The Blessed Evangelical Mary

[George Blaisdell]

All of this comes from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal document written over 100 years after Jesus' death where the auther was completely unfamiliar with Jewish life and customs.

It comes from the universal received tradition of the Church world-wide...

Judges 6

12And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.

13And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.

14And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?

15And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.

16And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.

17And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.

18Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again.

19And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it.

20And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.

21Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.

Gideon questioned the Angel of the Lord Himself, yet we see no "punishment"

Yes, he was RIGHT to question, as the father of John the Baptist was NOT...

Gideon's wasn't wrong.

Nor was Mary, yet all the others at her time were wrong...

No George. She knew the punishment under Torah for having a child that was not her betrothed's. THAT was her concern.

That would be YOUR concern... She nod NO such concern WHATSOEVER...

As soon as the angel told her that she would not know a man, that the Holy Spirit would come upon her, she had NO CONCERN AT ALL...

Perhaps you should talk some to a Messianic congregation to get a better handle on just how Jews behaved and believed. It has opened up the scriptures to me like little else I have learned.

I do not depart the Body of Christ to learn about the Body of Christ...

I would have to talk with Orthodox Christian JEWS... In Jerusalem, for instance...

God bless you as well George.

Thank-you, Bill...

Arsenios

[Bill the Cat]

It comes from the universal received tradition of the Church world-wide...

And it can not trace its roots any further back than the Protoevangelum of James, written around 150 AD. Prior to that, these beliefs are completely absent from any writing.

Yes, he was RIGHT to question, as the father of John the Baptist was NOT...

But that''s not what you said. You said "Why is it that every one of those who question the Angel of God revealing something to them are "punished" as a sign to make them believe? " which is incorrect.

Nor was Mary, yet all the others at her time were wrong...

Um... there was only one other recorded conversation with the angel at that time, and it was Zacharias, who used almost the exact same reply that Abram used in Gen 17:17 (and Abraham was not punished).

That would be YOUR concern... She had NO such concern WHATSOEVER...

She most certainly would have, as an observant Jew. Joseph had the legal responsibility to expose her publicly since she was with child that was not his.

As soon as the angel told her that she would not know a man, that the Holy Spirit would come upon her, she had NO CONCERN AT ALL...

Mary was a Torah observant Jewish woman. Her betrothed, Joseph, would be the one that would expose her pregnancy. That is why Gabriel visited Joseph as well, to tell him not to expose her pregnancy as an act of adultery, because there was no adultery. That also is why Mary was not afraid. Because she knew she was innocent of any charge of adultery.

I do not depart the Body of Christ to learn about the Body of Christ...

Messianic Jews are of the Body of Christ. In fact, the very first believers were Messianic Jews.

I would have to talk with Orthodox Christian JEWS... In Jerusalem, for instance...

It would be definitely enjoyable, I'm sure.

[George Blaisdell]

And it can not trace its roots any further back than the Protoevangelum of James, written around 150 AD. Prior to that, these beliefs are completely absent from any writing.

I did not even go that far back... It is in ALL the Apostolic Churches, irreligious of your fixation on the Protoevangelium of James...

But that''s not what you said. You said "Why is it that every one of those who question the Angel of God revealing something to them are "punished" as a sign to make them believe? " which is incorrect.

Thank-you for the correction...

Um... there was only one other recorded conversation with the angel at that time, and it was Zacharias, who used almost the exact same reply that Abram used in Gen 17:17 (and Abraham was not punished).

I thought there were a couple of others... Maybe not... But Ol' Zach fer sure!

She most certainly would have, as an observant Jew. Joseph had the legal responsibility to expose her publicly since she was with child that was not his.

Pure speculation and false mind-reading on your part...

Mary was a Torah observant Jewish woman. Her betrothed, Joseph, would be the one that would expose her pregnancy.
That is why Gabriel visited Joseph as well, to tell him not to expose her pregnancy as an act of adultery, because there was no adultery.
That also is why Mary was not afraid. Because she knew she was innocent of any charge of adultery.

Her knowledge of her virginity would have no effect in that culture, and she knew nothing of Joseph's response to an angel - Indeed, he was going to quietly put her out...

But WHEN, an d AS SOON AS, she was told that her vow of virginity would not be broken, she assented to the Holy Spirit's coming upon her, and it mattered not a wit to her what ANY consequences might or might not be... She trusted God utterly, unlike you and me...

Messianic Jews are of the Body of Christ. In fact, the very first believers were Messianic Jews.

We are not in Communion with them...

It would be definitely enjoyable, I'm sure.

Yupper!

Arsenios

[Bill the Cat]

I did not even go that far back... It is in ALL the Apostolic Churches, irreligious of your fixation on the Protoevangelium of James...

That document is where the doctrine originated. It MAY be in all of the Apostolic churches, but it was not part of the original church. It did not come into being until 150.

