Mother of James?

[Pearl]

No - we don't.
YOU don't have an unbroken line of authoritative succession and neither do I.

What makes you think you do?

Because I am a child of God, adopted into His family through the blood of Jesus. I am an joint heir with Jesus and he is my friend and brother. I am also part of the royal priesthood of believers and of the Holy Nation mentioned in the bible.

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

 

[theefaith]

There are still Apostles in the world today. Men and women who take the gospel to people who need to hear about Jesus.

no woman can be an apostle! No one can be a self-proclaimed apostles! Only the apostles have authority to send other apostles and apostle means to be sent Jn 20:21-22 act 1

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because I am a child of God, adopted into His family through the blood of Jesus. I am an joint heir with Jesus and he is my friend and brother. I am also part of the royal priesthood of believers and of the Holy Nation mentioned in the bible.

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

I'm ALSO all of those things.

However - I don't hold the office of Apostle/Bishop. and neither do YOU.
This was NOT an office that was given to ALL followers of Christ - but only the Twelve - and their successors (Acts 1:20).

 

[theefaith]

I believe in the virgin birth but only in that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. I don't believe she was a perpetual virgin. And I believe that Joseph was recognised as the father of Jesus by the people who knew them at the time. But I also believe that they had a normal marriage and other children.

Does the Bible say Joseph was the father of Jesus?

 

[theefaith]

I don't understand how that applies. This isn't talking about saints who have 'passed' but of living ones like me and all other born again Christians.

it applies to all in Christ

 

[theefaith]

it applies to all in Christ

especially the queen of heaven, the mother of grace And mercy

 

[Pearl]

Does the Bible say Joseph was the father of Jesus?

1. Matthew 13:55
   “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
   
   
2. Mark 6:3
   Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

 

[theefaith]

Absolutely. There is nothing disgusting about God and the fact that he knits us ALL together within the wombs of our Mothers. What is more disgusting is having sex with a woman who is NOT known by God. And think of this: God can just as easily plant the Incorruptible, Indestructible Seed of Christ into Mary as He can plant the Holy Spirit within us.

What IS disgusting, is the story of Tamar, Judah and his sons . . . all of which had sex with Tamar. Judah, who is in the genealogy of Christ, thought that Tamar was a hooker at the town gate. He had an itch that needed to be scratched and so he promised remarkable payment for a quickie with his daughter-in-law. And how would you like to be the final brother that Judah was protecting? How would you like to be having sex with the woman that each of your brothers had been with? Now . . . that is just gnarly! No thanks. So, none of the brothers seemed to mind having sex with the same woman, and dad, Righteous and Holy Judah, had no problem sticking it to a prostitute.

have you no reverence for that which is sacred? Anything consecrated you God and His service is sacred and Holy and cannot be used for the service of man

read exodus
also
Ezekiel 44:2 “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

Song of Solomon 4:12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

(Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?)

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Listen kiddo. In post #283 you asked the question WHY......

I gave you an answer by referencing a 1,900 year old Christian document. You asked. I answered. It's that simple. :cool:

....sorry, not that simple!

 

[DNB]

Thank you DNB. So your original statement was wrong which was that Pope Innocent condemned it.

I agree with your new statement that it was not an inspired writing that is why it was kept outside of the Canon!! You now agree with The Church on The Protoevanelium of James!!

...then why in the flippin' world, do you keep quoting from it?????
It is your sole source to prove your Mariology. Just denounce the document and all the nonsense that it promulgates, and start revering God and His son, and no one else!

 

[DNB]

WRONG again.

We get Mary's Perpetual virginity from Scripture (Luke 1:34, Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25) and Sacred Tradition. I only cited the Protoevangelium as an historical sourc because so many Protestant scholars derive SOME of their facts about Mary from it - while discarding the rest.

And, as has been shown - Mary's Immaculate Conception (Luke 1:28) and bodily Assumption (Rev. 12:1) are ALSO from Sacred Tradition and Scripture.
Don't you ever tire of being proven wrong?

You know that you're out of your mind, right!
You took the phrase '...And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women...' to denote that she was conceived immaculately??? That's your proof-text - how in the world to did you derive one, from the other? That was rhetorical, please don't reply - one joke a day is enough.

 

[DNB]

This is an asinine statement to make.

