Mother of James?

[theefaith]

My position is not speculative, as I have presented strong scriptural evidence that supports why Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas Thaddeus, are not Jesus's brothers, as in "a male born from the same womb" (see post #261). Until you prove otherwise, as it stands, your position remains pure speculation presented as fact.

do all theologians agree on the authority of Peter the apostles and their successors? Matt 16:18 18:18 who declare in Holy apostolic council that Mary is the mother of God, perpetual Virgin, immaculate conception?

 

[Marymog]

Why did Joseph marry her then?

Matthew 1:20

 

[DNB]

We learn from Tradition and extrabiblical documents such as the Protoevangelium that Joseph, who was a older widower married Mary as her protector. According to tradition, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin who had taken a vow of chastity.

You have got to be joking, BOL? So then, according to your perverted and satanic tradition, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, who, despite her vow of chastity, agreed to marry Joseph, long before the annunciation?
Therefore, are you saying that she either broke her vow, or annulled it, in order to marry a widower? Now, you're making her out to be an irresponsible and indecisive weakling, that cannot remain resolute on what she committed to.
Your tradition undermines itself.

 

[DNB]

Matthew 1:20

...meaning, if he knew that she was to remain chaste? Why did he betroth her well before the annunciation? Did they both plan to start a family, then agree not to, but to stay together for the child's sake?

 

[DNB]

You purely speculated Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas, in Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3, are Jesus's brothers, as in "a male born from the same womb", and presented it as fact, which is why I challenged you to prove your position. Since then, you have seemingly admitted you cannot, as well as claimed a stalemate. However, I have presented strong scriptural evidence that supports my position, which is not to say I have definitively proven it (see post #261). Therefore, if you are still convinced of your position, you should at least be able to tug at the rug from under me.

But, as I keep saying, I do not need to challenge you proof-text because no one under the sun can be conclusive on the issue. You have done nothing more but present an alternate view, not a definitive one. My position is based on the other viable choice which makes Joseph and Marry both chaste prior to their marriage - Joseph was not a widower. But, Mary waited until she gave birth to Joseph before they had intercourse with each other, and produce children.
You keep accusing me of speculation, when it is you that is doing that. The Bible clearly says that they waited to start a family of biological offspring, till after the birth of Jesus - no speculation here. It also clearly states their siblings - James, Jude, Simon and Joseph, plus sisters - no guess work or fancy gymnastics in order to realign the lineage. When Jesus was beckoned by his mother and brothers, Jesus made a profound point that Jesus' family is not by blood - this being juxtaposed against his immediate family, patently gives more profundity to his point. Again, no speculation there either.

 

[Marymog]

...meaning, if he knew that she was to remain chaste? Why did he betroth her well before the annunciation? Did they both plan to start a family, then agree not to, but to stay together for the child's sake?

Hi DNB,

That is a very good question. Since Scripture does not tell us we have to interpret what Scripture says on the matter by using Jewish and Christian history instead of 20th century goggles to figure that out. There are two possible answers.

One is in the 1,900 year old historical Christian teaching from the Protoevangelium of James.

The other answer is from the 500 year old Protestant teaching.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You have got to be joking, BOL? So then, according to your perverted and satanic tradition, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, who, despite her vow of chastity, agreed to marry Joseph, long before the annunciation?
Therefore, are you saying that she either broke her vow, or annulled it, in order to marry a widower? Now, you're making her out to be an irresponsible and indecisive weakling, that cannot remain resolute on what she committed to.
Your tradition undermines itself.

Sooooo you think that the Protevangelium of James is the work of satan? Where is your evidence of that?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have got to be joking, BOL? So then, according to your perverted and satanic tradition, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, who, despite her vow of chastity, agreed to marry Joseph, long before the annunciation?
Therefore, are you saying that she either broke her vow, or annulled it, in order to marry a widower? Now, you're making her out to be an irresponsible and indecisive weakling, that cannot remain resolute on what she committed to.
Your tradition undermines itself.

Spoklen like another ignorant person who has NEVER read early documents about the culture of the people of Palestine in the 1st century.
You ALWAYS insert your foot in your mouth because of your abject ignorance of history, Scripture and languange.

As I explained earier - according to the Protoevangelium, the elderly Joseph was to become Mary's married protector.
The problem here is NOT Mary and Joseph - but YOUR 21st century failure to comprehend different cultures from thousands of years ago . . .

