James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

[Logan]

Greetings Will:

Originally posted by Will:
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.

There are many Church Fathers that believed Mary remained "ever virgin." Here are but a few:

The Creed of Epiphanius (374 A.D.), the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), the Lateran Council (649 A.D.) are some of the Councils that speak of Mary as "ever-virgin."

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary." (St. Athanasius in his Discourses Against the Arians(358 A.D.).

St. Ambrose wrote in 377 A.D., "Mary's life should be for you a pictoral image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chasity and the form of virtue. Therin you may find a model for your own life...showing what to improve, what to imitate, and what to hold fast to." ( The Virgins)

St Basil in 379 A.D., "The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin." (Homily in S.Christi Generationem).

Like I said, these are but a few.

God bless...

 

[Will]

Thanks Logan for confirming what I believed, that there was no record of the early church (the first 300 years) believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, but that it was a later invention.

 

[Carson Weber]

This is all 'the proof' we need that Mary is not a perpetual version.

Whew.. I was thinking Mary was a perpetual version there for a while. This discovery, however, has laid my worries to rest.

 

[Carson Weber]

there was no record of the early church (the first 300 years) believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, but that it was a later invention.

Will, considering that there isn't a canon extant before 300 A.D. that matches the current canon of your Bible, the same argument can be made with regards to the content of Sacred Scripture.

I can say, "there was no record of the early church (the first 300 years) believing that there are exactly 27 books in the New Testament; therefore, the idea that these 27 (excluding these, and including these) are Sacred Scripture is a later invention."

It just isn't that simple, is it?

With that said, the Protoevangelium of James, written circa 120 A.D., attests to Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[Bible-belted]

Grant,

I will for the moment ignore the fact that you were quite willing to do without references and citations when the assertions favored your position and simply provdie the references.

For the reference to Basil's personal rejection of the belief in the PV (though not denying that others may hold it), see JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, p. 495.

For the Hegessipus references see Eusebius' Church History: 3:20 cf. 4:22

Irenaeus' remarks may be found in his Against Heresies 3:21 and following.

Not that I think evidence matters to you Grant. You will go with the RCC right or wrong. Much in the way that others go with "theologians" like Scott Hahn et al. no matter what the facts may be.

 

[Frank]

Sola:
Amen! One of the divine purposes of marriage was for continuation of species. The idea that Joseph and Mary would never engage in the act of procreation is simply unfounded. Your comment on Mat 1:25 is correct based on the rules of grammar and the evidence found in the scriptures that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

 

[Logan]

WILL, You stated:

Originally posted by Will:
Thanks Logan for confirming what I believed, that there was no record of the early church (the first 300 years) believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, but that it was a later invention.

Besides the fact that Carson gave you an additional cite prior to 300 A.D., The glaring question seems to be; where are all the writings by the Fathers refuting the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity?? If this is an "invention" as you claim, it only seems logical that we would have numerous writings refuting this.

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Irenaeus' remarks may be found in his Against Heresies 3:21 and following.

I have been unable to find anywhere in Irenaeus' Against Heresies that even implies he denies Mary was ever-virgin. If you havent read it, please do.

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Frank:
Sola:
Amen! One of the divine purposes of marriage was for continuation of species. The idea that Joseph and Mary would never engage in the act of procreation is simply unfounded. Your comment on Mat 1:25 is correct based on the rules of grammar and the evidence found in the scriptures that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Frank:

The Greek word translated as "until" in Matthew 1:25 is heos. Strongs states that the word can simply mean "hither to" or "up to" (which would make no statement at all about future activity).
1 Corinthians 15:25, "...Jesus must reign until heos he has put all his enemies under his feet." Do you believe that after all of Jesus' enemies are conquered and put under His feet, He will stop reigning? Not according to Scripture(Luke 1:33). You can see how the word "until" does not necessarily mean that, after a certain point, a different action occurred.

 

[Frank]

Logan:
No, the CONTEXT, gramatical construct and meaning of the word prevent such an interpretation! Also, the voice, active or passive etc. must be considered. As for the passages in Luke and Corinthians, they have nothing not do with the CONTEXT of Mat. 1:25.

 

[Logan]

Frank, you said:

No, the CONTEXT, gramatical construct and meaning of the word prevent such an interpretation! Also, the voice, active or passive etc. must be considered. As for the passages in Luke and Corinthians, they have nothing not do with the CONTEXT of Mat. 1:25.

The context of Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. That is the point he is making with the readers. To try and make it something else is ripping it out of context. There were plently of doubters then as there are now to this miracle of God. Thats why Matthew stresses the point in Matthew 1:25.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I only have two questions on this matter. For one, I think I have a simple answer. The other is more of a rhetorical one.</font>

• What does Our Lord's virgin birth necessate the perpetual virginity of His mother?
  No (IMHO)</font>
• So, what if many of the ECF got the necessity of Mary's perpetual viriginity wrong?</font>

I would further posit that as one of the Baptist distinctives is

The Bible is our only rule for Faith and Practice.

I would place the opinion and comments of the ECF on the same level of authority as I would John Calvin, Martin Luther, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Wesley, C.I. Schofield, H.A. Ironside, John MacArthur, et al. Of interest, but all to be judged (and our judgements may and do vary) in light of Scripture.

