The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_Stallard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike Stallard:
Thank you for a scholarly and very full answer to my original question.
Am I right in thinking that James in Hebrew is Jacob?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe James is Jacob in Hebrew; as Jesus is Joshua.
Mike Stallard:
Are you sure that you aren’t muddling up an awful lot of people under one very common name?
Click to expand...
🙂 Well, James, the Lord’s brother is either called by such a title or he is called by the name of James the just, or the righteous. Some even point to James as a possible candidate for being the “teacher of righteousness” found in the dead sea scrolls.In fact, the scriptures only call him “the Lord’s brother”, while some christian documents call him James the righteous; I believe Josephus is one of such writers. Notice that Jude, in his epistle, does not call himself the Lord’s brother, but the brother of James. It seems the title of James the Lord’s brother was given him because he resembled Jesus “in the holiness of life he was living”, and not simply because he was a blood relative.I believe Origen mentions this; if you are interested, I could look up the quote in question.
So in the Gospel of the Hebrews, we speak of James the Just as having “drunk of the cup of the Lord”, that is, the Lord’s brother.

Andre
 
When we look at the role of Bl. Mother as the New Eve , created sinless , as Adam and Eve were -" I am the Immaculate conception " her words in her apparition at Lourdes, and as the Ark of The New Covenant, her unique role seem so very obvious … Elisabeth’s words- ‘Mother of my Lord’ , St. Joseph too most likely viewed her in that same role - even if at the beginning God allowed him to go through a period of trial …

Again , the Bl. Mother, asking the angel Gabriel -'how can this be , since I do not know man" , could she not have been exercising wisdom, in discerning that the message was from God, being that it was likely that the serpent might have tried to tempt her as he did The Lord … she would have known the Messianic prophesy of virgin birth , yet unlike Eve who trusted the serpent’s words quickly, Bl. Mother could have chosen to ’ test the spirit ’ and thus probably indicative of the courage of her grace filled heart, that kept that grace from the moment of her conception on , unlike Eve …
 
40.png
mich2:
Yes, I believe James is Jacob in Hebrew; as Jesus is Joshua.

🙂 Well, James, the Lord’s brother is either called by such a title or he is called by the name of James the just, or the righteous. Some even point to James as a possible candidate for being the “teacher of righteousness” found in the dead sea scrolls.In fact, the scriptures only call him “the Lord’s brother”, while some christian documents call him James the righteous; I believe Josephus is one of such writers. Notice that Jude, in his epistle, does not call himself the Lord’s brother, but the brother of James. It seems the title of James the Lord’s brother was given him because he resembled Jesus “in the holiness of life he was living”, and not simply because he was a blood relative.I believe Origen mentions this; if you are interested, I could look up the quote in question.
So in the Gospel of the Hebrews, we speak of James the Just as having “drunk of the cup of the Lord”, that is, the Lord’s brother.

I asked this question because it is a real bone of contention with the Protestants. The sheer amount of material that has been generated by this thread surprises me. As does the sheer weight of scholarship.
Personally, I am convinced without Origen!
But thank you very much for spending the time to look up so many interesting - no, fascinating - documents!
All very much appreciated.
I am convinced!

Andre
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike! I’m also an ex-protostent and have found this doctrine to be troublesome. However, that said, I do agree with the church on it’s teaching. When it comes to it actually being doctrine, well, don’t everyone shoot me, but I don’t think it is necessary. Was Mary ever-virgin? Absolutely. Was she full of Grace? Well, the Bible tells me so. Does she have a high place among saints? Absolutely. She is after all, the mother of God. She heeded the call and I feel she is the mother of us all. Scott Hahn is an excellent educator on this issue. Revelation, I believe, without a shadow of a doubt talks about her. Don’t forget that Christ is the fulfillment of scripture, and so is Mary by being the New Eve. When it comes to her assumption, well I think it is just an assumption. We really don’t have any proof, but I think it is completely possible. But most importantly, when it comes down to it, you are simply going to have to trust the church. You have no doubt looked into its teachings and have no doubt tested them, and they are true. Every religion has its own doctrines and at some point and time their believers have to have faith. That is the same with the RCC, but only better. They, and the Holy Sprirt, have overcome many trials and they STILL have kept the truth. That has to say something.
Peace,
Carla
 
There is in Eusebius’ Ecclesiasticl History a quote from Papias as stating that the Apostles opened Mary’s tomb and found no body, and no burial cloth.
 