Do you believe that the Revolutionary War was faught in the 18th ventury? Do you have any witnesses - or do you simply rely on NON-Scriptural sources to inform you about it?

Just because somnething wasn't considered to be God-inspoired and included in the Body of Scripture DOESN'T mean it isn't true.
The Letter of Clement gives us an inside look at the 1st century Church. It was read from pulpits and considered to be Scripture for almost 300 years until the Holy Spirit, speaking through His Catholic Church declared that it wasn't God-inspired Scripture. Does this "nullify" the Letter of Clement as a fairy tale?

Your arguments are childish and stupid . . .

Your insights and comprehension are deplorable!
A radical conclusion, requires radical testimony (hermeneutics 101). Stating secular facts about common and natural historical events, does not require sacred Scripture. But, affirming supernatural phenomena, like an immaculate conception or ascension into heaven, requires revelation and authorized Scripture, or, at least, an eye witness account.
You can tell the difference, right?

 

[DNB]

In that same post (#284), you also claimed Scripture "clearly states" 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", which contradicts your claim the issue is inconclusive either way, because Scripture "does not offer enough details" (see posts #268, #277).

Pick a lane, and stay in it, please.

Whether you stick with the relationship between Jesus, and His so-called "brothers", is inconclusive either way, or Scripture clearly states your position, you should be willing, and able, to challenge my position by proving the clarity in which yours is supported with, or otherwise providing a stronger case than mine, beyond just declaring you have context on your side. Especially when you consider I have contextualized the issue by not only giving the proper definition of the word "brother" in its original language, but by quoting theologians who lived within the same context as those mentioned in the Bible (see post #261).

my point being, that with so many Marys, and Simons and Josephs, etc,..., your passages are ambiguous, which is why no one can be conclusive. But, Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3 do not have the ambiguity about it, not in plain language, and not according to the context. This is not a difficult passage to understand, therefore, your incriminating etymology on it reveals an eisegesis on your part. i.e., the first sign that someone is in error in their doctrine, is when they are required to perform an etymological assessment on the passage, in order to make their point.
If the Bible has not repeated a principle several times, or that the context does not define its meaning, then we disregard the point being made.

 

[farouk]

1. Matthew 13:55
   “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
   
   
2. Mark 6:3
   Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

@Pearl Good texts there!

Hard to prove from Scripture that Mary was supposedly a perpetual virgin...

 

[BreadOfLife]

You know that you're out of your mind, right!
You took the phrase '...And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women...' to denote that she was conceived immaculately??? That's your proof-text - how in the world to did you derive one, from the other? That was rhetorical, please don't reply - one joke a day is enough.

I've explained this to you before - but soince you like to play the "I never heard that one before" game - I'll explain it to you again . . .

The Angel DIDN'T say, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured".
He said, "Hail Kecharitomene."

The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace.”

Jerome translated this title as “Gratia plena” (full of grace).
He could HARDLY write, “Hail, completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace, which is a perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with a PERMANENT result.”

YOUR problem is that you actually believe that the Bible was written in the King's English - it WASN'T.
There is NO perfecly translated English word for the Greek title that is "Kecharitomene" - and Mary is the ONLY person in ALL of Scripture to be given this title.

Do your homework, son . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your insights and comprehension are deplorable!
A radical conclusion, requires radical testimony (hermeneutics 101). Stating secular facts about common and natural historical events, does not require sacred Scripture. But, affirming supernatural phenomena, like an immaculate conception or ascension into heaven, requires revelation and authorized Scripture, or, at least, an eye witness account.
You can tell the difference, right?

And I already GAVE you the Scriptural references for BOTH doctrinal positions.
I ALSO reminded you that Sacred Tradition is the other source - NOT historical documents like the Protoevangelium. That's just an historical supplement.

In case you forgot - the BIBLE itself puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture.
Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the following:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

YOUR problem is that you are a Sola Scripturist - which is itself, UNBIBLICAL.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

have you no reverence for that which is sacred? Anything consecrated you God and His service is sacred and Holy and cannot be used for the service of man

read exodus
also
Ezekiel 44:2 “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

Song of Solomon 4:12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

(Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?)

Me? Reverence for Mary? If I should have Holy Reverence for any human, it would be John the Baptist. Below is why . . .

Matthew 11:11 NLT - "I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!"

But if you want to accuse someone of not holding reverence for Mary, it would be Jesus Himself.

