Turning Mary into an adultress

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And there was only a relatively short period of time in which the Jews used ossuaries in Palestine from what I understand. Given the fact that archaeologists have dated it to the period of time around which James the Lord's brother would have died, then this evidence cannot be dismissed as easily as T2U would suggest.

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..."

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
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.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Laurenda:
The Bible clearly states that Jesus had several half brothers and sisters. I never could understand how anyone could perscribe to the theory that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life when the Bible which should be the authority for Christian's clearly says otherwise. James of the Bible is Jesus' most famous half sibling.

Laurenda

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?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Well, if this ossuary they discovered in the Middle East is authentic, then the idea of James being the cousin of Jesus probably goes out the window. 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). Option #1 would of course be the Protestant view, while Option #2 is held by the Eastern Orthodox (and now, apparently by some Catholics

).

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

 

[neal4christ]

Jesus was born. He knew her NOT UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. He knew her AFTER she gave birth to Jesus.

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

 

[Sherrie]

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

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

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Laurenda:
T2U- I'm sorry, are you saying that unless I read the original texts, I couldn't possibly understand God's word? Sorry... I don't buy that arguement.

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.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"How many in that approximate period would have been named James..."

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?

 

[Sherrie]

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

Sherrie

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
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.

 

[Sherrie]

This is the question my friend:

The idea that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, is propigated by Catholics here.

Is this universal?

Is this dogma? Doctrine? Some believe it, others don't?

What is the deal?

I stated on another post:

James is first introduced in Matt. 13:55; as with Jose, Simon, and Judas, his other brothers. And in v. 56, it list the reference to sisters. And in v. 55 it refers to Mary as the Mother and her husband the Carpenter. As well as Jesus being the son of the Carpenter.

Trying2understand said:

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

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

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Funny but if you go back to the early post apostolic days of the Church when they didn't have email and it was rare that people left the town that the grew up in, when there was no planes, trains, and automobiles, internet or even pony express, worldwide (judging by the writings of the Early Church Fathers) from east to west, north to south over thousands of miles everyone (except I think it was Tertullian) that spoke on this issue said that Mary was perpetually a virgin and every citation says that either the brothers of Jesus were cousins or that they were Joseph's children

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?'

 

[Abiyah]

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.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Abiyah:


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

 

[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.

 

[neal4christ]

That is not to say that they do see works as having a part to play in maintaining our salvatoin.

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

 

[Alcott]

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.

 

[DanPC]

"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.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Dan,
You obviously didn't see this.

How well do you understand the structure of the English language, compared to the structure of the Hebrew and Greek?

'Not Until' in Gr/Hb is a difinitive dependent clause in English. What does it mean? AFTER.

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Armando,

I can see your logic in thinking that but those verses cannot be compared to the Matt verse because they don't say 'not until'. They just say 'until'. We need to look at verses where it says 'not until' to know the meaning.

The barren girl, cannot compare either because the object of the completion of 'until' was her death. That is a difinitive end, which leaves no time for possible fulfilment.

So let's look at some verses that DO compare. One's that say 'not until'.

Gen 24: 33. And there was set meat before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat, until I have told mine errand. And he said, Speak on.

He then proceeded to tell them what happened..... and then....

54. And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master.

That's ONE.

Gen 29:8. And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well's mouth; then we water the sheep.

They couldn't water the sheep until someone moved the stone. So what happened?

10. And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.

The stone got rolled away, and the sheep got watered.

That's TWO.

Num 12:
15. And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.

They had to put Miriam out of the camp, because she was sick, and they didn't leave until the time was completed. So when it was completed what did they do?

16. And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

That's THREE.

Josh 7:13. Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the Lord God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.

They couln't go to war UNTIL they found the sin among them. SO what happened?

24. And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
26. And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.

So after they found the sin in the camp, did they go back to war? YUP.

Joshua 8:1 And the Lord said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land:

That's FOUR.

Josh 8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

He didn't stop fighting until ALL the people of Ai were utterly destroyed. So what happened?

28. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

That's FIVE.

Ruth 3: 3. Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.

Such a beautiful story. What did she do?

7. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down.

That's SIX.

John 13:38. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

So what happened after he denied Him 3 times?

Do I even need to show the verse? No. The cock crowed.

That's SEVEN.

There are so many more places where 'not until' means that 'once this, then that'.

That was only seven of them.

Matt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So what happened? You can ignore this if you want, but the Bible tells us what happened. He knew her once Jesus was born. If he didn't know her at all, it wouldn't have said this.

So, what did happen? We see in the next verse the answer.

Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Jesus was born. He knew her NOT UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. He knew her AFTER she gave birth to Jesus.

God Bless

 

[Born Again Catholic]

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 ]