Pure speculation and false mind-reading on your part...

Nope. It's how a Jew would have reacted based on the culture.

Her knowledge of her virginity would have no effect in that culture, and she knew nothing of Joseph's response to an angel - Indeed, he was going to quietly put her out...

As I said. It was HIS to do or not do. Her fear, or lack thereof was based on Jewish law. She was an observant Jewish woman.

But WHEN, an d AS SOON AS, she was told that her vow of virginity would not be broken,

She was a virgin becasue she was unmarried. No evidence exists in the early church that she made a virginity pledge until the mid-second century.

she assented to the Holy Spirit's coming upon her, and it mattered not a wit to her what ANY consequences might or might not be... She trusted God utterly, unlike you and me...

Because she knew there would be no consequences sinceshe didn't breakany law.

We are not in Communion with them...

By whose choice? They are not Protestant or Roman Catholic.

[George Blaisdell]

That document is where the doctrine originated.

That is absurd - That document MAY [or may not] have been the first to have been WRITTEN about it, but you cannot deduce from that [presuned] fact that the written originated the doctrine - I mean, just because that is how YOU originate doctrine does not mean that is how the CHURCH obtains ITS doctrines...

Indeed, the reverse is true - The teaching and the understanding came from the Apostles, and was only later written down on paper... No one in those times would have DARED to originate an entirely NEW doctrine like that, and the fact that it is found in ALL the Apostolic Churches, and not just those who read this paper of yours, shows how filled with error is your assumption...

It MAY be in all of the Apostolic churches, but it was not part of the original church. It did not come into being until 150.

Again, it was finally written down in 150, and probably earlier, but those were times of great persecutions, and even the original Autographs of the NT have been lost...

Nope. It's how a Jew would have reacted based on the culture.

You are saying that the Mother of God is an ordinary Jew in a God-persecuting culture???
She was an utterly God-centered virgin in a way that you cannot even imagine, which is how she became the Mother of our Lord...

As I said. It was HIS to do or not do. Her fear, or lack thereof was based on Jewish law. She was an observant Jewish woman.

You are patently not telling the truth, and you are mind-reading her based on local culture which itself argues against your opinion...

WHEN she acceded to the Angel, she had NO WAY of knowing anything about the outcome except that it was God's will, and that She would remain virgin... She had no wayu to anticipate the outcome, except to expect that Joseph would step away, which he did, until corrected by the Angel... She had no basis NOT to fear the Law when she assented... None, Zero... nada...

[quote]She was a virgin becasue she was unmarried. No evidence exists in the early church that she made a virginity pledge until the mid-second century./[quote]

See above in response to this specious argument...

Because she knew there would be no consequences since she didn't breakany law.

Her knowledge would be that there WOULD be consequences, yet she trusted God, not man...

By whose choice? They are not Protestant or Roman Catholic.

Their choice... They have not sought out our Communion... Nor would they... Their doctrine is differing from ours...

Arsenios

[Bill the Cat]

That is absurd - That document MAY [or may not] have been the first to have been WRITTEN about it, but you cannot deduce from that [presuned] fact that the written originated the doctrine - I mean, just because that is how YOU originate doctrine does not mean that is how the CHURCH obtains ITS doctrines...

Sorry, but it is you who is making an absurdity. There is no inkling that these doctrines existed prior to 150. They are absent from Clement, Papias, the Didache, and Polycarp. You make the false assumption that the existence of the current doctrines in your church makes them the original doctrines taught by the Apostles. The evidence betrays that claim.

And I don't originate doctrines, so that slanderous comment will be ignored.

Indeed, the reverse is true - The teaching and the understanding came from the Apostles, and was only later written down on paper...

Only in your assumption. You have absolutely no evidence that this is true. You only have the belief that your church does everything exactly the way that Paul's churches did, which is laughable.

No one in those times would have DARED to originate an entirely NEW doctrine like that,

Sure they would.

and the fact that it is found in ALL the Apostolic Churches, and not just those who read this paper of yours, shows how filled with error is your assumption...

It predated the splits, so naturally, it would exist in all of them. But it did not predate 150, and for you to claim it did is to argue from utter and complete silence.

Again, it was finally written down in 150, and probably earlier, but those were times of great persecutions, and even the original Autographs of the NT have been lost...

So? As I have said, it is absent from ANY earlier document from the New Testament church. One would think that something as important as the near deification given to Mary in this document would have been plain in the earliest documents, such as the Didache, the Epistles of Paul, or the Gospels.

You are saying that the Mother of God is an ordinary Jew in a God-persecuting culture???

Yes.She was responsible for following Torah, for making the required sin and purification offerings, and for being a God fearing Jewish woman. She was not a different class of human being.

She was an utterly God-centered virgin in a way that you cannot even imagine, which is how she became the Mother of our Lord...

