Mother of James?

[Marymog]

Perhaps not but I'd be really interested in your answers.

Sure...no problem.

question 1: Do you accept that Jesus is the only source of Salvation?

To say that Jesus is the only source of salvation is to say that people who were never told about Jesus will not be saved.

Question #2: Do you accept that Jesus name is above all names even that of Mary?

Yes

 

[Pearl]

Sure...no problem.

question 1: Do you accept that Jesus is the only source of Salvation?

To say that Jesus is the only source of salvation is to say that people who were never told about Jesus will not be saved.

Question #2: Do you accept that Jesus name is above all names even that of Mary?

Yes

I'm glad that we agree on those things too.

Because people can't be saved without knowing about Jesus as the source of their Salvation makes it imperative that the Church and individual Christians make this a priority in these days of turmoil.

 

[DNB]

Soooooo are you going to at least TRY to answer my questions??? Or do my questions reveal the fallacy of your beliefs that is why you can't answer them? Partially quoting Scripture is not an answer.

Paul calls virginity (abstaining from sex) a "gift from God". Do you believe that God would give Paul that gift and not give Mary, the mother of His child, that gift? Would it be fair to say if both Mary and Joseph agreed that since she gave birth to the child of God, or that she was in effect the spouse of God, that they would agree NOT to have sexual relations? Do you believe Mary and Joseph did not have enough will power to fulfill that teaching of God?

Scripture makes it clear that celibacy is a higher state than marriage! Is it possible that Mary and Joseph were able to obtain that higher state by not giving into sexual desires?

Yes, celibacy is a higher state of spiritual growth and enlightenment, than is marriage and physical relationships, for the flesh is at enmity with the spirit. But, this is an ideal strictly for non-married people, ...at least, no one applying this principle should ever get married in the first place. And, if they ever do, then like Paul said, abstain for periods in order to not be tempted by satan.

Neither Joseph, Mary, or God, would have ever had the former two engage in marriage, if celibacy was the requirement. It's one or the other, that if two agree to marry, then they both must render their duties to each other as is appropriate for a committed couple.

 

[DNB]

Sure - MY exegesis is "weak" - yet YOU offer nothing to refute it.

I illustrated to you that your arguments fall flat in the face of ALL of the elements I presented.
They include:
- Prophetic Type and Fulfiollment (2 Sam. 6:9, Luke 1:43, 2 Sam. 6:14, Luke 2:38, 2 Sam. 6:11, Luke 1:56, 1 Sam. 4:11, 1 Sam 6:13, Matt. 2:14)
- The identification of the TRUE parents of the "named brethren" of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25)
- The use of the word "Until" in Scripture (2 Sam. 6:23, Deut. 34:6, Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34-35)
- Mary's intention to REMAIN a virgin (Luke 1:34)
AND the silence of Scripture about Mary having other children.

Gee - that doesn't look like a mere "argument on silence" to me . . .

Again, 75% of your quotes have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the rest are mere speculations based on eisegeted passages.
There are two Marys at the crucifixion, one was Jesus' mother, the other Jesus' aunt, also named Mary. Another account refers to Mary the mother of Jose, Salome, James, or another, Mary the mother of James. It goes without saying that there is much too much controversy around these passages, in trying to decipher exactly who is who in these accounts, due to the lack of explicit evidence in the narratives. Therefore, only an impetuous fool would be dogmatic about the exact relationships of the people cited in the passage, and two, especially of purporting the perpetual virginity of Mary - a notion extremely antithetical to the principles of marriage, of which she definitely was married. You are stretching your proof-text beyond an acceptable level of justification and competence.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, celibacy is a higher state of spiritual growth and enlightenment, than is marriage and physical relationships, for the flesh is at enmity with the spirit. But, this is an ideal strictly for non-married people, ...at least, no one applying this principle should ever get married in the first place. And, if they ever do, then like Paul said, abstain for periods in order to not be tempted by satan.

Neither Joseph, Mary, or God, would have ever had the former two engage in marriage, if celibacy was the requirement. It's one or the other, that if two agree to marry, then they both must render their duties to each other as is appropriate for a committed couple.

You make a very good point DNB. You have defended your position well.

I am sure the "plan" was to consummate their marriage. However, You in no way think that plan changed once Joseph found out Mary was pregnant with the son of God? They decided "once we get this kid out of my belly we can finally consummate our marriage"?

