James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

[Frank]

Sola:
Amen ! However, for one to answer the question about whether it was done specifically out of reverence for the Holy Spirit is to ignore other plain texts of the Bible such as the the scripture you posted, my brother. It is obvious the message was respected. Therefore, the source of it must have been, too. However, the same spirit also requires the married parties to consider one another in their benevolence. Therefore, I would say there are more than just the Holy Spirit in consideration here. I Cor. 7:5 proves that point! I appreciate your help! LOL

 

[Logan]

Frank:

James was the brother of the Lord. The Bible says so. Your contention and explanation that he was not is simply unsupported conjecture.

It was common in Hebrew culture (as it is in ours) to call one another brothers when, in fact, you were either extended family members or brothers in the Faith. References to Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13:8 and 14:14 are examples of this practice. Though they were uncle and nephew, they called one another "brother." Some translations render "brother" as "kinsman" which only confirms the point. Jesus said we are all "brothers" in Matthew 23:8 (see also Acts 9:17 and 1 Corinthians 2:1). This does not mean we all come from the same physical uterus. But using your logic, one could make that argument! The bible says so!

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."

I have already responded to Matthew 1:25 and have shown that the clear context was that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Not that she had relations after. The Greek does not relect this. The text does not say Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. Your adding your traditional interpretation to the text.

"and she brought forth her firstborn son." Where do you get that everbody has more than one son? Is it not possible that a couple can only have one son? If they do only have one son is it not their "firstborn son?"

 

[Frank]

Logan:
I used the scriptures that teach Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mark 6:3. I understand perfectly there are biological, national as well as spiritual brothers. However, the CONTEXT of Mat. 1:25 being birth and mariage, implies procreation, companionship, and sexual gratification. Gen. 1:28, I Cor. 7:1-5, Hebrews 13:4.
My logic is in harmony with the scriptures. The word apostle has different meanings. See Acts 14:14, John 16:13. However, the CONTEXT, and other passages related to the word teach me that Barnabas was not an apostle in the same sense as Paul.
By the same logic, the passages posted teach me James and Jude were the maternal brother of Christ.
Again, I believe the inspired text of scripture.

I have made only those conclusions as are warranted by the evidence.

You can use unsubstantiated arguments if you wish, it will still not change the truth of the word of God.

 

[raymond]

raymond>>>>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.<<<<<<


Frank>>>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!!!! <<<<

Dear Frank, you are kidding, right? You claim to know for a fact that Mary did not remain a virgin, and then accuse me of asserting an unsubstantiated opinion? I am afraid if you would objectively analyze the source of your 'certainty', you might find it the result of 1000's of hours of American television viewing . Not Bible study.

I'll bet if you could have interviewed people in your church before the advent of TV, you would have found them on the 'catholic' side of this argument. John Wesley accepted the doctrine of 'perpetual virginity'. All the early 'sola scriptura' leaders, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther did also......What do you have, besides television, that they didn't?

raymond

[ April 29, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by raymond:
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.
Does Our Lord's virgin birth necessate the perpetual virginity of His mother?
No (IMHO)

Hello Squire,

. . . .
So basically, I believe, Mary had found her one purpose in life, i.e. bringing us Our Savior. Her womb, having born the Most Holy 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

Pray, forgive me for snipping and your post down the points I would like to address here and the italics are mine. First, you answered a question I didn't ask. Next, you are refering to an old tradition. Further, nothing in the record clearly teaches your position. At best, you are makeing a deduction from limited evidence. There is nothing in the record to cause me to read that Mary was anything more than your average marriageable young lady of her day, place, and religion. But as someone once said:

Your presuppositions govern your conclusions.

I believe I laid out one of my presuppositions (it's the first of about seven Baptist distinctives) in my original post.

