James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

[raymond]

Raymond>>>>On a little different note, do you believe it would have been OK if Joseph and Mary had had intercourse, after the Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary, but before Christ had been born?<<<<

Frank>>>>>It would be morally wrong for anyone who is not marrried to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage. I Cor. 6:9,10, Gal. 5:19-21. <<<<<

Frank, sorry for not being clearer, but I believe Joseph and Mary were married before the Savior was born. Humor me, let's say hypothetically Joseph "took unto him his wife" shortly after the angel told him to do so. Then at that point, and before Christ's birth, would it have been OK for Joseph to insist upon his conjugal rights as husband? Why or why not?

your brother

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
Joseph was engaged to Mary at the time of the miraculous conception. The Bible says they were betrothed or as we say engaged. Joseph wanted to put her away privly because he thought she had violated God's sexual law and, therefore, was subject to the punishment of stoning unto death.
In regards to your quite humorous request, Raymond, what sayeth the law and how readeth thou?

 

[raymond]

Raymond>>>>On a little different note, do you believe it would have been OK if Joseph and Mary had had intercourse, after the Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary, but before Christ had been born?<<<<

Frank>>>>>It would be morally wrong for anyone who is not marrried to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage. I Cor. 6:9,10, Gal. 5:19-21. <<<<<

raymond>>>>>sorry for not being clearer, but I believe Joseph and Mary were married before the Savior was born. Humor me, let's say hypothetically Joseph "took unto him his wife" shortly after the angel told him to do so. Then at that point, and before Christ's birth, would it have been OK for Joseph to insist upon his conjugal rights as husband? Why or why not?
<<<<<

FRANK>>>Joseph was engaged to Mary at the time of the miraculous conception. The Bible says they were betrothed or as we say engaged. Joseph wanted to put her away privly because he thought she had violated God's sexual law and, therefore, was subject to the punishment of stoning unto death.
In regards to your quite humorous request, Raymond, what sayeth the law and how readeth thou? <<<<<

Dear Frank,

you seem like you don't want to answer the question. Matthew 1:24 says Joseph and Mary were married after Joseph had his dream and that would have been BEFORE Christ's birth.

Now, during that intermediate time, they were man and wife. Would it, in your mind, have been moral for Joseph to enjoy conjugal relations with Mary before Jesus' birth?

try answering yes or no

your brother

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

(Raymond) On a little different note, do you believe it would have been OK if Joseph and Mary had had intercourse, after the Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary, but before Christ had been born?

The Scripture (Mt 1:25) says that he didn't know her until after Jesus was born, so why don't you explain the point of your hypothetical.

PS: How did you get the greater-than and less-than signs in your post? I copied them directly from yours and tried to post them, but the board wouldn't let me.

 

[raymond]

SSin03<<<The Scripture Mt 1:25 says that he didn't know her until after Jesus was born, so why don't you explain the point of your hypothetical.

PS: How did you get the greater-than and less-than signs in your post? I copied them directly from yours and tried to post them, but the board wouldn't let me.<<<<<

Dear Sola,

I am not sure why the Board gets rid of your <<<<, I am not doing anything special.

Re: your other question, I am trying to get some people to think about 'holiness', and what might have been the consequences for Mary of having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think it would have been wrong for Joseph to have had conjugal relations with Mary, after the Holy Spirit had overshadowed her, and after of course he had taken her for a wife, but before Our Lord had been born?

your brother

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
I answered the question. How is it you think I did not want to. Let me try again.
Your hypothetical presupposes a couple of falsehoods. God would never send his representative to lie. Titus 1:2. If God had sent an angel( his messenger) to tell Joseph it was ok to have sex with Mary before she had conceived Christ by the Spirit, the angel would have lied to Joseph. Jesus was to be born of virgin. Mat. 1:24,25.
God would never ask an angel to deliver a message that would contradict his will. Psalms 33:6.
Therefore, this hypothetical is not even possible. Paul warns us against vain janglings, fables and unlearned questions. I Tim. 6:20;1:6, II Tim. 2:3;4:4.

I hope this will suffice.

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Frank:
Logan:
The implication and divine plan for marraiage is one of sexual intercourse and procreation. Gen. 1:22, I Cor.7:9 Hebs. 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all with the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Husbands and wives are to render due benevolence unto one another.

Frank, I disagree with your assertion and here's why....bare with me...

Paul writes that "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). Our Lord teaches us that, to be His disciples, we must take up our cross every day (Luke 9:23). Elijah in the Old (1 Kings 17:1-7) and John the baptist in the New (Matthew 3:4) are examples of a self-denial lifestyle. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament proves this lifestyle as Christian. Mary is a excellent example of this lifestyle.

Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul are all examples of celibacy no Chrsitian should undervalue. Luke 18:29-30, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the Kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

Mary's vocation to perpetual virginity does not show disrespect to her marriage. The Catholic Church holds marriage in a very high regard, to the point of it being a sacrament (Mark 14:4-9, John 2:1-10). Her perputual virginity simply makes a statement about the profound uniqueness of her calling and the supreme holiness of God that dwelt in her body. A human conception following the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit would not respect its sacred and unique seed of precedence.