40.png
BrianH:
Possible solutions:

James was not there and was a believer. He could not have given her to him if he was not there. No one can disagree with that. We KNOW for sure he was not there. The Bible clearly records who was.
Click to expand...
So because James was not there, even though he was a believer, Mary went to live with John for the rest of her life (“And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”)?! Mary was forced to live the rest of her life away from her other sons, and they away from her, just because they weren’t there at the cross?! Is that any way for Jesus to treat his mother and brothers?
or
Click to expand...
James was not there and was not a believer. How could Jesus have left his mother with an unbeliever??? Well when did he become a believer?
Click to expand...
Especially if Mary had other sons who were not believers, they would never have let her go live with an outsider. They would have thought their brother Jesus was some sort of nut (remember, you said they were not believers), and they would simply have physically prevented their mother Mary from living with John.

In either case, believer or non-believer, consider what Jesus is doing if Mary had other children. He is ripping her from her family, the last remaining family she has. He is exiling her from her own children. He is forcing her to choose between His command and her own children. And for no justifiable reason, even if they were unbelievers. For it is not Christian teaching, and never has been, that a Christian parent cannot live with non-Christian children.
 
40.png
anawim:
There is in Eusebius’ Ecclesiasticl History a quote from Papias as stating that the Apostles opened Mary’s tomb and found no body, and no burial cloth.
Click to expand...
I wanted to believe, but I found it impossible! That was my problem. What this thread has done, in spades, is to show me that I was, in fact, unbalanced in my belief. The truth is that nobody actually knows and it comes down to faith in the end. For instance, most of the quotations from the Fathers are indeedd in the texts, but have been dismissed by Protestant theologicns and scholars as forgeries. They also, I should add, dismiss huge chunks of the new Testament as forgeries too. The good thing which I have learned, is that faith in the Virgin is not at all unreasonable. It is not “believing three impossible things before breakfast”. You can form a reasonablely balanced judgement.
So thank you all!
 
Mike Stallard:
Hi!
I am an ex Protestant and I love being a Catholic. However, since converting (1989), I have been unable fully to come to terms with the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin.
My problem is entirely Biblical.
Gal 1 19
Mark 6.3
Mat 12.46f
Obviously, the birth narratives are (to me at any rate) easily believeable. These three texts, however, suggest that Jesus’ Mother had a fairly large family afterwards. So “Mary Ever Virgin” is a hard thing to say sincerely.
Help!
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the other possibility: That St. Joseph was a widower when he married the Blessed Mother and the “brothers” referred to were children from the earlier marriage. While that interpretation isn’t consistent with later tradition in the Latin Rite, it was certainly kicked around by the Fathers of the Church as a possibility.

Obviously, the traditional Catholic explanation is that “brethren” refers to cousins.

Not to throw stones at the Protestants, but the fact that they never seem to consider that the brothers might be children of St. Joseph by another wife or cousins of Our Lord almost suggests that they want to create an excuse to undermine the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin’s Perpetual Virginity, perhaps because they are uncomfortable with Marian devotion in the first place.
 
40.png
SFH:
Don’t forget the other possibility: That St. Joseph was a widower when he married the Blessed Mother and the “brothers” referred to were children from the earlier marriage. While that interpretation isn’t consistent with later tradition in the Latin Rite, it was certainly kicked around by the Fathers of the Church as a possibility.

Obviously, the traditional Catholic explanation is that “brethren” refers to cousins.

Not to throw stones at the Protestants, but the fact that they never seem to consider that the brothers might be children of St. Joseph by another wife or cousins of Our Lord almost suggests that they want to create an excuse to undermine the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin’s Perpetual Virginity, perhaps because they are uncomfortable with Marian devotion in the first place.
Click to expand...
I had certainly considered that the word"brothers" can be taken as “kinsmen”, but, oddly enough, i hadn;t ever considerd the idea of yours that Joseph might have brought children of his own to the marriage.
Thank you.
I have just been looking at Millais’ “Christ in the House of his Parents” Where it is assumed that the Holy Family consisted of lots of children and also a sister too for good measure. no wonder it was so shocking when first exhibited!
 
St. Joseph would not have sought relations with the spouse of God. He would have had great love for the sixth commandment. Mary is the mother of the Lord, as St. Elizabeth says.

St. Joe knew that St. Mary was God’s wife, she had God’s child.

If this has been stated above, sorry. I did not take time to read the posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top