) claimed that Mary was in fact sinless; and

b) I don’t believe that Mary was in fact sinless; then

c) they must be wrong in that regard.

I prefer the earlier (and more reliable) view of Tertullian:
…the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother … His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him…'Who is my mother…
i] On the Flesh of Christ 7

Tertullian questions Mary’s faithfulness to the Lord at the time of John 7:5…doesn’t sound as if he knew of any apostolic tradition that held that Mary was sinless or perfect*

…the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother … His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him…'Who is my mother…

**John 7:5 (New International Version, ©2010)
5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him. **

This passage says nothing at all about Mary, nor anything that would apply to Mary.

…the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother … His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him…'Who is my mother…

Your conclusions are misinterpreted and taken out of context.
 
Bad bishops/priests bothered me as well, as a former non-Catholic, but there have been bad bishops (just as there are good and bad leaders in every church) - in the past and there will be bad bishops in the future, along with awesome bishops as well, but we must keep in mind that the holy spirit guides these magisters (teachers) - into all truth, in spite of the the fact that there are bad, along with good leaders, in Jesus’ church. There will always be wolves masquerading as sheep, in Jesus’ church, just as long as Satan keeps attacking Jesus’ church, but doctrinal truth will forever remain in tact. The following words surely apply to the bad leaders of Jesus’ church as well; all churches for that matter:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Logically speaking, if we cannot trust the church founded by Jesus to lead us into truth until the end of time, then why should we trust a church founded by mere men?
Talking about theological concepts is great. I accept the teachings of the ancient Catholic/Orthodox faith. That said, I also don’t squirm over Protestant beliefs having grown up Protestant. In fact, we (Protestants from my faith) really didn’t have any issues with the perpetual virginity of Mary. We placed that idea in the area of non-salvation issues.

The problem is that it becomes obvious to me that since many people on forums misunderstand each other’s writing it is interpretation that becomes an issue more than what is written. I recognized over the years the problems associated with interpretation of God’s Word (the bible). This brought me to the concept that someone had to play leader in order to take a stance on some of the salvation issues. Those things that fell under opinion dictated silence on the matter. But that typically meant we had to follow a church teaching. I watched our congregations divide and divide multiple times. It shocked me and this made me think, why not be Catholic then, or even Jewish or Muslim, if we can simply pick and choose. HOw do we know?

Discovering the ECFs opened up a world I never knew. However, the issue remains. That’s what opened the door to learning more about Judaism and the various beliefs of the early Christian. I thought to myself, if we only knew what the ancient Christians believed then we would have a pattern to follow. We tried to follow the pattern of the first century Church. But there was so much ambiguity in scripture that needed clarification to truly understand without claiming some sort of magisterial authority. But I had to open my heart enough to read these documents first. From there, scandalized by what I discovered, I read more and more and felt prone to drop a belief in God altogether. But then I realized I was reacting to what I believed as a result of a small group of people I was currently following. So, as I studied apolgetics and read more I realized that we could have been wrong and opened my heart even further, testing every teaching to the best of my ability. "Is it rational to believe the things I read?, I asked myself. So far, yes.

Some of the Catholic beliefs seems to depend more upon Jesus claiming Peter to be the rock and thus has the authority to bind us to what he along with the other bishops say. This is disturbing in light of the recent revelation that some bishops are exhibiting poor, if not sinful, behavior publically. This is the part causing me to struggle right now. How can God allow this? How can this be true then? etc. So getting into ECF doesn’t always help in today’s world. How does anyone know for sure? How can anyone believe the other group is not saved? How can anyone determine who is culpable? etc.
 
I would like to say that Mary may well have been sinless. However the Bible doesn’t tell us anything about it and I don’t think it is something that must be believed. This being said it appears that at least a few of the church fathers did not consider her sinless.
  1. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

He appears to say Mary was made sinless when she conceived as why else would she need to be sanctified.
So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth
John of Damascus (Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

He too seems to say that Mary was purified at the Annunciation.

John Chrysostom said that Mary was guilty of superfluous vanity.
And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49)
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm
But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. “The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.” So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, “What are mother and brothers to me?” And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work?.. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him…. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.
Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html

Tertulian indicates that at one time His mother did not believe in Jesus. Now Tertulian’ was not orthodoxy in his later years but the other three have been named doctors of the church. If they could write such things and remain orthodox why is it not the same today.