She was a Torah observant Jewish woman. And the language you are using toward her is borderline idolatrous.

You are patently not telling the truth, and you are mind-reading her based on local culture which itself argues against your opinion...

You have admitted to not knowing the culture, so you are clueless on what is truth on the subject. I am not ignorant of it, and therefore, I can make an educated appraisal of her situation. You have a skewed view of her based on 1850 years of over exaggerating her importance. None of these exaggerations are based on the Biblical writ, nor were they taught by Paul to the Churches, nor contained in the Gospels, the Didache, Papias, Clement, etc. They are post-Apostolic hyper-exaggerations of the statement made by the angel Gabriel.

WHEN she acceded to the Angel, she had NO WAY of knowing anything about the outcome except that it was God's will, and that She would remain virgin... She had no wayu to anticipate the outcome, except to expect that Joseph would step away, which he did, until corrected by the Angel... She had no basis NOT to fear the Law when she assented... None, Zero... nada...

Because she knew she had not committed adultery.

See above in response to this specious argument...

The only specious thing is your assumption that the doctrine was taught prior to 150 despite absolutely no evidence to support your claim...None, Zero... nada.... except your further assumption that "well, they wouldn't add anything like that", which is more assumption lacking in any hard proof.

Her knowledge would be that there WOULD be consequences, yet she trusted God, not man...

Not if she had not lost her virginity.

Their choice... They have not sought out our Communion... Nor would they... Their doctrine is differing from ours...

They predate your communion. They are like the first believers, observant Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah. They are the first Christians. They are Jews just like the Disciples and the first believers in Jerusalem. I've seen some poor attempts to refute them by some Greek Orthodox people as a "modern movement", but they base it on the Messianic Jews' non-adherence to the liturgy and priesthood of the Greek Orthodox church. I find that circular at best.

[Maxentius]

The difference for us, Max, is that for me, it is the received witness of the Church that I follow, and that witness is catholic, and not limited to Scripture and implication [eg rationalistic human interpretation.] You are bound by what is written, and in that, apparently, [eg from your comment above] not bound by implication from the written, or at least not by ALL the implications...

OK, you accept EOC teaching as the very truth. But this is a different approach than the one you were taking. You challenged me to follow the implications--in other words you were seeking common ground. Now that it is clear that simply following the implications raises certain issues, you drop the following of implications and argue from authority--or no more seeking of common ground but a bald assertion that what I believe is wrong "just because." But I don't accept your authority. I do not believe the EOC is the Apostolic Church. This is another reason protestants recoil from RC and EOC doctrines of Mary. They are based upon authority and little more.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is why protestants, at least some, denigrate Mary. The answer is that it is an over reaction to the unfounded, from a Scriptural standpoint, exaltation of Mary to such a degree that she seems to be a rival of Christ.

That is probably not your intent, but that is how it seems to me.

For the record I don't appreciate many protestants' denigration of Mary any more than I do EO/RC exaltation of Mary.

[George Blaisdell]

There is no inkling that these doctrines existed prior to 150. They are absent from !], Papias, the Didache, and Polycarp.

Which proves nothing... And it most certainly does NOT prove that the doctrine originated with the document...

Documents ALWAYS follow their prior establishment in doctrines...

[Ya gotta think it before you can write it]

[quote] And I don't originate doctrines, so that slanderous comment will be ignored./[quote]

Don't you originate your doctrines from your reading of your Bible? And call them Bible doctrines?

No one in those times would have DARED to originate an entirely NEW doctrine like that,

Sure they would.

On this you can only speak for yourself... In the early Church, anyone who made up some new doctrine ended up in a world of controversy and anathemas - Arius comes to mind, and others... You know them already... There would have at least been a big discussion if this had been introduced as a novel and new doctrine...

But it did not predate 150, and for you to claim it did is to argue from utter and complete silence.

It is the silence of NO CHURCH CONTROVERSY that is deafening here - The Church was very homogenious in 150, my brother...

So? As I have said, it is absent from ANY earlier document from the New Testament church. One would think that something as important as the near deification given to Mary in this document would have been plain in the earliest documents, such as the Didache, the Epistles of Paul, or the Gospels.

That was the time when she was still alive, and they would not have written anything - We do not write that much about our living saints either - We let their relics speak awhile before we start collecting their hagiographies...

Yes.She was responsible for following Torah, for making the required sin and purification offerings, and for being a God fearing Jewish woman. She was not a different class of human being.

She was a child being reared in the Temple... Entering puberty...

She was a Torah observant Jewish woman. And the language you are using toward her is borderline idolatrous.

So tell me - How does a pubescent young Jewish woman become full of Grace?
Why would her only concern be for her "not knowing a man"?
There is nothing in the Law about that, is there?
Yet when this objection to the Angel's annunciation was answered to her satisfaction,
She assented to the Angel, for she thereby did not have to have relations with a man...
You cannot avoid this conclusion, if you believe the text.
The text says nothing about your presumption that she was worried about her safety...
That is your humanistic presumption...
It is not in the Biblical text...