 

[raymond]

Squire Robertsson&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I only have two questions on this matter. For one, I think I have a simple answer. The other is more of a rhetorical one.
Does Our Lord's virgin birth necessate the perpetual virginity of His mother?
No (IMHO)&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Hello Squire,

good question. If we Catholics cannot 'deliver' on this question to your satisfaction, then you will continue wondering what all the fuss is about.

In my opinion, the importance of Mary's virginity is related to the virginity and chasteness of any virgin who has taken a vow of celibacy. i. e. virginity is a symbol of total dedication of the self to God, forsaking all others. It is not for everyone, but we believe it is for some.

So basically, I believe, Mary had found her one purpose in life, i.e. bringing us Our Savior. Her womb, having born the MostHoly Creator of the Universe, was itself Holy and not simply to be used in a normal way thereafter. Kind of like the way you might want to dispose of an old Bible differently than you would an old newspaper.

Just something to think about in Luke Chap 1:
Mary's surprise at Gabriel's news that she would bear a son. It is an old tradition that Joseph never intended to have Mary as a wife in a conjugal way, but was always only planning to be her 'guardian' and she had already dedicated herself to be forever celibate.

I my opinion, Mary's suprise at the news that she would bear a child is comprehensible
only if she was planning to never have children.
To tell someone who is betrothed that they will have children, is not surpising news at all....

your brother,

raymond

 

[raymond]

[ April 25, 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[raymond]

[ April 25, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[thessalonian]

More likely what the ossuary might prove if it is authentic is that the Orthodox tradition that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's children from an earlier marriage is correct. This is not a problem from the Catholic side as it has no dogmatic implications that I am aware of.

Someone up above asked about the unanimity of the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity in the early Church among the Fathers. I have a book by Gambero I believe is the author called Mary in the Early Church or something like that. It has been a while since I read it. But as I recall only Tertullian says anything that would indicate that Mary had other children. There are perhaps 30 others who clearly indicate that she was perpetually a virgin. So the evidence is certainly far greater that she had no other children from the ECF point of view. Of course there was the guy that Jerome debated but he was hardly what anyone would consider a Father or orthodox. Go to this website for some of the many samples:

http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

Blessings.

 

[raymond]

Thessalonian&gt;&gt;&gt;Someone up above asked about the unanimity of the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity in the early Church among the Fathers. I have a book by Gambero I believe is the author called Mary in the Early Church or something like that. It has been a while since I read it. But as I recall only Tertullian says anything that would indicate that Mary had other children. There are perhaps 30 others who clearly indicate that she was perpetually a virgin.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Dear Thessalonian,

Don't you think our separated brothers and sisters underestimate the respect the ECF felt towards the Tradition they had received. When it is pointed out, say in the site you referenced, that many of those quoted were 4th and 5th Cty, then our brothers say "aha, you have to resort to the testimony of those living 300 to 400 years after the fact!"

They seem to see people like Augustine and Athanasius and Leo I as innovators who felt free to create novel doctrines, e.g. Perpetual Virginity, the Trinity, the Incarnation, out of whole cloth.

On a related note, how do you feel the idea of "holy" as meaning separated for a exclusively Divine purpose, served to firm up the Church Fathers insistence on our Lady's Perpetual Virginity?

raymond

 

[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.

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.

Unless you can provide scripture that says Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations, you are simply making an unsubstantiated assertion. A declarative statement, an example or implication from scripture will suffice.

 

[raymond]

Frank&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;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.

Unless you can provide scripture that says Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations, you are simply making an unsubstantiated assertion. A declarative statement, an example or implication from scripture will suffice&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Frank,

You and I, coming from a modern culture which is fixated on the sexual act, can read between the lines of the Bible and it is obvious to us that St. Joseph was the first person who couldn't wait til Christmas. However to the generations living hundreds of years closer to Christ's Advent than you or I, and whose cultures more closely matched those of the Bible,
the answer was totally different. They also read the Bible and were probably much better at reading between the lines than you or I.

Wouldn't you at least admit that the consensus of the people who clarified our canon of Scripture, e.g. Athanasius, was that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Does that carry any weight?

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? I know the Bible explicitly states this was not the case, but do you believe it is because it would have been morally wrong for Joseph to have done so? Why or why not?

your brother

[ April 25, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
The passages posted wer written during and before my time. They disntinctly teach us that men amd women FROM THE BEGINNING married for: 1. Procreation, 2. Sexual gratification, 3. Companionship. SEE Gen. 2:24;1:22, I Cor. 9:7, Hebs. 13:4. From the first marriage of Adamand Eve these three reasons existed. Yo cannot get any more contemporary than that. Jesus said in Mat. 19 that divorce and remariage for any other cause than immoral sexual activity was wrong., It was NOT SO FROM THE BEGINNING. Mat. 19:1-12. Therefore, sexual intercourse amnog married folk was very popular!!
No, Athanasius is an uninspired man. The authenticity of the scriptures existed before Athanasius. SEE Mark 16:17-20, II Cor. 12:12, Rev. 2:2.
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.