Thank you for the shout out, Jamey! It's hard to believe it's been almost 25 years since we started broadcasting this program on live radio on a Protestant radio station (and "podcasts" were still 3 years out.) It's always awesome to find it has been a part of someone's spiritual journey!
Hi Iddo, I assume you are referring to Luke 2:41-52/ Jesus is twelve, His parents lose track of Him for three days, and they finally find Him sitting among the teachers. Mary says, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Jesus answers, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:48–49, KJV).
I still wouldn't call that a rebuke and neither does the historic Church. The article argues Mary is "the model of perfect faith and humility," set apart like Ezekiel's shut gate (Ezek. 44:2). If she's the vessel the Fathers describe—sealed, sanctified—then Christ isn't correcting a moral fault. He's clarifying His identity to parents who hadn't yet grasped the full implications of who they were raising. Luke says plainly they "understood not the saying," and the passage ends with Jesus "subject unto them." A teaching moment, not a scolding.
Then on the question of James as Jesus's "brother," and Joseph having two wives...As mentioned above, Calvin argued against the inference that "brethren" proves Mary had other children: "No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words." Luther and Zwingli said similar things.
The honest answer to "what's the biblical reference": there isn't one stating Joseph had two wives, or that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) were half-siblings. Scripture uses "brethren" broadly—the idiom covers half-brothers, cousins, kinsmen. Calvin's point is you can't force the text to yield more than it gives.
The tradition that Joseph was a widower with children comes from outside the text and it comes so early, and without fanfare, leading honest brokers to admit the weight of the matter: the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), echoed by Hegesippus, Origen, and Epiphanius. Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril defended the doctrine so fiercely that denying it was called "blasphemy."
If I want to know where my great-grandparents lived, I would ask my mother. She remembers. The early Church was able to determine quite a bit about the Virgin Mary because they knew her, or they knew who to ask. The Church remembered true things.
So we're not manufacturing a Biblical citation that isn't there. Nearly the entire ancient Christian world—East and West, plus the first Reformers—agreed on perpetual virginity, drawing on tradition rather than a single proof-text. That's the real historical argument, not a thin citation.
I am not implying Mary shouldn't be venerated; she should because she was the vessel chosen by the Lord God for the saviour to be born in. But to be venerated is not the same as being worshipped and this is where the teaching of doctrines have become the unbiblical commandments of men.
"You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:8)
Whilst the worshipping of Mary and the saints might be a comfort to the masses & continues the tradition of the worship of, for example, Astarte (Ashtoreth) as the Queen of Heaven it is decidedly pagan with a Christian veneer regardless of these learned men's persuasion.
Sola scriptura. If only Catholicism was so I would embrace it with all my heart, Jamey.
I appreciate your kind response! As an Orthodox Christian who is deeply committed to Scripture, I reject Sola Scriptura as entirely unbiblical and anti-Scriptural. I also must insist that we don't worship the virgin Mary, and she would not want us to. You've rightly understood the distinction between veneration and worship—but wrongly concluded that we don't hold that distinction in the utmost regard.
Thank you for the shout out, Jamey! It's hard to believe it's been almost 25 years since we started broadcasting this program on live radio on a Protestant radio station (and "podcasts" were still 3 years out.) It's always awesome to find it has been a part of someone's spiritual journey!
Saint John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco, pray for us!
MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS SAVE US!
But Jesus rebuked her when she found him teaching by the temple, didn't he?
And James was Jesus's brother so can you provide the biblical reference that shows that he was a half brother and Joseph had more than one wife?
Hi Iddo, I assume you are referring to Luke 2:41-52/ Jesus is twelve, His parents lose track of Him for three days, and they finally find Him sitting among the teachers. Mary says, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Jesus answers, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:48–49, KJV).
I still wouldn't call that a rebuke and neither does the historic Church. The article argues Mary is "the model of perfect faith and humility," set apart like Ezekiel's shut gate (Ezek. 44:2). If she's the vessel the Fathers describe—sealed, sanctified—then Christ isn't correcting a moral fault. He's clarifying His identity to parents who hadn't yet grasped the full implications of who they were raising. Luke says plainly they "understood not the saying," and the passage ends with Jesus "subject unto them." A teaching moment, not a scolding.
Then on the question of James as Jesus's "brother," and Joseph having two wives...As mentioned above, Calvin argued against the inference that "brethren" proves Mary had other children: "No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words." Luther and Zwingli said similar things.
The honest answer to "what's the biblical reference": there isn't one stating Joseph had two wives, or that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) were half-siblings. Scripture uses "brethren" broadly—the idiom covers half-brothers, cousins, kinsmen. Calvin's point is you can't force the text to yield more than it gives.
The tradition that Joseph was a widower with children comes from outside the text and it comes so early, and without fanfare, leading honest brokers to admit the weight of the matter: the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), echoed by Hegesippus, Origen, and Epiphanius. Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril defended the doctrine so fiercely that denying it was called "blasphemy."
If I want to know where my great-grandparents lived, I would ask my mother. She remembers. The early Church was able to determine quite a bit about the Virgin Mary because they knew her, or they knew who to ask. The Church remembered true things.
So we're not manufacturing a Biblical citation that isn't there. Nearly the entire ancient Christian world—East and West, plus the first Reformers—agreed on perpetual virginity, drawing on tradition rather than a single proof-text. That's the real historical argument, not a thin citation.
All the best,
Jamey
Thank you Jamey for your scholarly response.
I am not implying Mary shouldn't be venerated; she should because she was the vessel chosen by the Lord God for the saviour to be born in. But to be venerated is not the same as being worshipped and this is where the teaching of doctrines have become the unbiblical commandments of men.
"You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:8)
Whilst the worshipping of Mary and the saints might be a comfort to the masses & continues the tradition of the worship of, for example, Astarte (Ashtoreth) as the Queen of Heaven it is decidedly pagan with a Christian veneer regardless of these learned men's persuasion.
Sola scriptura. If only Catholicism was so I would embrace it with all my heart, Jamey.
All the best.
I appreciate your kind response! As an Orthodox Christian who is deeply committed to Scripture, I reject Sola Scriptura as entirely unbiblical and anti-Scriptural. I also must insist that we don't worship the virgin Mary, and she would not want us to. You've rightly understood the distinction between veneration and worship—but wrongly concluded that we don't hold that distinction in the utmost regard.
Didn't she, not he.