You think you can study the culture, then INFER her motives from the culture,
when Scripture clearly shows her to take no consideration of the culture at all
But only asks of the Angel: "How can this be, since I am not knowing a man?"
And upon his reply, she assents, and Christ incarnates in her womb by the Holy Spirit...

He knowing that she did not commit adultery had nothing to do with anything...
She was not yet married, but only betrothed...
She could not commit adultery...
And if she were to go before Jewish law pregnant,
And tell them she was a virgin...
How far do YOU think she would have gotten???

No - All that is extra-scriptura...

She ONLY asked the angel concerning her own virginity, nothing else...
When he replied that the Holy Spirit would "come upon" her..
And thereby she would bear the Child...
She instantly assented...

Because she knew she had not committed adultery.

YOU stand preggers before a Jewish Judge and tell him you are a virgin!
You will not like the stoning that follows...

Not if she had not lost her virginity

.

A non-argument in Jewish Law for a pregnant girl...

They predate your communion.

They predate Christ? Then they are not Christians...

They are like the first believers, observant Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah.
They are the first Christians.
They are Jews just like the Disciples and the first believers in Jerusalem.

Do we see them worshiping in the 2nd, 7th, 11th and 17th centuries?
Do they have liturgical Jewish worship services for Christ?
What is the documented date of their first service?
Did they write a Bible?

I've seen some poor attempts to refute them by some Greek Orthodox people as a "modern movement",
but they base it on the Messianic Jews' non-adherence to the liturgy and priesthood of the Greek Orthodox church.
I find that circular at best.

Well, how long have they been gathering?
The Messianic Jews I know are of fairly recent and mostly Protestant origin...

Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

You challenged me to follow the implications--in other words you were seeking common ground.

OK - I get it - I was not very clear there at all... Forgive me...

I asked for a "reverse engineering" of the actual words recorded of the Annunciation - A "backwards logic" as it were, not to establish a common ground where we could both agree, but instead precisely because you are a sola-scriptura-ist... I hoped to show to you, in terms that you understood and that you promoted, the truth of something you do not agree with...

Now that it is clear that simply following the implications raises certain issues, you drop the following of implications and argue from authority--or no more seeking of common ground but a bald assertion that what I believe is wrong "just because." But I don't accept your authority. I do not believe the EOC is the Apostolic Church. This is another reason protestants recoil from RC and EOC doctrines of Mary. They are based upon authority and little more.

Well, the challenge I offered you is still unanswered: IF you accept Scripture's word of the encounter [the Annunciation], then how ELSE CAN you understand it EXCEPT by seeing it as a matter where she was concerned only with her virginity, and when that objection was answered by the Angel, she assented, and she ONLY assented AFTER that objection was answered in a manner that PRESERVED her virginity? And then, given the confrontation, why was there no repercussion? When Zacharrias objected, he was struck dumb, but not the Theotokos... And the consistent witness of the Church of the first thousand years is, and now is, that she had utterly committed herself to virginity for God, and that commitment God had received, and thereby her objection was utterly warranted...

Now you can dismiss the witness of the Church, and I would expect nothing less, but the challange of giving a full accounting of the exact words of the Gospel written for this event still stands, you see... How ELSE can you bring full accountability to her words, and the Angel's, and the event?

Anyway, the topic of this thread is why protestants, at least some, denigrate Mary. The answer is that it is an over reaction to the unfounded, from a Scriptural standpoint, exaltation of Mary to such a degree that she seems to be a rival of Christ.

I agree, and lay that at the feet of the Latin Church and the Protestant rebellion from it...

That is probably not your intent, but that is how it seems to me.

She is the Jewish Mother of our Lord... Sitting at His Right Hand... That is where a [Jewish] King's Mother sits, you know...

That is a very exalted position and authority...

She has the ear of him who has the soldiers...

For the record I don't appreciate many protestants' denigration of Mary.

It gets flat out nasty...

Shamefully so...

Do you call her blessed a lot?

i hope so...

Arsenios

[Bill the Cat]

Which proves nothing... And it most certainly does NOT prove that the doctrine originated with the document...

Documents ALWAYS follow their prior establishment in doctrines...

So, why is it absent from any earlier document, including Holy Writ itself? Such a crucial doctrine should SURELY be mentioned by Paul in one of his letters, yet he is completely silent on venerating Mary.

[Ya gotta think it before you can write it]

So, why again is it absent from any earlier writing, and in fact, denied outright by some shortly after 150 such as Tertullian and Hegesippus?

Don't you originate your doctrines from your reading of your Bible? And call them Bible doctrines?

No. That is an awful caricature of how I come to believe certain doctrines.

