Well I guess it is just not fair to ask the question of evangelicals - they have nothing to go on, by definition. Right ?
Catholics and Muslims are welcome to enter the contest, as their reading materials are in excess of the
sole use of the 66 books of the Bible. Go figure.
What do Catholics or Muslims have to go on?
sola scriptura plus books evangelicals choose or must ignore, by definitionOriginally Posted by Sola_Fide
So, where do they get it from?
the non-(66 books of the Bible sources) that evangelicals can not use, well at least by their own definition
חַנָּה
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosjames.htm
And she said unto the midwife: what have I brought forth ? And she said: A female. And Anna said: My soul is magnified this day, and she laid herself down. And when the days were fulfilled, Anna purified herself and gave suck to the child and called her name Mary.
Last edited by presence; 07-30-2015 at 09:56 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
He's probably talking about the Protevangelium of James, which is an apocryphal book that fell out of favor in western Christendom in the 4th and 5th century due to condemnations by Jerome (translator of The Vulgate) and Popes Damasus I, Innocent I, and Gelasius I. It's dated at some point in the 2nd century and its origin is extremely murky, but it was widely influential as veneration of saints became more common.
It purports that St. Anne (Hannah) was Mary's mother, and it is interesting to note that Martin Luther cried out her name during the providential thunderstorm that eventually caused him to join the Roman clergy. The Roman Catholic Church that I used to attend 8 years ago had a statue of her to the left of the pulpit. Later on the notion of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" was tied to her (note that this doctrine was strongly opposed by western medieval figures including Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, and even Cardinal Cajetan, who was Luther's arch rival, openly opposed this doctrine, as did Pope Gregory The Great and Innocent III). I think that in Islam they actually believe that Mary was herself born of Anne/Hannah when she was still a virgin.
While it is very much possible that Anne/Hannah may have been the name of Mary's mother, it's not really a relevant point. Christ's paternal lineage via Joseph was tied in with his right to assume the throne as the King of Judah, which is the reason why it was underscored in the canonical Gospel of Matthew right in Chapter 1, whereas Mary's lineage is not mentioned since it wouldn't be relevant to the focus of Matthew's Gospel.
P.S. - As a Covenanted Presbyterian Jan2017, I follow Sola Scriptura, and I'm confident that most educated Lutherans and Anglicans could answer this question as well, though the answer would only be hypothetically correct since the source is obviously in doubt.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 07-30-2015 at 10:34 PM.
In the 15th century Johann of Eck named
Esmerentina and Stollanus as Mary's Mother's Mother and Father
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerentia
Last edited by presence; 07-30-2015 at 10:05 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Another interesting character is Anne Catherine Emmerich
http://www.spiritdaily.net/emmerichmarylife1.htm
Which ties back into the Essene Gospels; I'm particularly fond of "Book 4 the Teachings of the Elect"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=essene+gospel
Last edited by presence; 07-30-2015 at 10:17 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Mother's side or Father's side grandmother?
LOL!
I assume you're referring to the name Anna, which is given in a second-century heretical work called the Protoevangelium of James. It's possible that Mary's mother was named Anna, but we have no way of knowing for sure. The protoevangelium of James is not a reliable source for that information.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have works like this, but evangelicals don't. We can read them just as well as anyone else. If you meant that the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches view this work as somehow authoritative, that is not true. They don't.
ETA: Notice that the Gospel of James is listed here in the Gelasian Decree in the section with the following heading:
http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htmThe remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:
Last edited by erowe1; 07-31-2015 at 09:03 AM.
LOL . . .Mother's side or Father's side grandmother?
LOL!
OK, the Holy Spirit's mommy escaped even the apocryphal texts or tradition/word of mouth I'd think.
Yeah, I was referring to the Protevangelium of James and some other additional accounts of Mary's mom Anna -
using sola ecclesia as compared to sola scriptura.
And Muslim's can also be on board with this I believe, with reference to the Virgin Mary in the Quran,
as well as the angels (Saint) Gabriel and (Saint) Michael mentioned in their holy document
- but I'm hardly a Quran scholar by any stretch, and would hope someone can add.
WOW, of course, a most thorough answer.
I'll have to mention, I had few minutes before the time when campus security will make me leave these banks of computers.