Mark 3:31-35 NLT - "Then Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. 32 There was a crowd sitting around Jesus, and someone said, "Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you." 33 Jesus replied, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" 34 Then he looked at those around him and said, "Look, these are my mother and brothers. 35 Anyone who does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Scripture tells me what I should think about humans. It also says the following:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 NLT - "Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not!"

Scripture is clear about worshipping humans, and that the only one to receive worship is God Himself.

Matthew 4:8-10 NLT - "Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 "I will give it all to you," he said, "if you will kneel down and worship me." 10 "Get out of here, Satan," Jesus told him. "For the Scriptures say, 'You must worship the LORD your God and serve only him."

If you want to worship Mary . . . I don't advise it. Based on clear Scripture, I recommend that you discontinue teaching others to worship human beings.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Me? Reverence for Mary? If I should have Holy Reverence for any human, it would be John the Baptist. Below is why . . .

Matthew 11:11 NLT - "I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!"

But if you want to accuse someone of not holding reverence for Mary, it would be Jesus Himself.

Mark 3:31-35 NLT - "Then Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. 32 There was a crowd sitting around Jesus, and someone said, "Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you." 33 Jesus replied, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" 34 Then he looked at those around him and said, "Look, these are my mother and brothers. 35 Anyone who does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Scripture tells me what I should think about humans. It also says the following:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 NLT - "Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not!"

Scripture is clear about worshipping humans, and that the only one to receive worship is God Himself.

Matthew 4:8-10 NLT - "Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 "I will give it all to you," he said, "if you will kneel down and worship me." 10 "Get out of here, Satan," Jesus told him. "For the Scriptures say, 'You must worship the LORD your God and serve only him."

If you want to worship Mary . . . I don't advise it. Based on clear Scripture, I recommend that you discontinue teaching others to worship human beings.

The idea that Catholics "worship" anybody other than God is just another ignorant anti-Catholic lie.

Try to be more intelligent than that . . .

 

[DNB]

I've explained this to you before - but soince you like to play the "I never heard that one before" game - I'll explain it to you again . . .

The Angel DIDN'T say, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured".
He said, "Hail Kecharitomene."

The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace.”

Jerome translated this title as “Gratia plena” (full of grace).
He could HARDLY write, “Hail, completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace, which is a perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with a PERMANENT result.”

YOUR problem is that you actually believe that the Bible was written in the King's English - it WASN'T.
There is NO perfecly translated English word for the Greek title that is "Kecharitomene" - and Mary is the ONLY person in ALL of Scripture to be given this title.

Do your homework, son . . .

Again simpleton, do not take a single phrase from Scripture and create an entire doctrine around it. Hermeneutics 101. Obviously, you think that you have more than one in this case, but they are all ambiguous. Simple lesson, when one must perform etymology on a word, it is because, for the life of them, they cannot find an explicit statement.
Past, future or present participles, in such a context, have absolutely no bearing on such a broad principle. All of the hairs on our heads were counted prior to our existence, God knows exactly who will repent and who won't before the beginning of time, .... Thus, such tenses and principles are used broadly throughout Scripture. Read Israel's history and listen to the exclamations that God proclaimed about them - they all do not apply in a literal sense '..Israel, in you, I have found no iniquity...' (Numbers 23:21) or 'Israel I have known before time began..' (Jeremiah 31:3). You extrapolated such a radical conclusion, from such a peculiar event. You need to remain sober and show some restraint, instead of jumping to irrational and blasphemous conclusions from such a pathetic testimony.

 

[DNB]

And I already GAVE you the Scriptural references for BOTH doctrinal positions.
I ALSO reminded you that Sacred Tradition is the other source - NOT historical documents like the Protoevangelium. That's just an historical supplement.

In case you forgot - the BIBLE itself puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture.
Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the following:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

YOUR problem is that you are a Sola Scripturist - which is itself, UNBIBLICAL.

For crying out loud, BOL, Paul was referring to revelation that he directly received from Christ, this was the tradition that he taught and intended to be handed down with fidelity and earnestness. The Apostles taught what they received from either a first-hand account from Jesus, or by revelation. This is the tradition, the oral transmission, and the yet to be manuscript transmission, that the first century disciples were referring to.
You seem to be well informed, but you're horrible at drawing conclusions from what you have read?