No one in those times would have DARED to originate an entirely NEW doctrine like that,

Origen says both views existed

On this you can only speak for yourself... In the early Church, anyone who made up some new doctrine ended up in a world of controversy and anathemas - Arius comes to mind, and others... You know them already... There would have at least been a big discussion if this had been introduced as a novel and new doctrine...

There were "big discussions". In fact, as Origen comments, BOTH views were accepted. It was not until Jerome that it was settled as doctrine

It is the silence of NO CHURCH CONTROVERSY that is deafening here - The Church was very homogenious in 150, my brother...

William Essey, p. 12. Essey, notes that "St. Basil the Great (+379) cautiously accepts it while also realizing that it was not generally acknowledged even in Orthodox circles. He says that the acceptance of aeiparthenia is not absolutely necessary, though 'devout Christians' should confess it. All Basil insists upon is the acceptance of the virgin-birth." William Essey is now Bishop Basil of the Antiochian Archdiocese

John Meier notes that "In the 2nd century, for example, Hegesippus, a convert from Judaism probably hailing from Palestine seems to have considered the brothers and sisters of Jesus to be true siblings, distinct from the cousins and uncles Hegesippus also mentions"

That was the time when she was still alive, and they would not have written anything - We do not write that much about our living saints either - We let their relics speak awhile before we start collecting their hagiographies...

She would have been dead almost 100 years by the time this document was written.

She was a child being reared in the Temple... Entering puberty...

There was no such thing as a "temple virgin" according to Jewish belief. However, there WERE vestal virgins in Roman belief, which would be consistent with the sheer ignorance of the author of the Protoevangelum on Jewish custom.

So tell me - How does a pubescent young Jewish woman become full of Grace?

The same way Stephen was

Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

God filled her with grace.

Why would her only concern be for her "not knowing a man"?

Because she would have known how babies were made, and she was a virgin and betrothed. I'd have wondered the same thing. How can I become pregnant if I had not had sex yet?

There is nothing in the Law about that, is there?

About appearing before the judges pregnant and not yet married? Absolutely!

Yet when this objection to the Angel's annunciation was answered to her satisfaction,
She assented to the Angel, for she thereby did not have to have relations with a man...
You cannot avoid this conclusion, if you believe the text.

No, George. It had nothing to do with a vow of lifelong virginity. That's a later tradition that was added and not part of the text.

The text says nothing about your presumption that she was worried about her safety...
That is your humanistic presumption...
It is not in the Biblical text...

The fact that you used that last line with a straight face is priceless. MOST of what you believe about Mary is "not in the Biblical text".

You think you can study the culture, then INFER her motives from the culture,

Absolutely. She was a Jew raised by Jews. She was Torah observant. For you to claim otherwise is pure eastern philosophy.

when Scripture clearly shows her to take no consideration of the culture at all

On the contrary. Every mention of Mary in the Bible shows her observing some part of Judaism's customs. Even her reply "I do not know a man" was a Hebrew idiom for sexual relations.

But only asks of the Angel: "How can this be, since I am not knowing a man?"
And upon his reply, she assents, and Christ incarnates in her womb by the Holy Spirit...

Because she would not have been responsible for any sin. The "virginity test" that was required by Torah would have exonerated her had it been administered.

He knowing that she did not commit adultery had nothing to do with anything...

It surely did.

She was not yet married, but only betrothed...
She could not commit adultery...

This shows your ignorance of Jewish custom. A betrothal was a legal arrangement, and any sexual contact would have been adultery. It's Torah.

And if she were to go before Jewish law pregnant,
And tell them she was a virgin...
How far do YOU think she would have gotten???

Which is why Joseph was told not to take her before them. It was HIS responsibility to do so. He had two choices according to Torah. 1) Expose her to the judges, and 2) Put her away silently.

No - All that is extra-scriptura...

And to quote myself above... The fact that you used that last line with a straight face is priceless. MOST of what you believe about Mary is "extra-scriptura".

YOU stand preggers before a Jewish Judge and tell him you are a virgin!
You will not like the stoning that follows...

If the husband or betrothed does not wish to press the charge, the woman would never have to appear before them.

.

They predate Christ? Then they are not Christians...

No. They are the Disciples of Christ. Torah observant Jews who believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. They predate the word "Christian"

Do we see them worshiping in the 2nd, 7th, 11th and 17th centuries?

http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php

When did the early Messianic Jews disappear and why?
In spite of the many pressures put upon Jewish Believers to give up their faith, it seems that Messianic Judaism continued into the seventh century AD. First, non-Messianic rabbis pressured Messianic Jews to relinquish their faith in Yeshua as the Messiah. In addition, the dominant Gentile expression of Christianity pressured Messianic Jews to abandon their Jewishness. Finally, in the seventh century AD, the rise of Islam caused distress for Messianic Jews. Despite all this, the real reason for the disappearance of early Messianic Judaism was that Messianic Jews lost their “vision” - no longer regarding it as important to remain Jewish after accepting Yeshua. Consequently, they assimilated into the Gentile expression of Christianity.