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

That is a very good question. Since Scripture does not tell us we have to interpret what Scripture says on the matter by using Jewish and Christian history instead of 20th century goggles to figure that out. There are two possible answers.

One is in the 1,900 year old historical Christian teaching from the Protoevangelium of James.

The other answer is from the 500 year old Protestant teaching.

Mary

No, there are more than 2 answers, you missed the ones that contest your original premise - Joseph was a widower, and Mary was a consecrated temple virgin (of which, I've never even heard of as far as the Jewish Temple is concerned).

 

[DNB]

Sooooo you think that the Protevangelium of James is the work of satan? Where is your evidence of that?

Curious Mary

The text was officially condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500.

 

[DNB]

Spoklen like another ignorant person who has NEVER read early documents about the culture of the people of Palestine in the 1st century.
You ALWAYS insert your foot in your mouth because of your abject ignorance of history, Scripture and languange.

As I explained earier - according to the Protoevangelium, the elderly Joseph was to become Mary's married protector.
The problem here is NOT Mary and Joseph - but YOUR 21st century failure to comprehend different cultures from thousands of years ago . . .

Why are you quoting text that even your own pontiff condemns, ...do you need a shoehorn for your mouth?

The text was officially condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500.

 

[Marymog]

No, there are more than 2 answers, you missed the ones that context your original premise - Joseph was a widower, and Mary was a consecrated temple virgin (of which, I've never even heard of as far as the Jewish Temple is concerned).

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but are you suggesting that Joseph was not a widower??

The Protoevangelium of James says: "Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people..." and Joseph assembled with them sooooo I may be misunderstanding you. Sooooo like I said, joseph was a widower. I believe it also says that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin..

Maybe I am misunderstanding your theory...???

Soooooo my original statement stands unless you can debunk what I wrote.

 

[Marymog]

The text was officially condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500.

Ummmmm......NOT TRUE...He nor the Gelasian Decree condemned it. They agree with earlier Church Councils that it should not be part of the Canon (Scripture) sooooo did you even read the link you cited????

I already know that the answer is NO, you didn't read them otherwise you wouldn't have given the standard Protestant response. Do you ever get tired of being lied to by your Protestant leaders? Have you ever thought about doing your own research?

Keeping It Real....historical Mary

 

[theefaith]

They were faithfully following the unfolding and mysterious will of God and were married but it does not say it was a normal marriage they sacrificed a lower good (sex) for a higher good (bringing salvation into the world)

 

[Pearl]

Was Joseph married before Mary? | GotQuestions.org

 

[farouk]

Was Joseph married before Mary? | GotQuestions.org

@Pearl No Scriptural evidence that he was married before....

Those who try to suggest so might well have an agenda of their own...

 

[Pearl]

@Pearl No Scriptural evidence that he was married before....

Those who try to suggest so might well have an agenda of their own...

They certainly do farouk, caused by false teachings from their leaders.

 

[farouk]

They certainly do farouk, caused by false teachings from their leaders.

@Pearl Certainly looks that way sometimes...often, even...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why are you quoting text that even your own pontiff condemns, ...do you need a shoehorn for your mouth?

The text was officially condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500.

Thank you for your continued ignorance.
It makes MY job that much easier . . .

Innocent I, in his letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse listed the official Canon of Scripture - which was first formally declared at the Synod of Rome in 383. His "condemnation" of the Protoevangelium was simply the fact that he didn't include it in the Canon if Scripture - but neither did the Synod of Rome 12 years earlier.

I NEVER made the claim tht it was Scripture. In fact - I referred to it as an extrabiblical historical source.
It is the SAME source where your Protestant scholars get the names of Mary's Parents, Anna and Joachim.

 

[Pearl]

Thank you for your continued ignorance.
It makes MY job that much easier . . .

Innocent I, in his letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse listed the official Canon of Scripture - which was first formally declared at the Synod of Rome in 383. His "condemnation" of the Protoevangelium was simply the fact that he didn't include it in the Canon if Scripture - but neither did the Synod of Rome 12 years earlier.

I NEVER made the claim tht it was Scripture. In fact - I referred to it as an extrabiblical historical source.
It is the SAME source where your Protestant scholars get the names of Mary's Parents, Anna and Joachim.

The bishops of whatever faith have no right whatsoever to make up things that aren't in the bible.