Consider this before you accept the 500 year teaching of men and reject the 2,000 year teaching of The Church: Why does a betrothed woman like Mary marvel at the prospect that she shall have a son when the angel announced to her? After all she had already planed to marry Joseph so why would she be surprised by this announcement?

Curious Mary

 

[DNB]

You make a very good point DNB. You have defended your position well.

I am sure the "plan" was to consummate their marriage. However, You in no way think that plan changed once Joseph found out Mary was pregnant with the son of God? They decided "once we get this kid out of my belly we can finally consummate our marriage"?

Consider this before you accept the 500 year teaching of men and reject the 2,000 year teaching of The Church: Why does a betrothed woman like Mary marvel at the prospect that she shall have a son when the angel announced to her? After all she had already planed to marry Joseph so why would she be surprised by this announcement?

Curious Mary

Well Marymog, Mary's surprise was due to nature of the event, for one, being impregnated by supernatural means from God, and two, the prospect of the child being an emissary from God - as did Hannah, Samuel's mother, Elizabeth, John's mother, Manoah's wife. They all had children destined for holy greatness, and they all marveled when this was pronounced to them by the respective angels..

Clearly Mary was not elated simply by the prospect of bearing a child, but rather by the manner that this would come to pass, and of whom would be born by this miraculous event - a man sent from God.

 

[DNB]

There are two apostles named "James": James the Great, son of Zebedee, and brother of apostle John (Mat. 4:19-22, Mk. 1:19-20, Mk. 3:14-18, Mk. 10:35, Lk. 5:10-11), and James the Less, son of Alphaeus, and brother of apostle Judas (Thaddeus) (Mat. 10:2-3, Mk. 3:14-18, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13). One of those "James's" is also identified as a brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19). Elsewhere, there is a "James" identified as a son of Mary, and brother of Joseph (Mat. 27:56, Mk. 15:40), and a brother of Simon, Joseph, Judas (Thaddeus), and Jesus (Mat. 13:55-56, Mk. 6:3).

Furthermore, the Blessed Virgin's sister, Mary, was the wife of Cleophas/Clopas (Jn. 19:25), and the names "Cleophas", and "Clopas", are variants of the name "Alphaeus". Additionally, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 275 – 339) relates in his Church History (Book III, ch. 11) that Hegesippus records that St. Joseph had a brother named Clopas (Alphaeus). In The Poem of the Man-God: Volumes I-V, by Maria Valtorta, Jesus confirms St. Joseph had a brother named "Alphaeus", who was also married to a woman named "Mary", who together had four sons: Simon, Joseph, and the apostles James, and Judas (Thaddeus). This would make the Blessed Virgin's sister, Mary, more accurately Her sister-in-law, and the latter's sons Jesus's cousins. Note: the word "brother" (ἀδελφός, Adelphos), has a range of meanings, including "a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity".

In summary, at minimum, there is strong scriptural evidence to support the following pair of individuals are one and the same: (i) James of Alphaeus, and the "James" in Mat. 13:55-56, Mk. 6:3, and Gal. 1:19, and (ii) James's mother, Mary, and the Blessed Virgin's sister, Mary. This debunks your claim Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), were of St. Joseph, and the Blessed Virgin, thus the meaning "a male from the same womb" of the word "brother", in all the aforementioned verses in relation to Jesus, does not apply.

Get your head on straight, soul. The people from Nazareth were indignant of Jesus due to his mission of authority, and their defense was to hit home with a reply targeted straight at his direct family, in order to undermine his supernatural calling. Mentioning his cousins does not bear the same weight as a charge against his immediate family. That is, their intent was to deprecate his pedigree in order to challenge his authority. Cousins and distant relatives does not apply in the context.

Mark 6:3-3
6:3. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

 

[Marymog]

Well Marymog, Mary's surprise was due to nature of the event, for one, being impregnated by supernatural means from God, and two, the prospect of the child being an emissary from God - as did Hannah, Samuel's mother, Elizabeth, John's mother, Manoah's wife. They all had children destined for holy greatness, and they all marveled when this was pronounced to them by the respective angels..

Clearly Mary was not elated simply by the prospect of bearing a child, but rather by the manner that this would come to pass, and of whom would be born by this miraculous event - a man sent from God.