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
ABSOLUTELY!
Unless you can prove Mary and Joseph DISOBEYED God's law concerning marriage, you are, as we say in the South, spitting in the wind.
God ordained marriage for sexual gratification, procreation and companionship. Gen. 1:28, I Cor. 7:1-5, Gen. 2:23,24;2:18.
Please provide inspired evidence they DISOBEYED God and refused one another sexual gratification and did not procreate. That is, book, chapter and verse, please.
Raymond, all you have done is make conjecture about Mary and Joseph. You have NOT provided one shread of evidence for your unsubstantiated falsehood.
On the other hand, I have posted ample evidence for what is to take place in the divine will of God for the institution of marriage. Again, Can you provide inspired evidence that Joseph and Mary denied one another due benevolence? Can you provide inspired evidence they did not procreate as is declared in Mark 6:3, Gal. 1;19, Mat. 1:25?
It is implied by the divine function of marriage that Jospeh and Mary had relations. Are you accusing them of being disobedient to God in this matter?
You are appealing to what God has not declared in specific words and yet, you use the same false logic to assert Mary was a perpetual virgin. Furthermore, there is no implication from evidence for your assertion. NONE!!!

You have assumed from silence( no evidence) that Mary was an ever virgin. You have completey ignored the divine REVEALED will of God for marriage. You have,in essence, accussed Joseph and Mary of violating God's will for procreation and sexual gratification. You have done this without one shread of biblical evidence.

Zechariah and Elizabeth gave birth to John. Yet, God does not declare that they had sexual relations in order to procreate John. How do you know Zechariah ever had sex with Mary? By your logic, you cannot know it! This is foolishness of the highest order. I know they did because the text of scriptures pertaining to this matter imply it. The same logic, rationale an scripture that teach us Joseph and Mary were obedient to the divine pattern for the holy institution of marriage.

Those who declare otherwise do so without biblical foundation. They are simply spitting in the wind!

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
I do not ascribe to the doctrines and commamndments of men such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley or any Pope. Mat. 15:9. These men are UNINSPIRED. Therefore, their opinions may be right or wrong. However, as the Psalmist said in 33:4, " For the word of the Lord is RIGHT; and all his works are done in truth. The same cannot be said for the Pope, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Smith, White, Russell, Mohammed, Williams.
I prefer the word of God over any man. Of course, you have a great problem, as you will be judged, not by the words of the Pope, Luther, Wesley et.al. but by the words of Christ. Jesus said in John 12:48, He that rejecteth me, and receiveteh not MY WORDS, hath one that judgeth him the word I have spoken the SAME shall judge him in the last day." I will continue to teach and follow the word of Christ found in his new testament, no more no less. I will enbrace the truth of God's word and reject the doctrines and commandments of mere men.( Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Pope et.al.)

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

So, the Protestant reformers believed Mary to be an ever-virgin because they never watched TV? That's an interesting theory, but I've got a better one: old wives tales die hard.

[ April 30, 2003, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[Frank]

Sola:
Just a little more info on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
In Mat. 1:18, Matthew declares that Mary was with child " before ( she and Joseph) came together. The term SUNERCHOMAI includes the ideas of sexual intimacy.( CF. I Cor. 7:5).

Secondly, Matthew declares that Joseph " knew not" Mary until ( heros hou) she had given birth to a son. Mat. 1:25. While the expression heos hou does not demand that Jospeh and Mary were intimate after Jesus birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contexual considerations oherwise indicate.( II Sam. 6:23). In fact,elsewhere in the New Testament ( Mat. 17:9;24:39; cf. John 9:18 ) the phrase heos hou followed by a neagative ALWAYS implies that the negative action DID TAKE PLACE LATER. There
is no reason Mat. 1:25 be any different.

Thirdly, Jesus is called Mary's firstborn child. Lk. 2:7. While the term prototokon does not demand absolutely that Mary had othe children, it normally suggests it.

Fourthly, Ther are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus ( Mt. 12:46; 13:55-56 ). It is argued by some that the word adelphos should be translated cousin. This is not the case. The word anepsioi signifies the cousin relationship in the new testament. Col. 4:10, Luke 21:16.
Moreover, Jesus is said to have had sisters. ( adelphe). Why should it be assumed that Matthew's use of Mother is literal and that brothers and sisters were figures of kinfolk. If sister is literal in Acts 23:16 what would compel one to use the term otherwise in Mat. 13:56?