Do they have liturgical Jewish worship services for Christ?

The earliest meetings of believers were not liturgical.

What is the documented date of their first service?

When did Messianic Judaism begin?
Messianic Judaism is actually 2,000 years old, dating to the time of Yeshua Himself. Yeshua was (and is) Jewish. He was raised in a Jewish home and ministered to Jewish people in the Land of Israel. His disciples were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The writers of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant or Testament) were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke, and a good case can be made that he too was Jewish), and for a time, the faith was strictly Jewish. By the middle of the first century AD, tens of thousands of Jewish people believed that Yeshua was the Messiah (see Acts 2:37-42, 4:4, 21:20).

Did they write a Bible?

They wrote the entire Bible (With the exception of Luke, as seen above)

[George Blaisdell]

[QUOTE=Bill the Cat;3250375]So, why is it absent from any earlier document, including Holy Writ itself?
Such a crucial doctrine should SURELY be mentioned by Paul in one of his letters,
yet he is completely silent on venerating Mary. [QUOTE]

I don't know... Perhaps she was still alive when he was writing?

And again, the very nature of the teaching is silence - Not everything was written into the Bible, which is easy to prove, as you know...

So, why again is it absent from any earlier writing, and in fact, denied outright by some shortly after 150 such as Tertullian and Hegesippus?

Well hang on a second... James was the older brother of the Lord, Yes? Is not this the same James? Was he not the leader of the persecuted Church in Jerusalem? You are presenting this writing as a second century matter, dating at 150... He was contemporary with the events as they unfolded, and the Blessed Virgin was the bride of his aging father... This is a first hand account, my brother... Any earlier would have been prophesy...

No. That is an awful caricature of how I come to believe certain doctrines.

Forgive me - I thought you were a "sola"...

Origen says both views existed

The existence of both views makes no difference - The outcome was the controversy of Theotokos vs Christotokos, and the Church came down on the side of the first, because Christ is God, yes?

There were "big discussions". In fact, as Origen comments, BOTH views were accepted. It was not until Jerome that it was settled as doctrine

Yes, Her being the Theotokos WAS the big controversy, and that was settled... But we are not discussing that here...

Well, I should confess to you that I went and looked up on the web the issue, since I am not up on these historical issues, so thanks for the motivation!

And I found this by Jerome:

Jerome
"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium.
Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.
But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—
that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary
but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature.

[By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion.

Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,
and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus,
held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom.

William Essey, p. 12. Essey, notes that "St. Basil the Great (+379) cautiously accepts it while also realizing that it was not generally acknowledged even in Orthodox circles. He says that the acceptance of aeiparthenia is not absolutely necessary, though 'devout Christians' should confess it. All Basil insists upon is the acceptance of the virgin-birth." William Essey is now Bishop Basil of the Antiochian Archdiocese

You might want to consider asking him now, that he is Bishop Basil...
And while i appreciate your summary of his words, I much prefer the words themselves...

John Meier notes that "In the 2nd century, for example, Hegesippus, a convert from Judaism probably hailing from Palestine seems to have considered the brothers and sisters of Jesus to be true siblings, distinct from the cousins and uncles Hegesippus also mentions"

I also appreciate John Meier's summary of Hegesippus apparent opinion... But to what end?
Had there been a big controversy in the Church, it would have been addressed in an Ecumenical Council...

She would have been dead almost 100 years by the time this document was written.

So would the author, who was probably older than her...

There was no such thing as a "temple virgin" according to Jewish belief.
However, there WERE vestal virgins in Roman belief,
which would be consistent with the sheer ignorance of the author of the Protoevangelum on Jewish custom.

Oh, I'll take his word over yours...

The same way Stephen was

Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

God filled her with grace.

OK... The ACQUISITION of the Grace of God is not a willy-nilly event like winning the lottery...
THAT Grace comes by leading a holy life...
And HOW holy a life do you know of that a child can live to acquire the Grace that would make her the Mother of God???

Because she would have known how babies were made, and she was a virgin and betrothed.
I'd have wondered the same thing. How can I become pregnant if I had not had sex yet?

[Not having yet had sex when one is about to be married is NOT a basis for wonder.]

AND... You just departed the text.

She did not say: "I have not had sex yet..."
She said, in the present and ongoing tense, which describes her state of being: "I am not knowing a man..."

THAT was her life stance, acquired by the age of puberty...

Not an ordinary Jewish girl...
.
ANY normal Jewish girl, betrothed, about to be married, would have said:
"How wonderful! My husband and I will have a holy child!!!"
.
But not THIS woman...