Again I say I can’t say whether Mary was sinless or not and I have no argument with those who think she was. However the view of the early church does not seem to have been unanimous. I do think Mary was greatly blessed and a model of obediance from whom we all can learn.
 
Radical;7435692]well, if they say what you claim that they say then, yes, they (and you) are wrong and me and a bunch of extremely learned theologians (inculding Catholic ones) are right in believing that Mary wasn’t free from sin.
I am sure, as a learned theologian, you are considerably more learned then me, for I am not a theologian, but that’s OK because I put my trust in the holy spirit, Who is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth.
it has her in the same pot as his brothers…the pot of “not believing in Jesus” …but if you want to argue that Tertullian still believed that Mary was free from sin, notwithstanding her lack of belief, feel free (I’ll just think that you are wrong in that regard too.)
That’s cool brother. 👍
that should be “christian church” and not “Catholic church”…as the use of “Catholic” is misleading
Let me rephrase that: the Catholic Church comprised of all Christians. Everyone was catholic back then; there were no protestants until the 16th century, as you know, and they did not remain in communion with the CC. It was the CC magisterial councils that made the determination vis-a-vis the codification of the bible, the creeds and the Trinity etc. etc…Agreed?
this is debatable, but in any event I believe that the early church did a reliable job with respect to identifying, preserving and copying works that reflected the early apostolic teaching and that such works have been properly set apart as scripture…a big dfifference is that we can see the ECFs using those works as scripture right from the start…we have continuity. In contrast, the NT and the apostolic fathers are pretty well silent wrt Mary…she doesn’t attract much interest from the get go…
I sure wouldn’t claim that they nailed it…this was the product of their reasoning…not an infallible tool.
Regarding 7 books, there was not continuity. Some of those early church leaders rejected some of those works that are now part of the canon and embraced a few that did not make the cut. It was the CC councils (several) - that convoked and made a determination as to what would make the cut and what wouldn’t - agreed?

Regarding Mary, the ECF’s are not silent; far from it. As far as scripture goes: Mary being full of grace seems pretty self explanatory, but If you want to believe that Mary was a sinner, and that God, Who abhors sin, allowed His Son to become one with sinful flesh, that’s cool. 👍

Thanks for the feedback brother…
 
Hey Carl, none of these quotes deny Mary’s sinlessness, and we all know that Jesus does not derive His sinlessness from Mary, for Mary is a mere creature like the rest of us. Jesus is the savior of Mary too. I have provided many quotes from ECF’s, that flat out make the claim that Mary was sinless; your thoughts brother?
I would like to say that Mary may well have been sinless. However the Bible doesn’t tell us anything about it and I don’t think it is something that must be believed. This being said it appears that at least a few of the church fathers did not consider her sinless.

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

He appears to say Mary was made sinless when she conceived as why else would she need to be sanctified.

John of Damascus (Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

He too seems to say that Mary was purified at the Annunciation.

John Chrysostom said that Mary was guilty of superfluous vanity.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49)
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html

Tertulian indicates that at one time His mother did not believe in Jesus. Now Tertulian’ was not orthodoxy in his later years but the other three have been named doctors of the church. If they could write such things and remain orthodox why is it not the same today.

Again I say I can’t say whether Mary was sinless or not and I have no argument with those who think she was. However the view of the early church does not seem to have been unanimous. I do think Mary was greatly blessed and a model of obediance from whom we all can learn.
 
**John 7:5 (New International Version, ©2010)
5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him. **

This passage says nothing at all about Mary, nor anything that would apply to Mary.

