James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

Thanks for the article Brent.

Imagine that! Another scripture being proved right by the secular world. I LOVE it!


Sue

 

Sorry, but 'brethren', properly translated/understood, can also mean 'cousins'. The early church was unanimous in it's view that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

As far as this archaelogical find, I'm delighted! They won't find one like this for Jesus' bones, or Mary's either!

 

Sorry Jude, but I have to disagree. The word 'brethren' CAN be translated to mean cousins, but not in this context; and what about His sisters? Were they also cousins?

We are taught that Jesus is our ONLY intercessor, therefore no one should be praying to Mary. Also, Mary was human. She died and was buried just like the rest of mankind.

We are also taught not to worship false idols. I was raised in the RCC and they DO worship Mary, and pray to her, along with many other 'saints'.

Blessings,
Sue

 

Can you share your evidence for this? This is a new one on me. I have Eusebius' "Church History" for example and find no such claim. Where does this claim exist (anywhere much less unanimously) in writings we have from the early church. I'm aware that the modern Catholic Church has and continues to make this claim.

I look forward to this new knowledge you are sharing with us.

 

The early church was not unanimous in its view of much of anything, unless you define "the church" to mean that portion of the church that shares your view on a particular matter.

The early-early church left virtually no testimony concerning Mary (Jesus' mother) beyond what is found in the canonical gospels, and the canonical gospels are silent as to her perpetual virginity, and in my opinion incline against it ever so slightly.

Thanks for properly translating/interpreting "version" for me, though; I thought Brent meant "vision" (Fatima, etc.).

As for the ossuary, the most a scientific test of the sort described can assert is that the ossuary is probably from the right time frame. The (atypical) specification of a brother's name is suggestive but hardly probative (given the ubiquity of those three names in that time and place).

Haruo

 

... and since a number of folks have asked Jude about evidence of the early church being in agreement with Mary's perpetual virginity, I will further move this to the Other Religions forum where our Anglican friend can respond.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

Statement: "I will not mow the lawn until tomorrow."

Meaning: I may NEVER mow the lawn, but if I do, I will not do so before tomorrow.

Statement: I did not mow the lawn until yesterday.

Meaning: I mowed the lawn yesterday, but not before yesterday.

The word "until" is uncertain in the future tense but always certain in the past tense! If the Bible said "Joseph will not know Mary until Jesus is born" then the matter would be inconclusive because the future tense of the word "until" is uncertain. However, the Bible uses the past tense saying, "Joseph did not know Mary until Jesus was born," and since the past tense of until is definite, we know that he did know her! Matthew 1:25

 

WOW, SS,

You hit the nail right on the head! Nineteen centuries of Christian scholars (including Luther,Calvin, and Zwingli)and believers before you had it all wrong!

Perhaps you should have been born in the First Century. You could have cleared this matter up for them back then. You could have taken the Protoevangelion of James (Which many believed to be scripture at the time) and torn it up as just a bunch of lies and fairy tales.

BTW, the ossuary says James, son of Joseph, was Jesus ever referred to that way? Or was anyone else called the son or daughter of Mary?

 

Glen:

What's the point in attempting to prove Mary as Holy, pure and a
perpetual virgin unless your motive is to worship her ?

 

I'm with Glen.

Being the brother of Jesus, son of Joseph...does not relate James to Mary. It relates him to Joseph, and does not speak at all about Mary's kinship to him.

God bless,

Grant

 

From the articles I have read, by conservative scholars like Ben Witherington, there is a pretty good probability that this is an actual item. Obviously, we can't prove beyond a doubt that it actually refers to Jesus and his brother James. I see no reason to be hostile to the idea that it might be actual. Jesus, James, and Joseph were actual historical people, so finding historical items that relate to them given their prominence in history is not surprising.

 

Glen, can you can find a reference to Mary being perpetually a virgin in Justin Martyr's writings or anyone before him? Nope! It was a long while after him that that mess was conjured up.

Matthew 1:25 "Jospeh didn't know her until Jesus was born." Past tense of until is definite, therefore, the Romish superstition that was conjured up in some LATE century is just that, Romish superstition that was conjured up in some late century.

 

The idea that the ECFs were unanimous regarding the Perpetual Virginity is a myth.

JND Kelly records that Basil of Cesarea was opposed to the idea. You can also read Eusebius' church histroy and how he records Hegessious as saying that Jude was the Lord's brother "according to the flesh". (And in case ayone thinks this couls mean "cousin, forget it; Eusebius also records Hegessipus calling Symeon the Lord's "cousin, so he knew how to differentiate the two ideas.)

Irenaeus also uses the comaprison of Mary to a field that was virgin until it was tilled. Irenaeus goes on to say that the foeld was later tilled. In the analogy then irenaeus mplies that Mary was not perpetually a virgin.

People make the common error of reading defenses of the Virgin Birth as defenses of Perpetual Virginity.

 

How about some quotations and sources.

God bless,

Grant

 

Thank you for your opinion.

I might add that there were more important things going on at the time, namely the daily slaughter of Christians, and Justin's defense of the Eucharist (which you don't believe him on anyway), so because we do not have an existing writing on this position does not mean he didn't hold it (which you assert as truth), but simply that he didn't write on it. Frankly, neither of us can prove it, as both sides are arguing from no evidence.

That hardly makes your side more believable.

God bless,

Grant

 

I'm aware of the English denotation. But the original document was not written in English, so modern connotations of until cannot be forced upon the denotation of "until" in its original language.

God bless,

Grant