Ummmmm......at first she did not know "the manner that this would come to pass". That is why she said "how can this be for I do not know man". Sooooo she DIDN'T know she was going to be impregnated by supernatural means like you suggested. If she knew that she wouldn't have made that statement

None the less thank you for your time.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Get your head on straight, soul. The people from Nazareth were indignant of Jesus due to his mission of authority, and their defense was to hit home with a reply targeted straight at his direct family, in order to undermine his supernatural calling. Mentioning his cousins does not bear the same weight as a charge against his immediate family. That is, their intent was to deprecate his pedigree in order to challenge his authority. Cousins and distant relatives does not apply in the context.

Mark 6:3-3
6:3. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Hi DNB,

I just stumbled upon this debate between you and @soul and felt I needed to comment.

Soul gave multiple passages from Scripture to back up what he/she believes and you gave your opinion to back up what you believe.

I think this round goes to soul....

Round 2???

 

[theefaith]

The authority of the apostles?

what’s wrong with an inquisition anyway?

it’s only an inquiry into the teaching of men, to be sure they are teaching the truth revealed by Christ!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, 75% of your quotes have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the rest are mere speculations based on eisegeted passages.
There are two Marys at the crucifixion, one was Jesus' mother, the other Jesus' aunt, also named Mary. Another account refers to Mary the mother of Jose, Salome, James, or another, Mary the mother of James. It goes without saying that there is much too much controversy around these passages, in trying to decipher exactly who is who in these accounts, due to the lack of explicit evidence in the narratives. Therefore, only an impetuous fool would be dogmatic about the exact relationships of the people cited in the passage, and two, especially of purporting the perpetual virginity of Mary - a notion extremely antithetical to the principles of marriage, of which she definitely was married. You are stretching your proof-text beyond an acceptable level of justification and competence.

WRONG.

For starters - there are THREE Marys at the Crucifixion - NOT two:
1) Mary, mother of Jesus - John 19:25.
2) Mary Magdalene - Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25.
3) Mary, relative of the mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas (Alphaeus) and mother of James and Joses (Joseph) - Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25. Additionally - Mark 15:40 shows that Alphaeus/Clopas is the Father of James the Less - NOT Joseph.

Many scholars sgree with Early Church tradition that the "Salome" spoken of iin these verses is the wife of Zebedee and mpother of James and John - NOT the daughter of Mary, wife of Clopas/Alphaeus.

Now - I have shown you that this THIRD Mary is the mother of these "named brethren" of Jesus - James the Less (Apostle) and Joses and shows they although they are indeed relatives - they are NOT uterine siblings of Jesus.

YOU lose because you've shown absolutely NOTHING to refute this - just your usual disdain for Catholics . . .

 

[DNB]

Pure speculation presented as fact, whereas 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". Do you have strong scriptural counter-arguments?

All theologians agree that there are not enough details to be conclusive either way. Thus, the context must determine the facts. Your view is as speculative as you claim that mine is, but mine takes all the contexts into account.

 

[DNB]

Ummmmm......at first she did not know "the manner that this would come to pass". That is why she said "how can this be for I do not know man". Sooooo she DIDN'T know she was going to be impregnated by supernatural means like you suggested. If she knew that she wouldn't have made that statement

None the less thank you for your time.

Mary

She questioned it because, at that point, she was chaste. I understand what you are saying - she should've immediately assumed that this would come to pass through Joseph, in the near future (after their marriage). But, arguably, the wording of the angel implied an immediacy, or an event not requiring an intermediary, and thus she understood that, without either hesitation, or a 3rd party involvement, she will become impregnated.

Luke 1:29-38
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favour with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail."
38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

I just stumbled upon this debate between you and @soul and felt I needed to comment.

Soul gave multiple passages from Scripture to back up what he/she believes and you gave your opinion to back up what you believe.

I think this round goes to soul....

Round 2???

soul speculated on his position, to which nothing was conclusive. I gave context in order to give more credence to my view, over his.

 

[DNB]

WRONG.

For starters - there are THREE Marys at the Crucifixion - NOT two:
1) Mary, mother of Jesus - John 19:25.
2) Mary Magdalene - Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25.
3) Mary, relative of the mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas (Alphaeus) and mother of James and Joses (Joseph) - Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25. Additionally - Mark 15:40 shows that Alphaeus/Clopas is the Father of James the Less - NOT Joseph.

Many scholars sgree with Early Church tradition that the "Salome" spoken of iin these verses is the wife of Zebedee and mpother of James and John - NOT the daughter of Mary, wife of Clopas/Alphaeus.