It had nothing to do with a vow of lifelong virginity. That's a later tradition that was added and not part of the text.

YOUR understanding has just been shown to not possibly BE a part of the text...
And it is that pesky ongoing present tense that is contradicting you...
"I AM NOT KNOWING a man..."

Unless you don't believe the text... Do you have some variant reading in your mind?

The fact that you used that last line with a straight face is priceless

.

Well, I do my best to work with what I have at hand, and what I have at hand is YOU, and YOU have to be shown from the text...

MOST of what you believe about Mary is "not in the Biblical text"

.

There is no other way to understand her words: "I am not knowing a man."
Those are not the words of a betrothed woman about to have sex...

Absolutely. She was a Jew raised by Jews. She was Torah observant.

So was Christ... Does that make HIM an ordinary Jew???

Because she would not have been responsible for any sin.
The "virginity test" that was required by Torah would have exonerated her had it been administered.

Right -

Judge: "Well, Mariam, we see you are preggers...
But because you are claiming to be a virgin,
we are just going to HAVE give you a virginity test,
I mean, jouste to see if you might be lying..."

OK - My Turn - I mean, you HAVE HAD TWO already:

This shows your ignorance of Jewish custom. A betrothal was a legal arrangement, and any sexual contact would have been adultery. It's Torah.

Well, so much for that theory...

Which is why Joseph was told not to take her before them. It was HIS responsibility to do so. He had two choices according to Torah. 1) Expose her to the judges, and 2) Put her away silently.

And being a good and faithful and Torah-Observant Jew, just like his Betrothed, he did NEITHER...

MY KIND of Guy!!!

And to quote myself above... The fact that you used that last line with a straight face is priceless. MOST of what you believe about Mary is "extra-scriptura".

Ok - That's three... I am only using what you are able to hear... And for some reason, you don't seem to be hearing it all that well...


This is a fun exchange...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

Hi Bill:

So, why is it absent from any earlier document, including Holy Writ itself? Such a crucial doctrine should SURELY be mentioned by Paul in one of his letters, yet he is completely silent on venerating Mary.

This is the same argument atheists use. Have you ever seen the movie The God Who Wasn't There? In the movie, they make a point of showing how the Apostle Paul, whose writings supposedly were written before all the Gospels, mentions only the virgin birth, death, resurrection, last supper, and ascension of Christ. No other details from His life or ministry are discussed. The movie takes this as evidence that Paul did not write of these events because Paul did not know of these events.

The fact is, this is an argument by silence... there is no reason St Paul needed to be talking about the history of Christ's family when He doesn't even a single sentence by Christ (save "It is better to give than to receive," a phrase not found in any Gospel).

In addition, why did Christ say to His mother, "Behold your son," and she lived with John from that day, if she had other children?

So, why again is it absent from any earlier writing, and in fact, denied outright by some shortly after 150 such as Tertullian and Hegesippus?

Outright denied? It seems like Tertullian may denied this belief, but what about Hegesippus? The only writings we have from him could fill up 2 pages of a small book, and they do not mention anything about if the Lord's brothers were His full brothers or step brothers. He says Judas was called Christ's brother, but not in any way that clearly is for or against Mary's perpetual virginity.

Origen says both views existed

The website you got this claim from uses a single sentence from Origen and extrapolates an entire argument. Here is all the website offers about Origen to prove "both views existed":

"Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end", implying that there were those that don't agree with the teaching.

However, let's ask the question: when he says "those who say so," what is the "so" they are "say"-ing? Well, let's look at the whole quote, which the website does not include:

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end

The "so" is this first sentence - that Joseph had children of a former wife. In other words, the issue which may not have been universally held was whether Joseph had children of a previous marriage, not whether Mary was a virgin. This is the only way Origen's quote makes sense.

There were "big discussions". In fact, as Origen comments, BOTH views were accepted. It was not until Jerome that it was settled as doctrine

I think it is amazing how mockingly you are speaking to Arsenios when you obviously did not even check your sources... the website you used does not say Jerome settled it as a doctrine, but that Jerome wrote "the earliest theological dissertation on the subject." It had been a settled doctrine from even before Origen, because in reality he points out that her ever-virginity was not what was debated; the issue was if the Lord's brothers were his step-brothers of a previous marriage or related in a different way... It was already accepted that she was ever-virgin.

William Essey, p. 12. Essey, notes that "St. Basil the Great (+379) cautiously accepts it while also realizing that it was not generally acknowledged even in Orthodox circles. He says that the acceptance of aeiparthenia is not absolutely necessary, though 'devout Christians' should confess it. All Basil insists upon is the acceptance of the virgin-birth." William Essey is now Bishop Basil of the Antiochian Archdiocese

John Meier notes that "In the 2nd century, for example, Hegesippus, a convert from Judaism probably hailing from Palestine seems to have considered the brothers and sisters of Jesus to be true siblings, distinct from the cousins and uncles Hegesippus also mentions"

Your first quote is the sole piece of evidence the author of that website uses to show Basil held this view. Unfortunately, this text cannot be found online, at least from my searching, so the context is uncertain, or what evidence Bishop Basil uses. Your second quote I already discussed earlier.