Therefore, based on the divine plan for marriage, the fact that Joseph and Mary were married, and that Jesus had brothers and sisters, indicates Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Sexual intercourse is implied by the divine plan for marriage! Gen. 1:22, I Cor. 9:7, Hebs. 13:4.

Im sure you meant 1 Corinthians 7, even so there is no textual evidence that Paul had Mary and Joseph in mind when he wrote this as the woman who carries the Lord in her womb is a holy and spectacular event. Yes, it is implied, but you have to agree that this was no ordinary conception.

There is no "proof," biblical or otherwise, that Mary had other children besides Jesus. To assert this you are forcing your own ideas into the text.

 

[raymond]

FRANK<<<<<<<<
I answered the question. How is it you think I did not want to. Let me try again.
Your hypothetical presupposes a couple of falsehoods. God would never send his representative to lie. Titus 1:2. If God had sent an angel..... to tell Joseph it was ok to have sex with Mary before she had conceived Christ by the Spirit, the angel would have lied to Joseph. Jesus was to be born of virgin. Mat. 1:24,25.
God would never ask an angel to deliver a message that would contradict his will. Psalms 33:6.
Therefore, this hypothetical is not even possible. Paul warns us against vain janglings, fables and unlearned questions. I Tim. 6:20;1:6, II Tim. 2:3;4:4.
<<<<

Dear Frank,

I asked for a yes or no, and you give me an excellent imitation of former president Clinton. For the fourth time, dear seperated brother, do you think it would have been right for Joseph to have had relations with Mary, after they were married but before Christ was born?

Why or why not?

raymomd

 

[Frank]

Logan:
You may disagree, but the Bible says what it says. There is absolutely nothing you or anyone can do to change it, not even the pope.
God ordained marriage for procreation. The Bible says in Gen.1:28, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. God ordained marriage for companionship. The Bible says in Gen. 2:18  ¶And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. The Bible says in Gen. 2:21-24,21  ¶And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
God ordained marriage for sexual gratification. The Bible says in I Cor. 7:1,2, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
Logan, Joseph and Mary were married. Their sexual relationship is implied. If they were living in accordance with God's marrriage laws, they were having sexual intercourse. Can you prove they were not obeying God's lawful command in marriage? If so, book, chapter , and verse please.
Furthermore, the text of Mark 6:3 says,  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
The Bible teaches that James was the Lord's brother. In Galatians 1:19, the Bible says,  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Paul knew James as the Lord's brother.
Jude claimed to be the Lord's brother. The Bible says in Jude 1:1,¶Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Unless Joseph violate God's law of marraige and broke his bond with marry,it is obvious Joseph and Mary had children who were the biological offspring of Jesus. SEE Gen. 1:28;2:18,21-24 I Cor. 7:1,2.Can you provide inspired evidence that Joseph and Mary violated God's law of marriage? (I.E. they refused due benevolence one to another.)
Can you prove they did not procreate as per Gen. 1:28, Mark 6:3, Gal. 1:19, Jude 1.
Can you prove Joseph or Mary had more than one companion and thus violating Gen. 2:24?
I say this kindly, but thoughts and opinions do not change the inspired truth of God's word.

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
I answered your unscriptural question truthfully and scripturally. You just do not like the answer.
By the way, will you stop beating your wife? Yes or No?

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Frank:
The Bible says in I Cor. 7:1,2, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

You make this sound like God is commanding every man and woman to marry. This is not what He is saying at all. Read further in the chapter to get the full context and you will see that Paul says it is good for one to remain single so all their attention will be to serve Him (God).

Furthermore, the text of Mark 6:3 says,  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
The Bible teaches that James was the Lord's brother. In Galatians 1:19, the Bible says,  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Paul knew James as the Lord's brother.

Notice two very important points about Galatians 1:18-19, First, the James Paul is talking about was a "brother of the Lord." Second, he was an apostle. There are only two apostles named James according to Sacred Scripture. The first was the 'son of Zebedee.' He would not be the James Paul was talking about because he was martyred very early according to Acts 12:1-2. And even if it were him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph. There is only one James left who was an apostle according to Scripture. And according to Luke 6:15-16, his father's name was Alphaeus, not Joseph. That would mean James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers.

Jude claimed to be the Lord's brother.

We also know that Jude was the "brother" of James according to Jude 1:1.

 

[Frank]

Logan:
I Cor. 7:1,2 is written to those who are married. Therefore, married folk are commanded to obey the laws of sexual benevolence. Again, unless you can prove Joseph and Mary violated God's law concerning marriage, that jesus did not have brothers and sisters as per Mark 6: 3, you are wasting your time with your supposition.
Furthemore, James was the brother of the Lord. The Bible says so. Your contention and explanation that he was not is simply unsupported conjecture. Jude was the borther of James who was the brother of Jesus. Therefore, by implication he was the brother of Jesus. The cousin theory is simply exegetically untenable. Mat. 1:25,Luke 2:7 ," And he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son." "And she brought forth her firstborn son."