Now - I have shown you that this THIRD Mary is the mother of these "named brethren" of Jesus - James the Less (Apostle) and Joses and shows they although they are indeed relatives - they are NOT uterine siblings of Jesus.

YOU lose because you've shown absolutely NOTHING to refute this - just your usual disdain for Catholics . . .

Yes, you're right, there were 3 Marys - I should've said 2 ambiguous Marys.
I feel that this issue, simply based on the Biblical details, does not definitively delineate exactly who, is who. Most theologians agree that this area is extremely controversial.
Thus, one must refer to context. i.e. when Jesus' accusers named his family in order to undermine his authority, we assume that they were not enumerating his cousins - it would not have the same impact as to what they were trying to convey.
Joseph & Mary were betrothed to be married, we assume that this means they were intending to have children, of course.
When the Bible explains that Mary remained a virgin until she conceived Jesus, the context determines the meaning of 'until'. It would be absurd to conclude from this passage that 'until' means perpetually.

My point is, the texts, in and of themselves, can be eisegeted, as clearly you have done, to say many things. Thus, you have to start applying the context in your hermeneutics.
You have a very good point, by using context, that when Jesus told the disciple that he loved that Mary is now his mother, it is viable to conclude that that was because there were no next-of-kin available. But, what occurred at the cross is something that transcends law, Jesus explained previously that his family is anyone that follows him.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, you're right, there were 3 Marys - I should've said 2 ambiguous Marys.
I feel that this issue, simply based on the Biblical details, does not definitively delineate exactly who, is who. Most theologians agree that this area is extremely controversial.
Thus, one must refer to context. i.e. when Jesus' accusers named his family in order to undermine his authority, we assume that they were not enumerating his cousins - it would not have the same impact as to what they were trying to convey.
Joseph & Mary were betrothed to be married, we assume that this means they were intending to have children, of course.
When the Bible explains that Mary remained a virgin until she conceived Jesus, the context determines the meaning of 'until'. It would be absurd to conclude from this passage that 'until' means perpetually.

My point is, the texts, in and of themselves, can be eisegeted, as clearly you have done, to say many things. Thus, you have to start applying the context in your hermeneutics.
You have a very good point, by using context, that when Jesus told the disciple that he loved that Mary is now his mother, it is viable to conclude that that was because there were no next-of-kin available. But, what occurred at the cross is something that transcends law, Jesus explained previously that his family is anyone that follows him.

WRONG.

There is nothing "ambiguous" about the 3 Marys at the Crucifixion. They are ALL named and described.
They just don't add up to YOUR idea of who they should be - so you calim it is "ambiguous".

As for the context of the accusers of Jesus - it makes PERFECT sense that they would point to His relatives. They didn't HAVE to be uterine siblings for this to make sense. You are thinking as a 21st century person and NOT in the culture of FIRST century Israel - where ANY member of a family was family.

This, coupled with ALL of the other Scriptural evidence I gave you - the prophecies, type and fulfillment, the Scriptural uses of the words "Adelphos" and "Until", the parentage of the "named brethren of Jesus, etc. - completely SINKS your weak position.

 

[DNB]

WRONG.

There is nothing "ambiguous" about the 3 Marys at the Crucifixion. They are ALL named and described.
They just don't add up to YOUR idea of who they should be - so you calim it is "ambiguous".

As for the context of the accusers of Jesus - it makes PERFECT sense that they would point to His relatives. They didn't HAVE to be uterine siblings for this to make sense. You are thinking as a 21st century person and NOT in the culture of FIRST century Israel - where ANY member of a family was family.

This, coupled with ALL of the other Scriptural evidence I gave you - the prophecies, type and fulfillment, the Scriptural uses of the words "Adelphos" and "Until", the parentage of the "named brethren of Jesus, etc. - completely SINKS your weak position.

Why did Joseph marry her then?

 

[DNB]

@Marymog we believe different things. You don't accept the verses that mention Jesus brothers and I do.

But it makes no difference to our salvation if she remained a virgin or not; if she had other children or not. Why it keeps getting brought up is a mystery to me unless it is to cause division.

She was important to all of us in that she was the young girl chosen to carry the precious burden of God's son. She was not God's wife, that is pure Catholic thinking. She was married to Joseph and for all intents and purposes Jesus was Joseph the carpenter's son as it says in the bible.