[George Blaisdell]

Thank-you, Jawa Man -

You are a much better student of the history of these matters than I am...

Try not to be too hard on Bill the Cat - In this evil age, it is so easy to be off track...

He cares enough to stand up for what he believes...

He is not inventing lies...

Arsenios

[maudman]

George I just want to thank you for your testimony of such things.. Your a trooper...

To Protestants I hope I can help a little to appreciate some of Why we say things that we do about Mary...
It's great to see that some are looking at an issue with a greater desire to understand what other Christian's think.. Rather than simply saying something is all wrong and seeking to find things that divide.
Mary and some of its theology is one of those things that has caused a lot of confusion among many of the Protestant faiths.. Not all that is said by Catholics is true anymore than Protestants.. I think this is largely due to the fact that the RCC chose such things to distinguish the different levels of Faith in the Christian community. Catholics are willing to say things that often aren't considered.. It's one of those things that rose from some diving deeper into the Mysteries of the Christian faith and Church, the Body of Christ..


I was surprised once by a Baptist minister who made me make a statement of oath or Faith before teaching some things about Prophecy to the Flock.. One of those Statements was "do you believe in Mary and the Virgin Birth"... I was wonderfully surprised.. For us Catholics it is something that Characterizes a type of Faith in the things we say about Mary..

Truthfully we can no more know anything for sure about a virgin Birth or anything about Christ.. You see we all fall into faith and are willing to believe even the most basic aspects of Scripture and its Perceived revelation... It's why were willing to believe that is the issue! I believe in Christ for the same reasons I believe in a virgin Birth. Truthfully, Who in the time of Christ could believe in a virgin Birth? It's contrary to human experience.. Many of us accept things for reasons we don't understand.. Why do we believe the things we believe? And the things we believe is relative to that which we TRUST.. Basically We say we trust our abilities to make an informed decision? But some don't.. Some believed because they trust what others say and for various reasons.. But how well are we informed about """why''' other say things that aren't commonly discussed in a "willingness" of the benefit of the doubt..

A lot of Good post here that reflect what some are willing to believe and some have limits on how far they can see in a certain light..

Can we prove from scripture that Christ walked on water or healed the sick and raised the dead? Or even Christ himself raised from the dead? We say Christ is God, when we truthfully can't imagine the things of God.. So basically we all say we believe something for various reasons and others are unwilling to believe for various reasons.. What are the reasons? Both sides claim to more accurately perceive the intent of Scripture in certain light.. One in a spirit of truth and another for Justification at times..

To demonstrate some things in how certain Doctrine is formulated is to understand how certain things are understood in the Light of New testament faith.. IN the RCC the story of the Garden of Genesis is a Prophecy.. Because some chose to understand certain things in scripture in only a ""literal"" context it has lead to different forms of theological view about other things.. The Lord Prophesied in the Garden of Eden story..

It's in a simple little verse that this becomes evident.....

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

"Christ is how the """"Woman"""" will Crush the Seed.. The Woman Eve prevails.. George hit it right.. Like John the Baptist is the Elijah.. And it is as George has demonstrated "" If you can receive it"" To receive certain understanding is to believe something in a certain light..

Too As Christ said to those challenging him

[41] And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, [42] Saying: What think you of Christ? whose son is he? They say to him: David's. [43] He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: [44] The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? [45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

It's that term ""IN Spirit" John Wasn't Elijah literally but spiritually.. ""In SPirit"" John Came as an Elijah and that is what their prophecies meant.. But Jesus had to correct misunderstanding that they believed that Elijah literally would come... The Jews of Christ time was beginning to understand what """"IN Spirit"""" could do to ones understanding...


Mary the Woman Eve Gives Birth to The seed that crushes the head of the Serpent.. Mary The New Eve """in the spirit"""...because it is Gods will not her own.. The Perfect will of God ""in the Spirit"".. There are levels of Understanding in the Catholic Church and each is a Light " in the Spirit"...

It demonstrates how the Prophetic vision of RCC is also key to its understanding of things.. It's prophetic vision determines its theological Doctrine in many ways.. Mary is the Prophetic vision that Christ made reality by His appearance to the World.. Eve and Mary """"in spirit"" are Both prophetic images of something that is the Work of the LORD.. There are reasons why we say such things and it for the spiritual growth of those willing to give things time to work in the spirit of understanding.. Oh it's strange at times but then again so is a virgin Birth and rising from the dead...

Peace and God Bless

[RBerman]

Maudman, essentially you're admitting that much of what you believe cannot be supported by the Bible. I agree.