 

[Frank]

Logan:
Paul, in Gal. 1:18,19 is recounting a previous event. He is recounting his conversion. Acts 9:15,16, Gal. 1:19. James was the half brother of Jesus and was not one of the 12 in the specific sense but in a general sense. Banabas was called an apostle with Paul. However, this is in the general sense, not the specifc. Acts 14:14. it is obvious since Jesus had no biological father his siblings must be maternal.
By the way, Jude simply states he is the broterhof the Lord by IMPLICATION. In Jude 1,the Bible says, ¶Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
James was the maternal brother of Jesus. Gal. 1:19. He was an apostle in the general sense or "one sent out." Jude was the brother of James. By IMPLICATION, and as per Mark 6:3, they were the brothers of Jesus.
If one says, " the fishing tackle is in box, and the box is in the trunk of the car." Where is the tackle? By implication, the tackle is in the trunk because it is also in the box which is declared to be in the trunk.

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>>I answered your unscriptural question truthfully and scripturally. You just do not like the answer.<<<<<

Dear Frank, What answer? Please quote where you answered the question. If we were playing the shell game, you would be the big time winner.

To refresh your memory, you had forgotten that Joseph and Mary were married before Christ was born. Ever since you discovered that fact you've been spinning like a dervish.....

your brother

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
Your question is still hypothetical. The fact is Mary gave birth to Jesus and was a virgin. The truth does not change. In is my judgement, Joseph did not insist on his conjugal right of intercourse at this time.
By the way, by mutual consent for a period of time a couple may abstain from sex. However, it was not a permanent arrangement.
Again, will you stop beating your wife? Of course, if you do not have a wife, you can neither stop or continue beating her.
Some questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.
Suppose Mary desired to have sex with Joseph, would this have been ok? Would it have been ok for Joseph ot insist if Mary was sick during her pregnancy? By insisting on his conjugal rights in spite of any circumstance is that " submitting one to another in the fear of God?" Eph. 5:31.
Sometimes a right thing may not be wise and become wrong. One may not offend with his liberty.

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>some questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.
Suppose Mary desired to have sex with Joseph, would this have been ok? Would it have been ok for Joseph ot insist if Mary was sick during her pregnancy? By insisting on his conjugal rights in spite of any circumstance is that " submitting one to another in the fear of God?" Eph. 5:31.
Sometimes a right thing may not be wise and become wrong. One may not offend with his liberty. <<<<<

Frank,finally we seem to be getting somewhere. I believe , that tho they were married, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth, out of respect for: i) the Holy Ghost who had over-shadowed her and ii) Jesus Christ who had made Mary His home for 9 months.

You don't think these were good reasons for Joseph's abstinence?

your brother

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
The reasons I gave are those based on biblicaI principles for Christian relationships. The principles of submission and self-denial for the betterment of another person would not allow me to insist on my conjugal rights. Phil 2:3,4. Each marital situation carries with it a different set of physical and emotional dynamics.
Since I did not know Joseph and Mary, it would be mere conjecture on my part as to all the particulars as to their sexual preferences and their specific reason(s) for restraint.
As for the question pertaining to the respect for the Holy Spirit, that is a question I will ask when I get to heaven.

[ April 28, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

[raymond]

Raymond>>>>I believe , that tho they were married, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth, out of respect for: i. the Holy Ghost who had over-shadowed her and ii. Jesus Christ who had made Mary His home for 9 months.

You don't think these were good reasons for Joseph's abstinence?<<<<


Frank<<<<The reasons I gave are those based on biblicaI principles for Christian relationships. The principles of submission and self-denial for the betterment of another person would not allow me to insist on my conjugal rights. Phil 2:3,4. Each marital situation carries with it a different set of physical and emotional dynamics.
Since I did not know Joseph and Mary, it would be mere conjecture on my part as to all the particulars as to their sexual preferences and their specific reason/s for restraint.
As for the question pertaining to the respect for the Holy Spirit, that is a question I will ask when I get to heaven.<<<<

Dear Frank,
you are putting on your 'agnostic hat'. Joseph and Mary practiced abstinence for no particular reason?

Do you see why the Catholic position here, is more coherent than yours?
Your beliefs make it so you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question. Instead you retreat into 'know-nothingness'. It reminds me of Hilary Clinton's 'I fail to recall' performance.

The Church gives a clear and commonsense answer to this question: i.e. It would have been wrong for Joseph to have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth out of respect for the Holy Spirit, and out of respect for Jesus Christ.

your brother

[ May 02, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
I did not deny that it is a possibility. However, to state it as a fact is going beyond what is specifically revealed. I Cor. 4:6. There is no text of scripture that declares, implies or gives an example of what you are asserting, your unsubstantiated opinion, not withstanding. Raymond, do yourself a favor read Deut 29:29, PLEASE!!!!

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Cor 7:5)

"For a time" - what time in this case? Until Jesus was born.