She is not the Queen of Heaven apart from in the minds of Catholics. She does not pray for sinners. We are not told in the bible to pray to her. But Catholics have made a big thing out of all these issues until it almost seems that Mary is more important than her Son.

Whatever you may believe and can justify by writings not in the bible the Catholic church has made a cult out of Mary which denies people the truth. Catholicism is a mix and God does not like mixture.

Well, I think that you're absolutely correct in what you stated above, Pearl. ...and thus, to answer your question about the necessity to clarify such dogma, I believe that such an approach to exegesis can lead to a great deal of heresy. Case in point, the Catholic Church is permeated with such fallacious doctrines, which follow the same trajectory of hermeneutics as that of Mary's perpetual virginity i.e. Immaculate Conception, intercession of the saints, purgatory, indulgences, vicar of Christ, papal infallibility, etc...

Does such convictions affect one's salvation, ...maybe? I've always said that you are what you believe, that is, where your faith lies, reveals a great deal of where one's heart is at. Does it apply within a Christian realm, ....as much as anywhere else, I imagine - exposing the weeds amongst the tares?

...after saying all that, I care very little for this discussion as I am convinced of my position. But, what has really stood out in my mind is the tenacity of those who believe this doctrine, and especially on what grounds. It is very interesting/alarming to see how they are perceiving certain passages? It underscores to me, just how careful we have to be when reading Scripture, and to scrutinize excessively what we're taught by others. ...the opponents all seem to be so indoctrinated?

 

[DNB]

There are two apostles named "James": James the Great, son of Zebedee, brother of John (Mat. 4:21, Mk. 1:19, Mk. 3:17, Mk. 10:35, Lk. 5:10), and James the Less, son of Alphaeus, and Mary, brother of Judas (Thaddeus), and Joseph (Mat. 10:2-3, Mk. 3:14-18, Mk. 15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13). One of those Jameses is also identified as the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19).

Elsewhere, a "James" is identified as the: (i) brother of Joseph (Mat. 27:56), (ii) brother of Judas, Joseph, Simon, and Jesus (Mat. 13:55, Mk. 6:3), and (iii) son of Mary (Lk. 24:10).

The Blessed Virgin's sister, Mary, is identified as the wife of Cleophas/Clopas (Jn. 19:25). Additionally, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 275 – 339) relates in his Church History (Book III, ch. 11) that Hegesippus records that St. Joseph had a brother named "Clopas", and the names "Cleophas", and "Clopas", are variants of the name "Alphaeus". If Mary of Cleophas/Clopas was married to St. Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, they would have been a sister/brother-in-law to the Blessed Virgin.

In summary, at minimum, there is strong scriptural evidence that supports all the aforementioned Jameses, Judases, Josephs, and Marys, excluding James of Zebedee, St. Joseph, and the Blessed Virgin, are one and the same. Therefore, Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas Thaddeus, would have been sons of Alphaeus, and Mary of Cleophas/Clopas, which debunks your claim they were sons of St. Joseph, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, thus the following meaning of the word "brother": "a male from the same womb", does not apply to Jesus in Mat. 13:55, Mk. 6:3, and Gal. 1:19. (Note: the word "brother" (ἀδελφός, Adelphos) has a range of meanings, including "a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity.")

Thank you for your well thought-out exposition. But, again, it is commonly understood that none of the scenarios that you proposed are definitive and conclusive - Scripture just does not offer enough details, as also the culture can be rather foreign in order to decipher variants of names and appellations. I am not being evasive by dismissing the alleged proof-text and appealing to context, ...it is all that remains in order to break the stalemate.

God did not obligate Joseph to marry Mary, and live a life of celibacy while sleeping beside his spouse, in order to hide her shame. He allowed them both to have a full life, and to not put Mary in such a predicament of being pregnant without a perceived husband.
Either way, her virginity neither detracts nor undermines her devotion to God, nor our salvation. Her faith has made its mark throughout history, and this is where her purpose and veneration begins, and ends.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why did Joseph marry her then?

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.

This is why Mary was puzzled and asked the Angel, "How can this be since DO NOT know man?"
She didn't ask, "How can this be since I have not YET known a man?"

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew exactly how women become pregnant. Her question to the Angel either shows her intention to REMAIN a virgin - OR that she was a completele moron.

Whereas, anti Catholics like YOU choose to believe the latter - Catholics believe the former.