…the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother … His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him…'Who is my mother…

Your conclusions are misinterpreted and taken out of context.
Please allow me to connect the dots for you. Here again is what Tertullian wrote:

But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren.Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? On the Flesh of Christ 7

And this is from the Gospel of Mark:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” …Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3: 20-21 and 31-35 NIV)

In stating what I have highlighted in blue, Tertullian was relying on John 7:5. In stating what I have highlighted in red, Tertullian was relying on Mark 3 and the corresponding passages in the other gospels. In so doing he connects the disbelief mentioned in John 7 to the action of Jesus’s family and Christ’s denial of his family in Mark 3. Here is the reasoning in point form:

a) Jesus’s family thought he was out of his mind and so they go to collect him. (Mk 3:21)
b) when (10 verses later) his family arrives at his location, they are described as including Mary and his brothers ( Mk 3:21)
c) given the proximity of the verses it is fair to conclude that the family members who constituted the family that left in verse 21 are the same family members who arrived in verse 31
d) if so, then Mary is one of those who thought Jesus was out of his mind and she is in league with his brothers (in their desire to take charge of him).
e) their belief that he is out of his mind and their desire to take charge of him is evidence of their lack of belief in him (which is expressly stated re the brothers in John 7:5 and which can be attributed to Mary by her inclusion in the family that thinks Jesus is out of his mind and should be controlled as per Mark 3)
e) that is why Jesus (on that occasion) denies not just his brothers, but also denies his mother
 
Please allow me to connect the dots for you. Here again is what Tertullian wrote:

*But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren.*Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? On the Flesh of Christ 7

And this is from the Gospel of Mark:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” …Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3: 20-21 and 31-35 NIV)

In stating what I have highlighted in blue, Tertullian was relying on John 7:5. In stating what I have highlighted in red, Tertullian was relying on Mark 3 and the corresponding passages in the other gospels. In so doing he connects the disbelief mentioned in John 7 to the action of Jesus’s family and Christ’s denial of his family in Mark 3. Here is the reasoning in point form:

a) Jesus’s family thought he was out of his mind and so they go to collect him. (Mk 3:21)
b) when (10 verses later) his family arrives at his location, they are described as including Mary and his brothers ( Mk 3:21)
c) given the proximity of the verses it is fair to conclude that the family members who constituted the family that left in verse 21 are the same family members who arrived in verse 31
d) if so, then Mary is one of those who thought Jesus was out of his mind and she is in league with his brothers (in their desire to take charge of him).
e) their belief that he is out of his mind and their desire to take charge of him is evidence of their lack of belief in him (which is expressly stated re the brothers in John 7:5 and which can be attributed to Mary by her inclusion in the family that thinks Jesus is out of his mind and should be controlled as per Mark 3)
e) that is why Jesus (on that occasion) denies not just his brothers, but also denies his mother
By stated that Jesus denies his mother you have called him a sinner.
 
Please allow me to connect the dots for you. Here again is what Tertullian wrote:

*But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren.*Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? On the Flesh of Christ 7

And this is from the Gospel of Mark:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” …Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3: 20-21 and 31-35 NIV)

In stating what I have highlighted in blue, Tertullian was relying on John 7:5. In stating what I have highlighted in red, Tertullian was relying on Mark 3 and the corresponding passages in the other gospels. In so doing he connects the disbelief mentioned in John 7 to the action of Jesus’s family and Christ’s denial of his family in Mark 3. Here is the reasoning in point form:

a) Jesus’s family thought he was out of his mind and so they go to collect him. (Mk 3:21)
b) when (10 verses later) his family arrives at his location, they are described as including Mary and his brothers ( Mk 3:21)
c) given the proximity of the verses it is fair to conclude that the family members who constituted the family that left in verse 21 are the same family members who arrived in verse 31
d) if so, then Mary is one of those who thought Jesus was out of his mind and she is in league with his brothers (in their desire to take charge of him).
e) their belief that he is out of his mind and their desire to take charge of him is evidence of their lack of belief in him (which is expressly stated re the brothers in John 7:5 and which can be attributed to Mary by her inclusion in the family that thinks Jesus is out of his mind and should be controlled as per Mark 3)
e) that is why Jesus (on that occasion) denies not just his brothers, but also denies his mother
First, it’s a leap to lump in Mary with those that didn’t believe and wanted to seize Him? Are you actually putting forth the idea that Mary denied she gave birth to God as man??

Second, Jesus is telling the people around that Mary so perfectly followed the will of the Father that she was chosen to be the mother of God. Did He have more then one mother? Those others that follow His will would be worthy to be called His brothers. He’s actually exhaulting her as an example to follow because they weren’t following the Fathers will. He was showing them what was possible if they did.
The exact opposite of what you claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top