I do know evangelicals who if I mentioned any apocryphal writings they would consider beheading me nearly (as some Catholic bishops were in heavily Lutheran Scandanavia way back when).
My point is that us Catholics do get quashed by certain groups sometimes, at least in my experience.
The two lineage accounts in the Bible are, of course, paternal side.
But I thinks 'dat any relevance of the maternal lineage for discussing who was Mary's mother is just what one wants to make it.
Important enough for me, may not be as - or any - importance to some others.
Again, great comments hells_unicorn - thanks alot for your thoughtful contribution.
Does this even matter?
No problem at all, I do have a somewhat unique position on this subject precisely because my church's approach to catechizing places a fair deal of emphasis on why the Protestant codex is set up as it is and what the position is regarding the other six books in both Eastern and Western churches. Suffice to say, our numbers are not significant, either in America or in the British Isles of late.
It varies depending on who you talk to, as most of America's contingent of Evangelical Christianity tends towards Fundamentalism. I don't view the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books as outright blasphemous or even dangerous, though I've supported keeping them separate from the First Canon as was done by the Protestant Reformation because of a tendency to use them to argue points of dogma that are not otherwise supported in the primary canon, or even ones that cut against the spirit of the NT canon by introducing typical Temple worship ideas into New Testament worship (my chief concern regarding Maccabees).
The apocryphal books are generally permitted for pastoral reading by members of my church who have been sufficiently catechized on how to properly approach their content, but they are not used in our readings during worship on The Lord's Day, nor do they tend to be used as subject matter for sermons. But then again, the Steelite/Covenanter position that I've adopted is basically a full out throwback to the original Scottish Reformation under John Knox and his successors, and while obviously a further break from Rome than Luther, was along with the Calvinists studious in their readings of the early church. My biggest criticism of American Evangelical Christianity (apart from their massive errors on sacramental observance and terms of communion) is that they've become wildly ahistorical and anti-confessional.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-01-2015 at 08:40 PM.
Well it is NOT in the 66 books of the bible, so if that is how you define what matters or not - then the answer is no.
I think it does matter in that Jesus had a grandmother . . . a maternal grandmother, if one were to get stuck (?)
on Immaculate Conception or something.
It may matter in that sola scriptura does not define everything that has definitely occurred -
closing one's eyes to material outside the 66 books of the Bible has never made any sense to me, but that's just me.
Did you read Erowe's post at all?
Protoevangelium of James was written about 100 A.D. as I understand - it is not in the 66 books of The Bible. Is that right ?
And again, you only ask questions when you are asked a question - not very informative at all really,
unless you can put the passage into quotes or something - that way I'd know exactly what you are referencing - thanks a bunch.
"The Word yadayadayada " passage that is from 1st John that the sola scriptura advocates rely on (to be continued another day ...)
Last edited by Jan2017; 08-02-2015 at 07:26 AM. Reason: typo, etc.
Sure it matters in a general historical sense, but it doesn't really speak to any binding dogma on matters of belief or practice. The fact that "Jesus had a maternal grandmother" generally should have about as much impact on liturgy or dogma as "The apostle Paul never took a wife". It requires a basic logical inference, but its significance is ancillary next to what is specifically taught in the canonical New Testament.
My suspicion over stuff like the Immaculate Conception is that, apart from a lack of scriptural basis for it, I generally don't go for doctrines that weren't dogma prior to the 19th century, was widely opposed by prominent church figures for centuries prior to being made a point of dogma, was otherwise not spelled out as permissible by most others prior to being enshrined, and was noted to have been believed by Muslims prior to becoming an allegedly Christian principle. This objection is naturally echoed on the Assumption of Mary and praying the rosary.
On your final point regarding Sola Scriptura, the purpose of scripture is not to spell out all of history prior to the 2nd century, otherwise it couldn't be comprehended by the average human being. It's function is a written testament of the true religion, be it prior to, during, or immediately following the incarnation. This is something where 1 Timothy 1:4 definitely comes into play.
My understanding of why many Protestants and Reformed have deemed the standard Bible as the Supreme authority is because we have this problem with the Christian churches that have written their own interpretations of the word of God to support their own doctrines that are not consistent with the standard Bible/66 books.
