Turning Mary into an adultress

Nope. If you read it again, I included a reference to the that time.

"How many in that approximate period would have been named James..."

 

Nope...you should consider checking out the link I provided. The number is much smaller than you think, especially in light of the date assigned to the ossuary.

 

Well now if it said "Mary's other child, Joses "or "Mary's other child Simon" or "Mary had other children" or Joseph and Mary's son "James" then that would be clear. For some reason these words are not in the Bible anywhere. Wonder why?

 

While, it may validate the Orthodox view if this ossuary, this does not exclude the Catholic view. I think this distinction should be made clear. The two views are not mutally exclusive. Joseph having children from a previous marriage does not prevent Jesus from having cousins and those cousins being the topic of some of the verses in scripture. Further, the Catholic Church has made no official statement excluding either of these two options.

Blessings

 

Very good post, 3AM! Boy, I can't believe someone like you would believe that silly stuff about soul sleep and etc. (I am just joking with you, don't get mad!)

Very good post, again.

Neal

 

The Answer is 4

James Bro. of John, an apostle, son of Zebedee Acts 1-12

James the Brother of Jesus Son of Joseph. John 5:55-56

James another Apostle Matt. 10:3, Mark 3:18, luke 6:15, Acts 1:13

James a father of Judas (not Iscariot) Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 His son may also be known as Thaddaeus who is listed as an Apostle in Matt. 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

Sherrie

 

What I am saying is that yoou must consider what the original word would have meant at the time it was written. Not merely what the word translated into Engish means now.

 

The Answer is 4

James Bro. of John, an apostle, son of Zebedee Acts 1-12

James the Brother of Jesus Son of Joseph. John 5:55-56

James another Apostle Matt. 10:3, Mark 3:18, luke 6:15, Acts 1:13

James a father of Judas (not Iscariot) Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 His son may also be known as Thaddaeus who is listed as an Apostle in Matt. 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

Sherrie </font>[/QUOTE]Uhhh... don't you think that it is possible that there may have been a person or two named James that wasn't recorded in the Bible?

Or is the Bible a complete census?

 

Ummm...no, none that could remotely relate to this paticular topic.

Sherrie

 

"The ossuary belongs to James the SON (not nephew)of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. This means that: (1) James was Jesus' "step"-brother (Joseph's son, but not Mary's); or (2) James was Jesus' "half"-brother (son of Joseph and Mary)."

Then you think that the ossuary belongs to one of the James in the Bible and could not possibly belong to a James from that time not spoken of in the Bible?

I think you may not be understanding the discussion as it has unfolded.

 

This is the question my friend:

I stated on another post:

Trying2understand said:

I am not going to play your fools game. Or be sucked into it. I understand perfectly the topic. Perhaps you don't. You are the one who wants to twist scripture.

Sherrie

 

Another thing they didn't have was spy cameras. Was Tertullian, or whoever, with them every minute of every day and night they were together to know she was a 'perpetual virgin?'

 

I do not believe that Mary necessarily had any
children other than our Lord. I believe that those
listed as our Lord's brothers could have easily
been listed as such because of the way "brother"
was used in Hebrew society. A "father" was not
just the blood relative who gave a child genes,
but a "father " in that society could have been the
owner of something, the instigator or starter of
something, a teacher, the leader of a clan, an
uncle who lived in the same home or in an
attached home, etc. In the same way, "brothers"
could have male siblings, cousins who lived in the
same home or an attached home, pals, students
of the same teacher, followers of the same
concept, "birds of a feather," etc.

However, the Scriptures do not indicate that Mary
remained a virgin; rather, they indicate the
opposite, as Sherrie has shown. For Mary to have
remained a virgin, she would not have been a
good Jew. (In these particular times, it would have
also been immediate grounds for divorce.)

Mary could have just as easily been baren as had
multiple children. Neither is proveable by
Scripture, when an understanding of the culture
and word usage is applied.

Regarding the writings of the so-called "early
church fathers" from just a few years after 90 C.E.
(the writing of Revelation), and from a historical
non-Catholic point of view, they were quickly
becoming quite corrupt. They espoused a works
salvation. They encouraged before unheard-of
modes of baptism. They made many changes of
which the Apostles did not and would not have
approved. These things are evidenced clearly in
the writings. So it should surprise no one that they
claimed Mary remained a virgin.

 

First of all, no Church Father that I know of says that we are saved by works. Neither does Catholicism for that matter. We are saved when we are baptized and if we fall we cannot come back to God through works, but through confessing our sins and having our hearts renewed once again. That is not to say that they do see works as having a part to play in maintaining our salvatoin. For when we do charitable acts, once saved, it builds charity in us toward our neighbor and makes it less likely that we will fall away. So perhaps it's those ideas that are running around in your head about what the Bible says that are wrong. Think about it.

The amazing thing about the fathers and their unniformity in such issues as the Eucharist, Regenerative Batpism, Mary's perpetual virginity, etc. etc. is that the spoke different languages and spaned several continents with many miles between them. The suffered persecution which forced many of them in to hiding and would certainly have made communication even more difficult. And yet they were far more uniform in belief than Christians today.


As for Sherrie proving that Mary had sex with Joseph. Gee, after 2000 years Sherrie comes along and does something noone else has ever done. The conflict is resolved. Amazing. I must have missed that post.

Blessing Abiyah

 

You have not read all the writings, then. 8o)

And what Sherrie wrote is not new to most of
us on this board. We have known these things
for ages, and those before us knew them.

 

Well, if salvation is maintained by works and you can loose you salvation because of a lack of them, then I think it is clear that salvation depends on works according to you.

As for Sherrie or 3AM or anyone else showing Mary had sex, that is not new and not of them, but is of Scripture, as 3AM has clearly shown.

Neal

 

Suppose a 30-year-old single woman says: "I stayed a virgin until I was 25." What would you understand from this statement? That she is still a virgin at 30? Or, that at the age of 25 was when she lost her viginity? If she is still a virgin, "until I was 25" is a meaningless, as well as a misleading, clause.

Consider that in light of this passage:

Matthew 1: 24-25 -- And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

What possible reason could there be for including the dependent clause, "until she gave birth to a Son," unless that was the event which changed what had just been declared? If she had not been a virgin before that time, the entire statement is wrong. If she had remained a virgin indefinitely after the noted event, then that is what the clause should say.

 

"What possible reason could there be for including the dependent clause, "until she gave birth to a Son," unless that was the event which changed what had just been declared?"
Have you read the other responses regarding till/until? If this was as simple as you say, don't you think the early Church could read too? Don't you think Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could read this passage too? Why do they differ with your interpretation if it is so obvious? Perhaps it is not.

 

Neal

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So you believe in Mat1:25, Mathew was trying to convey that they had sex after she had brought forth her first born son. Doesn't the inapropriateness of this from a gospel writer suprise you? Rather than the examples of all the "tills" from above which more likely show the authors intent

Also if Joseph took Mary as a wife and intended to have relations with her why did he wait until after Jesus was born, why do you think they were chaste during the pregnancy? I realize you are probably not married but relations during pregnancy is not a problem unless you have a medical problem.

God Bless

[ March 01, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]