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>God ordained marriage for sexual gratification, procreation and companionship. Gen. 1:28, I Cor. 7:1-5, Gen. 2:23,24;2:18.<<<

Frank,

I notice you keep putting sexual gratification as first anytime you list God's purposes for marriage. Where is that ever listed that way in the Scriptures?

Your order is goofy and disordered. It is the same order advocates for homosexual marriage use.

raymond

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Frank:
I used the scriptures that teach Jesus had brothers and sisters.

No Frank, you did not. I showed that Scriptures teach that the Apostles James could not have been Mary's sons as Scripture clearly states their fathers are not Joseph.

Mark 6:3. I understand perfectly there are biological, national as well as spiritual brothers. However, the CONTEXT of Mat. 1:25 being birth and mariage,

Once again...the context of Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin when Christ was born. Reading anything else into it is wrenching the text out of context and leaving you with what you have...a pretext.

Again, I believe the inspired text of scripture.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that you believe your interpretaion of inspired Scripture.

You can use unsubstantiated arguments if you wish, it will still not change the truth of the word of God.

There is not anything that can change the Word of God, my friend....God bless

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Frank:
In fact,elsewhere in the New Testament ( Mat. 17:9;24:39; cf. John 9:18 ) the phrase heos hou followed by a neagative ALWAYS implies that the negative action DID TAKE PLACE LATER. There
is no reason Mat. 1:25 be any different.

I wouldnt say always Frank. Check out 2 Peter 1:19, "And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

The text uses heos hou for "until." Using your logic and method of biblical interpretation, does this mean there will come a day when we dont have to pay attention to the Word of God??

I dont mean to sound sarcastic, but, you seem to let your desire to "prove" the Catholic Church wrong dictate how you interpret some Scripture passages.

Example:

Thirdly, Jesus is called Mary's firstborn child. Lk. 2:7. While the term prototokon does not demand absolutely that Mary had othe children, it normally suggests it.

What was "normal" about God becoming man, being born of a "virgin" in the person of Jesus Christ and working as a carpenter?

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
The order is insignificant. The Bible says ALL are reasons for marriage. I notice you cannot provide scripture to defend your position.

 

[Frank]

Logan:
You can prove your position by simply providing BOOK, Chapter and Verse for Mary being a perpetual virgin. Again, the original inspired langauge was Greek. Unfortuanely, the original language does not support your erroneous contention. It matters not to me if you are Catholic, or any other ist or ism, the Bible teaches that Joseph and Mary were married companions in accordance with the laws of God. They were the parents of both males and females. (see previous posts of scripture, original language, and context).

The original language of the inspired text so teach.

Again, unless you can provide inspired scripture to the contrary, you are simply spouting unsubstantiated assertions. Unless you can provide evidence Mary and Joseph DISOBEYED God's Law about benevolence in marriage, your supposition is baseless and irrational.

 

[Frank]

Logan:
Try reading the CONTEXT of the passage. This was a recounting of the transfiguration of Christ. Mat. 17:5. The complete will of God had to be to be revealed. This did not happen UNTIL the prophesy of the scripture was given unto the inspired men of God and confirmed. Furthermore, we are to take heed unto the evidence and words spoken by the eyewitnesses of his majesty, vs.16. They heard and saw Christ confirmed from the God of heaven. In other words, accept no fables, vs. 16, such as the one you are proclaiming. How long is one to take heed to the eyewitnesses and the inspired words from heaven, unto the day star arises in your hearts. I. E. Until( heos hou) the return of Christ. Rev. 22:10-19.
I intend on doing just as Peter has directed by inspiration.

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>God ordained marriage for sexual gratification, procreation and companionship. Gen. 1:28, I Cor. 7:1-5, Gen. 2:23,24;2:18.<<<

raymond>>>>>
I notice you keep putting sexual gratification as first anytime you list God's purposes for marriage. Where is that ever listed that way in the Scriptures?<<<<<<


Frank>>>>>
The order is insignificant. The Bible says ALL are reasons for marriage. I notice you cannot provide scripture to defend your position.
<<<<<


I take it your emphasis and placing of "sexual gratification" above all other purposes is your own invention then?