They haven't only *added* to the word of God, but at the very same time--many have also taken away from the word of God or made void His word through their own traditions and practices that are simply not consistent with those same traditions that reconcile with what the Apostle Paul and the other apostles have taught in those 66 books. And many that flat out violate Gods perfect law--being the Ten Commandments.
While I believe that some of those books like Enoch that were excluded actually echo and reconcile with the standard version--they are always to be understood as the Spirit of the Lord leads to be able to rightly divide the word of God and to discern what's being being spiritually revealed to the believer.
God is spiritual--His word is spiritual and the only way to rightly divide that same word of God is by walking in the spirit of the Lord--abiding in Him. If we try to understand Gods word with our carnal minds---disaster and chaos ensues and true meanings are not revealed but lost to confusion and then beliefs that can not be reconciled with the word of God--hence we have many differing versions on grace, faith, eternal security, baptism, who the elect are and how the type and shadow understanding the difference between dead works vs good works can cause a believer to remain in a complacent state of faith and in danger of falling from that same state of elect without repentance.
I can and do understand why the Reformers rejected much of the apocrypha because one thing they did understand is the that the practice of praying to the dead and departed to intercede on behalf of the living violates Gods perfect law in the Ten Commandments. This should be written upon every heart of every believer and clearly understood who believes in the work and blood of Jesus Christ. And while even still the apocryphal books have been used in attempts to justify this practice--clearly--clearly there isn't anything I've even seen in those scriptures that actually do support this practice at all. This is a blatant usurpation of God and His perfect law to support something that church hierarchy have passed off as valid through the centuries.
I do understand how this practice very subtly creeped it's way into the Catholic church with statues and images that were meant to represent those faithful servants of God--but then this distraction and violation of Gods perfect law led them further down the road to using these statues and images to pray to and for intercession--which is exactly what God warned about in His second commandment. This the Protestants have right.
At the same time--IMO--many of the Reformers who rightly dispensed of these traditions and practices, then further went on to dispense with vital core Gospel teaching that the Catholic church actually had right--despite their traditions and practices that made that same teaching void at the very same time. I see great errors on both sides that make them both right and wrong at the same time.
I believe that there are certain teachings in the standard bible/66 books that must be understood properly or else whatever witness they were called to will suffer with a flawed message--God then unable to effectively use them as until they've overcome this in knowledge and wisdom to the point where they can actually be used to whatever purpose they were called to do in the first place.
I do believe that many of these people love the Lord--despite the fact that they are seeing through that glass far more darkly than others who've been brought into the light of understanding spiritually. Only those who submit to the Spirit of the Lord can overcome this through wisdom and knowledge of the word of God. Unfortunately, I believe that because people have allowed themselves to become indoctrinated into man-made doctrines that serve only man and not God, their ability to listen to what the Spirit is saying vs what these doctrines are teaching and pushing becomes a blinding, deceptive struggle that causes them to not see the errors in these teachings that contradict the word of God.
Does anybody think that sola scriptura entails that?
Where did you get that date?
Correct. It is not in the 66 books of the Bible. It is also not among the Apocrypha that are accepted by Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.
I don't see how this is a response to anything I said.
Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0849.htm
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
http://gnosis.org/library/psudomat.htm
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
I've never held this position myself, and I've only ever heard it defined this way by Roman Catholics while making a hyperbolic polemic. Granted, I'm sure there are some wacky Fundamentalists that argue for an extremely parochial biblicism comparable to what he is describing, but the original position of sola scriptura as held by the Magistrate Reformers from Luther to Knox never entailed such a ridiculous and ahistorical standard.
It was always my impression that the Protoevangelium of James was composed closer to the middle of the 2nd century, not the very beginning of it. I brought this topic up with my pastor this Lord's Day after worship and this work is regarded as pseudepigrapha, and thus not part of the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books under discussion. I think a previous post of mine may have been a bit unclear on that point, largely because I was trying to juggle both categories while answering Jan and inadvertently conflated them.
It was pretty widely held among the early fathers of the church that this work was not authentic, and hence it was deemed questionable. The claim held in it that Joseph begot James by a previous marriage was contested by Origen, and I'm pretty sure that Jerome had similar complaints. There may be some valid historical points made in the book itself, but the theology at work in it is extremely dubious, not to mention there are several points of contradiction with the canonical Gospels as well as established Jewish custom regarding Mary's life that further draw suspicion upon it.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-02-2015 at 09:39 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us