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
Evidently, you missed what was posted. The order is of no consequence. SEE PREVIOIUS POST. All are important. Furthermore, Paul said it was better to marry than to burn. My personal sexual preferences as a scripturally married man are NONE of your business. Your assertions about my knowledge and the purpose of marriage are ad hominem attacks by someone who obviously prefers the traditions of men over the word of God. Mat. 15:9. And, that is about as much dignity as your response deserves.

 

[raymond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank>>>God ordained marriage for sexual gratification, procreation and companionship. Gen. 1:28, I Cor. 7:1-5, Gen. 2:23,24;2:18.<<<

raymond>>>>>
I notice you keep putting sexual gratification as first anytime you list God's purposes for marriage. Where is that ever listed that way in the Scriptures?<<<<<<

Frank>>>>>
The order is insignificant. The Bible says ALL are reasons for marriage. I notice you cannot provide scripture to defend your position.
<<<<<

Raymond>>>>
I take it your emphasis and placing of "sexual gratification" above all other purposes is your own invention then? <<<<

Frank>>>The order is of no consequence. SEE PREVIOIUS POST. All are important. Furthermore, Paul said it was better to marry than to burn. My personal sexual preferences as a scripturally married man are NONE of your business. Your assertions about my knowledge and the purpose of marriage are ad hominem attacks<<<<

Dear Frank,

I apologize for upsetting you.

But please understand, we have at least as much reverence for the Theotokos as you do for your own "sexual preferences". So maybe you can understand if we get a little snippy at times when we see her name being bantered about in a less than respectful manner.

When 2000 years ago, a young girl prophesied that all generations would her blessed, I don't think she anticipated the mud-balls evangelical Christians would one day be slinging her way.

We exalt her in reparation for the manner and degree to which you denigrate her.
Do you want us to take a more balanced approach? then simply accept what 19 Centuries of Christianity taught about her, and drop this sixties sexual revolution stuff.

your brother

[ May 02, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

[Frank]

Raymond:

I did not denigrate Mary or anyone. I simply quoted what GOD has said a marriage should be. Sexual relations between married people is an HONORABLE thing. Hebrews 13:4. It is an expression of love for one's life long companion that is not shared with anyone else. Gen. 2:24.
Therefore, based on the evidence I concluded what any rational person would in this case.

The Bible teaches that Mary and Joseph lived in the honorable state of marriage. They produced offspring and rendered due benevolence one to another as life long companions ( Husband and Wife). See previous post.

In my society, livng this way is considered a respectful and honorable way to conduct one's life. In the eyes of God, it is the right way to live in the state of matrimony.

There has been no attempt on my part to disgrace anyone. I have defended the institution of divine marriage which is honorable,pure and holy in the sight of all men who obey the divine tenants of God in this relationship.

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>>>Sexual relations between married people is an HONORABLE thing. Hebrews 13:4. It is an expression of love for one's life long companion that is not shared with anyone else. Gen. 2:24.
Therefore, based on the evidence I concluded what any rational person would in this case.

The Bible teaches that Mary and Joseph lived in the honorable state of marriage. They produced offspring and rendered due benevolence one to another as life long companions ( Husband and Wife). See previous post.<<<<<<<<<<

Dear Frank,

Conclusions can be wrong, even when they are based upon good judgment and good intentions. You reach your conclusion that Mary must not have remained a virgin by reading the Bible *only* in the context of what it means to you, a 20th and 21st Cty American. You ignore what it meant to Christians whose cultures more closely resembled those of 1st Cty Palestine, because you don't like what they tell you i.e. Mary was a perpetual virgin.

The same people who compiled the Bible and edited out some 100 books, and made sure the current 27 book canon was passed on to you and me, believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

There is something else I believe you have not yet had the opportunity to address. i.e. why did Jesus see it necessary to leave Mary under the care of John the Apostle? According to you, she had all these other children, including James, who Christ knew would become an outstanding pillar of the Church. Why would James , and Joses, et al, be deemed too derelict to accept their rightful duty. Doesn't the Apostle Paul say something about people who do not bother to care for their own families?

This is why it makes more sense to believe that Christ was Mary's only child.

your brother